Author Topic: Suggestions for patch material/load development (Read 3799 times)

stretchman · « **on:** May 05, 2020, 12:36:17 AM »

After nearly ten years of on again and off again testing, I have been able to find a load that displays consistent 3” or less accuracy at 100 yards. Not complaining, but the loading method isn’t conventional. The rifle is a 62 caliber that measures a true .620”. Stuffing a .615” roundball in the barrel with two .020” patches isn’t that easy. Starting the bullet requires a mallet with the short starter. Once the bullet is in the muzzle I can hit the starter with my palm and push the patched ball the length of the starter. The loading process can be finished with the hickory ramrod carried in the gun.
I have tried pillow ticking, denim and canvas, all over .020” thick and only canvas will not produce a blown patch with a single patch. Patch lube has always been mink oil as I consider this a gun mainly for hunting. I know there is a-lot of knowledge on this forum, and any advice to getting a good load with one patch, or a different patch material will be listened to.
Thanks
Todd

Bob McBride · « **Reply #1 on:** May 05, 2020, 12:48:23 AM »

Hey Todd, welcome! Really, it sound like your load of .615/.020 Canvas is working for you. <3" at 100y is impressive and I would take that even if I had to use a mallet.... You didn't mention whether you've tried .610 balls, even though I imagine you have. To my mind, you're using as tight a combo as you can, and you're getting as good a combo as you can expect. I would be looking for a looser combo, easier to load, that produced the same results or seeing if relieving the muzzle by crowning really well would help remove the mallet from the equation...

MuskratMike · « **Reply #2 on:** May 05, 2020, 12:54:30 AM »

What Bob said.
However I can't imagine taking a mallet with me out hunting. That second shot must take like forever. Welcome aboard and look forward to hearing more from you. Good luck I don''t use it but mink oil is a darn fine lube for your patches.

Daryl · « **Reply #3 on:** May 05, 2020, 08:26:06 AM »

Stretchman - very nice accuracy for 100yard shooting. Can I suggest a single 12 or perhaps 14 ounce denim patch?
I measure the 12oz. as .030" with calipers compressed and .025" with the mic. compressed with a hard turning ratchet.
I measure the 14oz. as .034" with calipers compressed and .030" with the mic. compressed with a hard turning ratchet.
If I crank the barrel down on my michrometer with fore finger and thumb, as has been suggested by more than one person,
both of these will measure to .002"- not really very realistic, imho.
My .69 shoots well with both of these patches, but it is needlessly thick for any other of my rifles.
Patches are reusable for more than one shot, if re-lubed before each shot.
I am now experimenting with a hard canvas that I measure at .022" compressed with the calipers, which is harder loading
than the same thickness of material in denim, in that .69 rifle with decent results so far. I have not targeted it at 100yards or meters
with this material yet. That is to come. The strands of thread are larger and harder in the canvas. I think Hanshi of this forum is using
the same canvas material in his .40 cal. rifle.
Joannes Fabrics sells denim listed by the ounce weights.

rich pierce · « **Reply #4 on:** May 05, 2020, 02:48:43 PM »

Todd, can you tell us more about the barrel? Twist, depth of grooves, relative width of lands and grooves, square or round bottomed?

stretchman · « **Reply #5 on:** May 06, 2020, 01:18:50 AM »

Daryl, do you wash and dry your denim before using it? The 14 oz denim does seem like something that would be worth trying.

As to the rifle, it has a 1-66" twist with groves that are .015" deep. It has traditional square bottom groves. The rifle and barrel were made by Charlie Hart the founder of Hart Barrel Company. I was told that he made it in the early 1980s. The bore has a lot of machine marks in it, which is one reason why I believe it is hard on patches. The logical thing to do would be to send it to Bobby Hoyt and have it re-bored, but knowing the rifle's history, who made it and the men who have owned it, one being the late Dave Higginbotham of Lone Star Rifle Company have kept me from having anything done to the barrel.

I have tried both .615" and .610" balls. I have not had a chance to cast any .610 balls since experimenting with using two .020"patches. In the next few weeks I hope to find the time to cast a few up.

stikshooter · « **Reply #6 on:** May 06, 2020, 02:29:18 AM »

Try Lee Shavers bore treatment /100 strokes wit really tite jag/an 0000 steel wool it works every time and so does the accuracy .Look it up or PM me /it"s worked on every muzzle loader I own (LOTS) just like Daryl's muzzle crown treatment !!!!

