AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: Artificer on March 18, 2014, 10:14:51 AM
-
The thread “.50 or .54?” got me to thinking about another caliber in the 18th century that seems to have long since almost died out. I’m referring to the .52 Caliber that seems to come up somewhat/rather often when talking about the size of an “average 18th century rifle” either as the caliber or possibly from conversion of the number of balls to the pound (BTTP). ( I realize they were used to using BTTP to describe guns with the familiarity we have using Caliber today.)
To tell the truth, I have a little bit of difficulty figuring out what was the number of BTTP they usually meant when describing the .52 cal. and other calibers. Am I incorrect to assume it was a 32 BTTP rifle from the conversion chart just below, so a .52 caliber ball would go into the bore and have room for patching material? What further confuses me is Gauge to Caliber conversion charts often do not agree on what caliber each Gauge was.
BTTP Caliber in Decimal
30 .533
32 .530 or .526
34 .519
36 .506
The following chart sizes were included relating the caliber of the Brown Bess Musket that was often mentioned as .75 Caliber in original British writing, though in a few cases was called .76 Caliber. There is a quote that “if the musket was not exceeding ill bored, it will shoot to or hit (etc., etc.)” Looking at the difference in chart sizes, I wonder if the people who bored and polished the barrels were doing so on what they normally thought of as “11 Balls to the Pound.” This may possibly explain why original Brown Besses of the 18th century often measure .76 to .78 (and up to .80 in some cases).
BTTP Caliber in Decimal
11 .775 or .760
11/C1/2 .750
12 .748 or .729
The next chart is included with an eye on the fairly standard British “Carbine Bore” of .66 Caliber in the 18th century. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think this would have been normally interpreted as a “16 Bore” for many or most English barrel makers?
BTTP Caliber in Decimal
16 .682 or .663 (some say as low as .661)
17 .665 or .650
The book “Colonial Frontier Guns” by T.M. Hamilton reads about finding original French 18th century “GO” and “NO GO” Gauges for various calibers. It seems he was not able to find an 18th century set of Gauges from the British “Worshipful Company of Gunmakers Proof House.” The book does detail two sets of Gauges found there, but they both seem to have been no earlier than 1850 and one was 1860. Also, the conversion table provided in Appendix E on page 169 was in all cases .02” SMALLER than the sizes listed in 1883. It was suggested the difference allowed for “windage” in the later gauge conversions.
Does anyone know of an 18th century or possibly early 19th century conversion table of “Balls to the Pound” that is not readily available today and more accurately describe what caliber British and British Americans actually meant during that time?
Any information would be most welcome.
Gus
-
Some time ago someone posted this formula for figuring out the ball weight of a known dia. lead round ball. Ball dia. X ball dia. X ball dia. X 1503 and I think it works out quite close. You could then convert into balls per pound. Two hundred + years ago they might have used another formula or method.
-
What we may be running into with the plug gauges Hamilton found since they were in a proof house the gauge marked on the plug was for the bullet to be used for proofing a barrel the plug fit. This is what we run into when knowledge is lost. I would not be surprised if there is an explanation in some old book someplace in the British Isles but finding it might be a problem. Or they simply used that plug gauge to determine the proof load. Unless there is a written explanation found I don't see how to resolve this. Or they never wrote it down but simple passed it on the apprentices as on of the "secrets" at this date who knows.
A round ball of pure lead can have its weight accurately calculated. So 16 to the pound would be the same weight and so the same diameter anytime it was measured/weighed.
.682 would be a just a little bigger than 15 gauge at 478 gr according to Beartooth Bullets RB weight calculator. Which matches all my actual measurement/weighing tests. But a 682 bore will shoot a ball in the .672-662 range or perhaps smaller if its a smooth bore with "issue" ammunition.
.662 is 437 gr on my scale, so its a "#16" ball. Beartooth agrees.
Usually rifles shoot a ball about one gauge smaller than the bore in 62-69 calibers for a fairly tight fit. Forsythe describes using a #15 ball in his 14 gauge rifle with a substantial patch. Some modern target shooters use a bore sized ball or even slightly larger.
In a 54 I shoot a .535 which is 30.3 to the pound. The bore being 29.5 to the pound according to Beartooth. A 495 in a 50 cal is also one gauge smaller 37.2 and 38.2. I use a heavy patch in both calibers.
