Single Ball - Patch vs Wads

[Stormrider51]

I read an article a while back where the author stated he used round balls with wads instead of patching in his smooth bore and got good results in terms of accuracy.  I was a little doubtful and wondered what he considered "good results" so I decided to try it out myself.  Here's some basic background data.

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.



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.



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

[Hank in WV]

You might want to experiment with higher powder charges.

[Uncle Russ]

Storm, I greatly improved my own grouping with a prb in my old smoothbore, which is a .69cal using a .648 ball, with the addition of a simple OP (over powder) Card.
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...

[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?

[Captchee]

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



 now this is his target  while shooting off hand at 50 and then 75 yards .



 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  


 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



so IMO yes using just a soft wad over the powder can work . does it work with every gun , nope

[mario]

OK. First, please repeat after me.

"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

[Captchee]

What is going on here lately ?!!!! .
 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

[rickevans]

Mario...thanks for the post and comments. I know the 'Virtual Mario" enough now to know that you were not being a jacka$$, just very matter of fact and to the point. Even humorous.

I am working on a load to use in my smoothbore that would be effecient (minute of deer, or enemy...) with wadding.

[Captchee]

no need to pick sides  add additional comments...... , things have been laid out .
 be as mater of fact as you like . just do it in a way that does not belittle others .
thats goes for EVERYONE

[Stormrider51]

I found this forum and like the folks here.  I even pay my $15/yr to be a member instead of a guest.  Everyone on here should.  I believe that we can and should be a source of information for newcomers to the sport as well as a means of sharing information and ideas between those of us with more experience.  This is unlike at least one other forum I know of where newbies asking basic questions are often ridiculed and insulted.

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

[Uncle Russ]

IMHO, Historically Correct, and Period Correct, spur of the moment statements, are as damaging to Traditional Muzzleloading in general, as In-Lines ever were.
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

[rickevans]

I am willing to reduce the opportunity or increase the difficulty, depending on how one looks at the situation, in an effort to emulate the closest I can get to HC/PC methods.
Capchee says:

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.

[Stormrider51]

To get back to the subject at hand, smoothbore accuracy with a single ball, I've been given a couple more ideas to evaluate by the posts on this thread.  I think Captchee covered using a soft wad pretty completely.  I have some tow and if Rick was asking what I think he was it was about using "wadding" as opposed to "wads".  I'll give that one a try in the next few days and see what happens.  I'm also going to re-shoot the .600 ball sandwiched between two shot wads.  That horizontal stringing bugs me.  Given the suggestion that I try larger charges of powder I'll be trying that as well.  If I can get some larger balls, say .610 or so, I'll run all the tests again to see if it makes a difference.  Anyone got a few they are willing to donate to the cause?  

Storm

[rickevans]

Yes Mr. Storm...I was thinking "wadding" and not wads. Sorry for the mis-direction there for a while...

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.

[rickevans]

I also have some .610 RB i will donate to the cause. PM me with a snail mail address and they are on the way to you.