Daryl · « **Reply #7 on:** May 06, 2020, 06:00:05 AM »

stretchman - this is the bore of my .69 - you can see the cross-the land machine marks, which now are pretty much just a memory. There is ZERo cutting
of the patches, any patches, with this muzzle crown. With WW balls, the fabric is heavily stressed, but no cuts.
For years, I had to use a .682" ball and a 14oz. denim patch measuring .035" and .030"- calipers and mic. Now, I'm thinking I can get away with
the Canvas .022" although it still isn't quite as good.
The barrel has seen about 5,000 shots.
Oh- before I forget., I run the new material I buy through the washing machine twice - once with soap and the second time, full cycle without soap.
It is then dried in the dryer.
Of course it still shoots well with the .030" denim.
The target is a couple groups I shot - only 50yards when out on a hunt- prior to the hunt, of course. 6'o'clock hold on the bottom ring.

stretchman · « **Reply #8 on:** May 07, 2020, 05:35:44 AM »

I didn’t think that the crown was bad, but I took a few minutes with some 320 grit and followed it up with 600 grit. Plan on testing it some more this coming weekend.

Daryl · « **Reply #9 on:** May 07, 2020, 06:21:01 PM »

Nicely done stretchman! I saved those pictures to my muzzle crown folder labeled as "stretchman's muzzle before" and "stretchman's muzzle after".
hope you don't mind.

stretchman · « **Reply #10 on:** May 07, 2020, 07:49:39 PM »

Daryl... thats fine with me.

Todd

Hungry Horse · « **Reply #11 on:** May 08, 2020, 09:18:22 PM »

IMO, your blown patches using single patches is from overstressed material due to the tight nature of your load. I would try pocket drill for patching, if you can find some that is thick enough. The patch failure could also be the mink oil being pressed out of the patch on loading and not providing the lubricity needed to keep the patch from stretching and creating a weak or damaged seal. Loading with a hammer would make me give up the sport. I had a gun years ago that wouldn’t perform without a ridiculously tight patch, an old timer put me on to venison tallow for patch lube, and I have been using it ever since, its almost impossible to press tallow out of a patch.

Hungry Horse

Daryl · « **Reply #12 on:** May 08, 2020, 10:37:05 PM »

Quote from: stretchman on May 07, 2020, 07:49:39 PM

Daryl... thats fine with me.

Todd

Cool!

How's the new crown load?

stretchman · « **Reply #13 on:** May 09, 2020, 10:00:24 PM »

Here were two of the better targets shot today. To test the polished crown, I shot some hard cast .615 balls. I figured if the patch was going to get cut - blown, the hard cast balls would have done it. All the recovered patches (.020”+ canvas) were perfect. I am happy to say that I am abandoning the double .020” patch load for now. To my surprise, the hard cast balls produced a better group than the ones cast of pure lead. Like the double patch load, the hard cast ball required the use of a mallet to start the ball and because of that I am not interested in there use.
Daryl... appreciate the advice on the need for a hand polished crown.

Todd

Daryl · « **Reply #14 on:** May 10, 2020, 12:11:49 AM »

My pleasure, Tod. Glad you're happy with it.

White-tail · « **Reply #15 on:** May 12, 2020, 05:48:04 AM »

I have no experience shooting .62 cal., only .54's in which I shoot 90 grains. Is 180 to 200 grains a typical load for a .62? Just curious if a lighter load would help your patches.

Bob McBride · « **Reply #16 on:** May 12, 2020, 05:58:46 AM »

Woah. 200g of ffg in a .62?

I got a crick in my shoulder just seeing that...

110g is a huge load for me...

stretchman · « **Reply #17 on:** May 12, 2020, 07:22:45 AM »

To some this may sound silly but the rifle handles recoil very well. It is based on an English half stock design. The barrel is heavy, it is 1.250” across the flats. I have used lighter powder charges, but performance on deer wasn’t impressive. Also, in testing the gun, it seems to prefer the larger powder charges.
After the crown was polished, all the recovered patches were in perfect shape, even with the heavy loads. The 180 grain load is likely the most consistent in accuracy. The 200 grain load was more or less to see how the patches would hold up. My only complaint if any is that you don’t get many shots per pound of powder but I have other rifles that are more practical for target shooting.

