AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: Steamingspud on September 13, 2009, 03:37:40 AM
-
So the last myths I put up went great, and a load of responses. I got a few more for ye to think about.
In 11th grade, we saw a movie on the battle of Gettysburg, and how intense the firefight was. Smoke, blood, havoc, all the not-so-fun stuff. It mentioned that even today it is common to find old rifles and shots in the dirt, which I thought was plausible. But the thing that caught my attention was how it said opposing shots would collide in the air to mush together. Please do not try this at home, I do not question your accuracy but the accuracy of your partner in testing might not be so great.
This ones controversial. If you haven't heard, theres a policy when enlisting into the army that the recruit must have at least two teeth. This was so he could bite open the paper cartridges when loading, which is a fact I don't deny. But what I've heard also is that grooming standards for hair was regulated because when loading hair would get caught in the barrel and delay the shooter. First off has anyone done this and second do you think that is the real reason for the age old policy?
OK, last one, and it's just for kicks. No, this has no factual evidence, and do not believe I am really as gullible to think so. Everyone know the Battle of New Orleans? The song I mean. How possible do you think it is to launch a cannon ball out of an alligator? Thats another 'don't try this... anywhere' things.
G'night folks
-
I'm gonna throw this one in too, I was actually debating asking this before I ever saw this post but I was just, naw. They'll call me crazy. But here goes, cause I ain't the only one to think this:
I hate to mention this but I read somewhere that years ago if the barrel was too glass-smooth they would urinate in it and let it sit overnight to restore accuracy. Anyone else ever hear of this?
-
Bullets colliding in air: I remember seeing two bullets that had collided and fused back in 1960 at an exhibit for the Civil War Centennial in Atlanta.
-
I'm gonna throw this one in too, I was actually debating asking this before I ever saw this post but I was just, naw. They'll call me crazy. But here goes, cause I ain't the only one to think this:
I hate to mention this but I read somewhere that years ago if the barrel was too glass-smooth they would urinate in it and let it sit overnight to restore accuracy. Anyone else ever hear of this?
Yes- it works, but so would scrubbing the bore, up and down with 100 grit paper.
That would make neither a myth. With enough soldiers shooting both ways on a concentrated area, I can see the balls/colliding as being plausible.
-
There is a picture (Plate 41 - in Walter Cline's book, The Muzzle-Loading Rifle Then & Now) of two minies that collided and was found on the 1864 Resaco, Georgia battlefield around Atlanta. Also the T.V. show "Myth Busters" did an episode on this and found it was possible that it could happen. I believe it could happen and probably has happened more times then we might imagine throughout the history of war when two large Army's collide.
The gator,,, no!
Two teeth? I bet it's because you're not allowd to gum your food or women.... :o :D
Actually, the two teeth for biting off paper cartridge tails seems logical. Does the regulation state one tooth must be in the upper gum and one in the lower, beneath the upper tooth?
-
Teeth, yes.
Gator, mmmm, tough old salt, but I'd doubt if he'd be still long enough to load 'em up.
Two bullets colliding, yes.
Hair, I think that was more due to the 'LICE' problem that a loading problem.
How'abouts a ramrod as big as trees? Who can lift it?
-
The average height of a soldier in the Un Civil War was 5' 8". The length of the rifle musket was 4' 8". It could be said that the length of beards would have been important so as not to load your beard in the bore, but I'm not sure about the length of hair.
I agree that keeping lice down was part of the reason for length of hair, but also wounds are easier to treat and don't have as much tendency to infect with shorter hair.
-
"...the recruit must have at least two teeth. This was so he could bite open the paper cartridges when loading, which is a fact I don't deny..."
I heard that mentioned in a Revolutionary War firearms demo 20-30 years ago and never forgot it...never been comfortable that it wasn't just an old wives tale...the guys putting on the demo even went on to include that the two teeth needed to be one on top, one on the bottom, opposite each other, etc.
On its face it would seem to make sense...but...while I've never done it, I wouldn't think the mouth does anything more than clamp / hold the end of the paper while the hand is used to do the twisting / tearing / pulling...and if that's the case they might just as easily have been able to hold it tight enough with their gums to tear it with the hand...dunno.
[/quote]
-
I don't have a clue how many thousands of paper cartridges I've bit open as a re-enactor and I'm here to tell you I would not want to do it without at least two teeth. Grin.
