AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: Kurt on June 27, 2024, 06:12:13 AM
-
I was watching a demonstration of a CO2 bullet removal tool, and with the ease the demonstrator loaded the patched ball, I would have thought you could shake the gun with the muzzle down and get the ball out. It got me thinking though, how tight a patched ball needs to be for accurate shooting. I will embarrassly admit that over the years I have had to pull balls from my gun and it is a chore. I usually soak the problem with dish detergent or mineral oil overnight before I even try and then put my brass range rod in a vice to pull the screw-penetrated ball out, and my heavy bench shudders with the struggle. So in terms of the force required to push the ball down the barrel, just how tight do a ball and patch need to be to get accuracy? Perhaps I'm overdoing.
-
That combo will be different for each barrel. Rifling depth and type, etc. patch needs to impart the rifling to the ball, resist the heat generated, and seal the bore/rifling.
Most of mine are either Getz, Rice, or Green Mt. without a lot of fine tuning, all of them will work with a .005”undersize ball, .020” patch, liquid lube.
I don’t carry a range rod, use the hickory under the barrel.
Pulling a load is a different story. You just crammed that combo down a dirty barrel.
Kinda long winded, sorry.
-
Informal shooting, hunting and trail walks I have found a greased patched ball that needs a little more than thumb pressure to start (generally the use of a short starter) works well and will give minute of squirrel accuracy. For serious bench competitions I usually see ball/patch combinations (usually a dry Teflon patch) that requires a mallet to seat the ball. I guess it all depends on what you are trying to achieve. If I am using a .395 ball in my 40 I usually use a greased .015 patch. If using a .530 ball (for example) in my 54 caliber I will use a .018 greased patch and have found that I can retrieve the patches and actually reuse them.
-
Traditional muzzleloading to me requires a ball that I can place on the patch and start with just the ramrod. In my 50 flintlock, this requires either a bear oil lubed shirt canvas patch or a mink oil lubed shirt canvas patch. I cannot thumb start the .490 balls, but a short hold on the ramrod will load them.
I have my crowns polished like a mirror. If I aim correctly all the balls loaded with just the ramrod will hit steel or be in the black. If I need pinpoint accuracy for just a 25-yard turkey shoot, I'll use a thicker canvas patch and moose milk along with a short starter. I don't care to use patch, lube, ball combination that requires a hammer.
Bob
-
I like the way you think, Bob!
-
I can start a 535 with a heavy ticking patch in a 54 Douglas and did for years in these and various others. But I have taken to using a short starter. Its easier on the swivel breeches and is easier on the wrist of slim rifles or those with small wrists. And larger bores are increasingly hard to start.
These are, as far as I can tell, as traditional as anything else. Back to the 1770s anyway. The German mercenaries used a bullet board to cut patches, or so I had read. I suspect that a rod of some sort was needed to then push the patched ball out of the board. Patches may or may not have been sewn on.And on pg 257 of "Kentucky Rifles & Pistols 1750-1850" there is a photo of David Cookes hunting pouch and horn. He was born in 1761 and died in 1842. I think there is a photo on the WWW too s his rifle and pouch were auctioned not to long ago. There is a LOT of things that were is common use that were not written about in detail and did not survive for one reason or another. Pouches tended to rot away and they and the contents were lost. There are a number of surviving horns, being more durable, but we have to remember they all had a strap, they all had an accompanying pouch. But these are far less common and the contents are just as rare. So we have little idea if starters were used or not. in 1800 the British Army issued a starter mallet, one to (IIRC) every 2 Baker rifles. This was for use with the accuracy ball.
-
I like a patch that fills the groves and windage between ball and barrel plus three or four thousands thickness for sealing compression. I use a "Bulger" or short starter.
-
In my McLemore barreled 50 cal chunk rifle I use a patch lube of water soluble oil and water. 5 or 7 to 1 IIRC. With the water evaporated away. A 100 gr of FFF a .500 ball and a thick cotton patch and a starter. Wiped with a "heavily damp" patch both sides then a dry patch both sides then loaded. If I do my part and wind cooperates it will shoot to the same point at 60 yards. But we have not had a turkey match in some years now. But wind is an issue where I live. Back in the day. Before 1830 or so, offhand matches were not common. This was considered "a poor test of the rifle". Offhand a good shot with rifle/load that would be useless in a chunk match can do very well. Especially on hit or miss targets. In my other rifles I shoot the same load for everything, hunting or target. Shooting a rest match(s) at 50 yards or more will teach more about the rifle than shooting offhand.
