Author Topic: Patch and ball. How tight? (Read 3176 times)

Kurt · « **Reply #25 on:** June 29, 2024, 09:33:56 PM »

I would think that deep grooves may be an advantage as rifling erodes in that expanding the patch and ball would compensate? I would think also that filling the grooves and ease of loading could be more difficult as well unless the lands are thin and the grooves wide?

The process of finding the right combination can be a bit of a pain mostly because I find getting the patching material to suit is bothersome. Changing ball diameters can be expensive.

I have some cloth now that is sort of fuzzy but when compressed it measures .018 which is the same as the material I have from an old pair of docker trousers. The Docker material with a .490 bal shoots incredibly well ( for me) out of one of the flintlocks and I will stick with that load. I am satisfied with the previously posted target too, and I have a 32 caliber I have narrowed down also. Just four more to go, the final one being the 40 caliber I plan to build as the rifle I think I'll be ending up with. We'll see if I get that done. I very much enjoy the shared experiences here!

Daryl · « **Reply #26 on:** July 01, 2024, 03:10:50 AM »

Back in the mid 1970's I was totally sold on deep rifling. This was a rebound from the 'approximately .004" rifling that Thompson Center was putting on their rifles
at that time - buttoned. Mine actually measured .004" deep, but Taylor's was .003" deep and buddy Tom's "Hawken(s)" had .0015" deep rifling. He had to paper patch
the "Maxiballs" with cigarette paper to keep them in the barrel as they just fell out.
By the end of the 70's I was sold on .008" to .012" rifling as likely the best for patched round balls, depending on the calibre.
Deeper for larger cal. shallower for smaller calibers.
Now, being 44 years later, I still hold that .008" to .012" works the best, for me. The Kodiak .58 SxS I had, had .008" rifling and shot extremely well with both .574" an d.562", both with
a .021" denim or ticking patch.

hudson · « **Reply #27 on:** July 02, 2024, 06:11:59 AM »

First rifle CVA an early one shallow groves at least eight. 90gr. 3f .498 ball .015 patching accuracy gave up a noticeable amount around 3,000 no recorded records. Another rifle a Green Mountain .095 ball .020 patching 90gr. 3f thinking .014 depth of groves started giving up some around a bit over 3,000 documented. I re-barreled that rifle with a barrel I rifled at .010 deep rifling’s, 110gr. 2f .535 ball .020 patching and closer to 4,000 rounds and going strong documented. All combinations were loading tight but quite manageable. I do shoot quiet a bit to 200 yards the reason for what might be considered heavy loads. I guess I should add twist, CVA 1-60 or 66, Green Mountain 1-70 I believe, mine 1-70. Next build will try .008 depths of grove 1-70 twist. I will admit I am quite a bit older than that first rifle so there might be a question on accuracy.

Kurt · « **Reply #28 on:** July 02, 2024, 07:46:45 AM »

From what I have learned here, to shoot long-range with a round ball, you need a slower twist and more powder. For shorter-range shooting, as I do, a faster twist of say 1 in 48, can give fine accuracy and requires less powder. Patch thickness is similarly applied as tight for tight groups and less so for ringing a gong. I can almost see the grey of those who impart this knowledge and appreciate it.

Dphariss · « **Reply #29 on:** July 02, 2024, 04:48:57 PM »

Quote from: Kurt on July 02, 2024, 07:46:45 AM

From what I have learned here, to shoot long-range with a round ball, you need a slower twist and more powder. For shorter-range shooting, as I do, a faster twist of say 1 in 48, can give fine accuracy and requires less powder. Patch thickness is similarly applied as tight for tight groups and less so for ringing a gong. I can almost see the grey of those who impart this knowledge and appreciate it.