Modified to add: Oh, and I was only tearing wood pulp paper cartridges, not the linen paper used in the 18th century.
-
I know of during the civle war that they mad some bayonets with the cartrage ripper on them .the teeth thing is still in the old regs and stated your own teeth
-
colliding bullets - yes - there were examples at the old Gettysburg museum. It is estimated that over 560 TONS of munitions were fired in those three days. I remember seeing a calculation once of how much lead was in the air at one time, passing rounds meeting in the middle were not accuracy but inevitable.
as for the alligator, force containment aside, how a gonna keep your powder dry?
-
Alligator and hair, no. Bullets colliding and teeth, absolutely yes.
-
From my British reenacting days I remember reading that the "two teeth, opposing" standard was the only health or fitness standard for the British Army in the 18th century.
Odd side note - in the 19th century the Sepoys, local Indian troops in the British Army, were caught up with a rumor that the British were going to grease the paper cartridges with pig fat. If the Hindus put pig fat in their mouths they would lose their caste status. The British Authorities tried to assure them otherwise, and when that failed they changed the drill to allow the Sepoys to tear the cartridges with their hands. It was futile - the Sepoys mutinied and the rest is history.
Grooming standards were enforced in the British Army simply for the sake of appearance. The officers wanted a line of identical soldiers. Soldiers greased and pigtailed their hair. The 29th Regiment had a black square of cloth on the back of the coat collar well into the 19th century. It was originally put there to hide the stain from the hair grease.
More than you ever needed to know.
-
Grooming standards were enforced in the British Army simply for the sake of appearance. The officers wanted a line of identical soldiers. Soldiers greased and pigtailed their hair. The 29th Regiment had a black square of cloth on the back of the coat collar well into the 19th century. It was originally put there to hide the stain from the hair grease.
Canute,
I believe that you above statement is kind of misleading. British soldiers did grease their, but they did not "pigtail" their hair. A pigtailed hair style indicates two braids, one on each side of the head. The common British soldier greased his hair and then braided/plaited his hair to form a queue, but I know of no unit in the 18th century British army that left their queue hang down their back. The hair was braided and then the braid was turned back on itself and wrapped in silk ribbon or leather to produce what was called clubbed hair. The clubbed hair probably was never long enough to hang down any lower than the bottom of their collar. To my knowledge the only units that were not required to wrap or club their hair were the grenadier units, the King's or Queen's royal guard and maybe a couple of other specialized units. These units braided their hair into a long queue that hung down their back, but the end of the braid was shoved back up under their miters or cocked hats. Thus you would have seen a braided loop of hair that came from under their head cover, hung down and then back up and under their head cover.
Randy Hedden
-
The museum in Petersburg Va. has two sets of minis,at least they did, that met head on. I first saw them at Center Hill mansion when the museum was there in the late 50s. I was metal detecting with a guy at Five Forks, in Dinwiddie Co. Va back in the early 70s and he found a set, unbelievable.
Tim C.
-
Back in the 1960s I was stationed at Fort Lee Va. A couple buddies and I visited the Petersburg battle ground and museum. I still remember quite a few welded minies. Some were perfect head-ons, others were tangential collisions, 90 degree hits and so on. It makes sense when one considers the high volume of fire, relatively low velocities and large projectiles.
-
I'm gonna throw this one in too, I was actually debating asking this before I ever saw this post but I was just, naw. They'll call me crazy. But here goes, cause I ain't the only one to think this:
I hate to mention this but I read somewhere that years ago if the barrel was too glass-smooth they would urinate in it and let it sit overnight to restore accuracy. Anyone else ever hear of this?
Yes!
-
I'm gonna throw this one in too, I was actually debating asking this before I ever saw this post but I was just, naw. They'll call me crazy. But here goes, cause I ain't the only one to think this:
I hate to mention this but I read somewhere that years ago if the barrel was too glass-smooth they would urinate in it and let it sit overnight to restore accuracy. Anyone else ever hear of this?
Yes!
That amazes me...if anything I would have thought there would have been at least some roughness in the bores due to the imperfect field condifions and elements that they lived in to say nothing of the possibility of leading buildup.
-
Randy Hedden caught me using shorthand. Yes, of course, British soldiers didn't "pigtail" their hair in the sense of two braids. They "queued" their hair in a short mass at the back of their necks, hence the black square on the collar. I didn't think that most people would get "queued" or "clubbed."