-
It usually takes me a short starter and then about a lb or two on the side of the ramrod to get the patched ball down. Until it gets to the crud a the end, when it may take several pounds. Lube can greatly reduce the amount of force though. I am in the dry Southwest, I now use a more liquid lube, not grease. I've also shot a looser combo, and it seems accurate enough for plinking.
-
I try to use similar to Dane's combinations for most of my guns, but have found that in most rifles, from my .36 with .350" balls and the .69 with .682" balls, that 10 ounce
denim I measure at .021" compressed in calipers to be a great combination.
In my .40, I used mostly bore sized balls and with the .021" patch, these can be started without using a short starter, just pressure on a chokes up rod.
Same with the .32 and .36 rifles. Bore size and up to .0235" mattress ticking patches. A ball pressed in and withdrawn (strip of patching) show a very short slug with rounded ends
and preferably engraved. Loading with the rifle's rod is easy.
The muzzle's crown is vitally important in being able to easily load tight combinations. I use short starters usually, as it is easier and as Dan says, easier on the rifle's wrist.
On a pulled ball (long strip of cloth for handles) I like to see what Lyman printed, 50 years ago of more.
(https://i.ibb.co/cFVT905/36-Rice.jpg) (https://ibb.co/YkwjSm9)
(https://i.ibb.co/K55B0rr/32.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9ppB8rr)
(https://i.ibb.co/6sDqdFF/100-4477-zpsdb9785d2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/JkrShHH)
(https://i.ibb.co/MPnPnzT/muzzlecrown14bore001-zpsfebb8697.jpg) (https://ibb.co/SVNVNkT)
(https://i.ibb.co/GtXFCgV/Ball-and-patch-fit.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qWzxmbR)
-
As time goes on I am using looser combos. I have found that if I have to beat a ball down the bore or smack the heck out of the starter, my hands get tired and sore. That makes my aim less steady and hurts my scores more than a tiny amount of lost bench rest accuracy.
I have never been able to achieve the "correct" patch imprint shown above with a modern deeply rifled barrel. Such a combo would be to hard to load.
With the old button barrels, yes. With repurposed 45-70 barrels, yes, and they shoot really well too.
-
Interesting. I'm only 74, so I do not have those problems - yet. ;)
I've only had to smack the heck out of the starter when using .690" balls in the .69, with 10 ounce denim. The balls were store bought, so might
not have been pure lead.
All of my combinations give the same pattern as Lyman shows. My deepest rifling is only .012" deep.
-
My hunting load last fall was a .530 ball in a 54 with shallow rifling and a measured .020" patch, how shallow the rifling is I don't know exactly but with a short starter to get it started I can push the ball down 6-8 inches with each stroke of the wooden rammer. My patch and ball both showed full contact like Daryl's picture from the Lyman book. Testing patches this combo needed about 100 psi with an air compressor on the flash hole to blow out the ball, blow nozzle to the side of the barrel fit was less than perfect but they came out at a good clip. Getting it to move was the hard part, once it started moving I think a lot less pressure would be needed. Considering those CO2 dischargers have 850-1000 psi it is no wonder they work so well on a cap gun. I was short on time and that tight combo shot really well so I never tested the thinner patches.
-
I decided to do the experiment about patch to barrel fit to get a fabric impression in the grooves. The picture says it all. I took notes on my bench cover paper.
(https://i.ibb.co/zbXFBxz/patchtest.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HYtCb4j)
(https://i.ibb.co/wWq1fWh/Ball-and-patch-fit.jpg) (https://ibb.co/d2vyR24)
Normally, to test the imprint pattern I use a piece of oiled patch cloth and the ball. I short start it, then pull it back out. For the test I used a piece of cut off barrel, it is Green mountain, pistol, 45 cal. I pushed it all the way through.
Watching the "everything black powder" youtube guy load is interesting to me. He seats the ball with three whacks of the the rod. On the third whack the rod bounces. I assume the ball it then upset to full diameter. My test shows that can happen with a thin patch and loose fit. IT also deforms the ball.
With this barrel and ball we have a .440 ball and a .450 bore. The groove depth is .0075 per side. So we need 0.0135 before the patch touches the groove bottoms at all. To imprint the lead ball took 0.022" of patch thickness. I used a magnifying loop and strong light to look at the ball.
