• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

buck and ball failure

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Capt. Jas. said:
When so used I would probably agree of wadding top and bottom but not with precisely measured cards and cushion wads.
But they did understand and use precisely measured cards.

Thomas Page,1767, discussing various wads:

"FRIENDLY
And what sort of wadding do you best approve of? I have heard some say that tow is best, others, cards stamped to fit the size of the bore.

AIMWELL
Tow, I think, is uncertain. If cards be used, the end of your rammer must be almost as broad as your barrel will admit of, to go down free, and quite flat at the end, to prevent the card from turning; and must be push'd down gradually, to give time for the air to pass, otherwise it will be troublesome. This is therefore not the quickest way."

Spence
 
tg said:
If buckshot was tied in patchingball hit pretty much poa +/- 3" shot was in a fist sized cluster a few inches away (random direction) Hunting guns of the early 18th century might be .58-.60 bore as well I wonder how common the cartridge was with these and with NA's? I suspect wadding top and bottom no matter what the projectile/s

For military purposes, these loads were made up in paper cartridges, so the only wadding would be whatever was available in the cartridges. The paper tube was looped around the cartridge just below the ball and the string was extended to above the ball and wrapped again between the ball and the buck. The string was again extended above the buck and tied off. After the soldier bit off the other end of the cartridge to pour the powder, he stuffed the rest into the barrel and rammed it. Depending on his training or personal taste or which ever way was the fastest for him to stuff it in, the ball could be on the top or the bottom. Whichever way, the only wadding would be the cartridge paper. Now as far as civilian loads go, I guess they could do it however they felt like.

The buck and ball cartridge as manufactured for the Army was made with the large ball next to the powder and the buck on top. Most were with 3 buckshot, but many have been found with 4. I dug a .69 round ball at a battlefield once that had 3 indentations in it from firing it with buckshot and I've seen pictures of others.
 
George said:
CoyoteJoe said:
It is interesting to try the "old time ways" but they are not necessairly the "best ways". I can't see the point of such a load for hunting.
My interest is historical, only. I'd never shoot at anything with such a load, I might hurt it.

Spence

Agree but like TG, it can be pretty effective for his application although I admit to choosing all shot for that.

There is a level of testing the historical use that some like to do Coyote Joe. Otherwise I would rather grab a case of modern shells, have at it and clean the gun when the feeling hit me.
 
George said:
Capt. Jas. said:
When so used I would probably agree of wadding top and bottom but not with precisely measured cards and cushion wads.
But they did understand and use precisely measured cards.

Thomas Page,1767, discussing various wads:

"FRIENDLY
And what sort of wadding do you best approve of? I have heard some say that tow is best, others, cards stamped to fit the size of the bore.

AIMWELL
Tow, I think, is uncertain. If cards be used, the end of your rammer must be almost as broad as your barrel will admit of, to go down free, and quite flat at the end, to prevent the card from turning; and must be push'd down gradually, to give time for the air to pass, otherwise it will be troublesome. This is therefore not the quickest way."

Spence

Agreed Spence but the wealthy gentry in England are a fer piece from those who would be in America using buck and ball for a non-military application. My research so far does not indicate any precise wadding work in the north or south.
That reference when looked.at in the floodlight with other English references tends to point to le that even there, tow or.the like was the common wadding.
 
KanawhaRanger said:
I dug a .69 round ball at a battlefield once that had 3 indentations in it from firing it with buckshot and I've seen pictures of others.

Thank you...said another way, whatever changes to the lead ball that took place during firing, were still present in the lead ball after firing.
:thumbsup:
 
At the Range I use, I used to always end my Charleville sessions with a few B&B for giggles, till one day I touched one off - and the entire target stand (made of ripped 2 x 4's made into a frame) collapsed in a Cloud of Dust & Wood Chips/Splinters. Somewhat sheepishly I put it with the frames that were labeled "need work", packed up & left. Won't do that again.

No matter what the context - I wouldn't wanna be anywhere in front of a Musket discharging a load of B&B, let alone a whole Regimental Firing Line

Eric

ps - In "Long, Bloody, and Obstinate; The Battle of Guilford Courthouse" (don't recall Author, but a relatively recent Book), there is some excellent discussion/documentation of the use of B&B by both sides.
 
