Patch and ball. How tight?

[Kurt]

I was watching a demonstration of a CO2 bullet removal tool, and with the ease the demonstrator loaded the patched ball, I would have thought you could shake the gun with the muzzle down and get the ball out. It got me thinking though, how tight a patched ball needs to be for accurate shooting. I will embarrassly admit that over the years I have had to pull balls from my gun and it is a chore. I usually soak the problem with dish detergent or mineral oil overnight before I even try and then put my brass range rod in a vice to pull the screw-penetrated ball out, and my heavy bench shudders with the struggle. So in terms of the force required to push the ball down the barrel, just how tight do a ball and patch need to be to get accuracy? Perhaps I'm overdoing.

[smallpatch]

That combo will be different for each barrel. Rifling depth and type, etc. patch needs to impart the rifling to the ball, resist the heat generated, and seal the bore/rifling.
Most of mine are either Getz, Rice, or Green Mt. without a lot of fine tuning, all of them will work with a .005”undersize ball, .020” patch, liquid lube.
I don’t carry a range rod, use the hickory under the barrel.
Pulling a load is a different story. You just crammed that combo down a dirty barrel.
Kinda long winded, sorry.

[MuskratMike]

Informal shooting, hunting and trail walks I have found a greased patched ball that needs a little more than thumb pressure to start (generally the use of a short starter) works well and will give minute of squirrel accuracy. For serious bench competitions I usually see ball/patch combinations (usually a dry Teflon patch) that requires a mallet to seat the ball. I guess it all depends on what you are trying to achieve. If I am using a .395 ball in my 40 I usually use a greased .015 patch. If using a .530 ball (for example) in my 54 caliber I will use a .018 greased patch and have found that I can retrieve the patches and actually reuse them.

[Leatherbark]

Traditional muzzleloading to me requires a ball that I can place on the patch and start with just the ramrod.  In my 50 flintlock, this requires either a bear oil lubed shirt canvas patch or a mink oil lubed shirt canvas patch.  I cannot thumb start the .490 balls, but a short hold on the ramrod will load them. 
I have my crowns polished like a mirror.  If I aim correctly all the balls loaded with just the ramrod will hit steel or be in the black.  If I need pinpoint accuracy for just a 25-yard turkey shoot, I'll use a thicker canvas patch and moose milk along with a short starter.  I don't care to use patch, lube, ball combination that requires a hammer.

Bob

[Maven]

I like the way you think, Bob!

[Dphariss]

I can start a 535 with a heavy ticking patch in a 54 Douglas and did for years in these and various others. But I have taken to using a short starter. Its easier on the swivel breeches and is easier on the wrist of slim rifles or those with small wrists. And larger bores are increasingly hard to start.
These are, as far as I can tell, as traditional as anything else. Back to the 1770s anyway. The German mercenaries used a bullet board to cut patches, or so I had read. I suspect that a rod of some sort was needed to then push the patched ball out of the board. Patches may or may not have been sewn on.And on pg 257 of "Kentucky Rifles & Pistols 1750-1850" there is a photo of David Cookes hunting pouch and horn.   He was born in 1761 and died in 1842. I think there is a photo on the WWW too s his rifle and pouch were auctioned not to long ago. There is a LOT of things that were is common use that were not written about in detail and did not survive for one reason or another. Pouches tended to rot away and they and the contents were lost. There are a number of surviving horns, being more durable, but we have to remember they all had a strap, they all had an accompanying pouch. But these are far less common and the contents are just as rare. So we have little idea if starters were used or not. in 1800 the British Army issued a starter mallet, one to (IIRC) every 2 Baker rifles. This was for use with the accuracy ball.

[smylee grouch]

I like a patch that fills the groves and windage between ball and barrel plus three or four thousands thickness for sealing compression. I use a   "Bulger" or short starter.

[Dphariss]

In my McLemore barreled 50 cal chunk rifle I use a patch lube of water soluble oil and water. 5 or 7 to 1 IIRC. With the water evaporated away. A 100 gr of FFF a .500 ball and a thick cotton patch and a starter. Wiped with a "heavily damp" patch both sides then a dry patch both sides then loaded. If I do my part and wind cooperates it will shoot to the same point at 60 yards. But we have not had a turkey match in some years now. But wind is an issue where I live. Back in the day. Before 1830 or so, offhand matches were not common. This was considered "a poor test of the rifle". Offhand a good shot with rifle/load that would be useless in a chunk match can do very well. Especially on hit or miss targets. In my other rifles I shoot the same load for everything, hunting or target. Shooting a rest match(s) at 50 yards or more will teach more about the rifle than shooting offhand.