I measure patches with the micrometer. The squish is moderate, significantly more than the clicker, compressing the patch, not not risking damage to my tool.
-
I like to be able to thumb start the ball & patch. My two most accurate 50 caliber rifles both have a coned muzzle.
-
The .62 jaeger I built a few years ago was a bear to load with a tight patch/ball combination. I blame this on several factors. I cut the rifling too deep (almost .016"). I suspect the twist rate (1:15") was also a factor. Finally, the barrel was too dang short at 15". It was just awkward to hold the rifle while loading a tightly-patched ball. A .600" ball in 10 ounce duck was about as tight as I wanted to load.
OTOH, my .54 hunting rifle was a pleasure to load. Douglass barrel, with the crown polished as Daryl shows (thanks again for that tip, Daryl); I loaded a .535" ball with .017-.021" patch using just the ramrod. I will use that load again if I can ever get around to re-stocking it.
-
I have found that a well planned crown and a highly finished bore make a huge difference.
A bore that has been lead lapped to 400 grit or finer and then well polished with semichrome and steel wool loads much easier and does not accumulate much fouling.
A new barrel, as made, is much rougher. The lands will have annular reamer marks. The grooves will have lengthwise tool marks. The surface is not smooth. There may be burrs on the edges of the lands. None of that is helpful.
-
I use a short starter on all my rifles. The .50 has a Getz barrel that is well broken in and loads smoothly with a .495 ball and .018 patching. The .58 has a Hoyt barrel and I use a .570 ball with .018 patching. Hoppes #9+ for lube. The 58 shoots well with the slightly looser combo and I like the way it loads on a second shot with a dirty barrel since I use it for critters that will hurt you back.
-
IMHO, Dane has it pretty well right, however, the question to patch/ball combinations depends on what you expect, in the way of accuracy. Do you want to shoot pinwheel Xs at 100 yards, or simply hit a 6" gong at 50 yards, or a deer at 40 yards? what level of difficulty in loading will you accept? Thumb start, vs repeatedly smacking a starter to get that patch/ball combo, into the bore. There are trade offs, no matter what you do.
IMHO, I would buy an assortment of balls ranging from about .005 undersize to .010, and .015 undersize, and .015 and .020 thick patching. One load, with a smaller ball or thinner patch, might load easily and work very well for plinking and hunting. Another, tighter, load might work better for match shooting.
To that end, I have gone to a .526 ball, in a .54 bore, with a .020 patch, that loads fairly easy, and shoots accurately enough for my needs.
-
I have been working with a rifle and loading a .490 ball with a .018 patch that was tight loading. I discovered that an old sheet I have, doubled, measures .015 so I tried it today. I shot these five shots at 50 yards with open partridge-style sights. It is not that much easier to load so I may go thinner yet. This group is acceptable to me, and I adjusted the sight for the next range visit.
I just noticed that the scale I was using is in tenths not eighths so 1 and 3/5ths!
(https://i.ibb.co/dJkW5z3/Dad-s-hawken.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Fq8xDjf)
-
Interesting. I'm only 74, so I do not have those problems - yet. ;)
I've only had to smack the heck out of the starter when using .690" balls in the .69, with 10 ounce denim. The balls were store bought, so might
not have been pure lead.
All of my combinations give the same pattern as Lyman shows. My deepest rifling is only .012" deep.
Daryl, your information has helped me. My round bottom rifling is .016 deep. I load with a .005 under bore size ball and use .017 thickness patching. Thanks, Jerry
-
Your combo should seal at the lands but will be 4\1000 too lose in the bottom of the groves
-
As Hugh found out with his VERY deep rifling, an even smaller ball and VERY thick patching needs to be used due to his very deep rifling, up to .028" deep.
Back in the 70's I tested one of his first barrels with .024" rifling depth. With my normal ball diameter of .005" undersized and .022" patching,
I could get no where near the bottom of the grooves & found accuracy suffered due to this. At that time, I actually had a .45 Bauska barrel that had .028" rifling
but was able to get it to shoot with a .457" ball and .022" patching. It was loadable simply due to the small ball diameter, but a LOT of lead was moved on seating it
into the bore. I could not do this easily enough with the larger .50 cal. barrel. Perhaps this was simply due to my being into the sport only 5-7 years or so.
