Shooting Traditional Firearms and Weapons > General Interest

long-term accuracy

<< < (2/3) > >>

GS-Guns:
How the one and other may know, I'm new to muzzleloaders.

Could it happens, that barrel wear would increase while shooting hot loads with "fast" velocities. Of course, muzzleloaders would never reach bullet velocities of modern cartridge loaded guns - but the barreldesign is also different. So, this could maybe also a part of influence.

But please excuse, if I waste your time, because this is a dumb idea!

Marc

Captchee:
no GS , not a dumb idea at all  and welcome .

 i gotta run , got 420 miles to drive today before i get back home .
 be safe fellas

vermontfreedom:

--- Quote from: "GS-Guns" ---How the one and other may know, I'm new to muzzleloaders.

Could it happens, that barrel wear would increase while shooting hot loads with "fast" velocities. Of course, muzzleloaders would never reach bullet velocities of modern cartridge loaded guns - but the barreldesign is also different. So, this could maybe also a part of influence.

But please excuse, if I waste your time, because this is a dumb idea!

Marc
--- End quote ---

Wilkommen....

Sounds reasonable to me. Certainly it's the case for centerfire rifles. We've probably all heard about those varmint rifles that spit little bullets out at 4,000 fps wearing out much sooner than slower cartridges/rifles.

All else being equal, if you shoot 1800 fps loads from your ML, the barrel will get "shot out" or accuracy will degrade quicker than if you're shooting 1600 or 1400 fps loads. What IS the difference? I have no idea - might be dozens or hundreds of rounds, but we're still probably talkinga bout being able to get thousands if not tens of thousands through.

Loyalist Dave:
One problem is not knowing the provenance of the older guns when comparing to modern guns.  Was the gun well cleaned and cared for?  Was it fired every day?  How many total rounds were fired from it?  What was used to clean it and to prevent rust??  Really tough I think to compare stuff like that, and I have read alot about cutting off a couple of inches on a barrel to restore accuracy, so did ramrod wear mess up the crown at the muzzle back then???

As to accuracy..., If I can't see a deer well enough to engage it beyond 50 yards, and today my new barrel shoots under 1" at 50 yards, and 30 years from know the same barrel shoots inside 4" at fifty yards (assuming that I can still see at all) is that the same as trying to hit a 6" bullseye at 100 yards?  Of course not, so in my example my rifle is still accurate as it is sitll harvesting game, but of course I wouldn't be on the paper at 100 yards in a contest.  So I wonder if an antique rifle was not used to it's maximum capability,  the original owner might've used it well beyond the life of its "accuracy".  So might we??

LD

M1Tommy:

--- Quote from: "vermontfreedom" ---Sounds reasonable to me. Certainly it's the case for centerfire rifles. We've probably all heard about those varmint rifles that spit little bullets out at 4,000 fps wearing out much sooner than slower cartridges/rifles.

All else being equal, if you shoot 1800 fps loads from your ML, the barrel will get "shot out" or accuracy will degrade quicker than if you're shooting 1600 or 1400 fps loads. What IS the difference? I have no idea - might be dozens or hundreds of rounds, but we're still probably talkinga bout being able to get thousands if not tens of thousands through.
--- End quote ---

From what I've gathered from some match rifle (modern rifles) shooters, the older magnum cartridges were inefficient and a good bit of the powder was not burning in the cartridge casing but was burning as it moseyed down the down the barrel.  One theory of throat (the barrel area just in front of the cartridge chamber) erosion is that the unburnt and still-burning powder physically erodes the steel away.  The .243 Win. got a bad rep. for being a barrel-burner, as did a couple of the older .22 caliber varmint cartridges.  Nowadays, better powder selection can help or eliminate that greatly... so I hear from active shooters.  The .243 win. is a great cartridge just not shot in matches as the 6mm whooper-scooter rounds are sooooo efficient.  The newer "short magnums" are very efficient, and burn their powder inside the cartridge casing..... another reason many modern rifles are having shorter and shorter barrels.    
How this pertains to ML?  well, there's no cartridge casing of course, but I'd figure the the more powder is burned in the chamber area, before the barrel proper, the better for barrel life.  

Oh, and I think that a lot more barrels are ruined by improper or over-cleaning, than from just wearing out by shooting.  I know of smallbore (.22 rimfire) match shooters who rarely if EVER clean their barrels, shoot thousands of rounds a year and shoot at a bull about the size of an aspirin pill at 50 yards.  That, from a fairly dirty burning, inefficient round too.  

pardon the ramble, HTH a wee bit.
Moderators, tell me if I'm straying into modern stuff too much.  For some reason internal ballistics fascinates me.

Tommy who will NOT chuck a steel brushed cleaning rod in a drill to 'open up' a rough spot!    

P.S.  scary pic for the day... a borescope photo (not mine) of a throat area....

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page