Why tighter fitting loads?

[flehto]

Well now....would you  supply explanations  to the remarks you made? ....Fred

[OldMtnMan]

Is this the old.......No, you are!

My ideas are.

They weren't as accurate as we think? During target shooting they used tighter loads.

They used coned muzzles.

Looser loads are more accurate than we think.

They used the butt of their knives to start the ball and then cut the patch.

They used loose loads to load fast since they were dealing with Indians and we aren't.

Did I miss anything?

[Daryl]

I will resist yet again showing how easy it is to load tight loads using just the rifle's rod & starter.  With a smooth barrel interior, loading is easy, just as getting the patched ball beneath the muzzle's crown is easy.  A starter is not necessary, but simply makes that segment of loading, quite a quick operation.

The British Government issued steel loading or ball pegs & Mallets, to the Baker Rifle companies. Referring to these as short starters might be causing the problem.

We do not use nor need to use a mallet - that is obvious in the videos everyone is tired of seeing by now.

There were a number of gun clubs in the States by the mid 1800's- not likely in Kentucky or Tenn, but I know they were elsewhere.  "Firearms of the American West 1803-1865 has a photograph of a bunch of gun club members San Francisco, I think, with their rifles, a number of which appear to have Remington barrels having been turned at the muzzle for a guide starter.  I would suggest this means a starter was being used in the 1850's era, if only for match-type shooting - ie: ACCURACY shooting.  Some guys shot very well and were the marvel of all others - makes you think maybe they, like out bunch, liked being in the winner's circle more often than not. 

There is a fine competition only when a group of people is loading tightly. That is why we use "tighter fitting loads".

My .36 has a .360" bore, a .376" groove to groove diameter. I use a .020" patch and .350" ball.  The rate of twist is 48" and this rifle does not need a ball or short starter - I do it with just the 5/16" rifle's rod. The ball and patch combination measures .390, which is .007" compression in the bottom of the grooves - it is EASY loading - because, the bore & grooves are smooth, the lands are narrower than the grooves.  the small diameter ball is easily formed into the bore & grooves due to it's small size.  These little bores shoot very cleanly.

The snug load cleans as it loads, just as Ned Robert's Said it would, in HIS book, written in 1935.  Funny how we must relearn, time and time again, what was attempted to be passed on for our benefit.

If you don't want to use tight loads - by all means do not do this! Do not conform to what is necessary for the best accuracy.  Use loose loads, wipe often or even between shots if necessary- just be careful and do not start fires.  We never have a smoldering patch.  We do not use coned muzzles, either.  LB had a rifle with a coned muzzle - about 1 1/2" deep tapered entry into his bore proper and he had difficulty loading a combination that was quite easy loading in my rifle, with it's smoothly radiused crown.  The reason is obvious if you read Corbin's literature on drawing metals.

[flehto]

Hi Daryl....Your .36 bore w/ a  groove dia of .376 {.008 deep grooves} and using a .350 RB w/ a  .020 patch  would have a patch thickness at the lands of .015 that would have to be compressed  to zero thickness and would imprint most of its thickness into the RB. The patch compression in the grooves would be .007. This to me is an extremely tight load.

My .45 LR w/ a .450 bore Douglas bbl  w/ .008 deep grooves and was button rifled {very slick}  is a  squirrel "head hitting" rifle and the load is 30 grs 3f, a .440 RB and a .018 thick patch.  The patch thickness at the lands is .013 that is compressed to zero thickness and imprints most of its thickness into the RB. The patch compression in the grooves is .005. This load requires a short starter and the RR would never even begin to do the job. This example is very close to your .36 . Please check my figures for your .36.

W/ a freshly  cleaned  bore, my .45  is comfortable to load w/ a short starter but like I said, using just the RR wouldn't push the PRB past the chamfer.......Fred

[Daryl]

I have- numerous times - even showed Taylor - "Watch this", on one of our many "unable to understand how anyone could have trouble loading this" discussions while on the trail.

I can use the nub of my starter to easily push the patched ball into the bore - or a choked up rod end as I did the second time, when showing Taylor how easy it was to impress the ball and patch into the bore, then run it down to the powder. 

My .40 cal. Goodoien barrel was the same - I could just choke up on rod, down close to the brass end, then press in a ball that was bore size (.398"), along with the .020" patch into the bore. For accuracy work, I used the .0235" mattress ticking or a .0225" 10 ounce denim patch with the .400" (or .398") ball that was already .002" larger than the bore. These needed a short starter, but due to the narrow lands and wide grooves, still loaded quite nicely.

