Post by: Stormrider51 on September 17, 2012, 04:57:18 PM
The Gun - .62 cal flintlock fowler made by Matt Avance of TVM. The bore mikes .618"
The Ball - Pure lead cast round ball measuring an even .600"
Patching & Wads - "dry patch" .010' ticking and the same wads I use for shot
Powder Charge - 80 grains FFFg Goex
Distance - 35 yards
Weather - Clear and calm, temp 78F, humidity 50%
Shooting Position - benchrest
I should note that in the first photo I had previously fired a buckshot load at the target. Those are the taped-over holes. Yes, I'm cheap but since none of the buckshot hit the center I decided to re-use the target for the PRB test. I loaded and fired five consecutive shots. You can see the results.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v415/jhansen1951/PRB.jpg)
Two balls almost went through the same hole. The vertical stringing I blame on myself. I'm still trying to get used to the no-rear-sight thing and not having a good cheek weld to the stock. The result is that my face may be a fraction higher or lower from shot to shot and this results in shot stringing.
Next I changed targets and again loaded and fired five consecutive shots. This time I used wads with a bare ball where a shot charge would normally be. Here are the results.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v415/jhansen1951/Wads.jpg)
Again there is vertical stringing that was my fault but look at the horizontal stringing. It was a calm day and any slight air motion was from directly behind me. The shots didn't follow in a line from right to left or vice-versa either. They were totally random with the first shot being the rightmost and the next toward the middle, then the right again, then leftmost, and so on.
What did I learn? Well, it seems that a PRB does group better than a ball and wad combo. It may be that a slightly larger ball would fare better with wads than the .600" I used. I'll try some larger balls if I can lay my hands on some. Felt recoil is a subjective thing but I'd swear recoil was less with the balls and wads. Less recoil means lower velocity and that idea is supported by the overall point of impact being lower when using ball and wads. This could indicate gas blow-by on the wads but it would take a chrono to be sure. Mine got borrowed and never returned.
I encourage anyone who has thoughts on this subject to speak up.
Storm
Post by: Hank in WV on September 17, 2012, 06:12:13 PM
Post by: Uncle Russ on September 17, 2012, 08:23:00 PM
My load in that old gun, with a bore of .677 is 80gr Goex FFg and directly over that a .025 OP Card that measures .687 in dia. (.15ga. )from Circle Fly, then a .648 ball and a .015 patch.
This didn't just happen overnight, it took years of "foolin around" with different combinations before I ended up with what I have. I also had to order the mould from Jeff Tanner, because a .648 round ball mould was impossible to find on the market at that time.
IIRC, I had a mould back then that threw about .660 round ball, of course that left me with only .017 to play with for patches in a .677 bore, and I always got burn-thru and galling, or leading...the old gun would clean up easy enough but things were not just right and accuracy with a round ball was the pits.
Then, many years ago, Captchee was the first to suggest the use of a card wad.
It seems some folks use one, sometimes two cards and a thin patch...the thought of the cards is not only to prevent burn-thru, but to provide a more even distribution of pressure on the base of the ball.
Also, it pays to play around with OS and OP cards in different thickness'....quite often a OS (over shot) card will work wonders in place of a OP Card.
But before anyone does anything they need to know the exact diameter of their bore, in your case you already have that measurement, and that is GREAT!
If your bore mic's .618, and your ball is right on .600, you will likely need a .625 OP wad, and a rather thin patch of about .010
I can't remember for sure, but I think .625 is about the smallest "useful" OP wad for a .62cal that Circle Fly has, I'm not absolutely sure of that, I'd have to look.
You don't want a OP wad that is too small, or one that is 'really' easy to load...in fact, you may have to use razor blade cuts around the edges to allow the air to escape so you can get it down on the powder good....but that is what you want.
Early on, I remember times when I loaded my gun with powder, placed the wad down the bore, seated it on the powder, and the ram rod would raise up in the barrel about a foot, by all itself....scary!
But that's when I started making incisions around the outer edges of the wad to let the air escape and apparently that solved the problem because I haven't seen that happen in years now, and I certainly always look for it before seating the patched ball.....leave the rod down the bore, on the rod mark, while getting the ball ready to load.
Of course you already know that the patch doubles in thickness when counting each side of the ball, but remains a constant on the bottom of the ball over the powder...if you are getting burn-thru, it will show in the patches at or near dead center bottom.
