Post by: vthompson on November 27, 2010, 11:06:42 PM
Anyway, I was reading on Lyman's website about their GPR rifles in 50 cal. and they say that their barrels have a 1 in 60 twist for patched round balls and for hunting loads.
My current rifle is a T/C Percussion with a 1 in 48 twist. My question is this: Which is the best twist???
Your advise will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time.
Post by: Hank in WV on November 28, 2010, 07:40:51 AM
Post by: Riley/MN on November 28, 2010, 09:58:41 AM
Quote from: "Hank in WV"
For shooting .50 roundball only, the slower 60" twist will be better.
Post by: pathfinder on November 28, 2010, 10:12:31 AM
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on November 28, 2010, 10:57:14 AM
As I have no intention of using conical , I"ll stay as much as possible , to the slower twists . I"m quite certain that if fast twists were condusive to PRB accy. the oldtime gun makers would have deduceds this in a few hundred years of building guns for use with PRBs .
Post by: vthompson on November 28, 2010, 08:22:19 PM
Post by: cb on November 29, 2010, 01:02:26 AM
Quote
I"m quite certain that if fast twists were condusive to PRB accy. the oldtime gun makers would have deduceds this in a few hundred years of building guns for use with PRBsWell FWIW the most common twist on AMERICAN made originals is in fact the 1-48" twist. It is the only twist known to have been used by the Hawken Bros and their 50+ caliber guns were famed for their accuracy.
One advantage to the 1-48" is you generally use less powder yet you get reasonable velocity and you can get excellent accuracy - whether the 1-60" is "better" will depend on other factors not just the twist rate.
The slower twists, such as 1-60" or slower, do generally give higher velocites along with good accuracy, but at the expense of using more powder.
The 1-48" got a bad rap back in the 1970's when using roundballs and stiff powder charges due to the shallow rifling on so many of the commercial guns made then for alternate use with conicals. It was the shallow rifling not the rate of twist that caused the problem. The whole idea of a compromise PRB/conical rifle was not the best.
A well built 1-48" twist with the proper deep grooves for roundball will shoot with the best of them and is also PC
Post by: Captchee on November 29, 2010, 08:14:51 AM
Historically and of course depending on the maker , time period and such , rates of twist can be found ranging from NO twist at all . to slow twist that are over 1 in 100
To the 1 in 56through 1 in 70
And yes that later 1 in 48 used by Hawkens and commonly pointed to in such discussions as these .
Now its been awhile since I read any of the Hawkens writings CB .
But as I recall the 1 in 48 twist was the rifling pattern that they took when they left St Lewis .
Not actually the only twist they ever used
So why take only the 1 in 48 ???
Well that’s a question asked by many and one that may never be fully understood .
IMO though it was because the brothers foresaw the want of heavy conical
Well before the 1846 reference of its use in Hawkens rifles .
But then we also run into the quandary of the Enfield rifles . Which were also very accurate at very long distances . And have a very , Very slow rate of twist
Now this isn’t to argue the point of the 1 in 48 . It did exist and was used as CB states .
My personal preference for RB shooting is a 1 in 66 or a 1 in 70 .
But if one takes their time to work up a proper load for the 1 in 48 , it can also be accurate .
I would also agree with the comment about bigger the ball slower the twist .
IE smaller the ball faster the twist .
T his is basically a simply application of mass in motion
So to answer your question .
How well are your 1 in 48 barrels shooting for you ?
Sub 1 inch at 50 and 100?
Sub 2 inch at 100 ?
See the real answer is basically how much accuracy do you want ?
If your getting the above patterns with a 1 in 48 then I would call that acceptable .
Because that’s what you should be seeing with a 1 in 60 twist as well .
Heck for that mater I know folks who shoot a sub 1 inch group at 50 yards with smoothbores
Post by: Firewalker on November 29, 2010, 09:35:59 AM
Quote from: "cb"
One advantage to the 1-48" is you generally use less powder yet you get reasonable velocity and you can get excellent accuracy - whether the 1-60" is "better" will depend on other factors not just the twist rate.Let me prefice this by saying I'm not trying to be a wise guy, just interested in the balistics behind this.
The slower twists, such as 1-60" or slower, do generally give higher velocites along with good accuracy, but at the expense of using more powder.
Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Quote
One advantage to the 1-48" is you generally use less powder yet you get reasonable velocityI'm not sure I understand this. Why use less powder in a 1-48 twist barrel? or this
Quote
The slower twists, such as 1-60" or slower, do generally give higher velocitesI always thought velocity was a function of the powder charge and mass of the projectile. The friction induced by a faster twist, I would think, would be miniscule, amounting to a few feet per second and therefore irrelavent.
But perhaps thats not correct, it would not be the first time I thought wrong.
Post by: Bigsmoke on November 29, 2010, 10:43:33 AM
Here is an example that Forsythe used to explain the difference between fast and slow twist rifling. Possibly this will make it clearer.
Say you see a train going down the track at a high rate of speed. It comes into a corner that is built flat. It hits the curve and because it did not slow down, it went off the track and crashed.
Then you see another train going down another track at a high rate of speed. It also comes into a corner, but the track is banked nicely so the train goes around the curve and proceeds to its destination.
The first train can be likened to the 1:48 twist with a large powder charge. The ball goes faster than the rifling can hold onto, so it skips the rifling, causing inaccurate shots.
The second train can be compared to the slower twist rifling. Because the rate of twist is slower, it continues to hold, regardless of the speed of the projectile.
In practice, I have found that at one time, shooting my .72 cal rifle with a 200 grain charge, I was getting in the mid 1,800 fps velocities and offhand groups of about 3" at 100 yards. Rate of twist was 1:104.
So, it all comes down to not driving the ball faster than the rifling can hold.
I guess that makes sense.
John
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on November 29, 2010, 11:49:29 AM
So the smaller shops and individual builders would tend to use the slower rates of twist just for the sake of the savings in time and tool bits . Unless there existed a greater accy. factor in using a faster twist . As was stated , I tend to agree that the Hawkens had "insider" information that the heavy conicals were going to be the preferred solution to the need to put down the larger animals of the west ? This would be my theory to why the 1/48 and faster twist became more common on the market as time went on ? It is still my opinion that there is no need for thease faster twists in guns dedicated to PRB shooting .
Post by: Loyalist Dave on November 29, 2010, 07:57:14 PM
LD
Post by: cb on November 30, 2010, 02:11:13 AM
Quote
As was stated , I tend to agree that the Hawkens had "insider" information that the heavy conicals were going to be the preferred solution to the need to put down the larger animals of the west ? This would be my theory to why the 1/48 and faster twist became more common on the market as time went on ? It is still my opinion that there is no need for these faster twists in guns dedicated to PRB shooting .
With all due respect to both Gordon and CaptChee, but the 1-48" twist was the most COMMONLY twist used on American made rifles LONG BEFORE the Hawken Bros. This is a fact, not conjecture or opinion, and is based on the existing database of American made PRB rifles still in existence from the 1700's to the mid 1800's, as well as the written word of the time - ask the folks at Williamsburg and other major collectors for further verification.
Despite personal "theories", the use of the 1/48" twist had nothing to do with conicals so there was no insider info and conicals generally take an even faster twist to properly stabilize. The 1-48" twist did not become more popular overtime because it was already popular all during the American made rifle roundball "era" of circa 1750-1850..........
As to whether there is a "need" for the 1-48"??? Again no disrespect intended, but that's an opinion not necessarily based in fact. For myself and myself alone, I prefer to use guns built as close to the originals as possible - what others use is up to them. While a 1-48" twist was undoubtedly not the only twist used on American made rifles, but it was the most common twist used by the original shooters of PRB rifles based on the known evidence. Subsequently it is what I've used mostly now for 50 years and it has worked just fine in my rifles (most of which have been 54's because I've mostly hunted big game, including elk, and just plain prefer it.......) and several have been originals from the 1790's to the 1870's.....
The English made round ball rifles of the mid 1700's to the mid 1800's were often built with much faster twists such as 1-24" and 1-32" and they were used in both big bores and small bores (a 54 was considered small bore by the English of the day). Due to the problems with stripping due to the fast twist and often shallower grooves, they had to use smaller loads of powder (often a powder charge of 1/5 or 1/3 the ball weight was recommended and subsequently lowered velocities - Americans tended to use 1/2 the ball weight).
