Which is Harder To Load

[canadianml1]

Which requires a larger force to load, a small ball or are larger ball both with same ball clearance say .005 and same patch and lube say .018 pillow ticking?? The larger ball should be harder to load as it has a larger circumference and therefore requires more patch and lube to be displaced. Not sure how the rifling plays in this if the rifling is same geometry? If I am right then the smaller ball/patch/lube combo should require less force to seat. This means smaller balls can be patched relatively tighter than larger balls for the same ease/difficulty of loading. It's not clear to me if this is so. What does your experience say?

[rich pierce]

Small bires are easier to load with a tight combo, even with bore sized balls.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

I agree with Rich.  The other condition that plays a very important affect, is bore condition.  If a bore has any 'frosting' whatsoever, from whatever cause, loading is going to be a problem no matter the size of the bore.  But getting the ball and patch into the muzzle...the smaller ball will be easier to seat.  I recently finished building a .25 cal rifle around a Ed Rayl barrel.  I'm loading a .250" ball into a .255" bore with .020" patch material without any difficulty whatsoever.  The 1/4" hickory rod pushes the load down without jeopardizing the rod.  Can't believe how easily it loads.

[Daryl]

Which requires a larger force to load, a small ball or are larger ball both with same ball clearance say .005 and same patch and lube say .018 pillow ticking?? The larger ball should be harder to load as it has a larger circumference and therefore requires more patch and lube to be displaced. If I am right then the smaller ball/patch/lube combo should require less force to seat. This means smaller balls can be patched relatively tighter than larger balls for the same ease/difficulty of loading. It's not clear to me if this is so. What does your experience say?

Exactly.  With a bore sized ball (.360") and .022" denim patch, I can load my .36 without a short starter, just the hickory rifle's rod. Same with the .40 cal. using same patch and .398" ball.
Choking up on the rod is necessary, of course. The normal ball I use in the .36, is a .350" as that is the only mould I have for that calibre. Someone game me or I bought some .360's to test
in it. Loading is only a little different from the smaller ball. I have not tested which is more accurate.  In the .40, the .398's and .400's shot the same.
In the .45 and .50's, I used a ball .005" under bore size, with the 10oz. denim which I measure at .022", compressed.

[canadianml1]

Great data points, not opinion just facts from first hand experienced shooters. Thanks a bunch. So I will load my 40 cal with .395 ball, ~.022 pillow ticking and mink oil. (To this point I haven't heard  of any advantage with a larger ball.) I have some .015 linen too that I think I should try.

Thanks again,

Grant

[Daryl]

Hi Grant - yes, the .395" ball will work just fine. If you were involved in bench-rest shooting, then bore sized or every larger balls are normally
used, with teflon coated patching & religious-grade wiping between shots. The larger balls and tighter loads do give increased accuracy, but at
a price and level not normally needed for general 'work'.
The muzzle's crown is vitally important in easing the loading. The short radius we put on our muzzle crowns, is the correct angling needed for
moving metal.  The metal being moved, is the lead in the ball and the smoothness of the crown's corners, is necessary to prevent over stressing
or cutting the patch material.
Indeed, the angles we use are also used by Corbin Mfg. in making their jacketed bullet making dies. I researched this 'phenomenon' many years
ago and replicated it in the "muzzle crowning" we now recommend.

[hanshi]

It kinda surprises me a little that seating .32 and .36 ball is always easier to seat than the same relatively "tight" loads with the same materials in, say, the .50.  I shoot the "little guys" more than the larger bores.  It's nice to use a skinny wood rod and not worry about it breaking.

[Daryl]

The rifling in the .32 and .36 is usually .003" shallower than the larger calibres as well, Hanshi, which should make them more difficult to load.
As you noted, it is indeed nice they allow tight combinations without worrying about the rod.  "for sure & for certain" as THE man said!
Using the .36 with .350" balls and .022" patches in I suspect .007/.008" deep rifling, the loading with a 5/16" rod is a 2 finger operation, after starting
the load, of course.  Choking up on the rod, negates the use of the short starter, if you so want. They push in very easily. The little balls conform very
nicely.