The OP wad distributes the pressure on the bottom of ball more evenly, and theoretically provides a more constant grouping....at least that's the theory.
Of course, like everything else in Muzzleloading, your mileage may vary, and what's good for the Goose is not always good for the Gander too.
Uncle Russ...
Post by: rickevans on September 18, 2012, 08:05:04 AM
Post by: Captchee on September 18, 2012, 11:57:57 AM
Quote from: "rickevans"
Good stuff here....any one try just wadding and no patch on the round ball? Let me clarify...any try that and get GOOD (minute of deer) results?Yes .
Back during the time Uncle Russ mentioned , I was working on a load for my English fowler . I was having great success with shot loads . But less then desirable results with the PRB .
Then during an event I got to discussing this topic with another smoothbore shooter .
His problem wasn’t with RB accuracy but with shot pattern. So we started swapping notes .
His solution was to use a wad then ball , then over the shot card to hold the ball in place
So we both walked to the range that evening after all the shooting was done . I loaded my shot combo in his fowler and he loaded his RB combo in my fowler . After a few shots to discern a ball park powder charge , he had my fowler shooting RB as well as his and I had his fowler shooting a shot pattern near as good as mine ..
The difference in his load compared to mine was that he was using a soft wad . By soft I mean you could squeeze it down between your finger and thumb . While this worked well for the RB , it didn’t work well for his shot load .
Where my two over the powder cards . The 2nd being wet , worked well enough for his shot load , it didn’t work well for my RB load .
After some thinking on this , I believe this maybe what happens with the soft wad . As you load the ball , it slides down the bore and gets compressed into the wad alittle . The over the shot card holds the ball in place and as you tamp it , the ball settles even more to the wad
When the gun is fired , I suspect the softer wad forms more to the ball , cupping it tighter to the bore as the pressure tries to force the outer edges of the wad around the ball .
In the years since I have tried this in many smoothbores . Sometimes the accuracy increases and sometimes it decreases .
But I believe that one of the possible reasons for the decrease maybe do to a difference in bore to ball comparisons between different barrels . It just doesn’t seem to work as well with tighter tolerances . At least for me anyway .
Now that being said . I have found that one can over load the powder charge when using a wad .
So some work on getting the proper charge is a lot of times needed .
To give you some idea of how well this can work , here is a target shot by one of my customers.
He had never shot smoothbore before , nore had he shot flint . This is his first 3 shots at 5o yards off a bench
62 cal
.600 RB
.624 soft horse hair wad grease with bees wax
70 gr 2FF goex
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/captchee/gun%20stock%20artical/storm015.jpg)
now this is his target while shooting off hand at 50 and then 75 yards .
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/captchee/gun%20stock%20artical/storm016-1.jpg)
this is a target from my Hudson Valley also using soft wads but at 25 yards .
i then followed with a shot load uisng the same charge
you can see that the shot patern is alittle low . but the RB pattern once i settled into sighting the 52 inch barrel was very acceptable
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/captchee/gun%20stock%20artical/DSC00768-1.jpg)
now once i raised the powder charge by 10 grains for a shot load . this was the resulting pattern . Infact this target was shot at 25 yards using nothing but green leaves for wadding . the charge is was 80 grains of 2F under 1 1/2 oz of #71/2 shot
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/captchee/gun%20stock%20artical/DSC00952.jpg)
so IMO yes using just a soft wad over the powder can work . does it work with every gun , nope
Post by: mario on September 19, 2012, 01:25:53 AM
"A smoothbore is not a rifle."
Again.
"A smoothbore is not a rifle."
One more time.
"A smoothbore is not a rifle."
Great. Now that it's out of the way, I use wadding and bare ball in both of my smoothbores. I am not a target shooter. I don't shoot at many sheets of paper with rings on them once I develop a load. I am a HISTORICAL shooter. That is to say I strive to shoot using the equipment and methods that people used in my chosen time/place (1740-1783/Canada and the colonies).
So my definition of an accurate load or good results is twofold.
1. Is it historically correct to the best of my ability?
So far, there is absolutely zero evidence of the use of a PRB in a smoothbore during my chosen period. By contrast, there is a large amount of evidence for wadding with a RB.