There is a big difference between a 65gr. .350 ball and a 128gr. .440 ball, as to amount of lead required to move. As well, a deeply buttoned barrel (over .004") usually has a somewhat rippled surface effect which could give you trouble, or not. This is due to the chattering effect the button has is it is drawn through the bore.  It is really something to watch. My .36 deep groove  button'd Sharon barrel (.008") was like that.  The 'surface' ripplingwas very visible when looked through.  My latest GM barrel on my Sharps is an 18", .005" buttoned barrel and it also shows the rippling- in this one, it is visible, but cannot be felt with a tight patch. It shoots sub inch at 100 meters with apertures.

My .45 showed a distinct like for .445" balls and the .0235" patch in it's .010" rifling. Yes - I used a starter, but if loaded like Dan does his .54, could likely use just the rod.

[hanshi]

This thread is still well worth following and I read all the posts.  I cannot load and seat the tight prb combinations that Daryl uses.  I can load and seat (my) tight loads with the wood ramrod.  Today, for instance, I loaded and fired shots for three hours and never had to wipe the bore; this was with my .36 flintlock.  I fired rounds using mattress ticking patches, .020" - .022" thick.  I then switched to denim patches, 10 oz, I believe.  The denim loads were quite a bit harder to seat; yet I had no trouble seating them with the skinny little rod.  So what did I have?  Well, the bore was probably .36" with .010" grooves as I understand it.  The denim measured (for me) around .024" or thereabout.  The grooves/bore calculates to .38".  So the prb is approximately .398"; a fair amount of compression.  The main thing that makes it a bit tough for me to seat is the fact that my hands are painfully weakened by rheumatoid arthritis.  If not for the ra I would likely find the tight loads much easier to deal with.  The .020"-.022" ticking is super easy to seat.

IMHO the main difference between the ticking and the denim is the fact that denim is a much tighter weave and more difficult to compress.  I do not claim to know anything about how the rifles were loaded way back then.  I do know that I have to use a starter regardless of how tight or loose that the loads I use happen to be.  I guess this puts me somewhere in the middle between super tight loading and loosey-goosey loads.  I'm through so carry on.

 

[bgf]

I suspect that with narrow, shallow lands, a thin silk patch and a close fitting ball, one might get fairly easy loading and decent accuracy.  Rifling rate might also be a factor, 1:48 being common in those days, meaning a lighter load might work and not stress a patch so much. 

The closest I can come to it is my pistol which is ~1:20 and shoots well with .495 and thin pocket drill and 20 gr. 3f max.

Using that same drill and .497 balls in my rifle, accuracy is not good, but I think the larger charge is blowing the patch.  I should try it with a reduced load just for groups....I needed a regular charge to hit the sights.

[Daryl]

Interesting hanshi and bgf - yes- narrow lands and wider grooves certainly displace less lead and make that part hurdles easier in comparison.

hanshi, I take Celebrex , a long-term anti-inflammatory drug, each and every day. If I forget for too many days(it happens), I completely lose the use

of my right hand- cannot even pickup an empty coffee cup with it. The medical profession here has no idea what is wrong with my right hand, however,

I take the drug and I have complete & full use of my hand.  Even 30 years ago, I started with this hand-thing and it came on me suddenly.  One day, strong

and fine, the next, I shake the hand of a long-time and old friend and it nearly put me on the floor.  The pain was excruciating. Fast forward, Celebrex,

200mg. one per day.  OK - I miss the odd day or two - no more than 2 or the pain comes into my wrist & I know I have forgotten to take it.

As to the thin patches in pistols  yes, there is a HUGE difference between a 20gr. load in a pistol and 50gr. of the same powder or slower powder in a rifle

as to the level of pressure generated.  The higher the pressure, the tighter the load must be to prevent blow-by- perhaps if blowby is actually impossible, then we load tightly to prevent

the excessive blow-by that burns patches and fouls bores.

I would think silk to be a next to useless patch material for rifle loads (Hollywood aside) as it lacks the 'volume' or 'capacity' to hold sufficient lubricant clean the last shot's fouling while it is

being loaded, let alone leave enough moisture in the bore to keep that shot's fouling soft long enough to allow load anew.

I measure 10 ounce denim from the local store at .0225".  It is a bit harder loading than 'other' denim I also measure at .022", or even the mattress ticking that

compressed I measure at .0235".  The ticking is a softer material after washing and just loads and shoots beautifully.  We have been unable to find THAT material again.  The store we

got it from, sold out and cannot get it any more.  They have had close to 20 guys asking for it.  It shoots well in every single gun I have(I still have a small stash), even the .32 with the .320" balls.