Since that time, Hugh has found combinations that do work in deep rifling. Taylor and I did as well with his barrels.
In one of Taylor's .50's with .016" rifling, we found a .495" ball and .022" patch worked OK with lighter powder charges like up to 85gr., but with
100gr., due to the loose load and higher pressures, patches suffered burns and accuracy declined.
The higher the pressure generated in the barrel, the tighter the combination must be.
That is why chunk, plank and bench rest round ball shooters use larger balls and tighter combinations that can be loaded with the rifle's hickory rod.
-
What is the advantage of deep grooves over shallow grooves? Is it just aesthetics?
Based on TC's CVA's and converted 45-70 barrels, how they shoot, and how easy they are to load, I am missing something. To me, it looks like in a 45 cal barrel, about 0.08" is plenty deep and well suited to "normal patch thickness.
440 in a 450 bore gives .005 per side windage . A .008 groove would add up to 0.013" total windage in the groove. A 0.016 or 0.018 patch would give decent compression in the grooves. That seems like a good thickness to hold lube too. There is not issue with the ball skipping the rifling.
I have obtained good accuracy from converted 45-70 barrels, those grooves are only 0.035", IMHO .008 is plenty deep. I think even a little less could do well too.
-
Twist rate and powder charge will affect the ball,s skipping over the rifling too. A good grip on the ball is probably needed with higher charges and certain twist rates.
-
I would think that deep grooves may be an advantage as rifling erodes in that expanding the patch and ball would compensate? I would think also that filling the grooves and ease of loading could be more difficult as well unless the lands are thin and the grooves wide?
The process of finding the right combination can be a bit of a pain mostly because I find getting the patching material to suit is bothersome. Changing ball diameters can be expensive.
I have some cloth now that is sort of fuzzy but when compressed it measures .018 which is the same as the material I have from an old pair of docker trousers. The Docker material with a .490 bal shoots incredibly well ( for me) out of one of the flintlocks and I will stick with that load. I am satisfied with the previously posted target too, and I have a 32 caliber I have narrowed down also. Just four more to go, the final one being the 40 caliber I plan to build as the rifle I think I'll be ending up with. We'll see if I get that done. I very much enjoy the shared experiences here!
-
Back in the mid 1970's I was totally sold on deep rifling. This was a rebound from the 'approximately .004" rifling that Thompson Center was putting on their rifles
at that time - buttoned. Mine actually measured .004" deep, but Taylor's was .003" deep and buddy Tom's "Hawken(s)" had .0015" deep rifling. He had to paper patch
the "Maxiballs" with cigarette paper to keep them in the barrel as they just fell out.
By the end of the 70's I was sold on .008" to .012" rifling as likely the best for patched round balls, depending on the calibre.
Deeper for larger cal. shallower for smaller calibers.
Now, being 44 years later, I still hold that .008" to .012" works the best, for me. The Kodiak .58 SxS I had, had .008" rifling and shot extremely well with both .574" an d.562", both with
a .021" denim or ticking patch.
-
First rifle CVA an early one shallow groves at least eight. 90gr. 3f .498 ball .015 patching accuracy gave up a noticeable amount around 3,000 no recorded records. Another rifle a Green Mountain .095 ball .020 patching 90gr. 3f thinking .014 depth of groves started giving up some around a bit over 3,000 documented. I re-barreled that rifle with a barrel I rifled at .010 deep rifling’s, 110gr. 2f .535 ball .020 patching and closer to 4,000 rounds and going strong documented. All combinations were loading tight but quite manageable. I do shoot quiet a bit to 200 yards the reason for what might be considered heavy loads. I guess I should add twist, CVA 1-60 or 66, Green Mountain 1-70 I believe, mine 1-70. Next build will try .008 depths of grove 1-70 twist. I will admit I am quite a bit older than that first rifle so there might be a question on accuracy.
-
From what I have learned here, to shoot long-range with a round ball, you need a slower twist and more powder. For shorter-range shooting, as I do, a faster twist of say 1 in 48, can give fine accuracy and requires less powder. Patch thickness is similarly applied as tight for tight groups and less so for ringing a gong. I can almost see the grey of those who impart this knowledge and appreciate it.
