Correlation between accuracy and ball/patch

[Bugman]

I would like the opinion of your experience here. Is there any merit to having a ball/patch combination which is hard to start and ram, and accuracy? If I can start and ram my ball/patch with relative ease will accuracy suffer, or will a ball/patch combination which I must use a starter and use some effort in ramming home provide more accuracy? Generally speaking of course. The results would be the same regardless of ball diameter and patch thickness. In other words, would any caliber which is easier to ram home less accurate than one which must be pounded in?

Logic says that our forebears used combinations which were not very difficult to ram, otherwise they would have had to carry a starter and a range rod which are more recent inventions.

I don't think my ancestor at the Battle for New Orleans had the time to pound in a round, swab, then pound in another round in the heat of the assault on his breastworks. Faster reloading had a lot of merit

 

[Black Hand]

I would like the opinion of your experience here. Is there any merit to having a ball/patch combination which is hard to start and ram, and accuracy? If I can start and ram my ball/patch with relative ease will accuracy suffer, or will a ball/patch combination which I must use a starter and use some effort in ramming home provide more accuracy? Generally speaking of course. The results would be the same regardless of ball diameter and patch thickness. In other words, would any caliber which is easier to ram home less accurate than one which must be pounded in?

Logic says that our forebears used combinations which were not very difficult to ram, otherwise they would have had to carry a starter and a range rod which are more recent inventions.

I don't think my ancestor at the Battle for New Orleans had the time to pound in a round, swab, then pound in another round in the heat of the assault on his breastworks. Faster reloading had a lot of merit

I have a friend that experienced the contrary - went to a combination that was looser and got better results. I figure that if one needs to pound the load down the barrel, there must be a better way. My guns take minimal effort to start, but I also don't use a starter, and the load goes down the barrel with minimal effort. All that said, it puts meat in the freezer...

 

[Sparkitoff]

In my experience if a patched ball is very hard to start the procedure damages the patching and or the ball and reduced accuracy. The term I use is "snug". My most accurate loads fit snug in the muzzle and require some pressure from a short starter to get them in to where I cut the patch at the muzzle, then slightly less pressure to push it the rest of the way down to the powder. For me, patched balls that I could push in with my fingers (without a coned muzzle) were not snug enough for accuracy (that's the correlation you asked for). When it required a little more pressure and with a tool it was just right. I did not have to smack the short starter, lean on it or wrap it repeatedly, just a nice constant push and it popped in. I hope this explanation is helpful and again this is my experience with the 5 PRB rifles I own and use.

 

[Bugman]

In my experience if a patched ball is very hard to start the procedure damages the patching and or the ball and reduced accuracy. The term I use is "snug". My most accurate loads fit snug in the muzzle and require some pressure from a short starter to get them in to where I cut the patch at the muzzle, then slightly less pressure to push it the rest of the way down to the powder. For me, patched balls that I could push in with my fingers (without a coned muzzle) were not snug enough for accuracy (that's the correlation you asked for). When it required a little more pressure and with a tool it was just right. I did not have to smack the short starter, lean on it or wrap it repeatedly, just a nice constant push and it popped in. I hope this explanation is helpful and again this is my experience with the 5 PRB rifles I own and use.

That would be my expectation - a snug fit would be best. I'm new at patched ball and was surprised at the effort needed to ram home the charge while using the recommended, most accurate charge from the builder.

 

[curator]

Bugman,

Everything depends on your standard for accuracy. At the Battle of New Orleans a rifleman would expect to keep his shots inside an 8" "kill zone" at 50 to 70 yards distance. A "snug-loaded" ball should easily accomplish this. However, to keep your all shots inside a 2" circle at 50 yards may need a ball/patch combination that requires the use of a short starter. British riflemen in the Peninsular war were issued a mallet to load patched balls for long range accuracy. German Jaeger rifles were all loaded with a mallet to start the ball.

