Rifle Twist?

[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.

[Hank in WV]

For shooting .50 roundball only, the slower 60" twist will be better.

[Riley/MN]

For shooting .50 roundball only, the slower 60" twist will be better.

[pathfinder]

Larger the bore,slower the twist as a rule of thumb.

[Gordon H.Kemp]

I"ve not done a great deal of experimenting  with twist rates in different size bores , but have read several articles by some who did . Overall it seems that the best accy. with PRB was obtained with very slow rates of twist . It would seem that the fact that a sphere takes but a small rate  of spin to keep the projectile stable in flight , that unless you intend on allso shooting heavy conicals , a slow twist is easier on the rifle and shooter. The 1/48" seems to be a compromise that in the larger cal. .50 + will do a fair job with either PRB or conicals ,
         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 .  

[vthompson]

Thank's for your input guy's, I really appreciate it. It looks as though I will be getting the 1 in 60 twist because I plan on shooting PRB only. As long as it is quite accurate that is all that I am concerned with at the moment.

[cb]

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

Well 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  

[Captchee]

As you can see there are varying opinions on rates of twist .
 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

[Firewalker]

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.

Let me prefice this by saying I'm not trying to be a wise guy, just interested in the balistics behind this.
Perhaps you can enlighten me.

One advantage to the 1-48" is you generally use less powder yet you get reasonable velocity

I'm not sure I understand this. Why use less powder in a 1-48 twist barrel? or this

The slower twists, such as 1-60" or slower, do generally give higher velocites

I 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.

[Bigsmoke]

Bob,
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

[Gordon H.Kemp]

Just another thought , for the most part , rifleing was done with hand powered machines . Each grove requireing several passes of the tool  . If you were to measure the distance the tool traveled in a faster twist , such as 1/48 or faster ? you would find a considerble difference ?
           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 .

[Loyalist Dave]

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 luck.  

LD

[cb]

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.

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 luck

An 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....

[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.
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.

Let me prefice this by saying I'm not trying to be a wise guy, just interested in the balistics behind this.
Perhaps you can enlighten me.

One advantage to the 1-48" is you generally use less powder yet you get reasonable velocity

I'm not sure I understand this. Why use less powder in a 1-48 twist barrel? or this

The slower twists, such as 1-60" or slower, do generally give higher velocities

I 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.

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 PBR

That 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........

[Captchee]

no issue her CB . we are just talking .

 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 ?