AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: Tim Ault on October 10, 2017, 06:52:00 PM
-
I see this on here a lot a ball/ patch combo loads easy or the other way hard to load ? Been experimenting with some patching materials in different thickness past couple times out and the only thing that is different between any of them is all with the pressure applied to the starter with the palm of my hand after in the barrel they all load about the same . No I don't use a mallet on the starter just a sharp rap with the palm , So for me all of my loads load easy ? I guess?? How do others define easy loading ?
Tim
-
Start-able with ramrod alone, no short starter; can be pushed down to the powder in one movement once past the muzzle?
Don't think I've ever taken part in these discussions, but that is how I'd define it.
-
I'm no expert by any means but for me "easy to load" would be...
Thumb start ball, then being able to push the ball down the barrel a few inches without resistance.
Once the ball is down the tube 6" or so, you should be able to push the ball down into the powder without much resistance until it's firmly seated.
-
Thumb start ball the a fairly even push with the rod. I try to buy my molds a bit undersized or use a tough but thinner patching.
-
I see this on here a lot a ball/ patch combo loads easy or the other way hard to load ? Been experimenting with some patching materials in different thickness past couple times out and the only thing that is different between any of them is all with the pressure applied to the starter with the palm of my hand after in the barrel they all load about the same . No I don't use a mallet on the starter just a sharp rap with the palm , So for me all of my loads load easy ? I guess?? How do others define easy loading ?
Tim
That is also how we load, Tim. We all consider what we do as easy loading. Once started, the ball and patch can be rammed down with only 2 fingers on the rod. More control is met with the hand on the rod, so that is the method. We never have to wipe the bore while shooting that day, whether we fire 25 shots or 100.
-
I see this on here a lot a ball/ patch combo loads easy or the other way hard to load ? Been experimenting with some patching materials in different thickness past couple times out and the only thing that is different between any of them is all with the pressure applied to the starter with the palm of my hand after in the barrel they all load about the same . No I don't use a mallet on the starter just a sharp rap with the palm , So for me all of my loads load easy ? I guess?? How do others define easy loading ?
Tim
That is also how we load, Tim. We all consider what we do as easy loading. Once started, the ball and patch can be rammed down with only 2 fingers on the rod. More control is met with the hand on the rod, so that is the method. We never have to wipe the bore while shooting that day, whether we fire 25 shots or 100.
What do you use for patch lube Daryl?
-
You gents that mention thumb starting the ball , is that on a coned barrel ? If not you all have thumbs of steel ! I'm still pretty strong in the hands but there be no way no how I could do that witheven a .010 patch and my slightly oversized (.493) ball
-
In a .50 I generally use a .490 and whatever patching allows me to just give it a good whack with a patch knife, or push it in there with the rammer and a good grip if using precut patches. Non-coned barrels. Once it gets going, as noted above, it ought to run on down the bore pretty smoothly without having to bang on it with the rammer.
-
My .45 mold cast a .438" ball and coupled with a .018" tallow greased pillow ticking patch starts very easy with thumb pressure. My .54 mold was ordered at .526 and with asst. ticking also starts nicely with the thumb, no coned barrels here. I'm experimenting now with some dense tight weave cotton I picked up at Joannes fabric's That measures out to .015" ungreased that seems to be working good and also starts easy in my daughters and son-in-laws .50 flinters. I've only tried up to 75grs. of FFFG in it so far but no burnt or blown patches. If interested in a tough thin patch It's called METR CORNSTALK SOLID TWIL item number 400104936258.
-
I find smoothbores easy to load with shot.
-
I find smoothbores easy to load with shot.
;D
PRB too!
-
With all the ravages from ra, I've lost most of my hand strength. Seating can sometimes be a tad difficult, for me, but probably not difficult from an objective perspective. Most of the calibers I have are loaded with a .010" less than bore size ball. Patches are generally .020" to .022" thick and require a little force, occasionally. I will sometimes patch with denim but my hands are often not up to it. Liquid lubes are noticeably easier to seat with but that's only at the range; in the bush it's mink oil. I consider my combos relatively easy to load/seat.
-
Thumb starting the ball means easy loading to me.
I know when I changed to .010 patching I'll never go back to.015 because the difference in pushing the ball down was amazing.Even down a bore with 10 shots through it.
