A Weighed and Sorted Ball Experiment

[Semisane]

He was shooting a .54. But I see I made a mistake, too. He used 85 grains of Goex 3F, not 2F. But the Lyman book shows 1735 fps muzzle velocity with that,

I was using 85 grains weight of FFFg GOEX, which fills my TC U-View measure to the 95 grain volume mark. I got a 5-shot average of 1588 fps with the chrono 15 ft. from the muzzle. That's a heck of a difference from the Lyman numbers.

 

[roundball]

I got a 5-shot average of 1588 fps with the chrono 15 ft. from the muzzle. That's a heck of a difference from the Lyman numbers.

I also noticed that the chronograph results I got on a few different calibers was noticably less than most published velocities.

I can see why Lyman's might be SOMEWHAT different as they usually used slightly longer barrels than my 32" TC & 33" GM barrels...but my numbers should have been in line with or faster than TC's 28" barrels but they weren't.

Makes me wonder when an enormous amount of data is prsented like that, how much if it is actual reality results vs. simply extrapolated theory from only one or two actual shots.

 

[Dphar]

My 1975 version of the Lyman BP Handbook gives a velocity range of
1531 to 1685 with 90gr of FFFG G-O in barrels from 28 to 43 "
Pressure of 8340 to 11300

My 38" barreled 54 flint makes about 1900 with 90 gr of FFFG Swiss.
Dan

 

[Dphar]

I got a 5-shot average of 1588 fps with the chrono 15 ft. from the muzzle. That's a heck of a difference from the Lyman numbers.

I also noticed that the chronograph results I got on a few different calibers was noticably less than most published velocities.

I can see why Lyman's might be SOMEWHAT different as they usually used slightly longer barrels than my 32" TC & 33" GM barrels...but my numbers should have been in line with or faster than TC's 28" barrels but they weren't.

Makes me wonder when an enormous amount of data is prsented like that, how much if it is actual reality results vs. simply extrapolated theory from only one or two actual shots.

A difference in the powder lots can make a significant difference. Swiss is vary uniform. Some lots of American powder were not especially 10-30 years ago.
Then there are differences in the rifle. A rough bore may produce more velocity than a smooth one.
Resistance makes the powder more efficient.
Many variables. Breech face design is another.

Dan

 

[Herb]

Halfway between 90 and 100 grains of Goex 3F, Lyman's velocity would be 1506 fps. Yours is higher at 1588, but "in the ball park". You might chronograph the same load next week and get a quite different average, and I do not know why.

 

[mykeal]

I also noticed that the chronograph results I got on a few different calibers was noticably less than most published velocities.

I can see why Lyman's might be SOMEWHAT different as they usually used slightly longer barrels than my 32" TC & 33" GM barrels...but my numbers should have been in line with or faster than TC's 28" barrels but they weren't.

Makes me wonder when an enormous amount of data is prsented like that, how much if it is actual reality results vs. simply extrapolated theory from only one or two actual shots.

When was your chronograph last calibrated, by whom, by what method using what tools/instruments and to what standard?

Yes, I'm being intentionally facetious here, but to make a point. We tend to believe our own measurements are the correct ones and the other guy's are flawed by some error in technique or philosophy. It's certainly possible (I have no idea how probable) that the problem in your comparison with Lyman's data is at least in part due to differences in measuring equipment, rather than Lyman misrepresenting calculated data as empirical.

 

[tecum-tha]

I saw a difference in group size shooting unweighed balls. In fact, before I had the Doug Schoulz paper, I was starting to get convinced what everyone else was saying on our range: "Flintlocks don`t shoot as accurate as a percussion"
Well those shooters where shooting pre-cut patches, unweighed balls, cleaning after every 4-5th shot etc., the same :bull: I was doing back then.
Starting to shoot with the Doug Schoulz system, my groups tightened to about 1" with a .62 Jaeger rifle, benched @ 65yards. No more flyers. If I miss the group, I usually made an error. I shoot open sights, but would do better with a peep,too.
I will have the pleasure, after I got the Pedersoli Hatfield to Lancaster conversion to the proof house, to show some people on the range that flintlocks can shoot as good if not better than percussion rifles.

