Buckshot to use in Buck-n-Ball Loads

[Alden]

Spawned by a thread about using Buck-n-Ball in a rifled pistol...

:shake:

Problem with Buckshot pellets behind the ball (the right way to do it for accuracy) is gas blowing thru them, so, much paper on top of powder then buck, then ball. Uh oh -- is ball loose now? Sure. More paper...

Again, that's the right way to do it. Overpowder and overshot cards implied. Now, what size Buckshot pellets!?

Alden says:
You want the largest pellets you can get for efficiency and effectiveness (and range as well as penetration), including pushing the big ball in front of it, but NOT big enough to physically wedge the ball or each-other, create an obstruction (which I became paranoid about when India-made guns first hit the market), and blow up your barrel and maybe you along with it. There are formulas for this I won't go through, however, here are the results for members' benefit re: most common smoothbore calibers this might apply to (don't put pellets in a rifled gun kids).

These are, in order by row, listed caliber, common actual bore size considered, maximum Buckshot diameter advised, standard Buckshot name implied, and the Buckshot's actual diameter per pellet.

.75/11 ga 0.729 0.338 #00 Buck 0.33
.69 cal 0.678 0.315 #1 Buck 0.30
.62/20 ga. 0.615 0.285 #2 Buck 0.27
.58 Cal 0.58 0.269 #3 Buck 0.25
.54/28 ga. 0.54 0.251 #3 Buck 0.25

A safe and effective "square" load of Buckshot can also be determined by using this table with three layers of these pellets (9).

.50 caliber has no Buckshot size that can be used with three pellets efficiently. In this caliber a single layer of five BB's is the biggest and advised pellet size, but luckily maybe the most readily available and in pretty ideal quantities (containers of BB's from a couple of hundred to a few thousand at a time for a BB gun) as well.

.50 Cal 0.5 0.185 BB's 0.177

 

[George]

You want the largest pellets you can get for efficiency and effectiveness (and range as well as penetration), including pushing the big ball in front of it, but NOT big enough to physically wedge the ball or each-other, create an obstruction (which I became paranoid about when India-made guns first hit the market), and blow up your barrel and maybe you along with it.

My experience agrees with your opinion that buck under the ball is more accurate. My shooting results consistently showed that.

I've never understood why a non-square load is thought to be a safety problem. Is there some evidence that they are actually dangerous? As in real guns blowing up?

Spemce

 

[Alden]

Regarding what old-timers called a "square load", they are simply about as long a shot charge as wide -- square. But you don't want to overload a gun with too heavy a weight of projectiles anyway, so, a square load of these pellet sizes should be relatively safe as a rule of thumb -- nested nicely and in the ballpark of the roundball weight you'd probably shoot anyway. Buck-n-Ball loads are decided by the shooter "according to the strength of their piece" as General Washington himself ordered.

I recall an example shared by a cautioning reproduction gun seller where (probably ball behind buck) pellets wedged and they were large and hard enough that they must not have swaged more than the Made-in-India barrel expanded and it burst. And he sold these!

 

[Rifleman1776]

OK, your post was for info only. That's OK for those who want to try.
One of my thoughts on this subject is always, "why?". :idunno: Except for military or self-defense, I can see no practical reason to have or use a b&b load.
You also said

you don't want to overload a gun with too heavy a weight of projectiles anyway

Yes, I agree. Adding so much weight to the projectus increases recoil dramatically. Methinks reducing the charge is the only sane thing to do if you are trying a b&b load. And that reduces the velocity/impact of the projectiles. Which, my reliable gut, tells me your b&b load is no more deadly than a single projectile.
So, back to "why?".
Just musing, I'm never going to try it.

 

[Patocazador]

From what I've read, the standard buck & ball load for the Colonial Army only consisted of 3 buckshot with a ball on top - not a "square" of buckshot 3 layers deep.

Are you proposing a buckshot only load for the square?

 

[The O'Dea]

Gentlemen,
The standard buck'n Ball load for the US army from the git go was .64 cal. RB with three (3).30 shot on top! All rolled into a paper ctg.
This is my standard load for my M1822, and M1842 muskets. Very good accuracy at 50 yds. with all shot striking the target And if that don't then it's fix bayonets. :blah: Either way you win.

-The Irish Mick
Arizona Territory

 

[Patocazador]

That's not what this x-ray shows. The buckshot was at the bottom.

 

[The O'Dea]

You are absolutely correct sir, the shot is on the bottom. However, that is not an American issued firelock; it is a British Brown Bess musket. My I refer you to 'Small Arms and Ammunition In the United States Service 1776-1865" by Berekeley R Lewis. Plate 24-25 shows the B&B ctgs. with the shot on the top :wink: Also, plate no.23 shows English, and French ctgs.that have been X-rayed. Shows the shot on the top.
I rest my case.