Some English rifles like the Baker rifles did use much slower twists, but for some reason many of the other English makers of the time continued to use faster twists. This led to "fixes" such as belted balls and other "gimmicks" to prevent stripping of the ball at higher velocities. I used to own a Purdey circa 1840 that used both belted balls and conicals and in that I could used larger loads without stripping, but that belt tended to play havoc with the balls accuracy over longer distances.
Quote
The story I heard was they had failed to pack and ship their previous rifling machine, and when they reached St. Louis, the only one to be had, was one that was 1:48. It wasn't forthought, but just dumb luckAn apocryphal story at best IMO, especially since Jake and Sam arrived in St Louis years apart.........
1) Jake arrived in St Louis in 1818 and partnered up with another smith, Lakenan, until Lakenan's death in 1825. Prior to that he worked at Harper's Ferry and as far as is known did not have his own shop until St Louis so Jake may not have had a machine to begin with.
2) Sam arrived in St Louis in 1822 from Ohio where he had had a shop and then ran his own ship in St Louis until the summer of 1825 when he and Jake joined up and started their famous concern.
3) Most old time smiths made their own rifling benches - making your own tools was part of becoming a journeyman and later a master. FWIW - there are at least two known Hawken rifling machines still in existence that I'm aware as well as machines from other shops both earlier and later, most are 1-48"....
Again no disrespect meant to anyone - what twist (along with anything else) you choose to use is your choice and no one else's and IMO should depend on various factors since there is really not necessarily a single best twist for any caliber in my experience and I've shot a LOT of various muzzleloaders. On the other hand I do feel that the 1-48" has gotten a bad rap for far too long and also there is the erroneous "impression" that is a modern concept rather than what history says it was - IMO there are far too many myth conceptions about such things and I at least try to set the record straight when possible.
Bottom line they can all be good - one of the most accurate rifles I have owned had a barrel by Bill Large who preferred the 1-56" over everything else for PRB, and in his own inimitable way sent me a 1-56" barrel that time, even though I had requested a 1-48" - but that was Bill and in this case he was "right" even though he was wrong....
Post by: cb on November 30, 2010, 02:44:05 AM
Quote from: "Firewalker"
Quote from: "cb"One advantage to the 1-48" is you generally use less powder yet you get reasonable velocity and you can get excellent accuracy - whether the 1-60" is "better" will depend on other factors not just the twist rate.Let me prefice this by saying I'm not trying to be a wise guy, just interested in the balistics behind this.
The slower twists, such as 1-60" or slower, do generally give higher velocities along with good accuracy, but at the expense of using more powder.
Perhaps you can enlighten me.QuoteOne advantage to the 1-48" is you generally use less powder yet you get reasonable velocityI'm not sure I understand this. Why use less powder in a 1-48 twist barrel? or thisQuoteThe slower twists, such as 1-60" or slower, do generally give higher velocitiesI always thought velocity was a function of the powder charge and mass of the projectile. The friction induced by a faster twist, I would think, would be miniscule, amounting to a few feet per second and therefore irrelavent.
But perhaps thats not correct, it would not be the first time I thought wrong.
It's pretty much what bigsmoke stated.
The higher the velocity (especially along with larger bores), creates a situation in faster twist barrels where the ball can/will skip. This is why Forsythe and others of his time tried to get across to the English gun builders, especially since there hunting and military rifle bores were often larger than 58 - many 62-66 and even larger for the big game of India and Africa where in the situation is more critical. For more info read Greener, Forsythe, and other writers of the day.
Therefore in modern muzzleloading rifles many big game hunters prefer higher velocities in there 54-58's or larger and thus like the ability to use larger powder charges for those higher velocities that the slower twists generally allow - but that also often means one needs to use somewhat larger charges to attain good accuracy - not always but often in my experience and in the experience of other shooters I've known.