Back in the day SB fits were looser since they did not keep the bores very uniform. Today using a ball within 1-2 gauges of the bore requires a thin patch. With the same patch used with a 50 caliber rifle a 50 smooth will load OK with a .480 the 480 is a 41.9 gauge
Rifles came with their own moulds unless military issue like the 1803.
The military musket was a holder for a bayonet as much as a firearm until well into the 19th c.
The French did some experimentation with the musket and in the early 19th increased the ball size to improve accuracy.
But I don't remember the ball sizes and the French were metric anyway.
This is detailed in "Firearms of the American West 1803-1865" IIRC.
So far as bore sizes go there was little in the way of tight controls of bore sizes until the advent of Smokeless powder breechloaders.
It is not uncommon to find 45-70 rifles from the 1870s-80s or even later with groove sizes in excess of .460. In fact .464 is pretty common. Since Sharps 45 calibers had a "nominal" bore size of .451 when we see most of the rifles over .455 and often much over that we realize that it was not that important. And this applies to the target models as well.
Given this we can understand how the bore sizes varied in the 100+ years before in the late 18th c. For this reason chamber dimensions and large bore sizes make it impossible to shoot accurately with smokeless powder or even difficult with BP unless the shooter understands how to make it all work.
So we have 18th c muskets that were often little more accurate than a wrist rocket, if that good, due to being what Hanger called "ill bored". With the issue loading hitting a man at 100 yards was iffy at 200 according the Hanger, one might as well fire at the moon. I would dig up the exact quote but its not worth it.
Dan
-
I doubt that there would have been any allowance for a patch, the idea, as I understand it was that a lead ball of the specified part of a pound would just pass through the bore. Personally I doubt it was ever actually tried. Think about it - to make the ball you would have to calculate its diameter, but as that would be the nominal size needed, wouldn't you just make the barrel instead of mucking about with a lead stop / go guage?
Why do things this way? Well I suppose you wouldn't have to think too hard to work out how far a pound of lead would go... Making ball moulds to fit the barrel would be a separate and probably well understood task.
I wouldn't expect to find too close an agreement between tabulated dimensions and those that could be calculated today. At this sort of date, people in different towns were probably still measuring to slightly different standards. When did engine engraved rulers become available? Much would depend on which example /s became recognised as the pattern. If you come across incompatible tables, that is the likely cause.
Let's not forget that it was arms manufacture that established the need for precision ;D
-
My understanding is a rifle was ordered by bore size - what it actually measured as to balls to the pound, not by the ball it shot. I have no PROOF that is how they were ordered.
If you Google The Los Angeles Silhouette Club, you should come up with a bore # then bore size and ball weight chart.
The chart I have from there, runs from 1 bore at 1.671" and 7,000gr. ball weight, to 180 bore size for .296" at 38.9gr. weight- in pure lead, of course.
Thus - a typical 180 bore that was often ordered, I suspect, would be close to that most likely - ie: about a .30 cal rifle - like Ned Robert's First rifle was 'called' a .30 cal. rifle. The numbers/gauges are close together in those light weight/small numbers. Thus, a rifle with .300" inch bore dimension is actually a 172 bore. A .32, is actually a 142 bore and a .36, a 100 bore.
Back then, I am sure that "close" was "close enough" for most people - but, as Dan suggests, we just don't know for sure.
-
Some time ago someone posted this formula for figuring out the ball weight of a known dia. lead round ball. Ball dia. X ball dia. X ball dia. X 1503 and I think it works out quite close. You could then convert into balls per pound. Two hundred + years ago they might have used another formula or method.
Smylee,
Thanks.
I imagine the answer to BTTP from the formula you provided would be take the number from the equation and divide that into 7,000 (Grains Per Pound)?
Gus
-
What we may be running into with the plug gauges Hamilton found since they were in a proof house the gauge marked on the plug was for the bullet to be used for proofing a barrel the plug fit. This is what we run into when knowledge is lost. I would not be surprised if there is an explanation in some old book someplace in the British Isles but finding it might be a problem. Or they simply used that plug gauge to determine the proof load. Unless there is a written explanation found I don't see how to resolve this. Or they never wrote it down but simple passed it on the apprentices as on of the "secrets" at this date who knows.
A round ball of pure lead can have its weight accurately calculated. So 16 to the pound would be the same weight and so the same diameter anytime it was measured/weighed.
.682 would be a just a little bigger than 15 gauge at 478 gr according to Beartooth Bullets RB weight calculator. Which matches all my actual measurement/weighing tests. But a 682 bore will shoot a ball in the .672-662 range or perhaps smaller if its a smooth bore with "issue" ammunition.