2. Can I hit what I'm shooting at?
Since I am not looking to cut the X-ring with every shot, this is different than many folks here. Generally, 4 of 5 hits on a 6-8" paper plate/gong at 50yds is my "yardstick". That is plenty of accuracy for big game in Eastern forests and the "enemy" in most woods-walks, etc.
If you are a chunk gun or BR shooter, the smoothbore may look downright silly. Taken in context, a well-made smoothbore is more accurate than most of the folks shooting it.
One of these days, I'll get one of them newfangled firelocks with the spirally scratches in the barrel...
Mario
Post by: Captchee on September 19, 2012, 04:57:00 AM
My browser must not be working right . It sure seems like here lately when I Click on the TMA im reading posts from the muzzle loading forum or Frontier Folk .
If those were the places and types of environment I wanted to go to . that’s where I would go .
However it is NOT . WE have rules here that keep this forum from becoming either
A) all out P%$$ fest
B) a forum that surrounds itself soul with specific defined Historical correct , Page and verse .
A constant argument as to what’s historically correct on average . Not to mention a constant fight to see who know more then who
“MOD HAT ON “
Mario
SIR . I tip my hat to your knowledge .
But you seriously need to step back and think about how you word some of your comments .
Let me be clear . The problem isint with your information , it’s the way you present it that’s becoming un acceptable and belittling . IMO there was no call for the first part of your post .
Simply put .there is no need to treat people that way .
If you were being tongue and cheek with humor . Fine , please say so , use the dreaded emotion cons or use the LOL , so we know .
Without doing that your information , which again is often spot on , is all to often being discarded as arrogance .
"Hat Off" .
Now lets discuss Marios point .
I would agree with much of what Mario posted . A smoothbore is not a rifle . that’s simply fact .
but while rifles do increase accuracy at longer ranges. IMO there is no reason they should be more accurate at closer ranges .
I would also agree that there is very little to no evidence to support the use of PRB in smooth bores .
At least in the historical context of fowlers. That pretty much current ,accepted information for the time frame and surroundings that he brought up .
So if your surrounding yourself with both the environment and situation of trying to be 100% HC in your shooting , then by all means follow that line of thought .
BUT that being said . Most of this country is no longer environmentally the same as it was in that time frame. Even if it was and following the same line of thought , many of us should not be using they types of “Weapons” we use or own .. On top of that there are other modern issues that we consider that frankly was not considered all to greatly in that same historical context .
Case in point . Im a hunter . I don’t like shooting paper targets . However I do .
The reason I do is
a) I want to tune my guns, be they rifles OR smooth bore , to be as accurate as they can possibly be within their effective range . Simply put Im not happy with a paper plate size group . If that’s the best I can get at a given range then I adjust my opinion of the effective range for that gun , when hunting .
b) some of the events I go to “speaking of target shooting now “ have paper targets . So I again I want my guns to shoot as well as I can possibly shoot them
Now because im a hunter who chooses to use the type of guns I do , I don’t do what a lot of target shooters OR Re-enactors do . I don’t reduce my loads for target shooting . ALL my target shooting is done with full Hunting loads. The reason for this is because my target shooting is ALLWAYS practice for hunting .
This is not to say that when im shooting very long distances with the same loads , that im doing so for hunting . That type of shooting at those distances is strictly for fun and enjoyment , even though im using the very same hunting loads .
In genral my rifles when used for hunting ARE 100 yard or less guns and my smooth bores 50 or less .
doesn’t mater the load , the accuracy. The type of projectile …. That is my rule and that’s what I follow. So I hunt according to those self imposed restrictions .
Let me also say that I also subscribe to closer is better . So just because my intended target may be at 90 yards when I have one of my rifles . I will and always do try and close that range to as near as possible before taking the shot
So to be blunt . If we are to be restricted to so called documental , historic practices that produce a paper plate size pattern at 25-35 yards then
a) im leaving the gun at home when hunting season comes around
b) im using a different gun because frankly that one is either crap OR I have not put in the time to properly learn the gun .
Simply put im not spending endless hours of my time searching out a wounded animal because I wanted to be HC in my load .
We do not live in the time where simply walking away was acceptable .
all am saying is there is a time and place for HC . But , IMO shooting at another LIVING thing , is NOT one of them .At least not for me .