 

[roundball]

I saw a difference in group size shooting unweighed balls.
In fact, before I had the Doug Schoulz paper, I was starting to get convinced what everyone else was saying on our range: "Flintlocks don`t shoot as accurate as a percussion"
Well those shooters where shooting pre-cut patches, unweighed balls, cleaning after every 4-5th shot etc., the same :bull: I was doing back then.

Making an across the board assertion that pre-cut patches cause inaccuracy is ridiculous...and referring to their use as :bull: is a ridiculous statement.

 

[roundball]

Makes me wonder when an enormous amount of data is prsented like that, how much if it is actual reality results vs. simply extrapolated theory from only one or two actual shots.

When was your chronograph last calibrated, by whom, by what method using what tools/instruments and to what standard?
Yes, I'm being intentionally facetious here, but to make a point. We tend to believe our own measurements are the correct ones and the other guy's are flawed by some error in technique or philosophy. It's certainly possible (I have no idea how probable) that the problem in your comparison with Lyman's data is at least in part due to differences in measuring equipment, rather than Lyman misrepresenting calculated data as empirical.

Mine was a question..."Makes me wonder"...I did not say that MY data was correct...my data simply is what it is...and I think you'll find that most people who have posted here in the MLF on the subject of velocities typically find their velocities running noticably lower than those published by various industry sources.

The Lyman manual does indeed have some numbers in it that are obviously questionable just comparing their own numbers to their own numbers. If you'll read all the posts in this thread relative to Lyman's numbers you'll understand the context and subsequently the posts better.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Whoa!

I didn't see him say that pre-cut patches caused inaccuracies. He said that he was having problems using combinations of pre-cut patches, mixed balls, not cleaning between shots, etc.

How can you know what kind of Pre-cut patches he has access to? Or how old they are? Or what condition they are in? Or even what size they are? ( Thickness and diameter)

His experiences is going to be based on what he has. Without asking more information, I don't think any of us have enough data to judge whether his comment is irresponsible or not.

You have explained how you carefully store your pre-cut patches, and never have any trouble with them. I suspect that the " trouble free" nature your pre-lubes comes about BECAUSE of the care you take in storing them.

Not everyone does that, including retailers, shippers, and warehousemen who throw the stuff into unvented, and non- air conditioned warehouses over HOT summers, where the temperatures may get as hot as your car does closed up on a sunny summer day. 160 degrees will deteriorate any cotton fiber, if you expose the fabric to that kind of heat often enough and long enough. We have heard enough about torn patches on this forum from members to know that some pre-lubed patches( Pre-cut, obviously) don't make it to the range in as good a condition as yours do.

By his choosing to use New Fabric, which he cuts at the muzzle, and lubes at the range, he gets past all those question marks the rest of us face any time we buy pre-lubed, pre-cut patches from any supplier.

I tend to buy mine at Friendship from large suppliers, because their prices tend to be lower, and they sell so many, I can be relatively confident that I am buying new stock, rather than something that has been stored someplace for a couple of years. Even with that "Plan", I have been "burned" at least once, getting patches that were old, and the fibers tore easily.

I have bought my own fabric, and am going to try Dutch's method of lubing them, with both water soluble oil, and with Ballistol, ( I have both), and I might also do some testing using Olive oil, based on recommendations made here.

I have no real need for pre-cut patches. I have a ball block if I want pre-cuts available for reloading in the field. At the range, I have plenty of time to cut my patches at the muzzle. I won't know how much switching to fresh fabric, and lubing my own will improve my accuracy, if any, until after I have completed extensive testing, out to 100 yards.

Dutch is now recommending the use of Ballistol in his Dry-lube formula, because he is informed that the water soluble oil sold by NAPA auto has been changed, and no longer works like as well as the older formula does. I bought my WS oil from a machine shop years ago, and still have a pint left, and more, So I have had No occasion to check at Napa to see what, if any change might appear on the WS oil they now sell.

 

[sproulman]

i just got pint of NAPA CUTTING/GRINDING SOLUBLE OIL for 6 dollars today .the item no. was 765-1526.

some use 4oz of napa
1 oz of murphys oil soap
7 oz of iso propyl
16 oz water