.662 is 437 gr on my scale, so its a "#16" ball. Beartooth agrees.
Usually rifles shoot a ball about one gauge smaller than the bore in 62-69 calibers for a fairly tight fit. Forsythe describes using a #15 ball in his 14 gauge rifle with a substantial patch. Some modern target shooters use a bore sized ball or even slightly larger.
In a 54 I shoot a .535 which is 30.3 to the pound. The bore being 29.5 to the pound according to Beartooth. A 495 in a 50 cal is also one gauge smaller 37.2 and 38.2. I use a heavy patch in both calibers.
Back in the day SB fits were looser since they did not keep the bores very uniform. Today using a ball within 1-2 gauges of the bore requires a thin patch. With the same patch used with a 50 caliber rifle a 50 smooth will load OK with a .480 the 480 is a 41.9 gauge
Rifles came with their own moulds unless military issue like the 1803.
The military musket was a holder for a bayonet as much as a firearm until well into the 19th c.
The French did some experimentation with the musket and in the early 19th increased the ball size to improve accuracy.
But I don't remember the ball sizes and the French were metric anyway.
This is detailed in "Firearms of the American West 1803-1865" IIRC.
So far as bore sizes go there was little in the way of tight controls of bore sizes until the advent of Smokeless powder breechloaders.
It is not uncommon to find 45-70 rifles from the 1870s-80s or even later with groove sizes in excess of .460. In fact .464 is pretty common. Since Sharps 45 calibers had a "nominal" bore size of .451 when we see most of the rifles over .455 and often much over that we realize that it was not that important. And this applies to the target models as well.
Given this we can understand how the bore sizes varied in the 100+ years before in the late 18th c. For this reason chamber dimensions and large bore sizes make it impossible to shoot accurately with smokeless powder or even difficult with BP unless the shooter understands how to make it all work.
So we have 18th c muskets that were often little more accurate than a wrist rocket, if that good, due to being what Hanger called "ill bored". With the issue loading hitting a man at 100 yards was iffy at 200 according the Hanger, one might as well fire at the moon. I would dig up the exact quote but its not worth it.
Dan
Dan,
Thank you for your thoughts and the time it took to type that out.
When you talk about a ball size for a rifle being One or Two Calibers less than bore size, do you mean .01" or .02" smaller than the stated bore size or do you mean .005" and .010" less than bore size? I apologize as I did not quite follow what you meant.
18th century British and French Military Muskets were loaded with paper cartridges and the paper was turned into wadding as I'm sure you know. For those who may not know, the tail of the paper cartridge was bitten off and a little powder poured into the pan. Then the rest of the cartridge was rammed down the bore. However, what we sometimes forget was the ball was also wrapped in the paper, so in effect it was an early use of a “paper patched ball.”
I am not sure if there was (and don’t think so) a standard thickness of the linen paper they used to wrap the cartridges and especially the ball. Linen Paper thickness probably ran .005” to .007” or more. The size of the patterns of paper used to make the cartridges, that have come down to us, suggest that each ball would have had about two thicknesses of paper all the way around the ball diameter. This means an added .010” to .014” of paper on each side of the ball or a total thickness of .020” to .028” that the “windage” or diameter of the bore was reduced. IOW, if the bore size was an actual .750”, then the paper around the ball reduced the bore size for the ball to .730” down to .722” or so. From the Archeological record, original British Musket balls run from a bare minimum of .670” to .690” with more of them tending towards the larger size. If we take the larger size of .690” and wrapped it in the paper as mentioned, the size of the paper patched ball ran .710” to .718” in a minimum .750” bore. (If the linen paper was thicker than these minimum sizes, it would even more “fill up” the space of the bore for the paper patched ball.) That .040” to .032” extra space was left so the Soldier could easily load the paper cartridges even after the bore became fouled with powder residue from firing many shots. It’s possible the Muskets shot more accurately as the powder fouling built up from firing more catridges and reduced the open space (or windage) around the paper patched ball.
There is more “windage” or open bore size around the paper patched balls when the bores run .760” to .780” as they seem to have been generally made. That leaves anywhere from .032” open space to as much as .060” open space in the larger bore size with the thinner size paper. I’m not sure a .780” bore size was considered “ill bored,” but I at least suspect those that ran .780” to .800” were considered “ill bored” and would have been far less accurate with the “Issued” cartridge paper wrapped ball.
