Buckshot to use in Buck-n-Ball Loads

and thus began the long road of research to hip replacement which is now going strong (bet yer surgeon has no idea what started it ether!) :rotf:

Yes that's the spirit! put the fun right into the hip and squeeze the trigger! You'll be sure to hit them laddeee.....and look on the briggtside...if you survive the army issued you a genuine honest to goodness top quality cane with life long replacement warranty....dont worry....it won't hurt a bit. ...just lemme stand behind this wagon before u shoot

Many Klatch said:

The preferred way of shooting that load was from the hip. If you fired that load from the shoulder you would be a casualty too. No reason to fire a blunderbuss from the shoulder. No sights. Just point and let spray.

Click to expand...

The original machine gun.

Only 'cause Mike Beliveau will be stopping by here I wanted to make clearer that the original post was for loading a single, maximum sized, layer of three (3) buckshot to push a ball.

Interestingly enough, a few days ago I ordered modern 12 ga. buck-n-ball load shells. With one .65 ball and six #1 Buckshot behind it (yes, two nested layers, behind the ball, all in a shotcup) the load weighs 1-1/2 ounces and flies at 1,300 FPS. This is 24,000 ft.-lbs. of energy IIRC and is beyond the 12 ga. 2-3/4" Magnum and 3" Magnum loads of today, probably more like that Hessian blunderbuss load mentioned above. These particular Italians happen to be labelled under the Herter's brand which I find quite ironic...

The preferred way of shooting that load was from the hip. If you fired that load from the shoulder you would be a casualty too. No reason to fire a blunderbuss from the shoulder. No sights. Just point and let spray.

Click to expand...

Well that explains why so many blunderbuss don't have a shoulder stock as they were fired from the hip...wait...what??

Irish Mick wrote:
...Plate 24-25 shows the B&B ctgs. with the shot on the top Also, plate no.23 shows English, and French ctgs.that have been X-rayed. Shows the shot on the top.

Click to expand...

By the "top" you mean toward the portion that held/holds the powder charge... funny but under combat conditions, the fastest way to load a cartridge (and speed was what the soldiers of the day on all sides were going for) is to insert the open end of the cartridge where the powder lies directly into the musket barrel, and it will empty down the barrel while drawing the rammer, and then ram the whole down on top of the powder...there is no command in the drill to invert the cartridge..., so your x-rayed cartridges would end up with the shot on top of the powder, followed by the ball.

LD

That loading makes no sense though, we must admit, 'cause, UNLESS THEY PUSH PAPER DOWN ON TOP OF THE POWDER, the powder and gases will blow past the pellets and obturate at the ball.

Loading buck in a paper cartridge on top of the ball, at one very end of the whole cartridge, was the norm I'm sure, sealed at both ends and cinch-tied between the ball and powder as well as ball and pellets. If the pellets are between the powder and ball in the cartridge and not tied they'd fall into the powder or the powder'd spill between the pellets which is no biggie but you'd really have to tie the projectiles off from the powder.

So, tear cart, prime, pour balance of powder down bore, ram remaining paper and projectiles down bore however someone back home loaded them. I'd want some if not the majority of the paper between the lead and the powder, the pellets and then ball next, again both surrounded by paper if reasonable. Could also drop powder, some paper, sprinkle in three pellets by hand, drop the ball in (surrounded by paper or with the balance of paper on top), and ram.

Yeah, the cartidges seem designed backwards and I know of noone changing the drill to shoot most correctly vs. quickly.

Why? The main reason is the fun of experimenting for ones own gratification. Some call it experimental Archeology. Not long ago I found myself sitting in a stand on private land when I spotted two poachers approaching. They both had rifles and there was a dog with them. I was armed with my trusty fusil and my .45, both of which I consider to be close range tools. I leaned back as far as I could to stay out of sight until they got within "my" range when I intended to talk to them. I was relieved when they spotted my truck in the distance and left. Since then I've made a hunting bag with a provision to hold six buck and ball cartridges in easy reach. I love threads like this! I know I'm not the only one who likes to experiment, "just because". By the way, I make a kind of shot cup out of an over shot card, with the edges folded up under the buckshot to keep them over the powder. On my next batch I'm going to put a little glue in the cup to make sure everything stays in place. :grin:

Looks to me like there is another cluster of buckshot about 4 inches forward of the load against the breech end, and not seated against the rest of the load. We will never know why, but I can think of several possibilities.

Maybe the load shifted over time or when recovered. Who knows? Wasn't it found on a sunken ship or am I thinking of something else? :idunno:

What would be a "proper" powder charge for buck&ball? Was shooting 60grs. out of an Indian made Enfield 3 band "forage" gun and had pretty good luck with the ball hitting high at 25 yards but the buck was scattered all over. Tried ball under buck and then buck under ball, tried the charge loose, tried it wrapped in paper, tried a few buck and then a whole bunch of them, was even going to try ramming a plastic 20ga wad down with the shot in the cup but chickened out on that because the wad seemed pretty tight and didn't know with this particular make of gun would it make more pressure than the barrel could handle. Just trying to get more buck on paper and was wondering if too much/little powder was scattering buck like in a blown shot pattern?