Square Cut Patch Vs. Cut On Muzzle

[Frizzen]

Haven't seen this discussed for a while if ever. Which gives the best in accuracy? Using a
square cut patch, or seating the ball about a 1/16 below the muzzle and cutting it off.
About 35 years ago I watched a very well known light and heavy bench shooter, good
offhand as well, perform this test on his bench gun. He still shoots and wins at the Nationals
even now. I'm sure most of you would know his name. Lets let the thread run for a couple
of days, then I will post the results of his test and name.

[LynnC]

No difference.........
Lynn

[SCLoyalist]

I'd also go with no difference provided the ball is centered on the square patch. 

Cutting patches at the muzzle is one of the recommendations in Dutch Schoultz's system, because it ensures the ball will be centered.

[Dale Halterman]

Didn't the Bevel Brothers do this test a few years ago and write up the results in Muzzleblasts?

My recollection is the cut at the muzzle patches came out better by a very small margin.

Dale H

[northmn]

I would guess there might be a difference either way for a bench shooter but nothing of significance for a typical shooter.

DP

[Candle Snuffer]

I would guess there might be a difference either way for a bench shooter but nothing of significance for a typical shooter.

DP

I would fall into this catagory - finding no difference.  Most of my shooting is offhand.  I now have a 1-1/4 patch cutter punch and haven't cut any square patches for years.

If I catch up with Frizzen at State Shoot, I'll badger him for the name of this feller...    

[roundball]

I've never cut at the muzzle...but...I do use the next larger caliber size patch to ensure there's always material well up around the circumference of the ball.
And in comparing commercial precut round patches to homecut square patches, I've never noticed any difference...IMHO, with the list of other variables involved with reloading each and every shot, I'd be very surprised if a definitive difference actually exists that could be attributed to that and that only.

In a similar vein, I've experimented with patches all the way up to 2.5" in diameter, with the excess folded back and forth over the top of the ball like the end of a coin wrapper, and never saw any ill effects of that...the huge patch simply flared open like a parachute and fluttered to the ground just 3-4 feet in front of the muzzle...as you know, given the exit spin rotation and velocity hitting the outside air is the equivalent of hundreds of mph wind blast

[Robby]

I think the cut patch would be more accurate, but that is just a guess. My experience is that everything makes a difference. My two questions are always, to what degree(?), and is it A positive or A negative?
Robby

[Roger Fisher]

Cut em at the muzzle!  But don't get too cheap and cut your strips too narrow for obvious reasons....!

[Frizzen]

Candle Snuffer, I'll post his name in a couple days. I can't make the shoot this weekend, but
my neighbor and shooting buddy Dwayne Sumpter is. Talk to him, but don't believe anything
he says.

[hanshi]

I've never cut at the muzzle, either.  I like the convenience of  having my own pre-cut patches lubed and ready to go.  Is there a difference?  I can't shoot well enough to tell one way or the other.  I do always try to get the ball as centered as possible.  I'd guess there's little or no difference.

[Candle Snuffer]

Candle Snuffer, I'll post his name in a couple days. I can't make the shoot this weekend, but
my neighbor and shooting buddy Dwayne Sumpter is. Talk to him, but don't believe anything
he says.

Sorry to hear you can't make it this weekend Frizzen.  Dwayne is an excellent shot!  I believe he may hold some records here, and finishes more times then not in the upper three.

Also I mis'read the original post this morning.  I was thinking pre-cut round patches -vs- square patch, so yes,,, I would agree that I have gotten better accuraccy when cutting the patch at the muzzle.  

[Roger Fisher]

I've never cut at the muzzle, either.  I like the convenience of  having my own pre-cut patches lubed and ready to go.  Is there a difference?  I can't shoot well enough to tell one way or the other.  I do always try to get the ball as centered as possible.  I'd guess there's little or no difference.

Your method is a good one.   I find it much more convenient to tuck the strip of patching in my belt (some ol boys hang it from their bag strap) spit patch, cut at the muzzle then simply tuck it back under my belt.  One hand operation and no seperate tin to carry the prelubed patches in or nutz around to punch holes in them and shove them on a hangee down cord from the bag or strap.  At a certain age you have to travel light as possible and have as few motions to do to complete the loading process

[Frizzen]

Well I thought I would have some guess as to who the shooter was . Well it is, the one and only
JL Hargis. The result was that the square patch shot a tighter group then cutting at the muzzle.
That was 40 yrs ago. I don't know if JL is still using square patches or not. We had a long talk
last year and I didn't ask him. I'll do so next year.

[Daryl]

I did this 'test' myself - about 25 years ago using .45 and .50 cal RBall barrels. The cut patch WAS more accurate, even though I used good sized pre-cuts.  I shoot mostly pre-cuts today just for convenience, but know for a fact, the patch cut at the muzzle is more accurate.  It takes a good bench shooter to see the difference and about 10 groups of each must be shot to see it in the averages.  Since my 14 bore will still shoot 1.2" to 1.5" groups at 100 meters off the bags with pre-cuts, I'll continue to use those.

The larger the bore, the less difference there is in group sizes between cut and pre-cuts (down to ZERO). This stands to reason as the larger the bore, the less perfect must be the projectile and load.