If the balls used in Brown Besses actually better fit the bore size and a proper sized greased patch is used, they shoot one heck of a lot more accurately than what was capable with the original .69 caliber ball and paper wrapping. The bore size on my old reproduction Brown Bess Carbine was .753” and with a .735” ball and .020” greased patch, it would split the ball on the axe all day long at 25 yards IF I did my part in the Offhand. It would also take out a 1 Gallon Plastic Milk jug at least 9 out of 10 times, as long as I did my part at 100 yards from the Offhand. That’s well within the torso of a human being at that range. (I was in much better shape then in my 20’s and my eyeballs had not turned way off yet. Grin.) So Military Muskets then probably would have been significantly more accurate in the 18th century had the paper patched ball better fit the bore size. Good thing for we Americans that they did not. Grin.
Gus
-
I doubt that there would have been any allowance for a patch, the idea, as I understand it was that a lead ball of the specified part of a pound would just pass through the bore. Personally I doubt it was ever actually tried. Think about it - to make the ball you would have to calculate its diameter, but as that would be the nominal size needed, wouldn't you just make the barrel instead of mucking about with a lead stop / go guage?
Why do things this way? Well I suppose you wouldn't have to think too hard to work out how far a pound of lead would go... Making ball moulds to fit the barrel would be a separate and probably well understood task.
I wouldn't expect to find too close an agreement between tabulated dimensions and those that could be calculated today. At this sort of date, people in different towns were probably still measuring to slightly different standards. When did engine engraved rulers become available? Much would depend on which example /s became recognised as the pattern. If you come across incompatible tables, that is the likely cause.
Let's not forget that it was arms manufacture that established the need for precision ;D
Dave,
Thanks for answering.
In this country, it seems the bore size was reamed to fit the ball from the mold the gunsmith made or had on hand. Then that mold was given along with the rifle when a customer picked up his new gun. Before he passed, Gary Brumfeld commented it was well within the 18th century Gunsmith’s ability to get the bore within about one to a couple thousandths of an inch over ball size. Of course the mold sizes would have varied depending on the “cherries” or cutters the gunsmith had. So it is likely what was called say a 32 BTTP rifle could and did vary greatly and you are correct it did not matter.
However, it may have mattered more to the commercial firms who sold large numbers of civilian or trade guns. Still, it seems a large variety of ball sizes were imported and the customer had to choose what size best fit his gun if he did not have a mold to match the gun. I may be mistaken, but it seems many if not most of these guns were not accompanied by a mold to fit the gun?
Of course trying to get more consistent bore sizes mattered the most for Military Arms, as they were made in far larger quantities and had to ensure the “issued’ ball size fit for at least some accuracy even when the balls were so undersize.
Yes, indeed you are correct the whole Institution of The Interchangeable Parts System and Precision Machining came from mass production of Military Small Arms.
Gus
-
My understanding is a rifle was ordered by bore size - what it actually measured as to balls to the pound, not by the ball it shot. I have no PROOF that is how they were ordered.
If you Google The Los Angeles Silhouette Club, you should come up with a bore # then bore size and ball weight chart.
The chart I have from there, runs from 1 bore at 1.671" and 7,000gr. ball weight, to 180 bore size for .296" at 38.9gr. weight- in pure lead, of course.
Thus - a typical 180 bore that was often ordered, I suspect, would be close to that most likely - ie: about a .30 cal rifle - like Ned Robert's First rifle was 'called' a .30 cal. rifle. The numbers/gauges are close together in those light weight/small numbers. Thus, a rifle with .300" inch bore dimension is actually a 172 bore. A .32, is actually a 142 bore and a .36, a 100 bore.
Back then, I am sure that "close" was "close enough" for most people - but, as Dan suggests, we just don't know for sure.
Daryl,
Thanks for answering.
Not sure if I got the right link, but couldn't find the bore chart you mentioned. Is it on this page in one of the articles?
http://www.lasc.us/ArticleIndex.htm
From what I've been able to learn, I agree guns were ordered by the BTTP size of ball that fit in the bore without a patch. That's why I am trying t learn more on what sizes they actually meant in the period.
Good point about "close being close enough" when the mold provided with the gun fit the bore size well.