On the urine down the bore conjecture, it is hard to imagine a glass smooth bore in those days or even now, and harder to imagine that urine would do anything positive. Maybe they were cleaning their bores with a primitive version of Windex? There is ammonia content, after all.
-
Randy Hedden caught me using shorthand. Yes, of course, British soldiers didn't "pigtail" their hair in the sense of two braids. They "queued" their hair in a short mass at the back of their necks, hence the black square on the collar. I didn't think that most people would get "queued" or "clubbed."
On the urine down the bore conjecture, it is hard to imagine a glass smooth bore in those days or even now, and harder to imagine that urine would do anything positive. Maybe they were cleaning their bores with a primitive version of Windex? There is ammonia content, after all.
Hey Nute! Shootem enough and cleanem enough and they will get slick and I say too slick!! They will start to shoot low at longer ranges and the urine trick will work but only temporary been there and done that (long story) The J.B bore paste works better. :)
-
Roger, next time try Flitz! It is a lot more agresive, but still won't harm the bore. I would think scotch-brite on a jag might also work well.
-
Roger, next time try Flitz! It is a lot more agresive, but still won't harm the bore. I would think scotch-brite on a jag might also work well.
I thought these kinds of products were used to make a bore even MORE smooth and polished?
-
Randy Hedden caught me using shorthand. Yes, of course, British soldiers didn't "pigtail" their hair in the sense of two braids. They "queued" their hair in a short mass at the back of their necks, hence the black square on the collar. I didn't think that most people would get "queued" or "clubbed."
Your posts reminded me that in at least the 42nd Royal Highland Regiment, "The Forty Twa!," and I know I've heard it about other Scottish units, that they shaved their heads and/or cut their hair short then sewed horsehair queues to their Balmorals and even some of the Grenadiers bearskin caps.
-
This concept of a "smooth and polished" condition being bad intrigues me. The guy who owned my rifle before me used a lead slug and valve grinding compound to get irregularities out of the bore, including a manufacturing burr that was cutting patches. Does that mean that now I need to re-roughen it? Won't that just increase ramming force and introduce random forces into the equation? Hmmm....Does our resident barrel maker want to weigh in on that one?
-
This concept of a "smooth and polished" condition being bad intrigues me. The guy who owned my rifle before me used a lead slug and valve grinding compound to get irregularities out of the bore, including a manufacturing burr that was cutting patches. Does that mean that now I need to re-roughen it? Won't that just increase ramming force and introduce random forces into the equation? Hmmm....Does our resident barrel maker want to weigh in on that one?
[/quote : I would describe the difference as the difference between snot slick (for lack of a better pc term) and satin smooth! I know of more than one topnotch shooter who likes to see just a bit of colour when he pulls the first patch out of his bore prior to starting a shoot..... Seems there has to be just 'some' resistance of the patched ball to the bore as she travels up and out! Thats the best way I can describe it and I know it to be true. ;D
-
This concept of a "smooth and polished" condition being bad intrigues me. The guy who owned my rifle before me used a lead slug and valve grinding compound to get irregularities out of the bore, including a manufacturing burr that was cutting patches. Does that mean that now I need to re-roughen it? Won't that just increase ramming force and introduce random forces into the equation? Hmmm....Does our resident barrel maker want to weigh in on that one?
There is a big difference between polished as in lapped, and too slick as Roger describes.
-
During my last 2 years of high school (yes I do remember 1970, or some of it) my family toured the Civil War battlefields for 3 weeks each summer. One thing you saw quite often at the respective museums were head on fused bullets. I remember seeing on at least one occasion a split rifle barrel that had been hit dead down the bore with a minie ball. Said ball was still in the barrel.
Lots of interesting stuff. Wish I could go see it all over again.
-
Well...I hope ya'll will forgive me...but my smoothbore barrels shine and reflect like brilliant mirrors and I'm not about to "pee down my barrels" to fix a non-existent problem
;D
-
Well...I hope ya'll will forgive me...but my smoothbore barrels shine and reflect like brilliant mirrors and I'm not about to "pee down my barrels" to fix a non-existent problem
;D
Very happy for you :) Question arises how often do you shoot your smoothy at 100 - 150 or even 200 yds as is done with a rifle Hmmmm! ;) ;D My smoothy shines fairly nice also.!