In the typical calibers, under 62. Twists slower than 1:48 are, in my considered opinion, a waste of time. As are grooves deeper than .010-.012. This has been known since the 1850s at least for the PRB or cloth patched Picket. In larger bores where the rotational inertia of the ball is greater a slower twist might be OK. My rifle using a 16 to the pound ball has an 80” and its certainly accurate with grooves .008”. Round balls will shoot pretty well with almost any twist. Douglas, for what ever reason, used a 66 for everything. BUT then made 48 twist “Hawken” barrels at one time and made 48 twist barrels for Golden Age arms. I don’t think anyone has ever done a detailed study of surviving rifles to see what the twist really is. But I bet, based on the prevailing theory of the time, that the long, “4 foot” barreled American rifles had 4 ft twists. This idea is why some English/European rifles with shot barrels have twists more suitable for a 3 caliber long bullet of that caliber.
A 48” twist will shoot all the powder necessary for any use up to at least 58 caliber. In round ball rifles from about 45 to 54 about 1/2 ball weight will give very good velocity. In a 54 slightly less will still give 1800 or higher fps if FFF is used.
And in a 50 caliber rifle 1/2 ball weight will shoot to 300 yards with no problems. With Swiss powder less will give the same velocity. 90 gr in a 54 for example.
One other thing the idea that reduced friction increases velocity is false. This was proven by the British in their experiments with ML shotguns in the early 19th c. Where rough reaming the bore at the breech gave better penetration (velocity).
And remember the 1/2 ball weight only applies up to about 54 caliber. I shoot 140 gr of FF Swiss in the 16 bore. 1/2 ball weight in this rifle would be 218 gr. 140 still gives 1600 fps in a 30” barrel. Bigger bores are more efficient. Perhaps due to ball weight.

Kurt · « **Reply #30 on:** July 03, 2024, 01:52:39 AM »

My thinking and post may be inaccurate, but when I referred to more powder I was thinking of big game long-range loads as opposed to a target load and was assuming the need for energy and penetration at long range on big game. I also was thinking of the patched ball skipping the rifling with a fast twist and a heavy powder charge. I have no personal experience with either heavy powder charges or long-range big-game shooting, with a muzzleloader. Thank you for the information from your experience.

Daryl · « **Reply #31 on:** July 03, 2024, 06:58:07 PM »

Taylor's 16 bore Joseph Lang rifle, built in around 1852 has made a 5 shot group of approximately 2.5" square at 100 meters(109yds) with a mere 85gr. 2F GOEX.
This rifle, with about a 32" bl. has a 48" ROT. The rifling is about .010" deep.
.648" ball and .020" patch. No wiping needed while shooting.

Scota4570 · « **Reply #32 on:** July 03, 2024, 07:05:42 PM »

Yesterday I did some load testing. The barrel was a Green Mountain pistol barrel in 45 cal. .440 balls. First I found that 15 grains gave the best accuracy at 25 yards with a 0.014 patch". I had tried 25 and 20 grains. Then I started playing with patches. The lube was moose milk for all. The patches were 12, 14 and 18 thousands thick pre-cut. Each load got two taps of the mallet on the rod to seat the ball consistently.

The 18 patch was hard to start and required a mallet and bent my starter. The 12 was super easy. The 14 was in the middle. To my surprise the 12 and 18 gave equal group sizes of 1" a@ 25 yards. All groups were shot with sandbags, a muzzle rest and sandbags under my hands.

I guess my reason to mention it at all is that giving rules and speculation on how to achieve best accuracy all goes out the window when actual testing shows something else. In this case I will work with the looser combos. Seating pressure consistently seemed to have a greater effect than patch thickness yesterday.

I suspect that seating the ball with a few taps is upsetting it into the grooves. That makes patch thickness irrelevant?

Daryl · « **Reply #33 on:** July 05, 2024, 11:09:36 PM »

Light powder charges puts less "pressure" (stress) on the ball/patch combination, this you can get away with looser combinations.
I'd an 18 thou patch was hard to load with a .440 ball I suspect your crown is "factory" machine cut.
I also have used GM barrels on rifles and my current pistol.
I use the same .021" (10oz) patch in both, but I do use a .440 ball in the.pistol and a .445" ball in the rifle. I load both with the gun's hickory rod. No mallets were needed.