-
From what I have learned here, to shoot long-range with a round ball, you need a slower twist and more powder. For shorter-range shooting, as I do, a faster twist of say 1 in 48, can give fine accuracy and requires less powder. Patch thickness is similarly applied as tight for tight groups and less so for ringing a gong. I can almost see the grey of those who impart this knowledge and appreciate it.
In the typical calibers, under 62. Twists slower than 1:48 are, in my considered opinion, a waste of time. As are grooves deeper than .010-.012. This has been known since the 1850s at least for the PRB or cloth patched Picket. In larger bores where the rotational inertia of the ball is greater a slower twist might be OK. My rifle using a 16 to the pound ball has an 80” and its certainly accurate with grooves .008”. Round balls will shoot pretty well with almost any twist. Douglas, for what ever reason, used a 66 for everything. BUT then made 48 twist “Hawken” barrels at one time and made 48 twist barrels for Golden Age arms. I don’t think anyone has ever done a detailed study of surviving rifles to see what the twist really is. But I bet, based on the prevailing theory of the time, that the long, “4 foot” barreled American rifles had 4 ft twists. This idea is why some English/European rifles with shot barrels have twists more suitable for a 3 caliber long bullet of that caliber.
A 48” twist will shoot all the powder necessary for any use up to at least 58 caliber. In round ball rifles from about 45 to 54 about 1/2 ball weight will give very good velocity. In a 54 slightly less will still give 1800 or higher fps if FFF is used.
And in a 50 caliber rifle 1/2 ball weight will shoot to 300 yards with no problems. With Swiss powder less will give the same velocity. 90 gr in a 54 for example.
One other thing the idea that reduced friction increases velocity is false. This was proven by the British in their experiments with ML shotguns in the early 19th c. Where rough reaming the bore at the breech gave better penetration (velocity).
And remember the 1/2 ball weight only applies up to about 54 caliber. I shoot 140 gr of FF Swiss in the 16 bore. 1/2 ball weight in this rifle would be 218 gr. 140 still gives 1600 fps in a 30” barrel. Bigger bores are more efficient. Perhaps due to ball weight.
-
My thinking and post may be inaccurate, but when I referred to more powder I was thinking of big game long-range loads as opposed to a target load and was assuming the need for energy and penetration at long range on big game. I also was thinking of the patched ball skipping the rifling with a fast twist and a heavy powder charge. I have no personal experience with either heavy powder charges or long-range big-game shooting, with a muzzleloader. Thank you for the information from your experience.
-
Taylor's 16 bore Joseph Lang rifle, built in around 1852 has made a 5 shot group of approximately 2.5" square at 100 meters(109yds) with a mere 85gr. 2F GOEX.
This rifle, with about a 32" bl. has a 48" ROT. The rifling is about .010" deep.
.648" ball and .020" patch. No wiping needed while shooting.
-
Yesterday I did some load testing. The barrel was a Green Mountain pistol barrel in 45 cal. .440 balls. First I found that 15 grains gave the best accuracy at 25 yards with a 0.014 patch". I had tried 25 and 20 grains. Then I started playing with patches. The lube was moose milk for all. The patches were 12, 14 and 18 thousands thick pre-cut. Each load got two taps of the mallet on the rod to seat the ball consistently.
The 18 patch was hard to start and required a mallet and bent my starter. The 12 was super easy. The 14 was in the middle. To my surprise the 12 and 18 gave equal group sizes of 1" a@ 25 yards. All groups were shot with sandbags, a muzzle rest and sandbags under my hands.
I guess my reason to mention it at all is that giving rules and speculation on how to achieve best accuracy all goes out the window when actual testing shows something else. In this case I will work with the looser combos. Seating pressure consistently seemed to have a greater effect than patch thickness yesterday.
I suspect that seating the ball with a few taps is upsetting it into the grooves. That makes patch thickness irrelevant?
-
Light powder charges puts less "pressure" (stress) on the ball/patch combination, this you can get away with looser combinations.
I'd an 18 thou patch was hard to load with a .440 ball I suspect your crown is "factory" machine cut.
I also have used GM barrels on rifles and my current pistol.
I use the same .021" (10oz) patch in both, but I do use a .440 ball in the.pistol and a .445" ball in the rifle. I load both with the gun's hickory rod. No mallets were needed.
-
In 1958 Bill Large gave me the first barrel he made in a new shop.It was a 1 inch ATF and 33"long and 58 caliber,575 across the lands.