-
I see this on here a lot a ball/ patch combo loads easy or the other way hard to load ? Been experimenting with some patching materials in different thickness past couple times out and the only thing that is different between any of them is all with the pressure applied to the starter with the palm of my hand after in the barrel they all load about the same . No I don't use a mallet on the starter just a sharp rap with the palm , So for me all of my loads load easy ? I guess?? How do others define easy loading ?
Tim
That is also how we load, Tim. We all consider what we do as easy loading. Once started, the ball and patch can be rammed down with only 2 fingers on the rod. More control is met with the hand on the rod, so that is the method. We never have to wipe the bore while shooting that day, whether we fire 25 shots or 100.
What do you use for patch lube Daryl?
For target shooting, as in trail walks, locally and at rendezvou, I use WWWF + a bit of pure Neetsfoot Oil.
WWWW is Winter Windshield Washer Fluid. I mix about 2oz. of NFOil in a liter (4 ounces per gallon) of fluid. Before pouring it in the patches, I shake the container, pour it on the pre-cut patches in "tin", then gently squeeze out the excess back into the container. I usually mix about a gallon at a time.
The oil quickly separates from the water based cleaner in a container, but not when it is in the patches.
Actually the only reason I put the oil in, is to slow the evapouration in the summer heat. As it is mixed in such abig container, it gets used in the winter freezing weather as well as in the summer heat - one batch does for a year or more of shooting.
The WWWF costs about $3.00 to $4.00. A small can of Neetsfoot oil lasts a number of years.
For hunting, it's either Mink Oil or Neetsfoot Oil. Both are allowed to saturate the patches, which are squeezed some to get rid of the excess. Most folks would say my patches are quite wet. The oily ones are oily handling, but sure lube nicely.
Using it in my .32 with the 10 ounce denim at .0225", or the .0235" ticking, was easier to load the 50th shot than the first going down a dry (WD40oiled) bore.
-
I'm shooting .535 balls in my .54 and .575 in my .58 both using .022 denim patches, mink oil lube. Both Rice barrels with radius grooved rifling. As Tim mentioned earlier with the "thumbs of steel", there is no way I am simply pushing these guys in with my thumb. On both barrels I have softened/radius the crowns using 320g emery ala Daryl's method. I can manage to smack them in with a closed fist on the short starter, but they are not what I would say easy loading. But I am not really interested in easy loading as opposed to downrange accuracy and consistency, and these loads seem to work best in my setup. I have tried .020 and .018 ticking, a bit easier loading, but grouping opens up for sure.
-
I like idea that Tommy G has where accuracy trumps speed or ease of loading. My 62 flint rifle isn't that hard to load but it does take a bit of a thump with the short starter with the 610 balls that I get the best groups with, the 605s in a three shot loading block load a bit easier but I carry a polk of 610s in reserve if I don't really need to load in a hurry. Sighted in dead center at 140 yds. and not overly high any place in between.
-
I see this on here a lot a ball/ patch combo loads easy or the other way hard to load ? Been experimenting with some patching materials in different thickness past couple times out and the only thing that is different between any of them is all with the pressure applied to the starter with the palm of my hand after in the barrel they all load about the same . No I don't use a mallet on the starter just a sharp rap with the palm , So for me all of my loads load easy ? I guess?? How do others define easy loading ?
Thanks for the info.
Tim
That is also how we load, Tim. We all consider what we do as easy loading. Once started, the ball and patch can be rammed down with only 2 fingers on the rod. More control is met with the hand on the rod, so that is the method. We never have to wipe the bore while shooting that day, whether we fire 25 shots or 100.
What do you use for patch lube Daryl?
For target shooting, as in trail walks, locally and at rendezvou, I use WWWF + a bit of pure Neetsfoot Oil.
WWWW is Winter Windshield Washer Fluid. I mix about 2oz. of NFOil in a liter (4 ounces per gallon) of fluid. Before pouring it in the patches, I shake the container, pour it on the pre-cut patches in "tin", then gently squeeze out the excess back into the container. I usually mix about a gallon at a time.
The oil quickly separates from the water based cleaner in a container, but not when it is in the patches.
Actually the only reason I put the oil in, is to slow the evapouration in the summer heat. As it is mixed in such abig container, it gets used in the winter freezing weather as well as in the summer heat - one batch does for a year or more of shooting.
The WWWF costs about $3.00 to $4.00. A small can of Neetsfoot oil lasts a number of years.