Gus
-
Oh,
Here is something interesting in Colonial Frontier Guns by Hamilton I missed before. At the English Fort Frederica in Georgia that was abandoned in 1748, there were 181 bullets found in the Archeological Record. Of these, 104 were .72 caliber and 48 were .70 caliber with only 3 measuring .69 caliber. It seems as if this period the ball sizes used for the Brown Bess were even larger than found in some later sites. Maybe that was because the bore sizes tended to be larger than? I am only guessing.
The book also lists tables of 18th century “Go” and “No Go” Gages he found in France and possible/probable sizes of the period bores. I am still trying to wade through this as I never studied French measurements and not much in metric sizes. I was just rather excited to learn the French at least had such gages in this time period.
Gus
-
I’m referring to the .52 Caliber that seems to come up somewhat/rather often when talking about the size of an “average 18th century rifle” either as the caliber or possibly from conversion of the number of balls to the pound (BTTP).
We discussed this back in the 90's on Dean Rudy's Mountain Man list. It is interesting to note that the largest shot dropped by the St. Louis shot tower was .52 caliber, making it readily available in large commercial quantities. It might also be the reason why so many Hawken rifles were of that caliber for those heading west. I have no idea if similar shot towers back east dropped a similar sized ball.
-
I’m referring to the .52 Caliber that seems to come up somewhat/rather often when talking about the size of an “average 18th century rifle” either as the caliber or possibly from conversion of the number of balls to the pound (BTTP).
We discussed this back in the 90's on Dean Rudy's Mountain Man list. It is interesting to note that the largest shot dropped by the St. Louis shot tower was .52 caliber, making it readily available in large commercial quantities. It might also be the reason why so many Hawken rifles were of that caliber for those heading west. I have no idea if similar shot towers back east dropped a similar sized ball.
That is interesting. Thank you.
Not sure why the .52 caliber never seemed to have became a modern standard as it was used for such a long time period. May just be they thought .50 and .54 calibers were "enough choice."
Gus
-
Interesting topic Gus and timely as I just bought a 52 cal target rifle that I will be shooting a 53 cal. ball through.
-
I speaking in balls to the pound the .50 is a 37.2+- balls to the pound but a .495 ball is a 38.2 to the pound. Thus its one gauge number smaller than the bore size. This was not something I had ever thought about until I started calculating balls to the pound for the bore sizes vs the actual bore.
People back in the day may have used thinner patching and often used linen. "Shirt bosum linen" is mentioned and high thread count numbers were often used if we can believe Audubon when he was describing Boone shooting squirrels.
Dan
-
I speaking in balls to the pound the .50 is a 37.2+- balls to the pound but a .495 ball is a 38.2 to the pound. Thus its one gauge number smaller than the bore size. This was not something I had ever thought about until I started calculating balls to the pound for the bore sizes vs the actual bore.
People back in the day may have used thinner patching and often used linen. "Shirt bosum linen" is mentioned and high thread count numbers were often used if we can believe Audubon when he was describing Boone shooting squirrels.
Dan
Dan,
Thanks for the follow up. OK, got it through my thick head now. GRIN.
A .495" ball in a .500" bore would be a tight combination even today.
I appreciate it.
Gus
-
I speaking in balls to the pound the .50 is a 37.2+- balls to the pound but a .495 ball is a 38.2 to the pound. Thus its one gauge number smaller than the bore size. This was not something I had ever thought about until I started calculating balls to the pound for the bore sizes vs the actual bore.
People back in the day may have used thinner patching and often used linen. "Shirt bosum linen" is mentioned and high thread count numbers were often used if we can believe Audubon when he was describing Boone shooting squirrels.
Dan
Dan,
Thanks for the follow up. OK, got it through my thick head now. GRIN.
A .495" ball in a .500" bore would be a tight combination even today.
I appreciate it.
Gus
Actually I consider it normal fitment. I have a friend who shoots over bore sized balls from his 45.
I can load a 495 in a 50 or a 535 in a 54 with just the rod using a heavy ticking patch. But lube has a lot to do with this.
Dan
-
I saw this list a while ago and managed to rediscover it. Its a bit later than you wanted, but it does purport to be based on measurements of an actual tool.
http://www.cherrytreefamily.com/gaugetocaliber.htm
-
Actually I consider it normal fitment. I have a friend who shoots over bore sized balls from his 45.
I can load a 495 in a 50 or a 535 in a 54 with just the rod using a heavy ticking patch. But lube has a lot to do with this.
Dan
Does he use a leather, rubber or plastic mallet to start the ball?