Do some research on "false muzzles" which are really only a removable section of barrel where the rifling is "coned" to assist in loading a very tight ball and patch. Generally, rifles with permanently coned muzzles do not win shooting matches where precise accuracy is required. Thompson Center tried this with their "QLA" relieved muzzles to assist loading but reduced accuracy at the same time. Also research "chunk guns" and their use of false muzzles and very tightly patched round balls. Basically, the tightest combination that you can load without severely deforming the projectile will have the best chance of shooting accurately assuming a reasonable powder charge and patch lubricity.

 

[azmntman]

"Generally speaking" one wants a snug fit. You want the powder to go off and the powder to burn behind the ball, too loose and it can blow by the prb in the barrel (making consistency very hard to achieve). I have 20+ BP arms and all but one fit this scenario perfectly. The one that does not nearly got itself sold or rebored. A .36 CVA bobcat. I tried EVERY combo imaginable (no not the entire 65K but well over 1000 different patch thicknesses, ball sizes powder charges and lubes). The gun would not shoot a 3" group at 25 yds. THEN I took it for another "last try" and forgot my patch material. All I had was some ridiculously thin ticking that I had kept around to use as a rag, were talking an easy thumb start. I thought whatever, I'm shooting today, loaded up three shots and whata ya know, a 1" group! Repeated this next time out then daughter hit a bulls eye ( I only let her shoot it once ) the third time out. So I plan to get back out after the thaw and work up a squirrel load. I have struggled with that rifle over 15 yrs LOL ALL OTHERS required a rather snug fit to achieve acceptable accuracy.

 

[Dr5x]

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN BALL AND PATCH IS EVERYTHING.
IF IT IS HARD TO LOAD YOU ARE SURE OF A GOOD SEAL AROUND THE BALL BUT IF IT IS ESY TO LOAD THERE MAY BE A WEAKER SEAL THAT WILL LET SOME OF THE POWDER POWER BLOW BY AND CREATE THE SAME EFFECT AS TOO WEAK A POWDER CHARGE.YOUR JOB IS TO FIND A SEALING LOAD AND A NOT TOO HARD A LOADING COMBINATION.
ONCE YOU HAVE SHORT STARTED YOU HAVE EXTRUDED THE LEAD OF THE BALL AND SOME OF THE PATCHING INTO THE RIFLINGAND AFTER THAT PART OF THE LOADING IS PASSED THE REST OF THE SEATNG PROCESS SHOULD BERELATIVELY EASY.

DUTCH SCHOULTZ

I would like the opinion of your experience here. Is there any merit to having a ball/patch combination which is hard to start and ram, and accuracy? If I can start and ram my ball/patch with relative ease will accuracy suffer, or will a ball/patch combination which I must use a starter and use some effort in ramming home provide more accuracy? Generally speaking of course. The results would be the same regardless of ball diameter and patch thickness. In other words, would any caliber which is easier to ram home less accurate than one which must be pounded in?

Logic says that our forebears used combinations which were not very difficult to ram, otherwise they would have had to carry a starter and a range rod which are more recent inventions.

I don't think my ancestor at the Battle for New Orleans had the time to pound in a round, swab, then pound in another round in the heat of the assault on his breastworks. Faster reloading had a lot of merit

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Logic says that our forebears used combinations which were not very difficult to ram, otherwise they would have had to carry a starter and a range rod which are more recent inventions.

OR logic shows they may have had coned barrels, and of course as mentioned, you don't know what they expected for accuracy.

When you're standing two hundred yards away in a tree line, with you standing behind a large tree, gazing across an open field at a line of British soldiers ..., you can take the time to press your ball into the muzzle with butt of your knife, cut off the patch, then gently seat your ball onto the powder. Then take aim using the tree as a support, and hit that officer or NCO when you squeeze off the shot. No need for a range rod nor short starter. If you're a rifleman trying to crack off fast volleys, you've really screwed-up. You can always shoot the unpatched ball out to 50 yards and hit the man coming toward you with the bayonet. I've tried it on targets, and it works for accuracy..., whether or not I'd have the nerve to stand there and shoot the fellow if he had companions with fixed bayonets....that's another question.