I made a light weight offhand gun,New England style and use a .575 ball and the patches were surplus cleaning patches for the M1 Garand and that was a tight combination but it worked well enough to win us a turkey in November of 1958@friendship.It was frozen rock hard and stayed that way for the 180 mile trip home.This was before any Interstate highways were built.I loaned thatrifle to "Toby"Brown who used it to win a number of shoots in Ohio and used the 65 grain 3fg DuPont load the gun seemed to like.Twenty years ago I built another 58 caliber rifle with a Green Mountain barrel,a full stock,walnut flintlock.I used the same mould and patch combination and it did really well.Later I got a mould for a .562 ball and used that patch/ball load and the accuracy was as good as the tight one even at 200 yards on our club range.
Has anyone else had a similar experience? Post it if you have.
Bob Roller
-
All my crowns are done by me on a lathe with a sickle shaped tool. The innermost part is a only a couple of degrees. They are polished to a mirror finish.
The patch thickness is subjective based on how tight the micrometer is made before reading. I go "pretty tight" but do not spring the frame. This is one area that could use a sticky so we are on the same page.
Only the thinnest patches can be started with hand pressure on the starter. All others require hitting the starter with a mallet to get he ball in the muzzle.
-
I've figured the weight of cloth in ounces as being a fair description on thickness. I use calipers for measuring but even those vary considerably.
I find 10 ounce denim to measure .021 with my "middle" set of calipers. The other 2 measure 1 thou smaller and 1 thou larger. I grip the caliper tines between finger and thumb and squeeze as hard as I can then read off the thickness on the dial. With my mic, I turn the barrel by the ratchet and read off the thickness.
I only use the mallet on the end of my right arm for seating the patched ball into the muzzle with the short starter.
-
Measuring it that way makes from 5-10 thousands difference in measured thickness with the various patch materials I have on hand.
I remember having this discussion here a few years ago. I was measuring with digital calipers. I got the impression I should be using a mic and compressing the fabric. I remeasured and remarked my bagged patches.
Using the mic clicker or digital calipers give me the same number.
The pillow ticking I used to call .011 is now considered 0.017". Middle weight canvas went from 0.014 to 0.020. My thick canvas went from 0.018 to 0.029.
Getting the 0.029 down a 45 cal GM pistol barrel with a 440 ball does takes considerable effort. That seems to agree better with the others here.
-
What do you measure 10, 12 and 14 thou. denim as?
I stopped using the mic. because I could kit get consistent measurements unless I used the ratchet. Then I got measurements about .005" under the calipers.
I measure 12 and 14 ounce denim as .030" and .034" thick.
I tried cranking down on 14 ounce denim with the kick barrel and easily got .002", not .034" or anything in between. If the mic had sprung, the measurement would not have been so small. The ratchet which is fairly string, gives repeatable measurements.
-
I’ve noticed that a stuck patched ball will come out easier if using a metal rod with a T-handle. The trick is not to pull But rather tap on the t- handle with a mallet. Trying to pull is a lot harder than tapping it out. Don’t ask me how I know 😊
-
Interesting. We've always pulled them, without any trouble, but then we also use load combinations that give some people a lot of trouble. Our women folk use the same loads we use. Don't mess with them.
;D ;)
-
I'm shooting a moody 50 cal heavy bench rifle 1-1/2 dia my load is 85fff a .500 ball with .20 teflon patch . Shooting 60 yds this combo seems to load very easy the group seems to stay around 3"
I'm thinking I need a thicker patch has anyone used an additional patch to add thickness like cigarette
Papers or thin paper
Appreciate your thoughts
-
I don't have any experience with Teflon and thinner material, but I have used two layers of patch material to make a thicker patch and it worked as I hoped.
-
I have double patched before as well. 18\1000 greased then a 6\1000 . It worked OK but was more involved as one would expect.
-
I have double patched with a 16 bore ball in my
69 cal. rifle and got 5 shot groups of around 1 1/2" at 50 yards. Generally 4 in a hole and 1 out making the group 1/2" larger.
The ball was .662 with .017" denim patching. While this load was not as tight in the bottons of the grooves as I normally load, it shot cleanly and did not need any wiping. I get the same results with a single patch of 14 ounce that I measure at .034", which is not a remarkable thing.
I also use the same patching (14oz) with a 15 bore ball of .677" dia. With both hard and soft balls. These usually shoot a bit tighter than the smaller balls.