NO , Mario , im not saying your find that acceptable either. IMO your far smarter then that.
Tung and cheek here , but those of us with military experience are well trained in the difference between a rifle and a gun “shoulder fired weapon “. In which case we know that the term rifle can indeed be a rifled bore or a smooth bore firearm . Where a gun has nothing to do with either . LOL.
Now let me get back on topic .
As I said in my earlier posts . I have found where the use of a simple wad can and is often just as accurate ,sometimes a lot more accurate then a patched ball when used in a smooth bore .
However . I am lead to believe that in many cases this is effected by chosen size of projectile . Which plays into IMO ,a historical context .
Today we often get hung up in finding a specific sized ball for a specific caliber .
Did they do that historically. To some existent yes But lets remember that like today .,bore diameters were not all that consistent when measured barrel to barrel . This may very well be why a smaller then modernly accepted diameter works so well with a wad .
Frankly I don’t know . Maybe even a tighter ball would also work . Myself based on my conclusion “Theory “ I have chose to go smaller .
But in the end what is accurate enough is all up to the person pulling the trigger .
If a person finds that patching a ball in their smoothbore gives them better accuracy , then 2 thumbs up from me . If you’re a historical shooter and chose to use perceived historical loads . You find them to be accurate enough for you and your situation . 2 thumbs up .
But if your one of those so called historical experts who subscribes to the opinion that a smooth bores were so inaccurate as to not be capable of hitting a barn door at 25 yards . Then IMO not only are you NOT an expert on that firearm , its also questionable as to your opinion on any other firearm
Post by: rickevans on September 19, 2012, 09:27:58 AM
I am working on a load to use in my smoothbore that would be effecient (minute of deer, or enemy...) with wadding.
Post by: Captchee on September 19, 2012, 10:53:06 AM
be as mater of fact as you like . just do it in a way that does not belittle others .
thats goes for EVERYONE
Post by: Stormrider51 on September 19, 2012, 11:07:22 AM
Muzzle loading isn't about being historically correct. It isn't about benchrest shooting. Nor is it about accepting the challenge of hunting with an antique style of firearm. It's not about going out and shooting for the fun of it. It's about all of these things. And more. All these different facets are what makes muzzleloading different and, in my opinion, more interesting than most other forms of shooting. There's something for just about everyone.
I don't own a single piece of historically correct clothing and haven't since the 1970's. Back then I did some of the local re-enactments and had the right clothing and gear for that time period. That was before a job that included 24 hour shifts and working two weekends out of three pretty much made it impossible to attend any sort of organized shooting event. Those days are gone and my weekends are once again mine. My friend Bull3540 is gently nudging me toward getting some period clothes. Who knows? I might do it.
When it comes to wringing the last bit of accuracy from a firearm, regardless of type, I'm firmly in Captchee's camp. There is simply no excuse for not working up the most accurate load if a person intends to discharge that firearm at a living creature. Shooting at paper from a benchrest is the way to do that. We owe it to the game we hunt to provide as quick and humane a death as possible. If putting a patched round ball down my smooth bore makes it more accurate, then that's what I'll do. If something else works just as well I'll try that too. That's why I started this thread, to explore the possibilities of the smooth bore and to share information and ideas with others.
We don't live in the 1700's or 1800's. Heck, we don't even live in the 1900's anymore. All of the shooting sports are under a microscope and in very real danger of banishment. If you think we are safe with our old-timey guns, think again. How big a step would it be for the government to decide we Citizens can't be trusted with something as explosive as black powder? Flintlocks don't work with "substitutes". We all need to stand together regardless of which facet of this sport we prefer. Join the TMA.
Storm
Post by: Uncle Russ on September 19, 2012, 12:04:31 PM
They are just as damaging here on this cyber forum as they are in person at the local Rendezvous.
And, Mario is very guilty of doing just that!
Very few threads on this open forum escape scrutiny of the HC / PC Police, and many folks are tired of it. They have had their fill, plus some.
I have personally let many posts go on by where I could have contributed, but I didn't because I knew the HC / PC Police would be all over it.
If tyhe membership of this Organization would like to create a complete, totally new area on this forum, for HC / PC subjects only, I would support that.
That way the rest of us would not irritate the HC / PC crowd.
But for it to be injected in just any post, because someone just happens to feel they are well read and even knowledgeable about what happened in a particular time frame, it is uncalled for, and unwanted in my eyes.