For hunting, it's either Mink Oil or Neetsfoot Oil. Both are allowed to saturate the patches, which are squeezed some to get rid of the excess. Most folks would say my patches are quite wet. The oily ones are oily handling, but sure lube nicely.
Using it in my .32 with the 10 ounce denim at .0225", or the .0235" ticking, was easier to load the 50th shot than the first going down a dry (WD40oiled) bore.
-
Using a thumb started ball what kind of groups do you guys shoot at 50 yds?
-
I see we have two different "schools" of thought on this. First is the tight load for best accuracy and less powder fowling camp and then there is the thumb start easy "push the ramrod" load camp. Sure does make your head spin ;D. I like a SNUG load that gives me the best accuracy, least amount of fowling and ease of loading. Once I have that combination I stick with it ;) I'm not of the "thumb start" school I use a short started and give it a wack to start the ball :).
-
Never had good accuracy using thumb start in rifles. Might be ok in smooth bores.
-
The only gun I own that I can thumb start is my 16 gauge smoothbore.
My rifles I use a mallet to start.
-
Never had good accuracy using thumb start in rifles. Might be ok in smooth bores.
Frank, one of these days I am going to try that, in my 20 bore, using either the .595" ball from my Tanner mould. That one does not have a sprue as that is snipped off after they are cool.
Might be interesting - but, the barrel has a slight choke and I prefer to to have to remove that as it powders clay birds.
-
Is there any documentation of 18th century riflemen carrying longrifles using a short starter and or mallet.
-
Is there any documentation of 18th century riflemen carrying longrifles using a short starter and or mallet.
Not in the Americas. Couple of early references in Europe when using a oversized lead ball, and a German reference for a short starter from around 1780 or so. In the 19th century they start showing up.
No, the mallet used with the Baker rifle was not a short starter per se- they only issued it to every second rifleman, and it had a lanyard in the handle, per De Witte Bailey.
-
Starter I'll carry around and use without complaint it's fairly light and don't take up a lot of room and only ads maybe 5-10 seconds to the loading process . Naaaa ain't gonna carry a hammer or other beating implement even if it aids accuracy. I'm not that good a shot to realize the gains anyways .
-
In my view a muzzleloader is a "one shot affair" and fast loading is more fantasy than real, at least in my case. Shoot once and miss and the deer usually leaves before the second load is seated and the gun is primed. If I shoot a deer I get as shaky as a soiled dove in church. I consider it a success if I don't spill the reload, manage to get the prime somewhere in the vicinity of the pan and remember to seat a patched ball. Forget three shots per minute; I'm lucky if I get ONE shot in THREE minutes. I naturally fumble so you should see me when I'm excited and fumble.
For these reasons I load for accuracy, use a short starter and load rather tight combos.
-
The answers thus given make sense to me. On the first occasion I took a muzzle loader into the field,
I was scouting, And shot at a mark to make sure my estimation was good sighting.
I then took a clean DRY patch and ran it down the bore to clear out some of the fouling. When I tried to retract the ram rod it was thoroughly stuck. ( @!*% it, i knew I should have used a wet patch.)
Trying to figure out what to to, I finally settled on peeing down the barrel. The patch retracted easily. While I would not recommend this as a cleaning solvent, it worked. And I would not define this as an "easy to load" way of doing things.
Best regards, JC
-
At some ranges they don't want you to blow down the barrel but they don't mention peeing down the bore. You might want to check the rule book before you start. ;D
-
Is there any documentation of 18th century riflemen carrying longrifles using a short starter and or mallet.
The late Tom Dawson told me that most old guns that still had a mould with them showed a ball
of at least two calibers undersize and some barrel coning that helped. The tight or slightly over size ball/patch
combination was a later development for target shooting.I used the tight ball/patch loads for all round ball
target shooting for several years.Under conditions where faster reloading may be a life or death situation I
would not be fussy about using an undersize ball.The late Burt Lancaster made a movie that had a scene where he ran adross
water while an enemy was getting a flintlock loaded and I THINK the "bad guy" shot the ram rod in that scene.
I would think a short starter would be no value in the day when the long rifle meant life.death or meat in the pot.
Bob Roller
-
Is there any documentation of 18th century riflemen carrying longrifles using a short starter and or mallet.
Not in the Americas. Couple of early references in Europe when using a oversized lead ball, and a German reference for a short starter from around 1780 or so. In the 19th century they start showing up.