LD

 

[Juice Jaws]

I think Curator has a good point, "what do you call accuracy". I view myself as a back yard shooter, I take my turn at winning our local shoots and my accuracy is plenty good for one shot kills on any game. My smooth bore I start the ball , patch down with my finger. My rifles I use a short starter but they load with just hand pressure. I see people using hammers to start the ball down and that doesn't look like fun or make any since to me. To me accuracy has a lot more to do with your hold than ball, patch fit. Almost all my shooting at club or rovv. is off hand shooting. Breathing and sight picture and follow through has a lot more to do with accuracy I think than tight or lose ball, patch fit. As for our forefathers, very few short starters were found in their shooting bags so that tells me they had easy loading, and I doubt they all had crown barrels.

 

[TerryK]

I recently bought a TVM Virginia with a 54 caliber Rice barrel with the 0.016 round bottom rifling. I started with 0.530 round ball with ox yoke prelubed 0.015 and groups with pretty good groups at 50 yards. I was going to try 0.020, but the owner of RMC Muzzleloading told me that the TC prelubed patches I had in the truck were made by them, and they were 0.018. So I tried those, and it was a bit tigher to load, but better groups. Then I tried some 0.010 patches, and naturally they loaded easier, but the groups opened up.
So in my deep grove barrel, with a standard 530 ball, tighter patches produced better results. I have 8 boxes of 530, so next step is 0.20 prelubed patches.
I can also add that I started with 70 grains 2F GOEX, with 0.015, then switched to 80 grains and things got better. After I get thicker patches, I may run 90 grains to see how they fly. Right now it is plenty good for under 50 yard deer hunting that is currently in season.

 

[MSW]

As you can see, 'conventional wisdom' has it that a tight ball/patch combination is important to accuracy. While I hesitate to jump on this or any other bandwagon, I will agree with the consensus.

Having said that, remember that having a consensus and being right are not necessarily the same: all those people who agreed that the earth was flat? -- how's that working out for you?

Most will say that coning a barrel (which makes hand starting very convenient) will completely destroy any hope of a small group (and it will make your hair fall out, your dog will run away, the bank will repossess your double-wide, you mom will be sentenced to a lengthy prison term, your wife will run off with your best friend, and someone will steal your pick- up truck … you get the idea) … I've coned several barrels, and I can't really tell the difference... but then again, i'm not a super crack shot, so there's plenty of 'slop' in the equation and my second- rate marksmanship might well cover the accuracy problems I started when I took the coneing tool to the muzzle.

The best advice I can give you is to get a copy of Dutch Schoultz' method. This is far and away the best non- shooting accessory I've ever purchased (and I will confess to being a gadget junkie). Mr. Schoultz guarantees that the use of his method will shrink your groups, and he'll respond to e-mails and such to give you coaching on how to improve things. Considering his credentials, that's a sweetheart deal if ever there was one. Here's a link:

http://blackpowderrifleaccuracy.com/

good luck with your project, and Make Good Smoke!

 

[Rifleman1776]

For years with my half-breed target rifle, which has a .45 cal. Douglas barrel, I used a .457" rb and denim patching for competition. That combo gave me good accuracy. Finally, after many years I got tired of doing the big hammer bit to load. I dropped to a .445" ball with ticking. I still get good accuracy but groups are not quite as tight as with the bigger ball and thicker patching. That's one mans experience, FWIW.

 

[Greenjoytj]

I would like the opinion of your experience here. Is there any merit to having a ball/patch combination which is hard to start and ram, and accuracy? If I can start and ram my ball/patch with relative ease will accuracy suffer, or will a ball/patch combination which I must use a starter and use some effort in ramming home provide more accuracy? Generally speaking of course. The results would be the same regardless of ball diameter and patch thickness. In other words, would any caliber which is easier to ram home less accurate than one which must be pounded in?

Logic says that our forebears used combinations which were not very difficult to ram, otherwise they would have had to carry a starter and a range rod which are more recent inventions.

