I've seen so many references to the use of what we would call buck and ball loads in the 18th century, both military and civilian, that I decided to try some of them. I spent a few pleasant hours doing some shooting, but that's about the only good that came of it. I decided to test a bare ball and 3 "swan" shot, a bare ball and 6 or 7 swan, and 12 swan with no ball. I shot all three types of load with just a card over powder, with 2 cards and with a card plus lubricated Circle Fly cushion wad. I used my usual 80 grain charge of Goex 3F for most shots, but dropped back to 70 grains for a few.
I was shooting my 46" cylinder bore fowler. The balls were .600" home cast, the swan were .295" home cast made for my .30 caliber rifle. Three swan would fit in a layer in the bore. The targets were some old 100-yard muzzleloading targets, a 6" bull on a 15" x 24" paper. Most targets were shot at 30 yards, a few of the swan-only ones at 20 yards. Most shots were fired from a rest.
Results were uniformly poor. On many of the shots the ball would be in the black, but only 1 or 2 swan were on the paper, usually barely so. In a few with ball and 6 or 7 the ball was also near the edge. The best target with 12 swan put 8 on the paper, widely scattered, only 2 in the black.
Ball plus 7 swan, 30 yards
12 swan, 30 yards
My conclusion was that for a man-size target a buck and ball load would probably be of some advantage, but not for anything much smaller. I've read modern descriptions of targets shot with buck and ball which claimed a ball in the black and most of the buck clustered fairly tightly around it. That didn't happen for me. I fired about 20 shots and didn't find a single one which made buck and ball seem worthwhile.
As is usual when I play around with loads from the old days, I feel there is something missing, something I don't understand, something else I should be doing. It's still fun though, so I plan another trip in a few days to try some of the old wads I've read about... tow and brown paper..., and hornet's nest, which I've never read about.
Spence
I was shooting my 46" cylinder bore fowler. The balls were .600" home cast, the swan were .295" home cast made for my .30 caliber rifle. Three swan would fit in a layer in the bore. The targets were some old 100-yard muzzleloading targets, a 6" bull on a 15" x 24" paper. Most targets were shot at 30 yards, a few of the swan-only ones at 20 yards. Most shots were fired from a rest.
Results were uniformly poor. On many of the shots the ball would be in the black, but only 1 or 2 swan were on the paper, usually barely so. In a few with ball and 6 or 7 the ball was also near the edge. The best target with 12 swan put 8 on the paper, widely scattered, only 2 in the black.
Ball plus 7 swan, 30 yards
12 swan, 30 yards
My conclusion was that for a man-size target a buck and ball load would probably be of some advantage, but not for anything much smaller. I've read modern descriptions of targets shot with buck and ball which claimed a ball in the black and most of the buck clustered fairly tightly around it. That didn't happen for me. I fired about 20 shots and didn't find a single one which made buck and ball seem worthwhile.
As is usual when I play around with loads from the old days, I feel there is something missing, something I don't understand, something else I should be doing. It's still fun though, so I plan another trip in a few days to try some of the old wads I've read about... tow and brown paper..., and hornet's nest, which I've never read about.
Spence