KanawhaRanger said:
For military purposes, these loads were made up in paper cartridges, so the only wadding would be whatever was available in the cartridges.
The military units seem to sometimes have used loose ammo for these loads, too.

Volume 1, page 34 of AN HISTORICAL JOURNAL OF THE CAMPAIGNS IN NORTH AMERICA, 1757-1760 by Captain John Knox. Edited by Arthur G. Doughty. 3 volumes. Books for Libraries Press, Freeport, NY, 1970.

Describing Roger's Rangers:

",,, and a leathern, or seal's skin bag, buckled round their waist, which hangs down before, contains bullets, and a smaller shot of the size of full green peas: six or seven of which, with a ball they generally load;"

Orderly book of the Second Virginia, Williamsburg, Oct. 11, 1775:

"The Same Time Each Company is to Draw a suffcient Quantity of Dutch or Quisa Drilling To provide Each Solider with a Shott Pouch with a partition of Division in the Middle to keep Buck Shot and Bullets Sepperate."

Or maybe they carried them loose, then made them up into cartridges?

Spence
 
Capt. Jas. said:
Spence, I would be interested in these published 18th c. reports that show the prevalent use of buck and ball for hunting to use for my documentation collection.
Capt. Jas., I seem to have only one that I've collected for my files, I'll send any others I run across your way.

The Pennsylvania Gazette
January 30, 1750
BOSTON, January 1.
About a month past a sorrowful accident happened at Rutland in the county of Worcester, two young men, one named Taylor, the other Heaton, went out a hunting, and being in a swamp a few rods from each other, Heaton suddenly rising up among the bushes being thick, the other took him for a deer, shot at him, and so wounded him with a bullet and swan shot , that he died in a few days after.

And one non-hunting civilian one:

The Pennsylvania Gazette
January 5, 1774
PHILADELPHIA, January 4.
And the next Day Thomas Wilson was convicted of Murder, for shooting William Hewit through the Body with a Bullet and three Swan Shot , the 29th of October, 1768.

And one guy who was very glad another hunter was not shooting buck and ball. :grin:

The Pennsylvania Gazette
March 10, 1757
Some time ago, in Hunting Time, a Man in Frederick County, having made himself a Jacket of the Skin of a Deer, with the Hair and Tail on, went out to hunt for Deer, and as he was creeping thro' Bushes in pursuit of Prey, was seen by another Hunter, who taking him for a Deer, fired at him, and shot thro' the Skin, but happily did not kill. (It is not improbable but he might wear the Horns as well as the Tail).

Spence
 
roundball said:
KanawhaRanger said:
I dug a .69 round ball at a battlefield once that had 3 indentations in it from firing it with buckshot and I've seen pictures of others.

Thank you...said another way, whatever changes to the lead ball that took place during firing, were still present in the lead ball after firing.
:thumbsup:

At least in my case and several others. If the ball hit the ground or a tree on the side where the indentations are, it would be a safe bet that they would be destroyed on impact. But yes, there were 3 dents evenly spaced in a triangular shaped in every case except for one that I saw which had 4.
 
Spence, that may be true. I don't have any info about Rev War use of buck & ball, but I only know that cartridges were made up for use in muskets by the 1840's and were issued through the Civil War. Also, fixed cartridges were issued containing 15 buckshot alone and are mentioned in the 1862 Ordnance Manual. I'm willing to believe that loose shot was issued for use in the 1700's.
 
Capt. Jas. said:
Agreed Spence but the wealthy gentry in England are a fer piece from those who would be in America using buck and ball for a non-military application.
You certainly may be right about that. We have to keep in mind, though, that this country was British at that time, that the social structure and material cuture wasn't far different, and that what was true in the mother country was very frequently true in the colony. This country was, after all, founded by wealthy British gentry when you get right down to it. :grin:

I am reminded of that question the first time I searched for the term "hunting" in my database. I was all excited to see a very large number of hits returned, but it quickly dawned on me that this was not the squirrel and deer hunting I was looking for but fox hunting, riding to the hounds, Tally-ho, and all that, right here in the colonies. Very British, don't you know? :grin:

Spence
 
The paper ctgs holding B&B have the buckshot on top. We know that the mini ball load was 65gr of powder, but the smoothbore musket load was 110 gr, or there abouts. You may not want to shoot a heavier load, but it may make a deference in the results?
 