No, the mallet used with the Baker rifle was not a short starter per se- they only issued it to every second rifleman, and it had a lanyard in the handle, per De Witte Bailey.
The British soldier also used an "iron peg" for starting a tightly patched ball. Reference in British Military Flintlock Rifles 1740-1840 - I don't remember the page- but did read that - AND noted it here on the forum some time ago, ver-batum.
-
When well practiced, many years ago and using paper ctgs. (165gr. 2F and WW ball) with caps on a circular 'capper', I was able to load and fire an aimed shot in 8 seconds after firing the first shot, using my single barreled .69 cal. rifle. I did not try to fire 3 in a minute, but suggest that would be VERY easy to do with this loading method.
The first bull moose I shot with this rifle, took one (pure lead, patched ball) in the shoulder which staggered him a step sideways, back legs buckled, then he stood up and turned the other shoulder to me, the second shot (WW ball) hit him through the ribs, traversed both lungs making a 3" diameter hole through both, then smashed the offside leg below where the first shot had gone through that leg bone, but higher up. The second ball stopped against the hide. That was enough for him.
Obviously the 3" hole through the lungs was made by the shock-wave, as the ball was barely riveted slightly.
The first shot hit too much timber (willow) & had slowed before striking him & failed to enter the chest after going through the upper leg bone(shoulder). It sickened him, but that shot would not have been fatal for some time had he been able to run away (still standing on all 4 legs, even though the right shoulder was broken & he needed that second shot. The second shot only clipped off 4 or 5 willows, up to an inch in diameter. I must note here, that I did not see the willows between him and me - guess I was excited. That both balls hit willows was evident by the sound of the ball striking them - boomdddddddddddddddddddddddddddthuck! That was the first shot. That the hit him, was most unlucky for him & quite lucky for me. It allowed a second shot. The second shot only went boomdddthuck
To load these paper ctgs. no starter was used or needed, however I did have to choke up on the rod to get it started as they were quite snug and could not be thumb started. The accuracy was identical to patched round balls when tested at 50 and 100 yards. Roger B., Bob in the Woods and Dphar, all of this site, can all attest to the accuracy of snug fitting paper ctgs.
The wadded up paper ctg. between the snug fitting paper patched round ball effectively sealed the powder flame and gasses beneath the ball. No- the paper ctg. did not catch fire - confetti was all that was issued from the muzzle, I assume, due to the muzzle blast. Never, did the paper burn. Roger was able to collect some fired paper ctgs. form his 12 bore, which showed rifling marks on the paper.
-
Is there any documentation of 18th century riflemen carrying longrifles using a short starter and or mallet.
Not in the Americas. Couple of early references in Europe when using a oversized lead ball, and a German reference for a short starter from around 1780 or so. In the 19th century they start showing up.
No, the mallet used with the Baker rifle was not a short starter per se- they only issued it to every second rifleman, and it had a lanyard in the handle, per De Witte Bailey.
The British soldier also used an "iron peg" for starting a tightly patched ball. Reference in British Military Flintlock Rifles 1740-1840 - I don't remember the page- but did read that - AND noted it here on the forum some time ago, ver-batum.
I'll have to look for that. IIRC, there was an English manual that described an iron short starter from the 18th century - the problem is that it was a straight plagiarism from a much earlier French manual describing the use of an oversized ball w/o patch. Evidently the British writer knew nothing about rifles but thought that his manual would be incomplete without some mention of their use, so he simply copied and translated someone else's work.
Edited to add: Are you talking about this post, Daryl? http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=35363.msg340536#msg340536
-
The paper used in those paper cartridges didn't burn , thats interesting to me as I have never used a paper ctg. but did use a paper towel this last spring and that did indeed burn. What kind of paper do you guys use for these paper ctgs.? I would like to try them in my 62 flinter for follow up shots.
-
I lucked out as the paper I used gave me a very tight fit to the bore., I used white wood glue when making the ctgs.
Due, I suppose, to the 165gr. powder charges I used in these, the paper was shredded - blown to confetti, but never caught fire.
Apparently, some guys have dipped the 'ball' end in melted lube. I shot mine dry, no lube and could shoot 10 ctgs. with same accuracy,
before having to shoot a cleaning shot. This cleaning shot was comprised of a wet, cloth-patched round ball, loaded with 3 drams of powder.