Mario is to be commended for his knowledge of history, and his ability to recall or provide some point of reference to his postings, even if it is only one or maybe even two persons opinion or observations from that time period.
However, IMO, his mannerisms and the use of that knowledge suffers greatly when he jumps in slinging mud with both hands.....every dummy alive knows it was done just a little bit differently back in the day, and when these dummies get to the point where they want to know exactly how it was done back then, such information would prove invaluable, and I feel sure they would go directly to the Subject Matter Expert, but until it's asked for, I see little need for it to be forced fed.
Russ
Post by: rickevans on September 19, 2012, 01:55:16 PM
Capchee says:
Quote
If that’s the best I can get at a given range then I adjust my opinion of the effective range for that gun , when hunting .which is exactly what I plan to do.
I appreciate all of the information and helps offered, no offense meant and none taken.
Post by: Stormrider51 on September 19, 2012, 02:49:42 PM
Storm
Post by: rickevans on September 19, 2012, 04:31:01 PM
I am also taking a look at paper cartridges for these smooth bores, especially if one's persona was of ex-military or militia training and has a musket to use on the homestead. I have read wadding as tow, wool (blanket? tailoring?) scraps, leaves, grass, shreaded bark, hornets next (empty first!!)... and when (if) work slows a bit and I can get to playing some more I will try those things and more.
My pursuit is to get an accurate hunting load, that will work with-in my pre-determined, self imposed limitations. I hunt with a smoothbore flinter because it is more challenging and I enjoy re-discovering what our forefathers knew instinctively more that 200 years ago!
Now, let's all have another cup of coffee, light our pipes and take a deep breath.
Post by: rickevans on September 19, 2012, 04:35:18 PM
Post by: Hanshi on September 19, 2012, 04:45:10 PM
Anyway, I got good results using a lubed 1/2" fiber wad over the powder, bare ball centered and pushed down with os card wad on top. At 50 yards it was easy to keep all shots on a paper plate (4"-6"). By that I mean MORE than just 5 shots. For woods deer that, IMHO, is satisfactory.
I have to say, though, that using the same fiber wad op and seating a ball patched with something like .010" lubed cotton does even better. Using this load I shot 8 balls into 2.5" at 50 yards using a WW .605" ball rather than a .600" lead ball. The lead ball might do as well or better but I want to use WW as I have a large supply. Patched .605" WW ball loads tight in my gun but is quite doable in the woods and even easier with wiping between shots. I need to do more work but my present load works just fine on deer.
Post by: Stormrider51 on September 19, 2012, 04:52:05 PM
For some reason when I try to PM you I get an error message. Email me at jhansen1951@gmail.com.
Post by: Captchee on September 19, 2012, 05:27:32 PM
what i use is old horse hair carpet pad . which is nothing but a thick wool made from horse hair .
i call these wads becouse i pre cut and lube them . but in fact they really are nothing like fiber shotgun wads
Post by: mario on September 20, 2012, 01:19:35 AM
Quote from: "Captchee"
“MOD HAT ON “
Mario
SIR . I tip my hat to your knowledge .
But you seriously need to step back and think about how you word some of your comments .
Let me be clear . The problem isint with your information , it’s the way you present it that’s becoming un acceptable and belittling . IMO there was no call for the first part of your post .
Simply put .there is no need to treat people that way .
If you were being tongue and cheek with humor . Fine , please say so , use the dreaded emotion cons or use the LOL , so we know .
Without doing that your information , which again is often spot on , is all to often being discarded as arrogance .
Firstly, that was not my intention. If anyone took it that way, I apologize.
Secondly, the OP stated:
Quote from: "Stormrider51"
I encourage anyone who has thoughts on this subject to speak up.
So I did. And tried to show that my perspective is a little different than his (and others') on the subject.
If my effective range is reduced with a HC load, so be it. If I can be quite sure of a killing shot at 35yds but not 50yds, then I wait for a 35yd shot. If I wanted the most efficient firearm for hunting, I'd be carrying a scoped bolt-action. I work within the limitations.
BTW- In the hunting field around here, I've never seen a deer past 50yds. Heck, I haven't seen one past 35yds. The rolling terrain and the vegetation prevent it.