With a 1-48" one can GENERALLY use about 10-15% less powder than is needed in the 1-60" and slower twists to attain the accuracy and penetration needed for hunting, especially in the common 50-54 calibers used in Period on American rifles. In my experience the slower twist "need" a bit more velocity to attain the same accuracy as does the 1-48". While that may not seem like a lot of savings to us, for the man on the frontier where powder was far too often at a premium, it may have meant a lot. On the other hand larger charges can be used in a 1-48" with good effect (For one example of how accurate an original 50 cal 1-48" twist rifle can be with loads from 70-103 grains of 2F see:
John Baird's "The Hawken Rifle" chapter 7. Hoffman and Campbell, A Hawken Subsidiary), but generally the 1-48" twist can also use smaller charges and still keep up good accuracy for plinking and taking small game, something I have not generally found true in the plus 1-60" twists.
FWIW - from Mike Brooks, well known gun maker regarding faster twists and PRB's.
Quote
All original jeager rifles I have checked have one twist in the length of the barrel. So, a 28" barrel had a 1 in 28" twist, and they shot PBRThat one turn in the length of the barrel was also common in England at the time based on several period readings.
And again with all due respect to all here, I'm not trying to "convince" anyone that they should use a 1-48" - use what you prefer, but IMO anyone who is interested in the guns of the past should at least be aware that the 1-48" is not a "compromise" nor is it some how less traditional nor is it a late development - in fact just the opposite is true. IMO the depth of rifling and type of rifling (wide grooves and narrow lands) as well as the quality of the barrel, are far more important overall than the rate of twist as to what is best.
BTW - I use generally a lot in my comments since there are always exceptions - every rifle I've ever owned has had it's own quirks no matter what caliber, twist, etc........
as always others mileage WILL vary........
Post by: Captchee on November 30, 2010, 09:20:42 AM
but i think also if we look at some of the recorded documentation you will see just what i was saying .
if we look at shumways rifles of colonial America.
We do find rifles with a lot slower twist rates then 1 in 48 .
I know also, of at least one Beck in there that carries strait rifling .
I also at one time owned a original Albright rifle that carried a 1 in 56
+ so as to the common twist being a 1 in 48 . Why then do the most credited research people like shumway , Roberts and other mention so many other rates of twist ?
Why is it that even the military armories were producing muzzle loading rifles as late as the civil war , with twist exceeding 2 X the 1 in 48 twist . Surly if it was so common they would have had the knowledge of 100+ years of prior experience
Lets also ot forget that this was a time of transition .
Of larger calibers did this play a role in the rates of twist ??? Who can say . But what we do know is a whole lot of those twist rates were based on much smaller bore sizes then was then being requested . So was the 1 in 48 a hold over from smaller bores ?
IMO to many questions and not enough answers in the first person aspect . Thus leading to assumptions and 2nd hand opinions
Also the reason I bring up the conical issue is that both Robert E Lee and Lewis Garrard reported the use of Pointed bullets of near and inch long
Both those reports were in the late 1840’s well before most were even considering the thought of such a projectile .
We also should not here that even as early as 1830 the Hawkens were purchasing many barrels from the east .
While I hate to say this . If we put all that aside and base our information on what peoples experiences are today . Its not hard to see that when it comes to a dedicated rb
Twist rate , the slower twist is far more prevalent then the faster twist of 1 in 48 .
So is that prevalence based on experience ?
Post by: Dphariss on November 30, 2010, 09:37:35 AM
Quote from: "vthompson"
I have made it known that after the first of the year I would like to get myself a flintlock rifle. I currently have 2 percussion rifles but I have got the flintlock bug here lately.
Anyway, I was reading on Lyman's website about their GPR rifles in 50 cal. and they say that their barrels have a 1 in 60 twist for patched round balls and for hunting loads.
My current rifle is a T/C Percussion with a 1 in 48 twist. My question is this: Which is the best twist???
Your advise will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time.
There is nothing wrong with the 48 twist.
In larger bore sizes slower twists are better, large being over .62.
But even then I doubt that twists slower than 72" are really needed.
Unless the rifling is very shallow, shallow groove 1:48 can cause difficulty and has in the past but these barrels had .004-.005" deep rifling like cartridge guns. Making them basically useless with a RB.
A 1:48" twist 50 with .010 - 012" deep rifling will shoot 90 to 100 grains of powder with no problem an shoot very well. A 1:70" 50 caliber will do the same thing. I have had Douglas in 32-50-54 cal in 66. 48" twist Douglas 50, 50 and 54 in 70 and 72. THEY ALL WORKed fine and the 48" twist Douglas was VERY accurate with 90 gr of FFF GOI (pre-Goex), hardly a light load.
