• 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

Unpatched round ball

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
140
Location
Georgia
in a rifled barrel. Same size ball with a patch, except no patch...say a .490 ball, naked.

How would it do in comparison to say a .50 caliber smoothbore with a .490 ball?

I'll bet in the heat of the moment some unpatched balls were used by our ancestors. I wonder about their accuracy potential.

Anyone got any thoughts on this?
 
Mooman76 said:
Try it and let us know. I seen an article where they used slightly oversized RBs( like .457 in a .45) without a patch but they got mediocre accuracy.

And a fouled and leaded bore.
 
Dunno about zackt bore size, but like a dummy I got into the field with a 62 caliber and no spare patches, then needed a follow-up shot on a wounded deer. The bare .610 ball missed the critter completely at about 50 yards. Ripped off some t-shirt and seated another ball with 2 layers of that and connected solidly at about 80 yards. Then that evening I spent a whole lot of time getting long streaks of pure lead out of the rifling from the single bare shot.

Taught me that some rifles have patch boxes installed for dummies who forget patches!

And NOT TO shoot bare pure-lead balls (or any other bare ball) through a rifled bore.
 
If you are talking combat, in war the riflemen sometimes carried smaller balls to use when they still had time to patch. The smaller balls with a patch loaded easy into the bore when the barrel was fouled. If the enemy is REAL close, then hitting a human torso with an unpatched ball is not difficult at very close range.

Gus
 
There are references from early days from several European sources to loading oversize balls in rifles, pounding them down with a metal ramrod so that the rifling was engraved on the ball. Some even believed that the ball spun in flight because air acted on those grooves on the ball. I believe that was the accepted way of loading, patches weren't part of it. There are descriptions of target matches as early as the 15th century, I believe, and the accuracy was high. Don't know how they were loading.

Spence
 
I don't know, but I think most combat on the Frontier was at close range. Except for sieges behind walls when time could be taken to patch and load for accuracy.

But I'm more curious about whether a rifled barrel with a slightly undersized non-patched ball is less accurate than a slightly undersized unpatched ball in a smooth bore. The effect of rifling on a ball moving inside the barrel.

I intuit that there would be little difference, but having never tried it, I wouldn't know.
 
Gene L said:
Anyone got any thoughts on this?
Capt. Henry Beaufroy had some in 1808, in Scloppetaria.

"The grease which is placed on the under side, in contact with the barrel, for the purpose of diminishing the friction, will, if the gun be left any time loaded, tend to damp the powder, and, therefore, when firing for amusement, and where ample time is afforded, many, before ramming down the ball and patch, put between it and the powder a piece of circular card or felt, accurately fitted to the bore, just as is commonly done with shot guns”¦”¦ The only case, however, in which a stopple may be considered as a necessary part of the loading, is when the naked ball is used, for then you must have some intermediate body to prevent that windage which the ball’s zone is not sufficient of itself to obviate."

Spence
 
I shot a .50 mowrey with a .490 and no patch on 70 grains of 3f. I got all in a 6 inch black at 25 yards. Shot in to several one inch pine boards the shot had about half the penitration. But you couldn't walk with it, the ball could fall of own wt down the bore.
 
Gene L said:
I don't know, but I think most combat on the Frontier was at close range. Except for sieges behind walls when time could be taken to patch and load for accuracy.

But I'm more curious about whether a rifled barrel with a slightly undersized non-patched ball is less accurate than a slightly undersized unpatched ball in a smooth bore. The effect of rifling on a ball moving inside the barrel.

I intuit that there would be little difference, but having never tried it, I wouldn't know.

There was only one example I ever fired an unpatched ball for accuracy and that was in my Brown Bess Carbine smoothbore barrel. For accuracy for competition, I used a .735 ball in the .753 bore and used a thick greased ticking patch. That day in the Trade Gun Aggregate match, everything came together that day for a while. I had stuck the tomahawk and knife three times each and set a personal record of 4 seconds from first strike of the flint to flames. Never got all that together before, so I was pretty confident about the shooting part of the match.

I had loaded the first ball with the greased ticking patch and split the ball on the axe blade to shatter both clay pigeons on each side, as pretty as you please from 20 yards offhand. So things were REALLY going well, at least to that point.

However, when I tried to load my next round, I just could not get it down the bore with the thick greased patch. It was VERY hot and humid that day and my best guess was that and the fouling in the bore would not allow the greased ticking patch. I had never run into that before on other hot and humid days, just that one time. The problem was in that match, one was not allowed to go back and get something after one stepped over a line to begin the match. The idea was that replicated real life that way. OMG I was in trouble.

I had a hand sewn shirt on that my wife had made, so cutting that fabric was out of the question. I had nothing else that I could use as patching as I had burnt up the tow I had in the fire starting phase. So not wanting to give up, I loaded a bare ball for the additional shots I had to fire.

MUCH to my shock and delight, it shot as well as a patched ball normally shot on two targets out to 50 yards. The final target was 73 yards away and it was a very small steel buffalo silhouette normally used in .22 cal. shooting at much closer distance. (The guy who set up the match did not want "standard" distances to shoot at, since this would also better replicate real life.)

Honestly, I thought I had no hope at all of hitting that tiny silhouette offhand from that range, without a greased patch. I wasn't even sure I could make that shot from the required offhand stance WITH a greased patch around the ball. So I aimed as careful as I could and fired. I wasn't surprised I did not hear a "SPLANG" noise that would have signaled a hit. However, when we went down to check the target, there was a divot in the ground within four inches from the silhouette, so I was extremely surprised (and pleased) I had come that close without a patch.