I don't think my ancestor at the Battle for New Orleans had the time to pound in a round, swab, then pound in another round in the heat of the assault on his breastworks. Faster reloading had a lot of merit

I think the expectations of the degree of accuracy the muzzleloader is capable of has been has been continuously elevated through the ages because its shot along side increasingly more modern firearms. The accuracy differences couldn’t be ignored, so shooter have taken great efforts to improve on the size of the group their muzzle loader is capable of.
I think a shooter needs to choose what level of accuracy is acceptable to the task at hand, minute of squirrel head or minute deer or speed and ease of reloading.

For my own shooting need I favour high accuracy over ease and speed of reloading and in my Lyman GPR 54 that means a tight PRB combination.

 

[Dr5x]

I HAVE BASED ALL OR MOST OF MY IDEAS ABOUT ACHEIVING ACCURACY ON LOGIC.
LOGICALLY I CANNOT SEE WHY CONING A BARREL WOULD DECREASE ACCURACY BECAUSE ALLCONING DOES IS SHORTEN THE BARREL'S EFFECTIVE LENGTH BY A HALF INCH OR SO..
ARE ALL 28 INCH BARRELS MORE ACCURATE THAN 27 AND A HALF INCH BARRELS?
I CAN FIND NO LOGICAL REASON FOR IT.
PERHAPS IT IS SOMETHING DONE TO THE RIFLING DURING THE CONING PROCESS.

THE ACCEPTED EXPRESSED OPINIONS SAY THAT CONING DECREASES ACCURACY. I CAN'T SEE WHY THIS WOULD BE IF IT INDEED IS TRUE.

I NEVER CONED MY RIFLES, NOT TO RETAIN ACCURACY BUT BECAUSE I SAW NO POINT IN IT.

SEVERAL GOOD PEOPLE POINTOUT THAT IT WAS COMMON TO LOAD WITH A MALLET IN THE BRITISH ARMY. I WOULD THINK THAT PEOPLE WHO OBJECT TO A SHORT STARTER SHOULD REALIZE IT ACCOMPLISHES THE SAME EFFECT AS A MALLET OR HAMMER BUT WITH FAR LESS RESHAPING OF THE FACE OF THE BALL.
NIT OICKERS TRY TO HAVE THE BUSINESS END OF THEIR SHORT STARTER TO HAVE A CONCAVE CURVE THAT CLOSELY FITS THE CINVEX FACE OF THE BALL.
I CAN SEE WHERE THAT MIGHT MAKE A VERY SLIGHT DIFFERENCE BUT NEVER, MYSELF, WENT TO THAT ENGTH.
I NEVER FELT IT WAS HARD TO SEAT THE BALL. I DID FIND IT NECESSAR TO GIVE THE SHORT STARTER A CONSIDERABLE WHACK TO CAUSE THE ROUND BAL TO CHANGE SHAPE AND EXTRUDE LEAD AND PATCHINGING INTO THE GROOVES OF THE RIFLING.

THIS WHACK RUNS THERISK OF GIVING YOU "SHORT STARTER'S ELBOW".

DUTCH SCHOULTZ

Bugman,

Everything depends on your standard for accuracy. At the Battle of New Orleans a rifleman would expect to keep his shots inside an 8" "kill zone" at 50 to 70 yards distance. A "snug-loaded" ball should easily accomplish this. However, to keep your all shots inside a 2" circle at 50 yards may need a ball/patch combination that requires the use of a short starter. British riflemen in the Peninsular war were issued a mallet to load patched balls for long range accuracy. German Jaeger rifles were all loaded with a mallet to start the ball.

Do some research on "false muzzles" which are really only a removable section of barrel where the rifling is "coned" to assist in loading a very tight ball and patch. Generally, rifles with permanently coned muzzles do not win shooting matches where precise accuracy is required. Thompson Center tried this with their "QLA" relieved muzzles to assist loading but reduced accuracy at the same time. Also research "chunk guns" and their use of false muzzles and very tightly patched round balls. Basically, the tightest combination that you can load without severely deforming the projectile will have the best chance of shooting accurately assuming a reasonable powder charge and patch lubricity.

