Again im not debating a persons want for a choked bore . Be it Jugged or restricted .
I actually have both in that I have a jug choked barrel for my fowler and I have a SXS flintlock with modified and full as well as one with open /open . Personally I find positive and negatives in both concerning muzzle loading applications .
All but the fowler have barrels less then 30 inchs
The main reason I brought this up is that for those who have or want to chose a cylinder bore in the application accepted by this forum , you may not be as restricted “ no pun intended LOL “ as you might think .
Was greener in the same class as Dillon
Maybe . But it wasn’t greener documenting the results at the time or defining the equipment used to record the results . . That would have been the Field as well as The Amory at the Tower of London
Ironically if the information was distorted , one would think it would have been the Field doing it . Considering the Walsh was promoting the trials
Greener IMO only mentions them for his own benefit.
So we aren’t talking about after the fact writings as in the case with Dillon .
Case in point . Lets look at the Field trials of 1859 .. For no other reason then I have it looked up for barrel length.
That year there were 29 entries of mixed muzzle and breech loading shotguns
Without going into target equipment for their penetration test comparison and bench details which aloud ech gun to be fired without human contact , ill just report that the target was documented at 30 inch with a square center of 12 inchs . Shots were taken at 40 , 50 and 60 yards
Powder is recorded as Laurence’s No.2
Shot was #6 (290 pellets per oz.)
Charge was 2 ¾ drams of powder for muzzleloaders and 3 drams for breech loaders with 1 ¼ oz shot respectivly .
Prince and Green posted top scores for both muzzleloader and breech loader that year at 40 yards .
Muzzleloader , 1st barrel = 98. Second barrel 148
Breech loader . First barrel = 93. 2nd barrel 103
Concerning penetration , the numbers are very close .
Over and over , at greater and smaller degree’s , results like these were recorded
That leaves us with the question ; how exactly was that proper load achieved and as you ask “what did we miss“.
But does that really mater when you break things down and realize that these folks were putting ½ of a shot load on a 30 inch target at 40 yards .
After all , isn’t that what we are really after IE large amount of shot on target .
So how exactly did they do that Robby ?
Myself I suspect it was as Greener alluded to , by regulating powder to shot ratios . But a discussion on that would probably be better suited for the shooting forum .
Ill close my part in this discussion as I believe I have achieved the point of sugesting research.
Ill leave the rest up to those who would dive into the subject deeper if one so desires .
I think however to often we spend so much effort into recreating these pieces but then fail to continue our studies into finding out just how they were as accurate as they were ,given the technologies of the time . Is it enough for a piece to just look correct ?
Im not sure . Sometimes it appears so
PS I would agree with your thoughts on the longer barrel and its effects . I think however it has more to do with holding the shot column intact for a longer period . Thus allowing the pressure to reduce to a point where it provides much the same effect as adjusting the powder to shot ratio. But that’s speculation on my part .