[AZshot]

It usually takes me a short starter and then about a lb or two on the side of the ramrod to get the patched ball down.  Until it gets to the crud a the end, when it may take several pounds.  Lube can greatly reduce the amount of force though.  I am in the dry Southwest, I now use a more liquid lube, not grease. I've also shot a looser combo, and it seems accurate enough for plinking. 

[Daryl]

I try to use similar to Dane's combinations for most of my guns, but have found that in most rifles, from my .36 with .350" balls and the .69 with .682" balls, that 10 ounce
denim I measure at .021" compressed in calipers to be a great combination.
In my .40, I used mostly bore sized balls and with the .021" patch, these can be started without using a short starter, just pressure on a chokes up rod.
Same with the .32 and .36 rifles. Bore size and up to .0235" mattress ticking patches. A ball pressed in and withdrawn (strip of patching) show a very short slug with rounded ends
and preferably engraved. Loading with the rifle's rod is easy.
The muzzle's crown is vitally important in being able to easily load tight combinations. I use short starters usually, as it is easier and as Dan says, easier on the rifle's wrist.
On a pulled ball (long strip of cloth for handles) I like to see what Lyman printed, 50 years ago of more.

[Scota4570]

As time goes on I am using looser combos.  I have found that if I have to beat a ball down the bore or smack the heck out of the starter, my hands get tired and sore.  That makes my aim less steady and hurts my scores more than a tiny amount of lost bench rest accuracy. 

I have never been able to achieve the "correct" patch imprint shown above with a  modern deeply rifled barrel.  Such a combo would be to hard to load. 

With the old button barrels, yes.  With repurposed 45-70 barrels, yes, and they shoot really well too.

[Daryl]

Interesting. I'm only 74, so I do not have those problems - yet.
I've only had to smack the heck out of the starter when using .690" balls in the .69, with 10 ounce denim. The balls were store bought, so might
not have been pure lead.
All of my combinations give the same pattern as Lyman shows. My deepest rifling is only .012" deep.

[HSmithTX]

My hunting load last fall was a .530 ball in a 54 with shallow rifling and a measured .020" patch, how shallow the rifling is I don't know exactly but with a short starter to get it started I can push the ball down 6-8 inches with each stroke of the wooden rammer. My patch and ball both showed full contact like Daryl's picture from the Lyman book.  Testing patches this combo needed about 100 psi with an air compressor on the flash hole to blow out the ball, blow nozzle to the side of the barrel fit was less than perfect but they came out at a good clip. Getting it to move was the hard part, once it started moving I think a lot less pressure would be needed. Considering those CO2 dischargers have 850-1000 psi it is no wonder they work so well on a cap gun.  I was short on time and that tight combo shot really well so I never tested the thinner patches. 

[Scota4570]

I decided to do the experiment about patch to barrel fit to get a fabric impression in the grooves.  The picture says it all.  I took notes on my bench cover paper. 





Normally, to test the imprint pattern I use a piece of oiled patch cloth and the ball.  I short start it, then pull it back out.   For the test I used a piece of cut off barrel, it is  Green mountain, pistol, 45 cal. I pushed it all the way through. 

Watching the "everything black powder" youtube  guy load is interesting to me.  He seats  the ball with three whacks of the  the rod.  On the third whack the rod bounces.  I assume the ball it then upset to full diameter.   My test shows that can happen with a thin patch and loose fit.   IT also deforms the ball. 

With this barrel and ball we have a .440 ball and a .450 bore.  The groove depth is .0075 per side.  So we need 0.0135 before the patch touches the groove bottoms at all.  To imprint the lead ball took 0.022" of patch thickness.  I used a magnifying loop and strong light to look at the ball. 

I measure patches with the micrometer.  The squish is moderate, significantly more than the clicker, compressing the patch, not not risking damage to my tool. 

[bpd303]

I like to be able to thumb start the ball & patch. My two most accurate 50 caliber rifles both have a coned muzzle.

[Habu]

The .62 jaeger I built a few years ago was a bear to load with a tight patch/ball combination.  I blame this on several factors.  I cut the rifling too deep (almost .016").  I suspect the twist rate (1:15") was also a factor.  Finally, the barrel was too dang short at 15".  It was just awkward to hold the rifle while loading a tightly-patched ball.  A .600" ball in 10 ounce duck was about as tight as I wanted to load. 

OTOH, my .54 hunting rifle was a pleasure to load.  Douglass barrel, with the crown polished as Daryl shows (thanks again for that tip, Daryl); I loaded a .535" ball with .017-.021" patch using just the ramrod.  I will use that load again if I can ever get around to re-stocking it.

[Scota4570]

I have found that a well planned crown and a highly finished bore make a huge difference.   