Bob Roller · « **Reply #34 on:** July 06, 2024, 06:22:06 PM »

In 1958 Bill Large gave me the first barrel he made in a new shop.It was a 1 inch ATF and 33"long and 58 caliber,575 across the lands.
I made a light weight offhand gun,New England style and use a .575 ball and the patches were surplus cleaning patches for the M1 Garand and that was a tight combination but it worked well enough to win us a turkey in November of 1958@friendship.It was frozen rock hard and stayed that way for the 180 mile trip home.This was before any Interstate highways were built.I loaned thatrifle to "Toby"Brown who used it to win a number of shoots in Ohio and used the 65 grain 3fg DuPont load the gun seemed to like.Twenty years ago I built another 58 caliber rifle with a Green Mountain barrel,a full stock,walnut flintlock.I used the same mould and patch combination and it did really well.Later I got a mould for a .562 ball and used that patch/ball load and the accuracy was as good as the tight one even at 200 yards on our club range.
Has anyone else had a similar experience? Post it if you have.
Bob Roller

Scota4570 · « **Reply #35 on:** July 06, 2024, 06:38:30 PM »

All my crowns are done by me on a lathe with a sickle shaped tool. The innermost part is a only a couple of degrees. They are polished to a mirror finish.

The patch thickness is subjective based on how tight the micrometer is made before reading. I go "pretty tight" but do not spring the frame. This is one area that could use a sticky so we are on the same page.

Only the thinnest patches can be started with hand pressure on the starter. All others require hitting the starter with a mallet to get he ball in the muzzle.

Daryl · « **Reply #36 on:** July 06, 2024, 06:59:07 PM »

I've figured the weight of cloth in ounces as being a fair description on thickness. I use calipers for measuring but even those vary considerably.
I find 10 ounce denim to measure .021 with my "middle" set of calipers. The other 2 measure 1 thou smaller and 1 thou larger. I grip the caliper tines between finger and thumb and squeeze as hard as I can then read off the thickness on the dial. With my mic, I turn the barrel by the ratchet and read off the thickness.
I only use the mallet on the end of my right arm for seating the patched ball into the muzzle with the short starter.

Scota4570 · « **Reply #37 on:** July 07, 2024, 12:19:16 AM »

Measuring it that way makes from 5-10 thousands difference in measured thickness with the various patch materials I have on hand.

I remember having this discussion here a few years ago. I was measuring with digital calipers. I got the impression I should be using a mic and compressing the fabric. I remeasured and remarked my bagged patches.

Using the mic clicker or digital calipers give me the same number.

The pillow ticking I used to call .011 is now considered 0.017". Middle weight canvas went from 0.014 to 0.020. My thick canvas went from 0.018 to 0.029.

Getting the 0.029 down a 45 cal GM pistol barrel with a 440 ball does takes considerable effort. That seems to agree better with the others here.

Daryl · « **Reply #38 on:** July 07, 2024, 01:14:23 AM »

What do you measure 10, 12 and 14 thou. denim as?
I stopped using the mic. because I could kit get consistent measurements unless I used the ratchet. Then I got measurements about .005" under the calipers.
I measure 12 and 14 ounce denim as .030" and .034" thick.
I tried cranking down on 14 ounce denim with the kick barrel and easily got .002", not .034" or anything in between. If the mic had sprung, the measurement would not have been so small. The ratchet which is fairly string, gives repeatable measurements.

duca · « **Reply #39 on:** July 07, 2024, 02:17:51 AM »

I’ve noticed that a stuck patched ball will come out easier if using a metal rod with a T-handle. The trick is not to pull But rather tap on the t- handle with a mallet. Trying to pull is a lot harder than tapping it out. Don’t ask me how I know 😊

Daryl · « **Reply #40 on:** July 08, 2024, 05:17:37 AM »

Interesting. We've always pulled them, without any trouble, but then we also use load combinations that give some people a lot of trouble. Our women folk use the same loads we use. Don't mess with them.

hortonstn · « **Reply #41 on:** July 12, 2024, 07:57:53 PM »