This effectively cleaned the bore, allowing another 10 paper ctgs. to be fired. As to durability, I have carried loaded ctgs. in my parka pocket all
hunting season without any damage to them.
-
What kind of paper did you use Daryl? News paper,brown paper bag, typing paper, or what?
-
Elnathan - yes- I think that is the excerpt I was thinking about.
Sorry, thought the paper info was in my last posting.
I used 20 pound printing paper for my computer. Back then, it had holes in the side borders. Varying weights/thicknesses can be used to get a snug fit.
As well, the small end (I used tapered ctgs.) was torn off with my teeth, then that small end was shoved into the bore. By the time I got the rod out, the
powder had drained from the ctg. into the breech of the vertical rifle. The ball in the paper ctg. was then shoved down the bore. NOTE - it was tight enough
in the muzzle that it had to be started down the bore with the end of the rod, choked up on with my right hand and deliberately started an inch or so down.
Then, it could be shoved down the rest of the way to the breech with one shove. The ball was not removed from the ctg. and the paper was not shoved down on top of the
ball as I have seen on TV- ridiculous at that was. I laughed out loud when I saw it. That is most likely to ignite the paper. The way I load, was the way the
militaries of the world loaded from what I have been able to glean. The paper is waded up beneath the ball and effectively seals the powder gasses behind it.
The paper ctg. encasing the ball would not allow the ball to roll out the bore. I should note there, that when loading paper ctgs. with bullets for the rifled military arms,
the bullet was removed from the paper ctg. after pouring the powder down the bore, then the bullet (called a ball) was rammed rammed down the bore. Then 3 strokes
of the rod being "thrown onto the ball" ensured the bullet was on the powder. This throwing of the rod onto the ball (BULLET) also likely expanded the skirts of the ball(bullet)
to hold it in the bore, with the paper being discarded.
I MOST seriously resist accepting that the round ball from my ctgs. has any chance of obturating as they are brinel 13, straight Canadian WW, not pure lead, ie: brinel 5- yet
the power gases and flame is effectively sealed behind the ball by the compacted paper. The wadding of 2" of paper tube does this quite well, it appears. So far, in shooting
probably over 100 of these, never has one caught fire. This is not to say it could not happen to someone else, shooting a different rifle, with their materials and sizes, etc.
Roger B. , a number of years ago, found these paper ctgs. worked well down to about calibre .54. I suggest the increasing pressure of the smaller calibers effected the
sealing properties of the paper ctgs. and effected accuracy. Just as the small the bore size, the tighter the ball/patch fit must be to obtain the best accuracy. This is due
to the increased pressures generated. I tis also a reason why a lot of shooters, it seems, who demand to be able to start the patched ball without a short starter, have
such fouling problems with the smaller bores, especially the .32's. I found the .32 though .40 gave easier loading for the 50th shot than the first. That was using bore sized
and just over bore sized balls with mink oil and .022" or thicker patching. Easy loading, all day, no wiping (& no blowing) necessary. :D
here are some examples of ctgs. RB and bullet.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpreview.ibb.co%2FbwYYbG%2Fkulekammer1stor.jpg&hash=e4f3437784781508bd24ee6434b01fa51fb5941a) (http://ibb.co/mEraqb)
-
Daryl, thanks for the explanation. Are those round ball loads sealed on the ball end with wax or white glue or some thing else?
-
Looks like wax in the picture. I used glue & no wax or lube. I also used tapered paper cases, made on a tapered dowel. They were easier to handle and to tear off the end without wasting or dropping powder.
-
Here are some I made up for the India Pattern Bess I owned for a short time.
Also, the cross section and finished ctg. are original in design - I did not make those.