Lead softness is THE most critical detail in easy loading, with a near bore size ball.  With a ball of WW alloy from my .682" mould, measuring .683" or .684", the use of a 12

ounce denim patch is almost impossible, but if/when I do get it down, shoots very well.  By dropping the ball size to 15 bore, that is, .677" (.013" smaller than the bore), they load nicely with the

same patch using either a nylon or steel range rod or the rifle's tapered 1/2" x 3/8" hickory rod.  A friend here, bought some 14 ounce denim and found he did not enjoy loading it in his .54, so he

gave it to me - about 3 meters of it. I washed it and am now using it with both the .682" pure lead and .677" hard balls.  Loading for this stuff is stiff, you might say. It measures .036" for me with

the calipers and .028 to .029" with the mic.  You have to want it to go into the bore, or it will refuse.  Wanting, means doing and once you know how much force is needed, it's rather simple and

easy to repeat, shot after shot.  You can see by the target that Taylor posted, tight works. That's why I load tight fitting loads- it's all about accuracy.

One need only go to a ML bench rest match and see what THEY use & how much powder they use as well.  I am talking about round ball guns, l shot from the bench, with false muzzles or without.

Now I or we are not  going to use .020" heavy patches AND balls well over bore size as they do, but if we use combinations we can load, that are tighter than the competition, we win, they lose. 

Taylor and I have been doing exactly this, since the 70's.

As we've said over the years, it all depends on what you want, what you need and what you demand from your rifle.  It also depends on whether you will accept mediocre results or not - we

do not.

[bgf]

Daryl,

My mistake.  I meant linen not silk, just not thinking or typing straight!  I've read that linen is tougher and compresses less than cotton.  Linen was less expensive then than now relative to cotton.

I usually load basically like you, but I like to experiment sometimes.  In the case of the .497 balls, they were not loading well with my normal 10 oz. denim and I was trying to find a way to use them up.

I think the problem is they are not only a little oversized (supposed to be .495) but also too hard.  Seeing your comment, I think that pure lead is also a prerequisite for easy loading, esp. starting.

Add me to the arthritis club.  Glucosamine and chondroitin help but I need naproxen, kind of dole it out for a few days at a time then do without to keep stomach issues at bay....

[Daryl]

 I hear you about the stomach issues.  Celebrex upsets the stomachs of 10% users - I'm one of those, so I also have to take Previcid.  I guess that's a moniker meaning prevent acid.  It works.  I can eat about anything and it does not effect the stomach, however, the Celebrex does & the Previcid prevents problems.  Before Previcid, I tried Tums and Gaviscon, but to poor effect. One Previcid every day, or every other day is all that is necessary to keep the stomach calm.

[yulzari]

There were no steel pins ever issued to soldiers for the Baker Rifle although they were an earlier German hunting practice. But then, as I said above, they were more interested in ease and speed of loading than accuracy. We want accuracy more than ease of loading (within reason) so the comparison is interesting but not a direct comparison.

One might note that loading a Baker is traditionally done with the rifle between the knees and both hands on the heavy steel rod. With the 30" barrel one has to stoop inelegantly in the process. Long rifle users tend to load one handed whilst securing the rifle with the other hand. Maybe the two hand position can allow a tighter loading?  With Baker rod being drawn and not reversed the swell at the end forms a pad upon which to press directly down (yes I know we now frown upon putting your hands over the muzzle like that) with one hand flat over the other. In effect the Baker rod combines a starter with a full length rod. Again I admit that a  Long rifle and a Baker, if not comparing apples with pears, is at least comparing a peary flavoured apple with an appley flavoured pear.

One must bear in mind that a tight load is a means to an end not an end in itself so the aim is not to get it as tight as you can but to get the optimum squashed patch and undistorted ball that will give you accuracy in your rifle. Delvigne's shelf and tige by-passed all of that by skipping patching and accepting ball distortion by simply ramming the proverbial out of the ball against the shelf or tige post until it submitted and expanded into the rifling grooves. The ultimate in loose loading.

[Daryl]

What other rifle was issued by the British? - I posted, some time ago, about the mallet issued as having a peg for starting the ball and patch - it was a quote from THEIR manual of arms or some such documentation. This occurred at the last argument re: ball starters, likely less than a year ago, but might have been a year ago, though, so we are due.

[smylee grouch]

For my use a tight load is the only way to go. A good smooth crown with a good lube helps alot and I do use a short starter. Almost all my shooting is done using a range rod, even my first shot when I go hunting. I have done a lot of shooting with out cleaning between shots but I don't feel cleaning between shots is labor intensive so I do it almost always even when hunting. The time and effort to run a clean patch down the bore has never cost me any lost game. I don't clean between shots when on a trail walk because it just seems to me that I would be holding up the flow of things and don't want to impose on other shooters.