-
The answer to that question is never ;) ...my smoothbores are zeroed for 50yds deer hunting in thick woods...never shot a deer with a smoothbore past about 35-40 yards.
I gather that you're saying a smoothbore's accuracy goes south if it's too smooth...what is the actual failure mechanism, event(s) that occurs to produce that result?
-
This is the result of a 50 cal ball on another 50 cal ball at 25 yds.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv309%2Fnessy357%2FTinaDocuments0001.jpg&hash=af543d9400cb218d4c6800c4d7b37a00ba7ceb9d)
-
The answer to that question is never ;) ...my smoothbores are zeroed for 50yds deer hunting in thick woods...never shot a deer with a smoothbore past about 35-40 yards.
I gather that you're saying a smoothbore's accuracy goes south if it's too smooth...what is the actual failure mechanism, event(s) that occurs to produce that result?
Nope, I was refering to a rifle! :) However, bringing up a smoothy raises exactly that question!
-
"... However, bringing up a smoothy raises exactly that question!..."
MAN...am I ever embarrassed !!
:-[
The whole time I've been thinking about smoothbore muskets...I went back and reread the thread and I guess when I saw the phrase "glass smooth" or "smooth as glass' it registered in mind mind as "smoothbore" and I never looked back...sorry about that!
But, I still do have the same basic question...whether rifled or smooth...what is it about a "too smooth" bore that creates a negative effect on accuracy?
???
-
I believe the missing teeth story is true. I remember reading about the large anti-war movement in New York city during the Civil War, especially in the immigrant community. A popular tactic to dodge the draft was to have your two front teeth knocked out/removed so you couldn't bite open paper cartridges.
As a previous post noted; the visitor center at Gettysburg had several pairs of mini balls fused together from collisions on display. I remember seeing them as a boy. One CW visitor center has a cannon on display with a damaged muzzle. It was hit headon by an incoming cannon ball. I think I saw it at Fredericksburg.
I've heard that urinating down the barrel was one technique early settlers used to clean their rifles. Not sure if I believe it. Never heard of it being used to improve accuracy.
-
Ned Robert's book addressed rifles that went 'slick' and stopped shooting well, some method of 'roughening' the tube was needed to get them shooting 'right' again. He may have been talking about bullet shooters, not round ball guns, however I think he was talking about cloth patches having more wear factor than pure lead itself. Roger here, has experienced just this shooting slick with his rifle.
Seems to me it happened tohis barrel with around 40,000 shots fired. If this amount of shooting is indicitive of required loadings and subsequent cleanings to get that 'too slick' result, then most don't have to worry about their rifle shooting slick.
If you were to use an exceptionally slick lube on the patch, you could about duplicate the 'effect' of a slick barrel. Switching to a less slippery lube will return shooting accuracy. The slicker the lube when shooting patched round balls, the more powder is necessary to get a proepr and efficient burn of the powder. I found this when switching between spit and LHV. To shoot well with spit or WWasher fluid for lube requires 55gr. 2F for 1 hole accuracy at 50 yards. With LHV, to use 2F, I had to go up to 75gr. for same accuracy. 3F, on the other hand shot well with spit using 45 to 50gr., while with LHV, 65gr. was needed. This shows the slicker the bore or lubricant as in my case, the more powder that is needed for identical accuracy.
Therefore, it stands to reason that if one finds his barrel shooting as Roger's did, form being too slick, he might merely increase the charge 5 to 10gr. to re-gain the elevation and accuracy he once had.
-
Hmm, good point Daryls. 8)
-
Sounds like its the same concept between two identical barrels...one rifled, one smoothbore...where the rifled velocity is slightly higher than the smoothbore due to the rifling resistance creating a little more pressure buildup.
The less smooth that a bore is...even comparing identical smoothbores...would create some of that resistance compared to a super slick bore.
-
Sounds like its the same concept between two identical barrels...one rifled, one smoothbore...where the rifled velocity is slightly higher than the smoothbore due to the rifling resistance creating a little more pressure buildup.
The less smooth that a bore is...even comparing identical smoothbores...would create some of that resistance compared to a super slick bore.
1st of all, I'm not convinced the rifle gives higher velocity over a smooth bore, even though breech pressures are higher. I do think the rifle will more completely burn, or perhaps more efficiently burn the powder than the smoothbore.