The "A smoothbore is not a rifle" comment was made in fun and to remind folks that are new to the smoothbore gun that if you have the same expectations with it as you do a rifle, you will be sorely disappointed. If you are the type of person that gets a 3" group and spends 3lbs of powder trying to get a load that groups 2.87", you may also be disappointed.
If my explaining of my perspective on a subject becomes "mud-slinging" to folks simply because I mention an HC way of doing something, then I don't know what to tell you.
I wasn't trying to "force feed" anyone anything. I gave my perspective/experience on a subject because, after all, SR51 said:
Quote from: "Stormrider51"
I encourage anyone who has thoughts on this subject to speak up.
But I guess some folks sensitivities take precedence.
Stormrider51, I am sorry your thread has taken such a turn.
Mario
PS-
Quote from: "RussB"
...every dummy alive knows it was done just a little bit differently back in the day...
Actually, no. Most people (smart folks included) don't know that.
Post by: Adam Wetherington on September 20, 2012, 06:57:53 AM
When 1 guy agrees with Mario you jump his case and say no more comments are needed (or something to that effect)....yet when guys who agree with you jump his case you say nothing to them?
Fair and balanced moderating right there.
Did I word that right so I didn't upset you???
:bow :bow :happy :happy :happy :roll eyes :roll eyes :evil: :evil:
Post by: Stormrider51 on September 20, 2012, 10:27:22 AM
I'm going to add one last observation. I see the TMA as an organization of great potential. I'm also wondering if it is dying. I go to the forum and see the same posts day after day. What will it take to make this association into a valuable resource for those interested in traditional muzzleloading? Not much. Just some participation. Mario, you are obviously a storehouse of information about how things were done historically. Why not share some of that knowledge? Post your journey on the forum. Tell us how you started and what you learned on the way. Captchee, where I built mostly modern rifles, you build muzzleloaders and therefore have my admiration and respect. Tell us how all that came about. Tips and tricks about building or repair appreciated too. The same goes for the rest of you. If you have areas of expertise or even just observations tell the rest of us about it. Let's make the TMA forum into what I'd like it to be, namely that other forum without all the meanness and fighting. And please remember that bandwidth costs money. Please spend the $15 and join!
Storm
Post by: Uncle Russ on September 20, 2012, 10:37:46 AM
Quote from: "blackpowderscout"
Captchee,
When 1 guy agrees with Mario you jump his case and say no more comments are needed (or something to that effect)....yet when guys who agree with you jump his case you say nothing to them?
Fair and balanced moderating right there.
Did I word that right so I didn't upset you???
:bow :bow :happy :happy :happy :roll eyes :roll eyes :evil: :evil:
I'll tell you why that happened!
I can't speak for Captchee, but I can speak for myself.
When I opened the post notification in my browser it went straight to Mario's post, it was quite obvious that both SR51 and my own post had been hi-jacked by Mario with a bunch the PC stuff.
And, as a moderator myself, it is my job to point out how wrong Mario is consistently in doing this.
It is not his first time, there has been complaints for years about him taking on the role of PC Police.
There are many members on this forum who welcome HC / PC speak, and often ask for that advise.
There are just as many who don't, and don't really care for it being interjected into threads without first being asked for.
If I had read Captchee' post first, I would have realized he had the situation covered and there would have been no need for me post anything.
Per established protocol, I would have simply kept my eye on that thread the rest of the day, and locked it down and removed it if things became too rough.
But that ain't what happened.
Now, did I word that just right for you?
I don't want no hard feelings over what has happened, but to hi-jack a thread and turn it around 360 because you believe only one way, which is the PC way, is the only right way of doing anything.
This borders on harassment for those who don't want to hear it day in and day out, and it simply can not be allowed to continue.
Russ
Post by: Captchee on September 20, 2012, 11:10:41 AM
Quote from: "blackpowderscout"
Captchee,
When 1 guy agrees with Mario you jump his case and say no more comments are needed (or something to that effect)....yet when guys who agree with you jump his case you say nothing to them?
Fair and balanced moderating right there.
Did I word that right so I didn't upset you???
:bow :bow :happy :happy :happy :roll eyes :roll eyes :evil: :evil: :hairy
Post by: Stormrider51 on September 20, 2012, 05:06:28 PM
First group was wads with bare ball sandwiched between them. I had noted last time the horizontal stringing. That didn't repeat this time. Here' the target. Ignore the rightmost hole. It was a called flyer.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v415/jhansen1951/wads2_zps31be1a7e.jpg)
Not great but not that bad either.