 

[brayhaven]

I did a lot of research on patched round ball accuracy some years back. Even built a t/c contender barrel on GM blank in 40 cal. Scoped it and played around with velocities, different powders, lots of ball/patch lube combos etc. as well as building a lot of match and hunting guns and shoot one or two matches a month still today.
My experience is that a very tight combination provides the best chance for good accuracy. Though big ball thin patch vs the opposite doesn’t seem to matter much. I use a bore size ball or slightly under land diamter, and a ..020 ticking patch. Once the ball is short started (I use a contoured hdpe starter and small brass hammer) it’s no harder to ram home than a “snug” combination, because you’ve engraved the rifling on the combo. Good lube and a slick bore (I lead lap mine) helps. I hate coned muzzles, as I feel the escaping gasses,as the ball leaves the edges of the cone, can be inconsistent and upset the smooth exit.. I also don’t like sharp crowns as they are more easily damaged. I always put a slight radiused crown on my barrels with no sharp edges. Also makes starting easier with no patch damage.
I do use a thinner patch when hunting for quick follow up shots, but the initial load is the tight one.
Shot many 1” and under groups (100yds) while doing the research using a patched round ball. Even won a few bets regarding the inherent accuracy of a patched round ball.
I also think short starters of some type were fairly common early on. But that always gets arguments going . You’d also be surprised how well a “deformed” ball can shoot. Muleskinner

 

[Stumpkiller]

I must say I have never owned a muzzeloader that improved with a looser fitting ball. I have owned several that were tolerant of a less tightly fitting combination to the extent that I was happy to go for the lower struggle. I have to believe in the other direction it will have diminishing returns as to how tight is too tight. At some point it will stop improving and may even drop back. That is, accuracy will probably cease to improve some time before your combination shaved the entire patch away from the lead bearing surface as it is being pounded in the muzzle.

And sooner or later we will all stick a ball well and truly half-way down the bore. Not going to win you friends or influence game. I don't carry a range rod or hammer so I NEVER want to risk that level of bore tightness. (Also - the risk I take preferring to live a lifestyle that allows shooting five times before running a spit-wipe to clear fouling. Choices we make.)

I cast my own round balls and I do note that I run a variation in hardness (or possibly different shrinkage when cooling). A combo using a ball out of the same mold may seem much harder to start. Might even be a change in how the humidity that day is effecting the fouling; or even a drier spot in the patching/lube I am using. Consistency will ALWAYS be more accurate. We each just have to define our level of persnicketyness we are willing to take along to achieve it.

Rather than coning the muzzle I prefer a radius crown. Makes it easier to thumb start.

 

[Dr5x]

MULESKINNER,

YOU ARE A MAN OF MY OWN HEART.I BELIEVE YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAME PROCESSES I HAVE. EVEN MORE THOTOUGH THAN I DID BACK IN THE '70\S/
I HAVE ONLY ONENIT TO PICK WITH YOU AND THAT IS IN THE MEASUREMENT OF YOUR PATCH CLOTH.BEING LESS EXACT. I BELIEVEYOUR "TIGHTER" PATCHING IS ACTUALLY A BIT DIFFERENT WHEN CRUSHED BETWEEN BALL AND BORE AND THAT IF YOU USED THE COMPRESSED MEASUREMENT YOU WOULD FIND IT WAS A BIT THINNER AND THAT A SLIGHTLY THINNER PATCH WOULD GIVE YOU THE SAME RESULTS AND ELIMINATE THE USE OF THE SMALL BRASS HAMMER.
THAT IS EXTREME NIT PICKING BECAUSE THE ABOVE MAY BE TRUE YOU HAVE DONE A LITLE BIT OF OVERKILL ON ON YOUR "TIGHTER" PATCHING.

YOU MAY IGNORE MY COMMENTS AS MINOR FINR TUNING THAT YOU DON'T REALLY NEED.

I FIND FEW FOLK WHO HAVE APPROACHED ACCURACY AS WE BOTH HAVE AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FOLLOW MY THINKING AS OUTLINED IN MY EBOOK. IF YOU WILL BE SO KIND AS TO CONTACT ME BY EMAIL AT
[email protected]
I will happily send you a copy of my eBook so we can compare notes.
I would be interested in your thoughts on my so called "Dry" patch lube system.
It's ind of lonely being I thought, the only person out there who isn't following the sage advice of the 19 year old clerk at the gin shop or Cabela\s.