-
One of the things I don’t recall seeing mentioned is the combination of coning the bore and a choke in the barrel. In my barrels I usually lap in .0005 to .001 choke, thinking .001 the best. The choke ends a few inches from the muzzle and the coned muzzle ends around ¾ + to around an inch + still experiment with the angel. With the proper short starter it is a bit tight a little bit much for the palm but ok for me, yes a tight load and would be allot worse with our the coned muzzle. As you are pushing the ball/patch only a short distance between the choke and the coned muzzle the rest of the way it goes down easy. I will add I don’t hunt anymore and shoot from mostly clubs that have a bench to lean the rifle on.
-
I was shooting my 1760s-era flintlock yesterday and with the .530 ball and .018 patch, it is pretty easy to load. I was thinking as I loaded it that if I used a tight load I might break the stock at the wrist. I'm not tall so I angle the rifle a bit loading it. The rifle I am building now has a crescent butt and is thinner overall so I hope it is accurate with an easy-to-load combination. It is longer still. Maybe I'll get a step stool.
-
Few people know how to lap a choke into a barrel. I have done several and agree that it is an improvement. As far as long cones, I do not do that. I do not think it is best for accuracy but don't want to start a coning debate. I make a gradual rounded crown that extends over less than 1/8". I use a lathe and dial the bore into less than 0.001". The innermost part is only a few degrees off the bore. The lands are tapered over about .050". When taken to a high polish it loads as easy as can be. Accuracy is excellent. Between a good crown and the choke barrel loading any reasonable combination is a breeze.
-
Kurt, when I load my Beck .50 with its 44" bl. I have to angle the barrel somewhat. I am 6' and a bit, but still have to angle the barrel. I use a 10 ounce denim patch with a .495" ball. This combination is easily started due to the smoothly radiused crown described be Scota4570. Once started into the bore it slides down easily with just a few fingers on the rod.
-
At the range this morning my new 40 was burning gas rings in the patches. They were nice to load with the .395 ball. I tried a .018 patch but it was too tight, so I folded the thinner cloth in two and it loaded tighter but acceptably. I think the double patch is .015, but I couldn't find any on the ground to see how they handled the heat. The sun got too hot for me so I'll be going back Wednesday perhaps. Thanks again for the conversation, I appreciate all of it.
-
If patches are hard to find, they are usually shredded & burnt fibers of cloth. That has been my experience.
If your crown is nicely smooth, with no sharp edges but with rounded ones, loading is easy with tight combinations.
I used to load .400" balls with a .0235" mattress ticking patch in my .40 (.398"bore) without using a short starter, just to prove how easy it is to load a "proper"(imho) load combination.
-
The higher the pressure AND the higher the velocity, the tighter the load must be.
I got good accuracy with .004" deep buttoned rifling in my first rifle. It had a .500" bore and groove to groove was 508".
I used a .495" ball and .022" denim patching. I had learned quickly about the benefit of a smoothed, polished crown over the machined crown as received that would not allow a decent load without cutting the patch.
I also believe that .008" deep rifling is about all that is needed IF the ball and patch combination is sufficient to show compression in the bottom of the grooves.
After this its all about the power charge and lube.
-
At the range today I worked up from 30 grains 2f to 35 and then 40. I took my micrometer with me and determined that folding the sheet material gave me a .015 patch and it loaded easily and shot acceptably. I had some other material that miked at .016 and this was less of a bother and in all aspects seemed to work as well. I shot about 20 rounds today and never swabbed the bore and had no issues. My last group at 50 yards was 4 shots into 2 inches which I know isn't great but that front sight is way down there on the 44-inch barrel, and it was overcast so coordinating everything in my 4-second to all blurrey was a challenge.
At home, I cleaned the rifle using a breech plug scraper, a bronze brush, a jagg and windshield washer fluid, and baby oil (mineral oil). A flashlight reflects off the breech plug to show a nice clean bore. I have never used this combo of cleaning chemicals before so I'll monitor the bore in case, but Ballistal is mineral oil with a solvent and the windshield fluid I have used for years to swab between shots with no negative effects.
Today everything went well enough to make for an enjoyable day at the range until the badly needed rain showed up. I may not get back till next week now as the lawn will need mowing.