Next I tried tow. I ran a wad of it down on the powder charge, dropped in the bare ball, and followed with another small wad of tow to keep things in place. The result surprised me and is no small amount of vindication for our HC bretheren. Take a look.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v415/jhansen1951/tow_zps525b28b3.jpg)
While we were back to the darned horizontal stringing, that group is no larger than the one fired with wads and in truth is better because elevation is very consistent. I have to confess that I didn't expect this. I was thinking gas blow-by was going to lead to erratic velocities and all the problems that causes. I do hereby eat humble pie. I'd need to repeat the test and get consistent results before being sure but from here it looks as if buying wads for shooting round balls is a waste of money.
Next I'll try a larger (closer to bore size) ball. Rick Evans volunteered to send me a few for testing purposes. Thank you Rick!
I really didn't want to buy a mold that I'd end up selling in short order. That test will be done after the balls arrive.Storm
Post by: greyhunter on September 20, 2012, 05:26:51 PM
Post by: Gambia on September 20, 2012, 09:14:43 PM
Post by: greyhunter on September 21, 2012, 12:10:21 AM
Post by: Stormrider51 on September 21, 2012, 12:35:48 AM
Storm
Post by: mario on September 21, 2012, 12:56:02 AM
Quote from: "Bull3540"
Please enlighten me on this subject and the use of tow in a smoothbore, because I'm having a hard time visualizing how it is loaded and keeps the RB from rolling out the muzzle. Is there enough fiber in the wad of tow to get around the ball and grip it slightly, at least enough to keep it in the bore? Or do you have to sandwich the ball in between wads of tow?
At the risk of offending someone:
"It is the General's orders, that none of the men load with cartridges upon their regimental
parades but from these powder horns; and to have wadding above and below the ball, to keep both powder and ball firm in their pieces."
John Knox, 1759 (Knox, pg 259)
With tow, specifically, you wad it up into a ball, push it downbore and it expands slightly once it "relaxes". That and a bit of fouling helps keep everything in place. Unless you swinging your firelock around your head, it doesn't take much. When at a stationary range, I only wad over the ball. If doing a woodswalk/hunting, I wad over powder and over ball just to make sure.
Quote from: "RussB"
I'll tell you why that happened!
I can't speak for Captchee, but I can speak for myself.
When I opened the post notification in my browser it went straight to Mario's post, it was quite obvious that both SR51 and my own post had been hi-jacked by Mario with a bunch the PC stuff.
And, as a moderator myself, it is my job to point out how wrong Mario is consistently in doing this.
It is not his first time, there has been complaints for years about him taking on the role of PC Police.
There are many members on this forum who welcome HC / PC speak, and often ask for that advise.
There are just as many who don't, and don't really care for it being interjected into threads without first being asked for.
If I had read Captchee' post first, I would have realized he had the situation covered and there would have been no need for me post anything.
Per established protocol, I would have simply kept my eye on that thread the rest of the day, and locked it down and removed it if things became too rough.
But that ain't what happened.
Now, did I word that just right for you?
I don't want no hard feelings over what has happened, but to hi-jack a thread and turn it around 360 because you believe only one way, which is the PC way, is the only right way of doing anything.
This borders on harassment for those who don't want to hear it day in and day out, and it simply can not be allowed to continue.
Please point out where I said anyone HAS to do it my way and I will gladly leave the board. People ask for opinions, I give mine. When needed, I back it up with primary documentation. Quite simple, really.
Quote from: "Stormrider51"
Mario, you are obviously a storehouse of information about how things were done historically. Why not share some of that knowledge?
Because, apparently, it offends people when I start "slinging mud" when I try and "force feed" them information. I do have 2 blogs for anyone interested. They are in my sig line.
Mario
Post by: rickevans on September 21, 2012, 08:47:17 AM
Post by: Kermit on September 21, 2012, 01:07:38 PM
WITHIN that framework I firmly believe there is room for discussion of anything, blue jeans for patching to blunderbusses for bear hunting. I'm thinking the folks who are a bit sensitive find comments like "My way of doing things is..." to be unacceptable, need to just get a sack of security and sprinkle it over their heads and let things go. I saw Mario responding in the spirit of both the forum and the original post. Seems to me he was not trying to narrow the discussion, but to broaden it. Thank you, Mario. Some of the rest of you might want to reread your posts--I did--and found them just a wee tiny bit t!ght@$$.