I never again ran into the problem of not being able to load the Bess Carbine without a patch, even when firing four or five shots in such a match, so I don't know how it would have shot on other days.

When we used to compete in the "break the board" with rifle balls team match for speed, the boards were set in the ground about 25 yards away and everyone loaded and fired as fast as possible. I used spit patches for that competition and never had a problem quickly loading up to three to four times in a match. So I never fired an unpatched ball in my Rifle Gun.

Gus
 
I get good enough accuracy at 50-60 yards with a patch in my smoothbore to easily hit the8" to 10" kill circle on a deer. Going to a slightly larger .606" WW ball, I still get a kill group which is only modestly larger than patched groups. I never have tried naked ball in a rifle, however.
 
I had once to get a second shot off at a running fox, I spat a ball down my .50 missouri long rifle and killed the fox with a shot through the brisket at 70 yards. The only time I have ever done that as I had no time to patch. This was years ago, ever since then have a block with a couple of pre patched balls on my day bag.
 
I've heard from " historical experts" that some Injuns close up were killed by shooting the ramrod....better hit the Injun because only a "bare ball" can be loaded after the RR is gone. Also as said before....keep the muzzle elevated because just plain BP won't kill.

Shooting a "bare ball" in a rifle, even one of bore dia., is "goofy" for many reasons of which I won't even elaborate......Fred
 
flehto said:
I've heard from " historical experts" that some Injuns close up were killed by shooting the ramrod....better hit the Injun because only a "bare ball" can be loaded after the RR is gone. Also as said before....keep the muzzle elevated because just plain BP won't kill.

Shooting a "bare ball" in a rifle, even one of bore dia., is "goofy" for many reasons of which I won't even elaborate......Fred



There was a movie with Clark Gable as a longhunter - or something like that - and Ricardo Montalban as his Indian nemesis. The movie was noted for it's "historical accuracy". Near the end Gable's character was rushed by Montalban's character before he could finish loading his longrifle. So without further ado, he simply fired at almost contact range sending the ramrod through Montalban. I thought the movie was quite good even though it's been a long time since I last saw it.
 
I have read of what were purported to be historic accounts of shooting a ramrod at a hostile NA, but it was normally only done when the Rifleman ran out of balls OR the NA was on him too quickly during the reloading process.

I have witnessed some strange things having been launched out of ML rifles, including a few ramrods, though it was unintentional. In one case after the Rifleman fired at a 25 yard Offhand target, there was a loud and curious "THWACKING" sound that got everyone's attention and looked downrange to see what had caused it. The ramrod was still slightly stuck in the target paper and cardboard backer and hanging akimbo. Of course the discussion then was all about how to score that "round" at what might be the entry hole or the divot it made in the paper and cardboard. Uh, no, it was not I who shot that ramrod, though the shooter was highly embarrassed and great sport was made of him for months later. :redface: :haha:

The most unusual thing I ever saw on a target down range was at a local BP match at Quantico, VA. One of the better shooters from THE Marine Corps Rifle Team had taken us up on our invitation to come shoot BP guns to better learn follow through. He had found out what we meant by really having to use good follow through and enjoyed himself. So this was his third local match where he borrowed a rifle from my best friend in life to shoot the match.

We were having a leisurely and enjoyable shoot at the 25 yard line with different targets, when that Shooter fired the rifle and let out some exclamations that cannot be mentioned on a family friendly forum. He had only fired his second shot, but there were THREE holes in his target. Two holes in the paper were round but one looked SQUARE and the square hole was only a few inches from the two round holes. The square hole was not too difficult to see at 25 yards and the laughter and ribbing of the shooter caused a "cease fire," so we could all go downrange and inspect the target. Many were the jokes about driving a square peg through a round hole, etc. etc.

At first we could not figure out how the Shooter did it. The shooter figured it out on the next round he tried to load when there was no "button" on the end of the jag on his ramrod and only the threaded shank was still there. The button must have come loose and remained in the barrel when he loaded the second round and he did not notice it before he shot that round. It hit the paper "sideways" so it looked like a square hole, though it was slightly rectangular. This was from a rather uncommon type of ramrod jag even in the early 70's, but my best friend in life really liked them because one could use one rod with different groove ringed "buttons" on them to best fit different calibers of different rifles. So if he broke a ramrod in one rifle, he could use a ramrod from another and with the correct size button for that caliber.

I saw that Shooter quite a bit even after he retired from the Corps and I always asked him if he had shot any more square holes in targets....... :grin:

Gus
 
There was an article in Muzzleloader Magazine about said practice.

The resulting targets placed side by side were impressive. Patched RB's were a nice tight group center mass while the unpatched RB's were still center mass they were about twice the spread.

So my conclusion, in the heat of battle. unpatched RB still equals one less foe. but for the sake of the game we hunt Patched RB is the way to go.
 
I've seen Civil War pictures where the trees were pierced with ramrods. Indicating necessity temporarily over-ruled training and common sense.

In the long run, an unpatched under-diameter ball may not make sense in 2017, but in the heat of battle was probably used.

What would you do if attacked by Indians? Patch a ball with the additional time to reload, or do the 'thing' with a less-accurate load?

Me, I'd go the less-accurate but WAY quicker route.
 
Back
Top