Gus
-
I saw this list a while ago and managed to rediscover it. Its a bit later than you wanted, but it does purport to be based on measurements of an actual tool.
http://www.cherrytreefamily.com/gaugetocaliber.htm
Dave,
Thanks for the link, it is interesting because it was done with a precision instrument in the time period.
Gus
-
On the point of the paper cartridges, yes, the paper did have a precise thickness. According to the East India Company archives. Reams of the special paper to a precise thickness and dimensions were shipped out from England. As the EIC followed English Ordnance regulations is is safe to assume Regular Army cartridges used the same materials.
I got this from the four-volume set of Small arms of the East India Company by Harding. Covers all firearms up to about 1850(?) Including logistics, ballistics, ammunition, etc, etc. A unique mine of information available nowhere else. Sadly out of print and copies cost a fortune. I was lucky and was able to borrow one of the few public library copies over here in the UK.
-
Actually I consider it normal fitment. I have a friend who shoots over bore sized balls from his 45.
I can load a 495 in a 50 or a 535 in a 54 with just the rod using a heavy ticking patch. But lube has a lot to do with this.
Dan
Does he use a leather, rubber or plastic mallet to start the ball?
Gus
This is a classic example of why he does not come here anymore. Soft lead balls are just not THAT hard to start in a barrel with narrow lands like a Green Mountain. If you have lands wider than the grooves its going to load much harder.
Why would he need anything more than a starter especially in a 45? AND this is with a high friction lube. Actually I would have to ask him since I never watch him load his rifle since I am busy loading mine.
I have a video of me loading a 54 Douglas with a 535 and a .018 patch with just the hickory rod. I read of starters when I was a kid and tried them and decided it was just one more thing I did not need. Not the mention that having a brass or bronze tip on the starter can damage the crown.
I shoot a .498 in my 50 match rifle and start it with a small starter with an antler tip and I use a high friction lube. 5-7:1 WS oil that is then air dried to remove the water. But it has .008" deep grooves and narrow lands being a Jim McLemore barrel.
As my friend stated the other day in a conversation. He really wonders how much shooting a lot of the posters here actually do.
The only HUNTING load I actually need a starter for is the 16 bore. A .662 ball is harder to start than a 54 is. Its much harder when shooting WW balls.
What I repeatedly see here is people that have apparently never really learned to load a rifle or do not understand what they are actually doing which is fitting the projectile to the bore. This is done by the propellant in breechloaders. But with MLs its done by hand.
Or the rifle was crowned by someone who did not know know. There are a lot of people doing barrel work that don't know how or don't care... But people buy the stuff anyway.
Are there other "factors" that can cause problems? Sure are. If for example I once used wd-40 to protect the bore it seems to turn Sperm Whale into a non-lube. Its like they bond to each other and will not let the ball start easy. Might do it with Neatsfoot as well. So people need to make sure that what they are using for protectant is removed before loading. High friction lubes start hard. But I do not use them for hunting. I use a small starter on my swivel breech cause I think its easier on the mechanism. If someone has a Bedford with a wrist perhaps smaller than a 50 cent piece or a rifle with a lot or drop etc they might want a starter. Starting without a starter does put more pressure on the rifle.
Dan
-
Actually I consider it normal fitment. I have a friend who shoots over bore sized balls from his 45.
I can load a 495 in a 50 or a 535 in a 54 with just the rod using a heavy ticking patch. But lube has a lot to do with this.
Dan
Does he use a leather, rubber or plastic mallet to start the ball?
Gus
This is a classic example of why he does not come here anymore. Soft lead balls are just not THAT hard to start in a barrel with narrow lands like a Green Mountain. If you have lands wider than the grooves its going to load much harder.
Why would he need anything more than a starter especially in a 45? AND this is with a high friction lube. Actually I would have to ask him since I never watch him load his rifle since I am busy loading mine.Dan
Dan,
The reason I asked the question was I have personally never used a soft lead ball that was actual bore size to load in a muzzleloader and more than that, I have never seen anyone do it.