7/1824 I went back to the range, increased my charge to 45 grains 2F, and adjusted windage and elevation. I seem to have trouble doing elevation adjustments as I have this rifle shooting about an inch too high now, but I'll live with it for a while.
I want to endorse the use of windshield washer fluid as a cleaner. Today I ran patches in and out of the bore until they were clean and the breech and bore were bright and then I lubed with the baby oil. This seems a simple solution to clean up after another 20 rounds of soot build-up.
-
Generally my rifle loads use a ball .010" smaller than bore diameter. An exception is the .45 which I do have a .445" mold and use the .445" along with the .440" balls. Patches are usually cut from heavy canvas and used in all but a couple of rifles. The canvas patches are measured with a caliper and with me using both hands squeezing the jaws as hard as I can. Resulting patches measure .023" to .024". My .54 requires a thinner patch but also has the most shallow grooves of all the rifles, that being advertised as .006" deep. This rifle is wonderfully accurate.
As best as I can figure all the square cut bores are in the .010" to .012" deep. My three radius groove bores are said to be .016". I use the same canvas patches in the .010" through the .016" rifling depths. If I ever need a thinner material I normally go to mattress ticking or the thinner pillow ticking. As I no longer hunt my lube of choice is Hoppes #9 BP Lube.
The loads I shoot are rather tight in my estimation. "Tight", being a subjective description, is difficult to define. In my case I define "tight" as "prb as snug as I can get while still safely seatable with the wooden underbarrel rod". It appears to create at least some fiber compression in the grooves of both .010" to .016" rifled bores. Canvas patches recovered are usually white with little evidence of being fired. On several occasions I've used fired patches for subsequent shooting. Being tight, each seated load cleans the bore of the previous shots fouling relieving me of the need to wipe the bore prior to going home. The muzzles of the rifles have all been polished.
I think rifling from .006" to .012" to be all that's needed. And while the radius rifled bores are, or said to be, deeper no trouble has surfaced while loading and shooting them. The .54 is 1-66" (claimed), and the .32 & .36 are said to be 1-48". The .45s and the .50 are under 1-60", probably something like 1-56" or so.
I
-
Kurt, if I might make a suggestion, research muzzle crowning. I use the end of my thumb and 320 grit wet/dry paper or Emery with WD40. I.put a patch an inch.onto the bore to collect "grindings & stone" particulate. Tweezers or needle nose pliers removes the cloth.
This allows much tighter loads than you've been using.
-
Daryl. I believe you are right in that a bit of a crown would allow me to load with a thicker patch, the bore has no recessed or angled crown now. I tried a .018 patch yesterday and had to drive it in with the ball of my short starter. I shot two loadings doing this and decided it was not improving anything. Of course, there is little chance to tell if the patch became torn or the ball was distorted driving it in that way. In my research, I have seen some tools that use grinding compound that I may try. Thanks for the good tip.
-
As to introducing an approximately 45degree angle to "start" the crown, there are tapered grinding stones with a 1/4" shaft to lock into an electric drill. I have started my crowns this way after shortening a barrel, or on a newly purchased barrel that has a sharp, flat muzzle.
I run the stone in, being careful to keep it "square" with the muzzle & only cut deeply enough to allow me to finish the crown with emery or wet/dry paper and he end of my thumb for the smoothly radiused crown. This crown is only 1/16th to 1/8" deep.
-
I tried something new to me. After watching "everything black powder" on youtube, I changed how I used the rod.
I tried a much looser combination. The patch is soaked but not dripping with moose milk. When I seat the ball I drop the steel rod on the seated ball three times from about 12". On the third time I get a solid sound and the load has stopped compressing.
The accuracy is good. I really can "shoot all day" without swabbing.
My issue with the need to swab often was probably because of a to tight combination. The looser wet combo seems to glide over the fouling on the way down. Upsetting the ball takes care of windage. The wetted fouling is being swept out of the bore by the next ball.
I wish I had figured this out 50 years ago.
-
I guess if that works for you, great. "Throwing the rod" onto the ball was a step in loading muskets and rifles used by about all of the militaries around the world including the USA during the 1800's and earlier as well. If done on a hot day with a hot barrel, it also could cause an "ignition" of the powder I suspect. I've seen people in BC do this with their ML's since the 70's.
On the other hand we've been using tight combinations for those 50 years and NEVER have to swap the bore, even when firing over 100 rounds in a days shooting.