Tried Daryl's methods

[Dancy]

Used Daryl's trick with the Emory Cloth and thumb on the muzzle of my Getz 54 barrel and then used a tight ball patch combo, again as he suggests in his posts. Resulted in no patch cutting and no cleaning between shots. The balls did strike higher than before, I guess more velocity, so will experiment more after filing down the rear sight. Was using 0.530 balls with 0.02" patches and Birddog lube, square bottom rifling. It was pretty tight, so not sure a 0.535 ball would work, but may try it anyway.

Thanks to Daryl for sharing his experience with us less seasoned shooters!

[Daryl]

I'm glad the muzzle treatment and heavier patching worked for you, J. Dancy - however they really aren't my methods - well, perhaps the 'thumb' muzzle-smoothing emery was, however I think I read about that in an old 1920's text or something - maybe not - thing is, most of us have now smoothed the machine cuts and we all use tighter combinations than most people and we all get superb accuracy with no fouling problems - ever.

Note that the .54 shooters here use a 10oz. denim - around .020" to .021" with a .535" ball.

Higher velocity causes higher impacts in some guns, lower in others - ie: my .40.  A lot depends on the stock configuration as well as barrel harmonics.  Only a chronograph knows for sure if the speeds are higher - but - if gas is sealed behind the ball contrary to before, more of the powder's gasses are used to propell the ball - therefore higher speed is the end result.

 

[hanshi]

I did the thumb, 0000 steel wool and cloth on an old and much used Traditions a few months back.  I just recently got around to shooting it a few days ago.  It still takes a short starter and the barrel stays easy to load shot after shot.  Previously I pretty much had to use a thinner patch but now the rifle will load fine with a thicker, stronger patch.  It also doesn't scrape or tear the patch but seems to "squeeze" (for lack of a better word) the patch as it's short started.  Accuracy?  At least as good or maybe better than before.  It also appears to strike a bit higher as well.  A larger .495 ball isn't in its future but I prefer a thick patch, anyway.

[varsity07840]

Can someone direct me to to Daryl's post descibing his method?

Thanks,

Duane

[bgf]

Here's one instance with pictures:
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=10690.msg101399#msg101399

It works like a charm.  When I did it on my .50, a .495 + thick patch needs a short starter for convenience only -- in a pinch, the ramrod will start it (with difficulty, but it will).  Accuracy or more importantly consistency improved noticeably, because the patch wasn't tearing even a little and the ball didn't have to be beat upon to go down .

[Daryl]

I use a short starter - all of us up here do. It's just second nature to us.  Without a starter, you can still load, but the gun must be quite vertical, and a very short choke taken on the rod concentrating on pushing the patched ball into the muzzle.  You can sort of feel the cloth and ball swaging intot he cronw and subsequently, the bottom of the grooves, where there is also at least .005" compression, then down it goes, an inch at a time then down in 6" to 10" strokes.  I've had to do this- quickly, on a Sececa Run once, with a .009" oversized ball (.457" in a .448cal. rile) and .022" denim patch.  The rifling depth of .028" helped a great deal, but there was a lot of lead to move. I wouldn't suggest anyone else try it.  I was lucky the stock didn't break from the pressure - I was loading quite rapidly as well - much younger and stronger on the rod.  A starter makes loading easy.