If I had to make a pronouncement I would prefer 1:48 for calibers to 54 and 1:66 or 1:72 for 54 up with the slower twist for .62 and larger.
But in general I use Green Mountain barrels for MLs and use their twists for the different calibers which work fine.
Douglas, when they were making ML barrels, made everything from 32 up as 1:66" except for 48" twist barrels they marketed as "Hawken" barrels for awhile.
If you dislike the twist or groove depth have it rebarreled with a GM if you can find a drop in for it. GM barrels are excellent.
Track of the Wolf has 1" TC barrels in stock in 50 with a 70" RB twist.
Tip Curtis might have them as well, he often has what TOW does not. Search for Tip Curtis Frontier Shop. He advertises in Muzzle Blasts
http://www.nmlra.org/classifieds.asp?ID=13 (http://www.nmlra.org/classifieds.asp?ID=13)
Otherwise its best to trade it off and buy something different. The breech in some TCs is so tight as to defy removal and if the breech is damaged it difficult to get a replacement breech only.
Dan
Post by: Sir Michael on November 30, 2010, 02:10:43 PM
Quote
My current rifle is a T/C Percussion with a 1 in 48 twist. My question is this: Which is the best twist???
Capt's statement pretty much sums it up:
Quote
How well are your 1 in 48 barrels shooting for you ?
Sub 1 inch at 50 and 100?
Sub 2 inch at 100 ?
vthompson, have you found the answer to your question yet or are you just more confused than ever?
Post by: Uncle Russ on November 30, 2010, 05:08:12 PM
But first I will say that I also have a T/C .50 with the same twist, along with tens of thousands of other T/C owners, and to the best of my knowledge there is little doubt as to the accuracy obtainable with this rifle with this same twist...loads may vary, to include different powders, different patch thickness, and different lubes, and on and on, but there is never any argument about about the guns ability to perform.
Now when you ask, what is the best twist? That becomes a hoss of a totally different color.
Personally, I don't know of any best twist for any given caliber, as I have seen a bunch of what I thought was weird stuff perform flawlessly...an example of that is the .50 GM 1:28 twist with a round ball and 60gr FFg. (not the FFFg powder recommended for the caliber, nor the "minimum" of 1:48 twist for round ball, and not the conical bullet this barrel was expressively designed for.) but it shoots surprisingly well.
Another example might be the lowly .56 caliber smooth-bore with a round ball...mine shoots a good as I can hold, so why would I ever want better, and yet many folks feel they are inaccurate.
Bottom line of all my gibberish is Capt. gave you some good information.
What you want, and what you intend to do, has everything to do with what you choose for a rifle and what twist that rifle will have.
Just don't overlook what you have right now.
I have also long heard and read that the 1:48 rifling machine used by Hawken in St.Louis was the only machine available at the exact right time, and I have long believed that story. I have believed it mostly because it made good sense to "make-do" with what you had during that time frame, and I don't see Sam Hawken as being any different.... Was it by design, or the luck of the devil?
You be the judge. You pick the version of the story you like best, but never think of it as the 1:48 twist is somehow the wrong twist, or a one-twist-do-everything-twist.
It is a good twist, and it has served tens of thousands of black powder shooters well.....
Is a 1:66 better for round ball? Most likely.
Is a 1:28 better for conical? Most likely.
Is it the best twist? Probably not for specific tasks, but a better twist has been slow in coming.
Uncle Russ...
Post by: vthompson on December 01, 2010, 10:16:10 PM
I think that whenever I get the money saved up after the first of the year I am going to get the Lyman GPR in 50cal. and give it a try. I have heard good things about that rifle.
Again, thanks to those who replied and I value your opinions and experience very much. You guy's have helped me out a lot.
Post by: Dphariss on December 01, 2010, 10:29:41 PM
I have a 66 twist 54 that is very accurate.
I have had a 72 twist 54 that was really accurate too.
Many problems that might be attributed to twist are just as likely attributable to things like patch/ball fit. The idiosyncracsies of the individual barrel etc etc.
