-
Patched ball. Do we take it for granted?
Over the years I have come to the conclusion that the quality, type of patch material and the lubricant plays a bigger part in the accuracy of the patch ball rifle than we give it credit for, and, to some degree, the smoothbore musket.
We load the patch and ball. We assume it grips the rifling and the ball and seals the gases, but is there more to it than that?
For quite a while I have shot mainly with a .577 and a Minie bullet.
I bought a reproduction .36 single shot muzzleloader. The maker recommended a .006 patch and a .354 ball. At the range it shot all over the place. I am a capable shot so I knew it was not me at fault so it must have had something to do with the way it was loaded.
The ball was the right size and various powder charges made no difference. That left the patch and the lubricant. When I looked at the patch I noticed it was hard stiff material. It made wonder if it was causing a tent effect on the rifling lands instead of hugging them. I had a couple of large sheets of .012 and .015 soft cotton. I cut some patches from the .012 sheet, the theory being that it will sit snug against the lands and grip the ball as well.
It worked. I got good accuracy with the thicker softer patch. I tried the .015 patch thinking that the tighter the ball is in the bore the more central it will be.
The accuracy with the .015 patch was as bad as the first time I used the pistol. I went back to using the .012 patch and the accuracy came back. I find it astonishing that .003 difference in thickness could make such a dramatic difference, but it did.
I have got an antique .41 rifle that I have started to use. Im still working a load up. The last time I took it out I took a selection of patches of three different thicknesses that were lubed with four different combinations of tallow and beeswax.
I was hitting the target but they were all over the place. By the time I was down to two patches the sun came out and it was very hot. The patches went floppy because of the heat and I did not think they would be any use, but it was the last two so I thought I might has well fire them off anyway. They were the best two shots of the day! Why?
I think because the patches had gone floppy they squashed themselves down the side of the ball and sat in the rifling better than the other patches, that were a little bit stiff, and acted like a sabot.
This made me wonder, if I am right, would we be better off using a smaller ball and a thicker patch?
I use a fiberglass ramrod or a brass one, as Im sure many of us do, and I can put a lot of force on the rod when I am loading the gun. In the old days it was only military guns that used metal rods, most civilian guns for hunting had wooden ramrods so they had to be able push the patch and ball down the barrel without having to exert too much force.
I am using a .405 ball but the next time I can get to the range I am going to try some at .400,.395 and .390 and suitable patches for the size of ball.
I intend to start off at .390 and experiment with that size and work upwards and see what the results are. Ive also got an idea for using wool felt wads but that will be after I have tested out my theory.
If you have got this far and not fallen asleep with my ramblings I would like to hear what your views are on this.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules