AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: brokenhand on June 29, 2022, 07:44:07 PM
-
I have a new rifle and so I am kind of refreshing all the basic ways I have used to load rifles. My question is this: Do the top notch shooters notice any difference in the accuracy they get by how they use the patching. That is, do they cut the patch off of a strip at the muzzle? Do they use a pre-cut round patch? Do they pre-cut a piece of the strip of patching and have a square patch? Just wondering if it makes any difference. Seems like the cutting at the muzzle is kind of a pain, but we all know that is how HH does it. I generally use the pre-cut square patch method. Seems like sometimes the excess material gets bunched up on the back side of the ball and makes it bind somewhat. Any thoughts or opinions appreciated.
-
Everyone at the matches I attend cut at the muzzle. When hunting big game I make use of a bullet board and cut flush with the board.
-
I mostly use precut patches I make, that are of proper size. I cut at the muzzle sometimes as well. There is no difference in accuracy as long as the patch is large enough. Too large of patches can effect accuracy I have found. I cut at the muzzle for decades, until I started cutting them out on the drill press.
-
Sometimes too much patch material will bunch up and pinch the short starter" bulger" so I use a slightly smaller dia. bulger. ;)
-
I tend to use square cut patches mostly and on occasion have used store bought round ones and I can’t see any difference between the two .
-
I always take some strips of the same patch material I use with pre-cuts, just in case I run out of pre-cuts. When that happens, I "spit" patch and cut at the muzzle.
I find no difference in accuracy between the two, although if I was in a "serious" match, I would cut at the muzzle, pre-lubing the area to be used. I would do this as
to ensure my patch was centered perfectly, each and every time.
-
My dear wife will cut batches of square patches for me using a rotary cutter. I then nip the corners to make an octagon out of them (does this step help? I doubt it I just like the way they look). I use pre-greased patches, Some in a tin as extras for each caliber and 25 hanging from a leather strip on my bag (photos attached for clarification). I do this set up on my 40's and above. 36's and below I use precut dry patches and spit.
(https://i.ibb.co/fnYX0m2/patch-holder-3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/TbBwhzk)
(https://i.ibb.co/w4dMWhw/patch-holder.jpg) (https://ibb.co/VTL2SYQ)
-
Do the top notch shooters notice any difference in the accuracy they get by how they use the patching. That is, do they cut the patch off of a strip at the muzzle? Do they use a pre-cut round patch? Do they pre-cut a piece of the strip of patching and have a square patch?
That sounds like an ideal subject for a rigorous scientific test (double blind, etc,), broken hand. We'd need data from more than a few rifles though to make it worthwhile. And no, I'm not volunteering to do this, just pointing out it is a testable proposition.
P.S. In double blind testing neither the shooter nor loader should know whether the gun is loaded with a round patch (commercial), a patch cut at the muzzle, or a square patch. Patch material, patch thickness, powder charge, and ball diameter are constants.
-
I'm thinking to see any advantage with either method, a machine rest would also have to be used to obtain results without human input and possible interference in the outcome.
Anyone have one handy?
Optics would also have to be used. It's a long time since I've been able to shoot open sights as well at 50yards, as I could do with even low powered (2X to 4X) optics.
Testing at closer ranges would not work, IMHO, and perhaps 100yards is where the rubber meets the road.
As it is, we use what we "feel" will be the most accurate method.