Appears I put a small slip of masking tape over the ends of these - there are many
options for closure - use your imagination and see how they shoot.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.ibb.co%2Ff6G9km%2Fctg_pouch_1_zps0usjywa8.jpg&hash=5e8543a21f67503e939f78180990471f356e5327) (http://ibb.co/dAXh5m)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.ibb.co%2FizB9km%2Fctg_pouch_2_zpsoqeuzre8.jpg&hash=1342be3ee15931f9db0da716218b97c7bddc7548) (http://ibb.co/mpwLrR)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.ibb.co%2FmqUvQm%2F58cartridge_zpsm4buyx6t.jpg&hash=963df6e9ee8a40f38f500bd5e2e57549fa713854) (http://imgbb.com/)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.ibb.co%2Fc1AfrR%2FBuck_Ball_DIAgram.jpg&hash=8f6a6cc6514e80bed14e40d76673a4c8d0fb23b0) (http://imgbb.com/)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.ibb.co%2FhOyarR%2FBuckand_Ballctg.jpg&hash=4291f6e51ebd04493f6f38a2ee98508fe535b337) (http://imgbb.com/)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.ibb.co%2FbQdarR%2FBuckand_Ballstrippedfrompaperctgs.jpg&hash=a5653ef9c04927a708697d0e4fcb82e311c4fec4) (http://imgbb.com/)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.ibb.co%2FjOPRy6%2Fengcart.jpg&hash=3c8d3bcb7f8be9730ed84d4cffe45db586a06d7d) (http://imgbb.com/)
-
Thanks Daryl, I think I've seen those pics of the cartridges before. Food for thought and gives me some ideas.
-
The oxidized buck and balls were found, dug up I suspect, on some long-ago battle field in the States. I do not know if they were from the 1770 to 1840 era or not. I suspect they preceeded the civil war, however, there may have been some musket fire there, in the early stages. These of course, would be from 'dropped' ctgs, the paper and powder long gone.
-
Something that I never understood makes sense now.
Bottom line.........If your muzzle isn't coned and you can start the ball/patch with your thumb and then push it down with two fingers. You don't have a tight load no matter what lube you use.
-
When I got my Chambers Mark Silver rifle going, (.58) I got a mould that threw a .562" and never had any trouble thumb starting or accuracy wise.
I do use tightly woven linen though. (Like to hold it up to the light, and if you can't see through it, that part is good.)
A ball bumps up when fired, and though I only ever used 70 grs of 2F Go in it, it always seemed to bring home the bacon. Used it 9 years straight and nothing else.
Someone mentioned a .526 in a .54, and that is exactly what I used as well when I had one.
Best regards
Richard.
-
My .54 took a very nice black bear on Monday morning. Paper cartridge, 100 gr FFg and a .527 round ball [ Lee mold ] >54 is about the smallest bore that I've had success with these cartridges. Printer paper , and a tapered dowel . I dip the ball end in a mix of bear oil and bees wax. Watch the grain of the paper when making these, or tearing off the end could be troublesome.
-
Define "easy to load"; okay. My one and only answer to the specific question is that if I can seat the prb with the wood, underbarrel rod and not worry about the rod breaking, the load is "easy to load".
-
The oxidized buck and balls were found, dug up I suspect, on some long-ago battle field in the States. I do not know if they were from the 1770 to 1840 era or not. I suspect they preceeded the civil war, however, there may have been some musket fire there, in the early stages. These of course, would be from 'dropped' ctgs, the paper and powder long gone.
I have dug Buck and Ball on every Civil War site I've been on . Seems that they may have been used in rifled muskets as well as the smooth bore variety and shotguns . The Nashville battle was December 15-16th of 1864 , not what I would call early stages .
Eddie
-
My easy is starts down the barrel with the short starter without having to pound on it then the rest of the way with the ramrod in one smooth push . I push on the short starter but I don't hit it . If you have to hit the starter it ain't an easy loading load to me . Usually use a .590 dead soft ball and .015 patch in my .50 cal. 55 grains of FF for target and 65 grains for hunting seems to always do the job . YMMV .
Eddie
-
Defining "easy to load" is impossible. Some can draw a 100 pound bow effortlessly. Others find 40 pounds the extreme of their limit.
-
Every ones perspective or definition of ease is different I guess. I personaly don't mind a little extra effort to load so my take on it would be quite different than some others it seems.
-
My easy is starts down the barrel with the short starter without having to pound on it then the rest of the way with the ramrod in one smooth push . I push on the short starter but I don't hit it . If you have to hit the starter it ain't an easy loading load to me . Usually use a .590 dead soft ball and .015 patch in my .50 cal. 55 grains of FF for target and 65 grains for hunting seems to always do the job . YMMV .
Eddie
I'm surprised you could get that .590" ball started with just pushing it, even without a patch.
Do believe you meant .490".
Much depends on the person, for sure.
-
A lot of guys will smack the short starter because it's easier than pushing on it. It also keeps you from leaning over the muzzle as some guys do when just pushing on the short starter.
