Single Ball - Patch vs Wads

[Kermit]

Just sayin', but I saw none of what some seemed to infer in Mario's post. What hurt me most--and would send me away from the TMA--was some of the other reaction. It's called "Traditional Muzzleloading." I take that to mean the firearms, not the clothing, traps, tents, bags, horns, etc.

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?
     :hey-hey  :peace

[rickevans]

Back to the Thread...
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...

[Stormrider51]

Thanks Rick.  Got your PM.  I'm thinking Friday as the day they will arrive.  If the weather-guessers are correct it will rain Friday and Saturday so the testing will be delayed a day or two.  I don't plan to use the larger balls with a patch.  I'd have to go to a thinner patch and that wouldn't prove anything new.  I'll be doing the wads vs tow tests and see if the closer-to-bore-sized balls make a difference.  If this appears to be the case I'll repeat the same series with the smaller balls just to confirm the first test.  Not that I'm still having trouble believing that a wad of tow was better than a cardboard wad or anything...

Storm

[Stormrider51]

The .610 balls from Rick arrived yesterday and I was able to beat the rain to do some shooting today.  I didn't try to find a compatible patch to use with the .610's as I don't think that would have proved anything.  What I did was to fire a group with the larger balls using wads and then another using tow.  Temperature today was 87 F with a humidity of 88% and calm air.  Distance was once again 35 yards and I used a charge of 80 grains FFFg.

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.



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.



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

[rickevans]

Wow! That is impressive. Can't wait to try that in my 20 ga, Fusil de Tulle...

Thanks for the bench work John, much appreciated.

[Stormrider51]

Most welcome, Rick.  Thank you for the assistance.  The .610 balls did make a difference.  I've put the smooth bore up asking for a trade for a rifle but haven't gotten any hits on it.  If it stays around here for a while I'll probably try the .610 balls with a thinner patch just to see what happens.  Given that the bore measures .618 and the ball .610 it's gonna have to be a real thin patch!

Storm

[Roaddog]

Thanks Storm! That testing showed me a lot abought a smooth bore shooting.

[No Rod]

very cool, thanks for taking the time to post. some real food for thought.

[yulzari]

As a (very) new member I shall try to word myself with due respect.

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.

[Stormrider51]

Welcome to the TMA, Yulzari.  You pose an interesting question.  I'll be interested to see what others have to say.  The use of rag vs pulp paper adds a variable I had never considered.  Given that the loading drill called for biting off the end of the cartridge and dumping the powder down the bore I'd question high rag content paper being used.  Rag would be a little hard on the teeth, wouldn't it?  If nobody has an answer I may make up some paper cartridges and see what I can find out.

Storm

[yulzari]

Pulp paper was a mid 19th century invention so the old military used rag paper.

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.

[KHickam]

I have tried both with my smoothbore - I shoot PRB because that is the most accurate out of my smoothbore and I have tried some smaller ball - It did not group well at all and so I am back to my tried and true .600 rb