I'll stick a bunch of emoticons here, and that will lighten it up my last statement. Isn't that the way it's done?
:bow :toast :hey-hey :peace
Post by: rickevans on September 25, 2012, 10:15:19 AM
I have send a bag of .610 lead RB to Stormrider51 for use in the next little test. We know that a tight patched RB is a smooth bore will give good (some really good) accuracy, but what of a closer to bore diameter RB and wadding? We shall see...
Post by: Stormrider51 on September 25, 2012, 10:35:11 AM
Storm
Post by: Stormrider51 on September 28, 2012, 09:41:59 PM
The .610 ball with wads didn't surprise me any although the group was better than the one I shot using .600's. Note the two touching holes.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v415/jhansen1951/wads610.jpg)
Now it was time for the tow wadding and the .610 ball. This one was a stunner. Look at that group and compare it to the one I originally fired using a patch around the ball. Unbelievable? That's what I thought so I repeated the test with the same result. This gun just plain likes the tow and .610 ball.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v415/jhansen1951/tow610.jpg)
So that's it. It has been fun and I'll be repeating each test at least two more times to be sure of my results. If anything changes I'll be back to report it. In the mean time I urge each of you to do your own testing and share the results either here or start a thread of your own.
Storm
Post by: rickevans on September 29, 2012, 08:25:14 PM
Thanks for the bench work John, much appreciated.
Post by: Stormrider51 on September 29, 2012, 08:55:53 PM
Storm
Post by: Roaddog on October 01, 2012, 06:07:51 AM
Post by: No Rod on October 01, 2012, 09:14:40 AM
Post by: yulzari on July 19, 2013, 01:43:47 PM
In this wad v patch discussion mention was made of paper cartridges ( as used in the military from the 17th century onwards).
They do seem to be something of both, if the right thickness and quality (rag not pulp) of paper is used and the ball end is lubricated and the whole cartridge is inserted.
The empty powder end, going in first, balls up on the powder as a paper wad that self forms into a cup for the ball. The head of the cartridge holds the ball off the bore walls in the manner of a patch.
Does anyone have a knowledge of the events then on as the package exits the muzzle? One would desire that either the cartridge immediately blows off the ball or that the whole cartridge stays over the ball and the powder tube trails behind like a stabilising tail.
Post by: Stormrider51 on July 19, 2013, 04:23:07 PM
Storm
Post by: yulzari on July 19, 2013, 04:53:35 PM
The key thing about good rag paper is that it is tough so a tallow lubricated example of good thickness should be well able to act as a paper patch and the military were quite fussy about the paper they used. Trivial factoid but 'cartridge paper' was made for artillery cartridges, only later taken up by water colour artists. Not for shoulder arms.
There is no reason for a civilian to bite off the end of the cartridge. The military sought speed in loading and biting freed the left hand free to hold the firelock whilst the right primed (holding the cartridge with the thumb and first 2 fingers) leaving the last 2 to wipe the hammer closed over the priming as the right hand went up to the muzzle to pour in the charge. It was the introduction of the percussion cap that allowed the tearing off as there was no hammer to close over the pan. I would bet that the old boys of the regiments won a few bets loading a firelock faster than a percussion, not having to fumble for a cap in a pouch.
The military certainly loaded the cartridge powder case down leaving the ball as the last part to go in.
Having several times seen large numbers of black powder long guns being repeatedly fired en masse I can understand the military obsession with speed not accuracy. After two ranks have fired the targets have disappeared from view so the troops could only fire in the vague direction of where they expected the enemy to be in the grey/white fog in front of them. By the time you see them it is pointy stick time.
My (uninformed) opinion is that the choking on the front of the ball is stripped open and the ball speeds away out of the cartridge as it emerges from the barrel. If anyone can locate a piece of high speed photography to confirm or deny this I would be fascinated to see it. In fact it would explain the use of choking, rather than folding or twisting, to secure the ball end of the cartridge.
Post by: KHickam on July 21, 2013, 09:20:12 PM