Who Else Shoots Bare Ball?

[hanshi]

I recently tested .605" WW ball and .593" WW ball in my smoothbore.  The .605 was fired loaded the same way shot is loaded - powder/cards/lubed 1/2" or 1/4" cushion/felt card wad wad.  50 yard group was fired with 60grns 3F, 75grns and 80grns.  Total of all shots was 5" at poa.   Dispersal was horizontal so a better shot would fire a tighter group.  I'm satisfied this load is fine for deer season.

By the time I got to the patched .593 ball I was exhausted and having trouble seeing the sights.  As a result they didn't get a real chance and shot poorly.  I plan giving them a fair test next week

Who else prefers bare ball loads?  Patched ball loads?

[Roger Fisher]

I patch 'em.  I'm wondering why go to all that goings on cars, wads wads etc when a simple patch would do fine.

Just wondering is all

[roundball]

For what its worth, I've never personally felt the idea of a bare soft lead ball in a bare bore smoothbore muzzleloader was a good idea, never understood the interest in even considering it from a normal shooting point of view.

NOTE: not challenging yours or anyones decisions to do it...just responding to your posted question...never understood the purpose or need.

Instead, I always approached load development in my smoothbores the same way I did with my rifles, knowing it was just a matter of finding the right PRB and powder charge combo to get the accuracy I wanted.

Anyhow, my .02 cents...others mileage may vary

[blunderbuss]

I shot at a deer one morning with my 12 ga shooting ball and found I had no patch material to reload with. So I patched with a paper napkin I had in my haversack. That afternoon I shot a deer I didn't think about the napkin patch until later, good thing I would have been nervous. Now I can't remember what brand of napkin it was

[Maven]

I patch them as well and am getting very satisfying results @ 25yd. with a .597" (nominally .600") Tanner RB and a .013"([red striped pillow ticking] patch.*  I tried the lubed wad thing a few times, but the "accuracy," if you want to call it that, was terrible.  However, I was most impressed by the greasy wad sticking to my target backer!


*Green River Forge 20ga./.615" bore trade gun.  Btw, the red striped ticking is .001" thinner than the blue variety from the same manufacturer.

[roundball]

When I first started using PRBs out of .28ga & .20ga smoothbores, I started with Oxyoke wads, but I also found they caused occasional flyers out of both smoothbores.
I guess the pressure was bending the wads up around the bottom half of the balls a little, and at some weaker point around the circumference I'd get a blowout at muzzle exit nudging the  ball off course.
Went to a different ball / thicker patch combo and accuracy is darn close to a rifle at 50yds.

[James Rogers]

Just as roundball is on one end of the spectrum, I am on the other. I shoot bare ball to be more on the historically correct end of things. I have had some guns shoot just as good with or without a patch and have had some do better with a patch except when the barrel was a little coked.

[roundball]

"...I shoot bare ball to be more on the historically correct end of things..."

Is that right...back in the day, bare balls in smoothbores was the norm?















[/quote]

[James Rogers]

For the 18th century anyway (so far). Numerous accounts of wadding and zero of PRB. Also, all written accounts concerning patched round balls are centering around rifles and the 18th century mindset presented as to patching around the ball is that of sealing the rifling. Also the dug guns found loaded with all manner of wadding. I also do not remember ever hearing of anyone pulling a load from an old original 19th century gun either that had anything other than wadding. Even in more modern times, shotguns were used to throw "punkin balls" and all loading of them I have ever heard about were not using a patch. Although there may be some evidence of PRB in smoothe guns in the 19th century, I have not found anything until modern times when those of us familiar with anything muzzleloading started to load our fowling pieces and muskets just like we had been doing with our hog rifles since 1933.

That said, if historicity was of no concern to me, PRB it would be as I believe it may produce more consistency for a wider range of guns. Of course, there are very few in this modern day who have done any serious load development without a patch.

[northmn]

Whether or not bare ball is historically correct, the patched ball is more accurate.  I used a bare ball on occasion out of my brown bess, where I loaded a card wad and an over shot wad to hold it in place.  They shot OK up close but a patched ball will hold up better at longer range.  My 20 bore smooth rifle will hold into 4" at 75 yards with careful loading.  I even load it with the parting line from the mold in the same direction.  If you want to keep it simple, you can, but attention to detail pays more in a smooth bore than in a rifle.  One thing is that the patch needs to be only so tight.  I tried two patch thicknesses and found the easier loading 015 to work as well as a thicker 020.  The thicker one may screw up the ball on loading and cause problems. 

DP

[Daryl]

hanshi - years ago when I had the .44 smoothbore, I experimented with non-patched round balls, ie: card behind and card in front, but the accuracy I received was much inferior to that with a cloth (denim) patch. With a patch, that little smooth rifle would stay on a hare's head.  Without patch, the accuracy was closer to 8".