I'm shooting a moody 50 cal heavy bench rifle 1-1/2 dia my load is 85fff a .500 ball with .20 teflon patch . Shooting 60 yds this combo seems to load very easy the group seems to stay around 3"
I'm thinking I need a thicker patch has anyone used an additional patch to add thickness like cigarette
Papers or thin paper
Appreciate your thoughts

Kurt · « **Reply #42 on:** July 12, 2024, 09:29:24 PM »

I don't have any experience with Teflon and thinner material, but I have used two layers of patch material to make a thicker patch and it worked as I hoped.

smylee grouch · « **Reply #43 on:** July 12, 2024, 11:04:35 PM »

I have double patched before as well. 18\1000 greased then a 6\1000 . It worked OK but was more involved as one would expect.

Daryl · « **Reply #44 on:** July 13, 2024, 05:36:49 PM »

I have double patched with a 16 bore ball in my
69 cal. rifle and got 5 shot groups of around 1 1/2" at 50 yards. Generally 4 in a hole and 1 out making the group 1/2" larger.
The ball was .662 with .017" denim patching. While this load was not as tight in the bottons of the grooves as I normally load, it shot cleanly and did not need any wiping. I get the same results with a single patch of 14 ounce that I measure at .034", which is not a remarkable thing.
I also use the same patching (14oz) with a 15 bore ball of .677" dia. With both hard and soft balls. These usually shoot a bit tighter than the smaller balls.

hudson · « **Reply #45 on:** July 13, 2024, 07:44:18 PM »

One of the things I don’t recall seeing mentioned is the combination of coning the bore and a choke in the barrel. In my barrels I usually lap in .0005 to .001 choke, thinking .001 the best. The choke ends a few inches from the muzzle and the coned muzzle ends around ¾ + to around an inch + still experiment with the angel. With the proper short starter it is a bit tight a little bit much for the palm but ok for me, yes a tight load and would be allot worse with our the coned muzzle. As you are pushing the ball/patch only a short distance between the choke and the coned muzzle the rest of the way it goes down easy. I will add I don’t hunt anymore and shoot from mostly clubs that have a bench to lean the rifle on.

Kurt · « **Reply #46 on:** July 13, 2024, 09:01:15 PM »

I was shooting my 1760s-era flintlock yesterday and with the .530 ball and .018 patch, it is pretty easy to load. I was thinking as I loaded it that if I used a tight load I might break the stock at the wrist. I'm not tall so I angle the rifle a bit loading it. The rifle I am building now has a crescent butt and is thinner overall so I hope it is accurate with an easy-to-load combination. It is longer still. Maybe I'll get a step stool.

Scota4570 · « **Reply #47 on:** July 15, 2024, 07:55:31 PM »

Few people know how to lap a choke into a barrel. I have done several and agree that it is an improvement. As far as long cones, I do not do that. I do not think it is best for accuracy but don't want to start a coning debate. I make a gradual rounded crown that extends over less than 1/8". I use a lathe and dial the bore into less than 0.001". The innermost part is only a few degrees off the bore. The lands are tapered over about .050". When taken to a high polish it loads as easy as can be. Accuracy is excellent. Between a good crown and the choke barrel loading any reasonable combination is a breeze.

Daryl · « **Reply #48 on:** July 15, 2024, 08:15:15 PM »

Kurt, when I load my Beck .50 with its 44" bl. I have to angle the barrel somewhat. I am 6' and a bit, but still have to angle the barrel. I use a 10 ounce denim patch with a .495" ball. This combination is easily started due to the smoothly radiused crown described be Scota4570. Once started into the bore it slides down easily with just a few fingers on the rod.

Kurt · « **Reply #49 on:** July 15, 2024, 11:13:13 PM »

At the range this morning my new 40 was burning gas rings in the patches. They were nice to load with the .395 ball. I tried a .018 patch but it was too tight, so I folded the thinner cloth in two and it loaded tighter but acceptably. I think the double patch is .015, but I couldn't find any on the ground to see how they handled the heat. The sun got too hot for me so I'll be going back Wednesday perhaps. Thanks again for the conversation, I appreciate all of it.

News:

Author Topic: Patch and ball. How tight? (Read 3176 times)