A bore that has been lead lapped to 400 grit or finer and then well polished with semichrome and steel wool loads much easier  and does not accumulate much fouling.

A new barrel, as made, is much rougher.  The lands will have annular reamer marks.  The grooves will have lengthwise tool marks.  The surface is not smooth.  There may be burrs on the edges of the lands.  None of that is helpful. 

[Jeff Murray]

I use a short starter on all my rifles.  The .50 has a Getz barrel that is well broken in and loads smoothly with a .495 ball and .018 patching.  The .58 has a Hoyt barrel and I use a .570 ball with .018 patching.  Hoppes #9+ for lube.  The 58 shoots well with the slightly looser combo and I like the way it loads on a second shot with a dirty barrel since I use it for critters that will hurt you back.

[J.D.]

IMHO, Dane has it pretty well right, however, the question to patch/ball combinations depends on what you expect, in the way of accuracy. Do you want to shoot pinwheel Xs at 100 yards, or simply hit a 6" gong at 50 yards, or a deer at 40 yards? what level of difficulty in  loading will you accept?  Thumb start, vs repeatedly smacking a starter to get that patch/ball combo, into the bore. There are trade offs, no matter what you do.

IMHO, I would buy an assortment of balls ranging from about .005 undersize to .010, and .015 undersize, and .015 and .020 thick patching. One load, with a smaller ball or thinner patch, might load easily and work very well for plinking and hunting. Another, tighter, load might work better for match shooting. 

To that end, I have gone to a .526 ball, in a .54 bore, with a .020 patch, that loads fairly easy, and shoots accurately enough for my needs.

[Kurt]

I have been working with a rifle and loading a .490 ball with a .018 patch that was tight loading. I discovered that an old sheet I have, doubled, measures .015 so I tried it today. I shot these five shots at 50 yards with open partridge-style sights. It is not that much easier to load so I may go thinner yet. This group is acceptable to me, and I adjusted the sight for the next range visit.

I just noticed that the scale I was using is in tenths not eighths so 1 and 3/5ths!

[Jerry]

Interesting. I'm only 74, so I do not have those problems - yet.
I've only had to smack the heck out of the starter when using .690" balls in the .69, with 10 ounce denim. The balls were store bought, so might
not have been pure lead.
All of my combinations give the same pattern as Lyman shows. My deepest rifling is only .012" deep.

Daryl, your information has helped me. My round bottom rifling is .016 deep. I load with a .005 under bore size ball and use .017 thickness patching. Thanks, Jerry

[smylee grouch]

Your combo should seal at the lands  but  will be 4\1000 too lose in the bottom of the groves

[Daryl]

As Hugh found out with his VERY deep rifling, an even smaller ball and VERY thick patching needs to be used due to his very deep rifling, up to .028" deep.
Back in the 70's I tested one of his first barrels with .024" rifling depth. With my normal ball diameter of .005" undersized and .022" patching,
I could get no where near the bottom of the grooves & found accuracy suffered due to this. At that time, I actually had a .45 Bauska barrel that had .028" rifling
but was able to get it to shoot with a .457" ball and .022" patching. It was loadable simply due to the small ball diameter, but a LOT of lead was moved on seating it
into the bore. I could not do this easily enough with the larger .50 cal. barrel. Perhaps this was simply due to my being into the sport only 5-7 years or so.
Since that time, Hugh has found combinations that do work in deep rifling. Taylor and I did as well with his barrels.
In one of Taylor's .50's with .016" rifling, we found a .495" ball and .022" patch worked OK with lighter powder charges like up to 85gr., but with
100gr., due to the loose load and higher pressures, patches suffered burns and accuracy declined.
The higher the pressure generated in the barrel, the tighter the combination must be.
That is why chunk, plank and bench rest round ball shooters use larger balls and tighter combinations that can be loaded with the rifle's hickory rod.

[Scota4570]

What is the advantage of deep grooves over shallow grooves?   Is it just aesthetics? 

Based on TC's CVA's and converted 45-70 barrels, how they shoot, and how easy they are to load, I am missing something.  To me, it looks like in a 45 cal barrel, about 0.08" is plenty deep and well suited to "normal patch thickness. 

440 in a 450 bore gives .005 per side windage .  A .008 groove  would add up to 0.013" total windage in the groove.  A 0.016 or 0.018 patch would give decent compression in the grooves.  That seems like a good thickness to hold lube too.  There is not issue with the ball skipping the rifling. 

I have obtained good accuracy from converted 45-70 barrels, those grooves are only 0.035", IMHO .008 is plenty deep.  I think even a little less could do well too.     

[smylee grouch]

Twist rate and powder charge will affect the ball,s skipping over the rifling too. A good grip on the ball is probably needed with higher charges and certain twist rates.