Why tighter fitting loads?

[OldMtnMan]

Regarding the perceived need for tightly fitting loads to achieve the best grouping precision from a muzzleloader, go to: Muzzle Blasts, Vol. 78, #9, May, 2017, p.24 for a extensive series of tests with tight and loose loads in variety of guns

We don't all have that. Can you tell us what it said?

[Daryl]

I have no idea what that article says, however, the way it is worded, showed it may attempt to disprove tight loads being more accurate.  However, if loose loads shot as well as tight ones, why are most all of the dedicated BR shooters using balls larger than the bore AND .020" patches - AND what appear to most people to be over-sized powder charges?

[bgf]

I have no idea what that article says, however, the way it is worded, showed it may attempt to disprove tight loads being more accurate.  However, if loose loads shot as well as tight ones, why are most all of the dedicated BR shooters using balls larger than the bore AND .020" patches - AND what appear to most people to be over-sized powder charges?

Bingo!  The article is a good start.  I found it after hungry horse referenced it.  One article sized experiment doesn't test all the variations, though.  Powder charges were constant between loads on the same caliber and rather light for chunk or bench shooting, even lighter than I use offhand most of the time, e.g. 55gr 2f in a 50, if I remember correctly....I use 60 gr 3f in my 40 Cal. Chunk/table barrel.    I know that my .50 Cal chunk barrel will scatter groups with less than 80 gr using .495 and art canvas.  It tightens up with 85 grains and holds together through at least 100.

I will say the author got decent groups with some loads I wouldn't even consider.

[Turtle]

I read it to say that tighter loads were more accurate to a point, then even tighter are slightly worst and unnecessary. He used bigger balls mostly, not thicker patches. I'll stick with the tightest load I can load with my hollow brass ramrod and coned barrel, but may try one size bigger balls and thinner patch.
                                            Turtle

[bgf]

Turtle,

You are right about how the article presents it.  My point was that the tighter loads might do better with more powder.  That is a critical variable that wasn't tested, so far as I can see.  The article does interest me for exploring offhand, woodswalks, and hunting loads.

Chunk shooters load pretty tight and shoot pretty heavy charges, and I've seen  one hole groups of 10 shots at 60 yards, though my attempts fall short of that .  If we could thumb start our loads and push them down in one smooth stroke, that woul be swell, but no one seems to do that.

[Turtle]

 Maybe it's the other way around. heavy charges need a tight ball to seal due to more pressure? I do think I have read that early rifleman use lighter loads than by some modern standards.

[Sharpsman]

I like tight loads and they're not that difficult to load and since there aren't any Injuns after my scalp I incorporate an old man's idiom of 'going slow'! The first two higher shots were made when I was learning how much of the front sight NOT to hold at 100 yards. Load is a .490" Hornady swaged RB using 100 grs. KIK 2F and a .017" pillow ticking patch with Canola oil.

100yd by Sharps Man, on Flickr

[yulzari]

There is a degree of imprecision in describing 'tight' loads. The calibre alone will vary the thickness of patches and the depth of groove even more. One man's excellent 'tight' patched load may be near impossible to load without a mallet in another's rifle and quite slack in a third. Equally a skinny 14 year old or an octogenarian may find said 'excellent tight patched load' beyond them.

I would postulate that there is a relationship between groove depth, patch thickness and calibre which people clever at tricky sums might derive for a patch standard patch material and ball hardness. Then factor in any bore relief/coning/crowning and varying personal strength to push a patched ball home.

Empirically the only practical way for simple folk like me is to try different variations until one works best. As a rule of thumb shallow grooves go with thin patches/large balls and deep ones the opposite. Fine powder is needed to bump up conicals into the rifling, balls need as coarse as may work in your rifle. You are looking for consistent accuracy not power. Of course yours may differ which is in the nature of the beast........... If we wanted easy we would buy modern cartridge smokeless breech loaders.

[somehippy]

Fine shooting sharpsman and a dandy measure, I'm gonna have to make something like that.

[White-tail]

Daryl,
Can you tell me why I am unable to view the pictures you posted here from Photobucket?  Is there some setting in my computer or some place on this site that I need to tinker with to allow viewing of pictures.  Many pictures on the Forum I have no problem seeing, but some say, "Please update your account to enable 3rd party hosting".  I don't have a Photobucket account.  Thanks, John

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

WT:  I too am waiting for the answer to that question!?

[The Baron]

Re: viewing photos, it is not a problem with our computers.  Photobucket has changed their terms and you must now have a premium membership (can't recall price, but it ain't cheap) to do "3rd party hosting".  That is, if you want to be able to share pictures the way we always have by pasting a URL address, you need to pay.

PB has been brutal to use for some time now, completely choked with ads unless you pay.  This latest change prompted my to kick PB to the curb and I'm now using postimages.org.   It's free and easier/faster than PB ever was - wish I'd switched long ago.

Cheers.

[Marcruger]

I read that article as well.  My take was that there are WAY too many variables and loads to cover in an article like that and draw any statistical conclusion.  The main thing I think he missed testing was patching variations, and powder charges.  He also didn't show photos of his patches after firing (I read those like tea leaves, lol).  As was stated here, you have to work with each individual gun, and keep working until it tells you what it likes.  I don't quite buy into the articles stated findings simply because there are too many remaining areas not covered.  It was a good start to get people thinking and talking however.  Certainly not trying to rig the author.  Best wishes, and God bless,   Marc

[hanshi]

Well, I stopped with PB when they got greedy and was transferring the photos to postimage.com and imgBB.  The pics load up and look nice and are easy to upload....or is it "download", shucks, I don't know the difference.  But I can find NO WAY to post photos from postimage.com.  The only way I can post is from the pics stored originally in the computer.

PB is now holding half of my pics hostage!  I was transferring them but only got half way before PB pulled a gun on me.  Now, the way ALR has made it easier for us does enable me to post from the computer pretty easily; but not so with other forums, Facebook and emails.  These guys are criminals! 

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

I have hundreds of images in files with Photobucket, but they are simply copies from my own computer.  Now I simply pull pictures from my own files to my desktop, and drag them to the posting page provided with my posts.  I cannot see how it could be easier.  I shall in time delete all my photobucket images...they don't show up in threads now anyway as a result of this new scheme of theirs.  Didn't mean to highjack the thread but I suspect it's run its course now anyway.
"Why tighter fitting loads?"...anyone not know the answer?