Capt. Jas. said:
George said:
CoyoteJoe said:
It is interesting to try the "old time ways" but they are not necessairly the "best ways". I can't see the point of such a load for hunting.
My interest is historical, only. I'd never shoot at anything with such a load, I might hurt it.

Spence

Agree but like TG, it can be pretty effective for his application although I admit to choosing all shot for that.

There is a level of testing the historical use that some like to do Coyote Joe. Otherwise I would rather grab a case of modern shells, have at it and clean the gun when the feeling hit me.

I fully understand the desire to try out historical methods. I'm just saying it would be a poor idea then or now for hunting. For military application, to wound as many as possible is the purpose, for hunting that is exactly what we try to avoid. But I think in those past times people didn't worry so much about wounding game.
 
CoyoteJoe said:
But I think in those past times people didn't worry so much about wounding game.
I'm sure you are right about that, Joe. I read many accident reports telling how hunters fired at a noise in the brush, an indistinct blob in the gloom or as they liked to put it "at a venture", hoping to hit something. With an attitude like that, and no concern if wounded game runs off to die, a buck and ball or just buckshot load would be a natural. A typical report:

The Pennsylvania Gazette
December 11, 1735
We hear from Egg Harbour, that two Men going out lately to shoot Deer, they parted by Consent; and afterwards one seeing some Bushes move, believed a Deer to be there; and gave fire at a venture; by which he unfortunately kill'd his Companion.

Spence
 
Well Joe, I would not be one bit concerned about wounding game using the load in the situation I worked up, I would certainly not advise anyone else to use B&B without considerble testing and the ability to respect the limitations of the loads range, it is a fact however that the load can be used as a hunting load in the the right situation though be it quite limited.It is rarely a favorable thing to think in absolutes no matter how mush we may dislike something others may find to be usefull.I really doubt that anyone here would intentionaly use a load that they felt had any chance of being inferior to the point of wounding game, I would not cast such a though about anyone I have seen post here.I could think of a lot of comments about many folks but none in that department :hmm:
 
George said:
We hear from Egg Harbour, that two Men going out lately to shoot Deer, they parted by Consent; and afterwards one seeing some Bushes move, believed a Deer to be there; and gave fire at a venture; by which he unfortunately kill'd his Companion.

Spence


I think that might still be a fairly common practice in some areas. :shake:
 
Indeed, I hunted deer one day with an Army friend in New Jersey, buckshot only. That evening a bunch of hunters were sitting around the bar and discussing their luck. One fellow said "I got a couple of real good sound shots". "Sound shots"!

tg, I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, I totally understood that you had tested your buck&ball load, knew it's imitations and were working within them. I don't however think many people hunt in brier batches where ranges don't exceed 30 feet. Even there I don't see the buck as any great asset, just not a liability as it would be at 30 yards.
I do maintain that for hunting there is nothing buck & ball can do that a load of buck OR ball cannot do better.
 
CoyoteJoe said:
Capt. Jas. said:
George said:
CoyoteJoe said:
It is interesting to try the "old time ways" but they are not necessairly the "best ways". I can't see the point of such a load for hunting.
My interest is historical, only. I'd never shoot at anything with such a load, I might hurt it.

Spence

Agree but like TG, it can be pretty effective for his application although I admit to choosing all shot for that.

There is a level of testing the historical use that some like to do Coyote Joe. Otherwise I would rather grab a case of modern shells, have at it and clean the gun when the feeling hit me.

I fully understand the desire to try out historical methods. I'm just saying it would be a poor idea then or now for hunting. For military application, to wound as many as possible is the purpose, for hunting that is exactly what we try to avoid. But I think in those past times people didn't worry so much about wounding game.

Not to mention illegal in some states. It's illegal here in WV to use a multi-ball load for deer hunting.
 
Somewhere I came across Buck & Ball being the load used by sentrys. Better to wing something in the dark at close range than miss entirely.

Other than that, IMHO, I guess unless you had a chance to find a moose surrounded by geese it would be better to lob one good ball.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top