Now we need to define how hard the smack is? :D
-
If the short starter hollers, it's a hard smack. :o
-
I'd say if it hurts your hand it's a hard smack :o
-
My .36 will easily accept a pushed in ball and patch. That is a .350" ball and .020" to .022" patch. The .40 I had did as well, using the .398" ball and same patches, however the larger the bore, the more lead must be moved to seat the ball into the bore, thus the harder it gets. With the .45, I had to smack the starter. Those who remember the video of my shooting the flinter, may remember the light smack needed.
Smacking the starter with the standard load, ie: .022" patch and ball .005" undersized, will require harder and harder "smacks", the larger the bore becomes. I am talking about the same dead soft lead in all.
As for my .69 with it's even tighter combinations, you have to WANT the ball to go in with one smack, or it will refuse. A large knob/handle on the starter is necessary to spread the force of impact,
which reduces possible pain in the hand. My wife and daughter have no trouble with the .45.
There are quite likely a lot of guys cannot stand to have the fun of loading my .69, or perhaps exert the force necessary to achieve success. My hands are large, heavy and I am not adverse or too
shy to use the force necessary. I still stretch 9 5/8" between the ends of my thumb and little finger.
-
I like to push the prb down whenever I can. My hands are fairly small and afflicted with rheumatoid arthritis. It doesn't take much to cause pain even with gloves on. Occasionally, for some reason or another, a prb is resistant to being pushed while the one before and the next one are easy peasey. Was a time I had the strength to seat even tighter loads; not any longer. :(
-
hanshi, I feel your hand pain- now and then. I take celbrex for my hand-pain and it works. In my .36 using the combination noted above, the 50th shot loaded more easily than the first one, using mink oil - it was below freezing, that day I tested it.
Pre-cuts on a knotted thread, dipped in melted mink oil, then squeezed out, and thread pulled out- done. Very greasy, but the
grease is good for your hands and is not as cold on the fingers as an alcohol/water/oil mix in the winter for plinking. In the small
bores, Neetsfoot oil is about the same.
-
I'd say if it hurts your hand it's a hard smack :o
And that, too.
-
I can personally attest that even a light smack from Daryl is not fun. Thankfully, those days are behind us.
-
Daryl, I think I remember an old post by you stating you used a short starter made from heavy, dense moose antler. If so this is probably one reason you guys can seat those tight combos so easily. Most of us down here just use plain old wood which doesn't seem to assist us at all.
-
My hands get 'toothache ' these days after riving on wrenches and such.
In my rifle (a Getz .58 ) I use a .562" ball and a good patch. Ball always starts with the thumb, and always shoots where I'm looking if I hold the gun right.
It seems to work, so I will keep doing it I guess. :-)
Best,
R.
-
Daryl, I think I remember an old post by you stating you used a short starter made from heavy, dense moose antler. If so this is probably one reason you guys can seat those tight combos so easily. Most of us down here just use plain old wood which doesn't seem to assist us at all.
The tightest loads I make, are in my .69 (14 bore rifle). This is due to the normal use of a .030" (12 ounce) denim patch, with a .682" ball. The rifling is .012" deep in this GRRW barrel from the early 80's.
The starter on the left, is the one for this rifle - it's knob is a 2 1/2" piece of ash, from a baseball bat and works perfectly, actually has been since 1986 with Taylor built my rifle. There is a disk of leather to give a cushion between the starter's ball and the muzzle. The second from the left starter, is for my .50 (was for .40 and .45) and is a piece of Elk antler. The whitish one is also moose, but was for the .58, which I sold to a local chap. It is very heavy and dense. The far right starter is for my .36, and is quite light and elk, I think, or, might be moose from further up towards the palm.
Suffice to say, anywhere you can find a baseball bat, you can make a number of very good starters which mass will add to your hand's mass and reduce the effort needed to seat a snug ball.
Texas Whitetails likely do not have enough mass for starter knobs (but the elk do), however for years, I used 1 1/2" & 2" round maple balls from a hardwood store. They worked a treat.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpreview.ibb.co%2FjGXm56%2FP1142038.jpg&hash=ffacceebb3bd2fc8dabfe022272dc8d77694fdd1) (http://ibb.co/j9poJR)
free image hosting no sign up (http://imgbb.com/)
-
Baseball knob on the left looks like the most comfortable for hard smacking.
-
The .69 is the only gun I have that needs a 'hard' smack. That is with both pure lead and alloyed hard lead. For hard lead, I use the 15 bore mould with the same .030" patch. Those patches are also reusable.