In order to test rifle against smoothbore, a sealed ignition source - OR - good locks that prevent gas leakage at the nipple must be used. Using 2, .60 calibre arms, one smooth flint against a rifled flint brings up the vent size, barrel length and ball weight. Otherwise identical guns, a rifled .60 and smooth .62 using the same .595' ball could be used, but then, the vent size & therefore pressure loss difference there makes the test pretty much invalid.
I know my 'accuracy' load with slower powder (2F) at lower velocity won't shoot with a slick lube without upping the speed some 200fps over what is achieved with the spit load, ie: 55gr./ 2F for spit vs 75gr. 2F for LHV. For 3F, the difference in speed is more remarked than that, ie: 45/50 for spit and 65gr. for LHV with it's attendent higher speeds. I also know a slicker lube as in an oil or LHV produces higher velocity than spit or water/alcohol/soap when using the same load - up to 200fps depending on the rifle - my .58 Hawken being the only one I have saved that data for. The accuracy is what changes the requirements & that can, to me, only mean the powder needs resistance to burn properly and give even, uniform velocities. Higher loads give more uniform speeds with slick lubes and perhaps, slick bores. Spit has always given me more uniform velocities than any oil, at lower speeds.
When I use the same lube in the patch, the slower 2F powder is required to match the velocity of the 3F to meet it's accuracy. Using spit, the same requirement is there, but the amount of difference between the loads is less by 5 gr. - go figure.
-
Here are the test results I got from two identical GM Flint smoothbore barrels, one of which I then had Ed Rayl add rifling to...as close to identical I could get for the test...and I agree, since they were not precisely identical its hard to draw rock hard conclusions, although the results are pretty interesting.
======================================================
05/23/08
Tested PRB velocities between two GM .62cal barrels.
One a GM smoothbore, the other a GM smoothbore that had been rifled by Ed Rayl.
With everything else being as identical as possible, the rifled bore gave a higher average velocity of 28 fps…standard deviations were about the same.
GM .62cal/.20ga Flint ‘Rifled’ barrel
100grns Goex 2F
.020" Oxyoke prelubed pillow ticking
.600"/325grn cast lead balls (Eddie May/Georgia)
Wiped the bore after every shot
Pact Pro Chronograph at 15 feet
Average velocity = 1270 fps
Standard Deviation = 25 fps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM .62cal/.20ga Flint smoothbore barrel - Jug Choked 'Full'
100grns Goex 2F
.018" Oxyoke prelubed pillow ticking
.600"/325grn cast lead balls (Eddie May/Georgia)
Wiped the bore after every shot
Pact Pro Chronograph at 15 feet
Average velocity = 1242 fps
Standard Deviation = 30 fps
-
Interesting RB, as you noted, but still not conclusive. Your results are about the same pro-rifle as our tests were pro-smoothbore.
If you tested 2 identical barrels, calibre, ball and patch you can expect over 40fps difference between them, both being rifled or both smooth. Add to those possibilities, the different gas leakage of two guns at the ignition source and that makes the results even more shakey.
-
I know I shouldn't challenge all the re-enactors who have used this "fact" through the years to get a laugh, but I think the regulation requiring two teeth is a MYTH, at least for the Rev War period in Colonial America. It makes a nice story but the regulations I have seen simply say "able bodied" and set, at most, age and height restrictions.
I await a correction from someone who can post some specific regulations verifying the two teeth business. I bet if you had no teeth at all they would be glad to have you in some capacity! The army, then as now, was full of positions other than infantry--cooks, wagon drivers, artillerymen, pioneers (combat engineers who mostly dug earth works cleared roads, etc.) and so on.
Gary
-
1st of all, I'm not convinced the rifle gives higher velocity over a smooth bore, even though breech pressures are higher. I do think the rifle will more completely burn, or perhaps more efficiently burn the powder than the smoothbore.
<snip>
Hi Daryl
Remember the British used to rough bore the first few inches up from the breech of a shotgun bore to increase penetration.
The first 16 bore rifle barrel I had was slightly larger bore than the current one as well as rough and tight for the first 8" or so from the breech. It was 150 fps faster with the same powder and lot# than the barrel I replaced it with with a smoother interior. Same Nock breech, same length etc etc.
The increased restriction creates more "load inertia" which makes the powder more efficient since the pressure rises higher initially than it would in a smooth barrel.
So the old idea that the rifles resistance to the ball because of the twist reduced velocity may not be true.
But it would require actual testing to make ironclad pronouncements.