With the single exception of a Sharon Hawken from years ago all the 50s and 54s that I have owned shoot 90 to 100 grains of powder regardless of twist.
I still have a 38" long 66 twist 54 I shoot 90 gr of FFF swiss in. I used to use 100 gr of Goex FFF. I had a 72 twist 42" 54 that I used 100 grains in. Both shot very well indeed. I am not convinced that twist effects powder charge that much so long as its not too fast, like a bullet twist. Most RB rifles at least 45 cal and above seem to shoot best with about 1/2 ball weight of powder or a little more.
Dan
PS 1/2 ball weight is too much for rifles much over 58 and far too much for rifles like my 16 bore.
Post by: Loyalist Dave on December 02, 2010, 10:35:00 AM
FYI ... I referenced Barber, "Instructions for the Formation and Exercise of Volunteer Sharp-Shooters", 1804. by Captain Barber c. 1804 for further information if desired.
LD
Post by: Captchee on December 02, 2010, 03:21:31 PM
This thread has kinda gone well past the answer LOL
But that’s what information exchange is all about
I would however disagree with not discussing the military applications or for that mater their base with conical application .
Reason being is that for the most part and with few exceptions, once militaries started adopting rifles in large numbers . The requirements for accuracy were , and still are based on minimum standards . Hence you get the 1 in 120 twist rates that were often seen well into the American civil war . For that mater the rates of twist and projectile designs we see today . In other words it works fine tell someone comes along and claims something is better .
As we became more knowledgeable concerning conical things began to change .
But why ? Was it an actual need or was it simply a way to one up the fella across the isle ? In some cases its both .. But that’s another subject .
So back to the subject at hand concerning the RB is how much rotation does a round object need in order for it to continue rotation in that one direction . Oddly enough , not to much as mass in motion tends to stay in motion .
But then to muddy the waters even more you have strait rifling . Which if people have never tried it , works wonderfully well with a RB as it insures no rotation within the barrel .
Now someone is bound to say here :
Ahhh but Cap , when the ball leaves the barrel , it will then begin to tumble .
Well good point . But I would point out that your thinking more of what happens with a conical then with a RB .
See the odd thing is that because the RB is ,,,, well round , it actually gets equal pressure
Assuming its round that is .
There fore that pressure does not allow the object to spin as much as we would think .
If you ever get a chance to ride in a small airplane , look at and see if the tires are spinning . What you see is going to surprise you .
.
As to recoil . Recoil is a effect of acceleration IE for every reaction there is an = opposite reaction .
This goes back to twist rates . Because the ball gets “ slightly more “ pressure with a faster twist . You can also feel more recoil with a faster twist .
Notice I said “CAN” the reason is that felt recoil also has al whole lot to do with weapon design and make up.
So now we are back to what is best ? Well again that depends on the shooter and what they are trying to do . But the general consensus today is that a RB does not need a whole lot of rotation in order to keep it stable
Post by: Loyalist Dave on December 03, 2010, 07:30:08 AM
I agree that recoil is a function of physics, but percieved recoil as Barber wrote, was "disagreeable" in faster twist rifles. Now, he doesn't mention differences in loads or in calibers, and the stock dimensions may also have played a part, but the fact that he does mention it was a factor, and torque is caused by rifling. He also may have been full of beans..., for the Baker rifle had a wider surface area on the buttstock compred to many of the American and German rifles of his day..., could've simply been pounds per square inch on Barber's shoulder, and nothing else, eh?
As for "straight rifling" or a grooved barrel, can anybody say if the grooves were done to give better results when shooting shot, and they found it worked better for ball than a smooth bore, or if they did it for ball, and found that it also improved the pattern of shot.
Which came first the chicken or the egg?
LD
Post by: Captchee on December 03, 2010, 08:51:57 AM
Post by: Mustang on December 28, 2010, 06:07:46 PM
Post by: Dphariss on January 01, 2011, 08:16:56 AM
Quote from: "Captchee"
i believe it was originally done for improving accuracy with a ball . but we have learned that it works very well with shot as well
I once saw an European made Rolling Block shotgun of about 16 ga that had straight grooves.
Dan
Post by: Riley/MN on January 01, 2011, 10:07:46 AM