[hanshi]

I can empathize with you, Daryl.  NSAIDS don't go down well for me either, so I do not take them.  I do (must) take an ra drug that weakens my immune system and has caused some unappreciated side effects.  If I stop taking it my hands get hot, red and swell more than usual.  I give myself shots once a week for the ra.

I made a "palm saver" out of a piece of antler that helps a lot.  Not sure how common this is but i always end up with scraped and/or bruised wrists from the rod going down in spurts and smacking my hand against the rifle muzzle, ouch!  Still, the "snugger" loads work so well for me I'll endure the "ouchies".  Maybe I should start wearing thin leather gloves. 

[Daryl]

The gloves might be a way to go , hanshi - I now have to wear gloves when out in the sun for any length of time, so the cotton mitten liners with the ends of the fingers cut off do the job.  I have a couple pair in my shooting equipment bag.

[Elnathan]

Daryl,

If my memory serves me correctly, there was a late 17th century or early 18th century French military manual that specified a mallet and iron rod for starting balls in a rifled carbine, but the author was talking about using an oversized naked ball, not a patched ball. This manual was later plagiarized in part by an English writer who evidently knew nothing of rifles but wanted to included them in his own vanity project, so he just lifted the relevant portions from this older French manual. I wish I remembered more details.

The Baker rifles did come with mallets, but according to DeWitt Bailey the mallets were only issued to every second man. My guess is that the mallets came into use during period of extended firing when a rifle became fouled or if a rifleman got stuck with a slightly-too-tight bullet, or similar mishap - Baker rifles were military rifles, after all, and keeping the guns going during combat was of paramount importance.

[OldMtnMan]

I wonder why they never thought to come up with some sort of short starter back then?

[Daryl]

Pete - I am sure they did - at least those who were the best shots - at this, we can only speculate.

[oldtravler61]

  This has been very interesting. It all boils down to everyone's idea of accuracy. To target shooters one ragged hole is there goal. Keep working up your load till your satisfied. Everyone's goal is different. To hunters maybe a three inch offhand group at hundred yards is it.
  Daryl your advice on the celebrated I really appreciate. My hands are missed up similar to yours. Thanks a bunch.  Mike

[OldMtnMan]

Yes, i'm happy with a 3" group offhand at 100yds. However, that would be a much smaller group from a bench with everything else equal.

Considering I mainly hunt for elk. A 3" group will be meat in the freezer everytime. I just enjoy offhand hunting shots. Even if a rest is available. It's how my dad taught me to hunt, and i've stayed with it.

[oldtravler61]

  Yep me too! The best advice I received is practice holding an staying on target. Shootings secondary. Holding dead on an not wobbling off target is the key. Plus a good trigger set up.  Oldtravler

[hanshi]

Strict rifle accuracy is, of course, only part of the equation.  I have rifles that can get around 1" groups for me on a "good" day at 50 yards.  But at 100 yards I've never quite gotten 3" groups for 5 shots.  I've often had three of the shots tight together but I have no idea if they were the first three, the first, fourth an fith, etc.  My best is always about 3.75" to 4".  And I can't do this from the bench; only standing supported using a tree or post...or...sitting on a stool or in a chair like I do in the bush.  My eyes are better after the surgery but still not the best. 

I've made 100 yard kills on deer with flintlocks and 4" groups were fine for that.  All I can say is that the rifles/loads are A+ but my shooting is at best a "C".

[OldMtnMan]

I don't take 100yd shots anymore. I don't have the vision for it. I set 75yds as my limit, but will always try to get closer. I enjoy trying to sneak close as any other part of the hunt.

Well, just being out there may be number one on enjoyment. Then sneaking close as second.

[Darkhorse]

For general shooting, and match shooting if I was still doing that, I use a loose combination and I'm perfectly satisfied with the results. In .40 caliber I use a .395 ball and fairly dense weave cotton cloth measuring .015,  for my .54 I use a .530 ball and the same .015 cloth. I can almost start these with my fingers and they slide down the barrel with almost no friction. Most of my shooting with this load is around 50 yards.
For deer hunting I use .018 Pillow ticking with a very dense tough weave that is much harder to start and load. I load the first shot with a range rod. And often the second shot with the thinner patch for speed.




I just don't understand the need for these super tight combos I keep reading about. Maybe our personal requirements are different.

[OldMtnMan]

Excellent 50yd group.