I bought my first muzzleloader in 1972 and it was a TC Hawken. My next rifle was a repro .45 flinter built with a Douglas .45 barrel. My next rifle of the same time period was an original .36 caliber percussion rifle. In the 70’s, I competed in a number of local matches and Spring and Fall National Championships on the Primitive Range at Friendship with the flint rifle and a Brown Bess Carbine. No one there loaded a bore size ball to my knowledge and they all used short starters. I also shot other original flint and percussion rifles owned by a very dear friend in those years. In the 1980’s and 90’s, I spent time with the U.S. International Muzzleloading Team where more Original Rifles are shot than repro’s. I don’t remember any Competitor on any team at the World Championships in 1980, 1996 or 1998 loading a bore size ball, though some may have. I did see quite a number of competitors who started their soft lead balls with leather or rubber mallets, though I’ve never done it myself. Perhaps some of them may have been using an oversize or bore size ball, but I don’t know. I also don’t remember any Competitor loading his/her original or repro rifle without a short starter, though. I do not know if the grooves in those repro or original rifles were wider than the lands or not. The lubes on the patches those competitors used ran quite a gamut, depending on the shooter and even the country the shooter came from. Bore sizes on those rifles ran from .36 cal. to .54 cal. generally speaking with perhaps some larger.
This is why I asked the question above.
Gus
Edited to add: I forgot to mention that if something like a bore size or oversize ball proved to be very accurate, then that information would have been passed around to other members of at least the U.S. International Muzzleloading Team in those years. Now, I am not even trying to suggest it is not accurate, so please don't take that wrong. I am just saying that using a bore size ball was not common then.
-
On the point of the paper cartridges, yes, the paper did have a precise thickness. According to the East India Company archives. Reams of the special paper to a precise thickness and dimensions were shipped out from England. As the EIC followed English Ordnance regulations is is safe to assume Regular Army cartridges used the same materials.
I got this from the four-volume set of Small arms of the East India Company by Harding. Covers all firearms up to about 1850(?) Including logistics, ballistics, ammunition, etc, etc. A unique mine of information available nowhere else. Sadly out of print and copies cost a fortune. I was lucky and was able to borrow one of the few public library copies over here in the UK.
Peter,
That is downright fascinating!! I’ve never read or heard that before, and that is such a treat to find out specific paper was used by the EIC. Though I can’t document it about the British Ordnance system and I don’t pretend to be other than an interested student of that system, I can’t imagine the EIC got the idea to use it from anywhere else. Why would the EIC waste money on what was probably at least somewhat expensive paper, if not?
Do you remember the time period mentioned when the EIC used that paper? What I am VERY interested in would be to learn how far back in the 18th century that paper was used.
Thanks again,
Gus
-
I'll apologize right now - sorry - but there are some who still don't seem to understand how we load these combinations - fair enough NP.
.445" pure lead ball. 10 ounce denim patch -ie: .022" to .0225" thick denim. Water soluble lube (WWWF+ tich of Neesfoot oil) I had already fired approximately 50 to 60 shots that day - without any WIPING at all. As you load the next one, you are wiping town the bore for the preceding shot with the lubed, patched ball.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv638%2FDarylS%2F58%2520Kodiak%2520Refinish%2Fth_Movie-LoadingandShooting_zpsa177c1af.jpg&hash=368a9abb77ea99084d56f12056e422b539bd7449) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/DarylS/58%20Kodiak%20Refinish/Movie-LoadingandShooting_zpsa177c1af.mp4)
-
Daryl,
I have never fired 50 to 60 shots in a single day from my own flinters. Maybe the most I ever fired was 30 to 40 shots. I would wipe down the bore a little after each 5 or 10 shot match, just because that was "the thing to do" as I had been taught.
I take it you don't experience loss of accuracy when nearing the 50th to 60th shot from build up of residue in the bore? I ask this question because you are a good enough shot to realize if there was a loss of accuracy.
Gus
-
There is no loss of accuracy and there is no buildup inside the bore. The combination I shoot gives considerable compression in the bottom of the grooves and wipes the bore as the ball is pushed down.
If there was a span of 30 or more minutes between shots in a contest, where the last shot's fouling might dry and become crusty and effect accuracy, (there is only one shot's fouling in the bore at any one time, mind you), I might wipe the bore - or not. It's an easy loading combination, as you can see. When shooting groups at the range, walking down to post new targets, measure shot ones, uses time, but I've not seen any 'change' in accuracy, however if the next load goes down feeling a big crunchy- I'll just shoot it off down range and load afresh - with no accuracy change.
Gus - when I first started in this game in 1972 I bought a .50 Cal TC Hawken with .004" rifling. Before 7 months had passed, I had settled on a load of 80gr. 2f GOEX, a .020 'brushed' denim patch (calipers) and a .495" ball. I had also picked up some "cut rifled" Bauska round ball barrels from Les (friend of Les Bauska) and by late 1973, I had one fitted to that rifle, with the stock modified to look less "California" made.