Daryl · « **Reply #18 on:** May 12, 2020, 07:48:10 PM »

THAT is a nice looking rifle! Fairly heavy one, too. Likely at or over 11 lbs.
My .69 'got' 1,770fps with a 482gr. ball and 200gr. 2F GOEX - that was 1987 powder.
I expect you are running 2,000fps with the 180gr. load today. That's moving for a
fairly large ball.

wolf · « **Reply #19 on:** May 13, 2020, 02:28:54 PM »

200gr? wow! I wet up to 120gr. in my 62 jaeger one time and thought I was doing something. so did my shoulder. my regular load it 75gr. of 2f at 50yds it will go slap through a 6x6 post, I can only imagine what 300gr. will do,,,,,,,,,,,

Daryl · « **Reply #20 on:** May 13, 2020, 08:39:32 PM »

Actually, in my .69, I inadvertently double charged my standard hunting load. I was shooting over the chronograph at the time, testing.
I had just shot the 200gr. load at 1,700fps(not 1,770), and was going to check my 165gr. hunting load, but was talking and "charged" it
twice.
That means 330gr. 2F GOEX (1988?). I was shooting sitting on a "round chunk", my feet beside it, and it lifted me up to the standing position.
The velocity was 1,770fps.
I made a mistake in the post below. The vel. for 200gr. was 1,700fps even, not 1,770fps. Increasing the charge by 130gr. increased
the velocity only 70fps. 165gr. ran 1,550fps. The increase from 165gr. to 200gr., 35gr. increase raised the vel. 150fps. Worth it? Not really.
The accuracy was unchanged, though, but not worth the extra powder & recoil. The 165gr. load poleaxed moose at 100yards. That was it's intent.

stretchman · « **Reply #21 on:** May 14, 2020, 01:55:40 AM »

Thanks for the compliments on the rifle. It has been my intention to chronograph the loads but everytime I get to the range I realize that the chronograph is still at the house! I agree with what Daryl was saying about double charging his rifle. There is a point of diminishing returns. Hopefully, I will be able to return to the range in the next few weeks and get some results with the chronograph. I will be happy to share the results if anyone is interested.

Not trying to upset anyone, but I don't believe 180 or 200 grains of powder is beyond reason for a 62 caliber rifle. The ball weighs close to 350 grains, it needs a large dose of powder so it can get some momentum. But, that's my opinion... write in pencil so it can be erased, it is by no means definitive.

Bob McBride · « **Reply #22 on:** May 14, 2020, 02:09:34 AM »

Quote from: stretchman on May 14, 2020, 01:55:40 AM

Thanks for the compliments on the rifle. It has been my intention to chronograph the loads but everytime I get to the range I realize that the chronograph is still at the house! I agree with what Daryl was saying about double charging his rifle. There is a point of diminishing returns. Hopefully, I will be able to return to the range in the next few weeks and get some results with the chronograph. I will be happy to share the results if anyone is interested.

Not trying to upset anyone, but I don't believe 180 or 200 grains of powder is beyond reason for a 62 caliber rifle. The ball weighs close to 350 grains, it needs a large dose of powder so it can get some momentum. But, that's my opinion... write in pencil so it can be erased, it is by no means definitive.

I don't think it's beyond reason myself, just high for what I do, so I've never loaded so big. The majority of my shots at deer are 50y or so and a little 28" barreled .58 that was my deer gun passed clean through with a 70-100g charge. If you're reaching out there, or hunting Elk and Moose that's another ball of wax entirely....

smylee grouch · « **Reply #23 on:** May 14, 2020, 02:38:46 AM »

It,s been my experience that you will not necessarily get more penetration with more speed as the extra speed upsets the lead ball faster and the extra expansion slows the bullet down faster. I think you will get more energy dump in the target with the extra expansion. Many times I have had total pass through on deer at 100+ yards but found the flat ball against the far side hide at 30 yds, from the same gun/load, 58s & 62s.

Daryl · « **Reply #24 on:** May 15, 2020, 12:29:11 AM »

While I don't have info on .62 velocities, I was able to find my .58 chronographing, done in the 1978.
Note that today's powders are more energetic.

95gr. 2F GOEX - Red and white can - .575" 285gr. round ball of pure lead + .022 'brushed denim' patch
Spit patch -----------1,424fps 48fps variation - pie-plate sized groups at 100 yards - 6" - 9"

140gr. 2F GOEX etc:
spit patch -----------1,685 10fps variation - incidentally, this was the most accurate and consistently accurate load in this rifle, to 100yards.
bear Grease patch-1,736fps 69fps variation

160gr. 2F GOEX etc:
spit patch------------1,810fps 8 fps variation
bear grease patch--1,867fps 74fps variation

185fps 2F GOEX etc"
spit patch------------?

bear grease patch-1,951fps 42fps variation

News:

Author Topic: Suggestions for patch material/load development (Read 3799 times)