Sorry LB - no correction meant - merely a clarification of what we find normal - I merely included the statement because there seem to be lots of guys who still don't understand.
HHorse - The guys at your club think .010" patch and a .010"-under ball is tight, eh, - no wonder you can beat them.
I find the combinations I currently use and advise, work in EVERY barrel I've tried them in. I've never found a single barrel they didn't work in (except for H. Tonges FIRST .50 barrel cut), including those shallow grooved Italian .58's and the .028" deep .45 cal. Bauska barrel I had, the .025" deep Getz .75 cal, any of the dozen's of .010 to .012"standard rifling barrels by Bauska, Rice, GM, TC's cheaply made buttoned barrels and the progressive depth rifling of the PHale and Italian .58 Enfields - all 3 models in PH and the M1861 in the Italian/Confederate short rifle.
Never claimed to be one of the experts that you refer to above, however when you've shot the powder and lead I have, you gain experience in what works and what doesn't. I've never had a patch thinner than .020" give me the accuracy I demand - perhaps our 'demands' are different - or as Taylor suggested and I noted, that barrel is one of a kind.
I'm sure Hugh's FIRST barrel would have shot to my satisfaction, had I worked with it long enough - but it would not shoot "the load", thus I abandoned it. Today, with another 30 years of experience behind me in shooting ML's, I know I gave up too early. At that time, I was consistently shooting open sighted 1/2 stocked rifles under 2" at 100yards off the bags. Anything else was not good enough.