By mid '73', I had also discovered the nicely radiused and polished crown which allowed easily seating using a flat topped wooden starter with which I smacked the ball flush with one blow - no damage to the ball which was then nicely conformed to the bore. With the TC's .004" deep button rifled bore being .508" and the combination I was using making .535", the combo I used was a snug fit but managed to hold the skinny rifling and shoot very well indeed - generally a 1" diameter hole at 50 yards - I was trying to emulate the 'buffalo' shooters at Friendship with their heavy .50's and shot off sticks. I made the good groups but for me, it too a bench. I had exceptionally good mentors in the late Lester H. Hawkes of Telkwa, BC as well as the writings of Ned Roberts (the ML Caplock rifle) to go on. Both of these great mean taught me the path of using ball and patch combinations that did not need wiping while they were being shot - = because - When you load the next one, you are wiping the last one and to do that, the combinations had to be larger than the groove diameter.
-
Daryl,
Thanks ever so much for typing all that out. I especially appreciate you mentioning not letting the bore get crusty by taking more time between shooting.
I, too, started in this game with a .50 Cal. T/C Hawken I bought while home on Boot Camp Leave in January 1972. However, I had no one to get advice from as no one was shooting BP rifles in my part of Iowa at the time. (I actually had waned to buy a muzzleloader prior to that, but Dad didn't know them and didn't quite trust them, so I held off.) I used the TC mold for it I think was .490" and TC patches with their patch lube. I used the TC powder measure and I think their recommended charge of 60 grains of FFG? (Later on I moved up to 80 grains as well.)
We did not have a rifle range anywhere close by, so we went south of town to a public area close to a preserve where one could shoot rifles. I set up a thrown together target holder and target and paced off 100 yards using 120 30" steps that had been DRILLED into me in Boot Camp. Though Dad had raised me shooting .22 rifles and shotguns offhand and the Corps had taught me to shoot an M14 rifle offhand at 200 yards, I figured I had best try a more solid position for testing the accuracy of the rifle. So I wiped 4 inches of snow off the ground and took up a solid Marine Corps inspired sitting position. I fired three shots and measured them on the target. The distance between centers of the two widest shots in the group was 1 5/8" and I marveled at how accurate the rifle was. I was hooked for life!! I had to quit shooting then as it was about 10 degrees and I had come home from Boot Camp just getting over Pneumonia and didn't want a relapse. (Yes, I probably shouldn't have tried shooting then, but I just couldn't wait.)
Thanks for bringing back some great memories.
Gus
-
Gus - I-too started with the TC mould of .490" size and their powder measure - but soon found the Lyman .495" ball was more accurate - that rifle's button impressed rifling was so shallow, a VERY tight combination was needed - I got that with the .495" ball and .022" denim. The factory crown was a patch cutter, would not allow the ball and patch to form to the bore as it needs to. I changed to crown to effect exactly that - to allow the ball and patch to 'mould' into the bore. From there, it went down with the 3/8" hickory rod - carefully. A ball pushed into the bore with a long strip of patching, then withdrawn by the ears of the strip of patching, become a slightly elongated ball with round ends.
They sure shot well, for a TC!
I did test up to 110gr., TC's maximum suggested load, I think it was, but 80gr. 2f was the most accurate. Fired patches were totally reusable and I did exactly that, picked them up, checked them and re-used them.
Taylor's TC .50 had .003" rifling and friend Tom's TC .50 had .0015" depth rifling - both shooting better with TC slugs than with round balls. Tom had to wrap cigarette paper around the maxi's to keep them in the bore, due to the enlarged bore. The naked bullet would slide out if the muzzle was pointed down.
After I bought those Les Bauska RB cut rifled barrels from Les Hawkes and replaced the buttoned TC barrel, I then found out how well a round ball would actually shoot, punching a quarter sized hole at 50 yards for 5 shot groups. One such barrel was a 48" twist with .028" depth rifling (measured .504" groove to groove), shot exceptionally well with a .457" ball and .022" denim patch. I couldn't get a patch to fill the grooves with an undersized ball due to the deep rifling. It had a .448" bore and the ball was actually .009" larger than the bore. No mallet- just my palm smacked on a starter's knob. In those days, I used the 2" maple round balls from a hardwood store for starter handles - and my hands were a mite tougher than today.