I spend a lot of time mon-Wed-Fri hooked up to a Dialysis machine in order to stayvalive and I'll be 91 next March. I was beginning to think that when I am gone the general art of muzzleloading was going to drop back to the Good Ol Boys/ sloppy approach and the 3 inch group.

Please contact me on the net.

Dutch Schoultz

I did a lot of research on patched round ball accuracy some years back. Even built a t/c contender barrel on GM blank in 40 cal. Scoped it and played around with velocities, different powders, lots of ball/patch lube combos etc. as well as building a lot of match and hunting guns and shoot one or two matches a month still today.
My experience is that a very tight combination provides the best chance for good accuracy. Though big ball thin patch vs the opposite doesn’t seem to matter much. I use a bore size ball or slightly under land diamter, and a ..020 ticking patch. Once the ball is short started (I use a contoured hdpe starter and small brass hammer) it’s no harder to ram home than a “snug” combination, because you’ve engraved the rifling on the combo. Good lube and a slick bore (I lead lap mine) helps. I hate coned muzzles, as I feel the escaping gasses,as the ball leaves the edges of the cone, can be inconsistent and upset the smooth exit.. I also don’t like sharp crowns as they are more easily damaged. I always put a slight radiused crown on my barrels with no sharp edges. Also makes starting easier with no patch damage.
I do use a thinner patch when hunting for quick follow up shots, but the initial load is the tight one.
Shot many 1” and under groups (100yds) while doing the research using a patched round ball. Even won a few bets regarding the inherent accuracy of a patched round ball.
I also think short starters of some type were fairly common early on. But that always gets arguments going . You’d also be surprised how well a “deformed” ball can shoot. Muleskinner

 

[Dr5x]

Stumpkiller,
I was never able to get consistent accuracy after thevthird shot without having to wipe.
Logically. as the residue builds up, you the effective size of your bore is decreasing and there is no consistency in a bore that is changing size.
However, If you can do it and your groups stay tight, congratulations,
I never could do that.

Dutch Schoutz

I must say I have never owned a muzzeloader that improved with a looser fitting ball. I have owned several that were tolerant of a less tightly fitting combination to the extent that I was happy to go for the lower struggle. I have to believe in the other direction it will have diminishing returns as to how tight is too tight. At some point it will stop improving and may even drop back. That is, accuracy will probably cease to improve some time before your combination shaved the entire patch away from the lead bearing surface as it is being pounded in the muzzle.

And sooner or later we will all stick a ball well and truly half-way down the bore. Not going to win you friends or influence game. I don't carry a range rod or hammer so I NEVER want to risk that level of bore tightness. (Also - the risk I take preferring to live a lifestyle that allows shooting five times before running a spit-wipe to clear fouling. Choices we make.)

I cast my own round balls and I do note that I run a variation in hardness (or possibly different shrinkage when cooling). A combo using a ball out of the same mold may seem much harder to start. Might even be a change in how the humidity that day is effecting the fouling; or even a drier spot in the patching/lube I am using. Consistency will ALWAYS be more accurate. We each just have to define our level of persnicketyness we are willing to take along to achieve it.

Rather than coning the muzzle I prefer a radius crown. Makes it easier to thumb start.

 

[Dr5x]

I am puzzled,
I got a post from Brayhaven but which was signed ""Muleskinner".
I replied to ?Muleskinner" but not Brayhaven/ This name reminded me of someone a few years ago who was interested in the care and feeding of Mules..

So? Brasyhaven, did you get my post addressed to Muleskinner.?
I believe we were in contact years ago.
Please bring me up to date.