Dan
-
I know I shouldn't challenge all the re-enactors who have used this "fact" through the years to get a laugh, but I think the regulation requiring two teeth is a MYTH, at least for the Rev War period in Colonial America. It makes a nice story but the regulations I have seen simply say "able bodied" and set, at most, age and height restrictions.
Gary
I did Rev War and a wee bit of Seven Years War re-enacting (along with some primitive competition shooting) in the 70's. I also did War of 1812 re-enacting in the later 70's and we had almost unbelievable source documents and diaries from Fort Wayne of the 1812-1816 time period. I did War Between the States re-enacting for most of the 80's. Then after I retired, I came back to my first love of Rev War. I am NOT an ultimate expert on any time period, but am best on the "Un-Civil War" and I've never seen nor heard of this regulation in official sources either. It doesn't mean it isn't there somewhere, it's just that I've never heard of it in any of the time periods I've done. Matter of fact, before it came up here, I'd never heard it mentioned before.
-
Dan- I remember that first 16 bore barrel you had and our discussions about it. Still, I'm not convinced. Barrel length might also have something to do with the old Brit. idea the smothbore outpaced the rifle, since their rifles were normally 24" to 26" and smoothbores 30" to 36".
On the other hand, note Lyman's .58 data - the 24" barrel almost matches the 32" barrel's velocity using the same powder charges. Using today's GOEX 2F and a 70gr. charge, I get over 200fps higher velocity than Lyman's book shows for 70gr. GOX. I use a VERY tight ball/pach combo with either water based or Hoppe's 9 plus for lube- this one gives the same speed no matter the lube, which is different from any other barrel I've chronographed. Barrels are annomolies for sure.
-
The roughing of a shotgun bore was similar to choking a bore in that it slowed the wads to prevent them from hitting the back of the shot column causing donuts. An old trick. However, in line with the roughing of the bore for single slugs of whatever, there were studies that claimed a slight choke would increase velocities in rifles and even artillery. I believe the Germans used choked cannons at one time. Roughing a bore might also do the same for a slug of whatever design.
DP
-
The roughing of a shotgun bore was similar to choking a bore in that it slowed the wads to prevent them from hitting the back of the shot column causing donuts. An old trick. However, in line with the roughing of the bore for single slugs of whatever, there were studies that claimed a slight choke would increase velocities in rifles and even artillery. I believe the Germans used choked cannons at one time. Roughing a bore might also do the same for a slug of whatever design.
DP
But they were not rough bored full length just at the breech.
Dan
-
The breech...not near the muzzle?
-
The breech...not near the muzzle?
I can't find a citation right now. And its too late to look.
Will see what I can come up with.
I have at least three books to look at...
Dan
-
When I read the roughing the bore I should have read closer. the old trick was at the muzzle. The breech roughing is a new one to me. Might give higher pressures where they were more needed if at the breech? At the muzzle you start getting a pressure drop off?
DP
-
There is a reference to roughing in many sources. I know George mentions it in Guns and Rifles. There are also several period references to this practice. Roughing the breech area was done in combination with relieving (belling out) the muzzle area. Some guns were relieved in the breech and muzzle as well.
-
Greener mentions roughing the muzzles in an attempt to slow the wads, preventing them from blowing through the shot cloud. He states that black powder fouling would render this ineffective after few shots, but I can not see this as being fact. The 'tighter' the constriction there due to fouling buildup, the more retardation of the wads would happen and the better should be the patterning. Besides,w hen you load the next shot, you will be somewhat cleaning the 'roughed' surface. This then means he was referring to BP loaded shot ctgs. which are, of course, loaded at the breech. With a smooth muzzleloader, a roughed muzzle should help prevent donuts and the roughed area is virtually cleaned each shot. I seem to recall Greener mentioned using a Tap for roughing the muzzles, but it's been a long time since I read that BIG book. Might be time again to refresh my memory?
-
There is a reference to roughing in many sources. I know George mentions it in Guns and Rifles. There are also several period references to this practice. Roughing the breech area was done in combination with relieving (belling out) the muzzle area. Some guns were relieved in the breech and muzzle as well.
Thank you. I was searching Greener.
English Guns and Rifles by George.
Speaking of the 18th century: "...by slightly roughening the the interior of its breech, so that the wadding beneath the shot should hold tightly and offer strong initial resistance to its explosion."
Dan