James is correct in that most smoothbores weren't patched - as least those I've read about. They were usually military guns or guns of military calibre that could and did use the paper ctgs. issued to the mil. Loading bare bal on top of powder, no patching nor wading at all was common when running buffalo - the ball was spit into the bore and muzzle kept up until the shot was made, drop the muzzle and pull the trigger, so the gun went off before the ball had a chance to move - well documented in Firearms of the American West.  What patch or wad was loaded with ball in the double barrel shotguns that became popular on the frontier in the 1830's or so, I don't know- not described.

[hanshi]

I do plan some serious shooting with patch and .593" ball next week.  I do have high hopes for good performance.  I did a bit of shooting previously with both .600 lead and .605 WW patched ball.  Even with .010 patches they pretty much had to be pounded down the bore with the range rod.  Using a wood, under barrel rod was not at all feasible.  The combo did shoot, however.  One 7 shot group at 50 yds was 2.5".  Now to get a looser prb load to shoot that well.

[Mike R]

For the 18th century anyway (so far). Numerous accounts of wadding and zero of PRB. Also, all written accounts concerning patched round balls are centering around rifles and the 18th century mindset presented as to patching around the ball is that of sealing the rifling. Also the dug guns found loaded with all manner of wadding. I also do not remember ever hearing of anyone pulling a load from an old original 19th century gun either that had anything other than wadding. Even in more modern times, shotguns were used to throw "punkin balls" and all loading of them I have ever heard about were not using a patch. Although there may be some evidence of PRB in smoothe guns in the 19th century, I have not found anything until modern times when those of us familiar with anything muzzleloading started to load our fowling pieces and muskets just like we had been doing with our hog rifles since 1933.

That said, if historicity was of no concern to me, PRB it would be as I believe it may produce more consistency for a wider range of guns. Of course, there are very few in this modern day who have done any serious load development without a patch.

While I agree with your position; I recently bought an original  ca. 1820 smoothbore New England militia musket that was found to be loaded with a patched ball--it appears to be an old load, but of course I cannot say whether it dates from 1820 or 1920![the load].
To answer roundball, the reasons some folks load bare ball are (1) it is period correct and (2) some guns shoot better that way [and others like a patch].

[bob in the woods]

My 10bore N E fowler has not performed well for me with a patched ball. I tried all kinds of  different combinations, and never got 5 to stay on an 8 in paper plate at 50 yds.
Then I tried paper cartridges, and business picked up right off the bat. Off hand  clusters are now the norm,
so I'm in no hurry to go back to patching .  I dip the ball end of  the cartridge in a bear oil/ bees wax mix.
Since this is mainly a hunting gun, the cartridges are even more convenient.

[James Rogers]

For the 18th century anyway (so far). Numerous accounts of wadding and zero of PRB. Also, all written accounts concerning patched round balls are centering around rifles and the 18th century mindset presented as to patching around the ball is that of sealing the rifling. Also the dug guns found loaded with all manner of wadding. I also do not remember ever hearing of anyone pulling a load from an old original 19th century gun either that had anything other than wadding. Even in more modern times, shotguns were used to throw "punkin balls" and all loading of them I have ever heard about were not using a patch. Although there may be some evidence of PRB in smoothe guns in the 19th century, I have not found anything until modern times when those of us familiar with anything muzzleloading started to load our fowling pieces and muskets just like we had been doing with our hog rifles since 1933.

That said, if historicity was of no concern to me, PRB it would be as I believe it may produce more consistency for a wider range of guns. Of course, there are very few in this modern day who have done any serious load development without a patch.

While I agree with your position; I recently bought an original  ca. 1820 smoothbore New England militia musket that was found to be loaded with a patched ball--it appears to be an old load, but of course I cannot say whether it dates from 1820 or 1920![the load].
To answer roundball, the reasons some folks load bare ball are (1) it is period correct and (2) some guns shoot better that way [and others like a patch].

That's why I note 18th century. There may actually be some 19th century documentation for it as I do not go that late in what I research. The 1820's gun I am sure was not loaded from the day it was born with that patched ball so I would guess at least late 1800's also : )

I do appreciate you mentioning it, as all we are familiar with seeing around here when unloading 19th century guns is old newspaper wadding and the like.

[Daryl]

The paper ctgs. are historically correct - militarily anyway and many 'stores' were purchased from the military at forts on the frontier, were they not?

However to be correct until about 1820, they'd have to be .64" balls - OK for a 16 bore, but not for anyting larger, unless British military stores could be purchased - might fit a 12 bore or 13 bore fairly well.