Dutch Schoultz

I did a lot of research on patched round ball accuracy some years back. Even built a t/c contender barrel on GM blank in 40 cal. Scoped it and played around with velocities, different powders, lots of ball/patch lube combos etc. as well as building a lot of match and hunting guns and shoot one or two matches a month still today.
My experience is that a very tight combination provides the best chance for good accuracy. Though big ball thin patch vs the opposite doesn’t seem to matter much. I use a bore size ball or slightly under land diamter, and a ..020 ticking patch. Once the ball is short started (I use a contoured hdpe starter and small brass hammer) it’s no harder to ram home than a “snug” combination, because you’ve engraved the rifling on the combo. Good lube and a slick bore (I lead lap mine) helps. I hate coned muzzles, as I feel the escaping gasses,as the ball leaves the edges of the cone, can be inconsistent and upset the smooth exit.. I also don’t like sharp crowns as they are more easily damaged. I always put a slight radiused crown on my barrels with no sharp edges. Also makes starting easier with no patch damage.
I do use a thinner patch when hunting for quick follow up shots, but the initial load is the tight one.
Shot many 1” and under groups (100yds) while doing the research using a patched round ball. Even won a few bets regarding the inherent accuracy of a patched round ball.
I also think short starters of some type were fairly common early on. But that always gets arguments going . You’d also be surprised how well a “deformed” ball can shoot. Muleskinner

 

[brayhaven]

Not at all Dutch. Always given great weight to your opinions over the years. I did try some thinner patches, in .012, .015 & .017. The groups opened up a little. More so with the 12 & 15 thousandths. And the ramming effort wasnt changed much after the initial starting and engraving of the combo. If at all. Might have taken a stroke or two less with the little brass hammer on my short starter. The group difference would be hard to measure with open sights, measured (rather than weighed) charges and conventional ignition. I tried to eliminate those with a 12x scope, weighed charges, and 209 primers that would ignite a charge of peanut butter . I use the thicker patches because I think they clean better (I never swab) and seal very well against the hot gasses. And they do group @ 1/4” better at 100 yards, not that you’d notice, shooting offhand with metallic sights. . The little hammer saves my palm.
Muleskinner.

MULESKINNER,

YOU ARE A MAN OF MY OWN HEART.I BELIEVE YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAME PROCESSES I HAVE. EVEN MORE THOTOUGH THAN I DID BACK IN THE '70\S/
I HAVE ONLY ONENIT TO PICK WITH YOU AND THAT IS IN THE MEASUREMENT OF YOUR PATCH CLOTH.BEING LESS EXACT. I BELIEVEYOUR "TIGHTER" PATCHING IS ACTUALLY A BIT DIFFERENT WHEN CRUSHED BETWEEN BALL AND BORE AND THAT IF YOU USED THE COMPRESSED MEASUREMENT YOU WOULD FIND IT WAS A BIT THINNER AND THAT A SLIGHTLY THINNER PATCH WOULD GIVE YOU THE SAME RESULTS AND ELIMINATE THE USE OF THE SMALL BRASS HAMMER.
THAT IS EXTREME NIT PICKING BECAUSE THE ABOVE MAY BE TRUE YOU HAVE DONE A LITLE BIT OF OVERKILL ON ON YOUR "TIGHTER" PATCHING.

YOU MAY IGNORE MY COMMENTS AS MINOR FINR TUNING THAT YOU DON'T REALLY NEED.

I FIND FEW FOLK WHO HAVE APPROACHED ACCURACY AS WE BOTH HAVE AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FOLLOW MY THINKING AS OUTLINED IN MY EBOOK. IF YOU WILL BE SO KIND AS TO CONTACT ME BY EMAIL AT
[email protected]
I will happily send you a copy of my eBook so we can compare notes.
I would be interested in your thoughts on my so called "Dry" patch lube system.
It's ind of lonely being I thought, the only person out there who isn't following the sage advice of the 19 year old clerk at the gin shop or Cabela\s.

I spend a lot of time mon-Wed-Fri hooked up to a Dialysis machine in order to stayvalive and I'll be 91 next March. I was beginning to think that when I am gone the general art of muzzleloading was going to drop back to the Good Ol Boys/ sloppy approach and the 3 inch group.

Please contact me on the net.

Dutch Schoultz