-The Irish Mick
Arizona Territory

 

[poordevil]

I agree I see the loaded buck and ball loads with the buck tied on top of the ball, however, in the heat and confusion of things, could not the load get reversed?(put in backward or incorrectly)

 

[Alden]

The formula was to determine a single layer of which three (3) optimal standard Buckshot pellets to put behind (or, if you must, on top) of a ball in a Buck-n-Ball load.

Three layers of three, or nine (9) total pellets, would be the square load of just pellets in the calibers outlined except .50.

 

[George]

I’m not sure what historical time frame you are thinking of for these buck and ball loads. My interest is 18th century, and I find very little in my sources to indicate much standardization. Buck shot is certainly mentioned, loaded both with a ball and by itself. The thing which shows up much more frequently, though, is swan shot, again either with ball or alone. Here are a few items just to show the variety involved.

Cartridge with ball and three buckshot, as you describe:

1777 and our people, known to Indian wars, placed themselves immediately behind trees, and made great havock among them, their cartridges being made up of three buck shot and a bullet.

Other buck shot loads:

1759 on which they all prepared themselves to receive the Enemy, each Man having two Balls and three Buck Shot in his Gun, and were squatted.

1770 seized on both, and wrenched a Gun from the latter, heavily charged with Powder, and crammed with 179 Goose and Buck Shot.

1778 We are informed the reason so many brave men and officers were lost under Gen. Burgoyne was, the American musquet cartridges were made up with one ball and two buck shot ,

1788 Whitcraft delivered up his musket, which was loaded with 17 buck-shot

Various swan shot loads:

1739 he discharg'd his Gun, which was loaded with 3 Swan Shot

1747 discharged his Gun (loaded with Swan Shot) at the Indian

1748 fired his Gun, loaded with Swan shot , at one Arthur McGinness,

1750 a man in Talbot county was hammering the flint of a loaded gun, she went off, and shot an elderly man, who was near him, in one of his thighs, with seven swan shot, in a terrible manner;

1756 he fired at 3 Indians who stood together, with 11 Swan Shot in his Gun,

1769 who by force and with fire-arms loaded with ball and swan-shot

1775 I loaded her with an ounce bullet and seven swan shot.

They don't seem to have hesitated to load in what you might consider to be a dangerous way. :grin:

Spence

 

[Alden]

Spence, thanks for copying and pasting what some had done. This was posted to help people do...

...with safety, accuracy, and effectiveness.

By the way, the shot sizes I indicate are not only common to battelfield excavations (they were bright and practical people who learned by trial and error) but are similar in size to the largest most common Buckshot sizes (some of the smaller having been referred to as swan shot up until not all that long ago) found for today's shotguns i.e. #00 Buck for 12 ga., #1 Buck for 16 ga., and #2 Buck in 3" 20 ga. shells.

 

[Many Klatch]

Spence, just to add to your collection. This is supposed to be the standard load that the Hessians used in their Blunderbuss's. When on patrol they had one man carrying the Blunderbuss at the ready. If ambushed, he fired at the smoke of the ambush with the blunderbuss and then the patrol charged into the hole in the ambush line that the shot would have made.

Twelve 50 caliber balls and 22 thirty caliber balls setting on top of two musket cartridges Of 220 grains of powder.

I assume that this load was for a 4 guage or larger blunderbuss. I don't think you could cram that much lead and powder into a short barreled 12 gauge. Must have spun the shooter around in a circle. A fearsome load.

 

[azmntman]

< will not be trying that load....EVER :shocked2:

 

[Alden]

...Twelve 50 caliber balls and 22 thirty caliber balls setting on top of two musket cartridges Of 220 grains of powder....

Not as bad as you think: some of that powder would have been used to prime the pan.

:rotf:

It certainly would have been a slow-moving blast. Otherwise that sounds like a pretty effective tactic. Nevertheless, I do find the idea of throwing that much lead a little hard to embrace...

:rotf:

 

[Supercracker]

Sooooooo, basically they had some poor guy humping around a swivel gun!. lol

He was probably happy to shoot it so he wouldn't have to (not be physically able to) carry it anymore. lol

 

[azmntman]

call me a wienie but take away 10 grains for prime and I still ain't pulling that trigger! Weight of the lead alone is scary!

 

[larryp]

Did they have chiropractors back then? He'd have needed one to realign his back and shoulder from the recoil!

 

[Alden]

I was thinkin' three or five grains! LOL I strongly suspect the blunderbus didn't get loaded that way. Still, it would explain why none survived -- they blew up or were buried after firing once.

 

[Many Klatch]

The preferred way of shooting that load was from the hip. If you fired that load from the shoulder you would be a casualty too. No reason to fire a blunderbuss from the shoulder. No sights. Just point and let spray.