compromise twist

[D Sanders]

I'm sure this has been hashed over before. I have always been told that the 1:48 rifle twist was a compromise twist. (good for bullet or ball) The Hawken brothers rifled just about everything with a 1:48 twist. Did they also call it a compromise twist? And also, would that be a compromise twist for a .58 cal. Or for that matter, a .32 cal? As rifle calibers change, so do rates of twist. I would think that the compromise twist would not be the same for all calibers. Could it be that Jake and Sam knew something that I don't? :hmm:

HH 60

 

[jdkerstetter]

There's more to it than just the twist. There's rifling depth to be considered, what charge weight one desires to shoot, caliber, etc.

I believe that the whole "compromise twist" thing was just a 20th century marketing tool.

Sure the Hawken's used 1:48" twist, but their rifling was different than that used by companies like T/C. They never intended for their barrels to shoot conicals....and likely the users never did.

T/C's 1:48" barrels will shoot round balls fine with in a limited range but don't hold a candle to a barrel rifled in the style of a Hawken at long range and this has been proven in long range competition.

Slower twist have gained popularity in todays round ball barrels as the "sweet spot" is usually achieved with heavier charges that result in flatter trajectories. 1:48" twist barrels are more than fine provided the rifling is cut correctly and the most accurate charges are developed.

There's more but it's late. Enjoy, J.D.

 

[BrownBear]

For me "compromise twist" is just another oxymoron. Kind of like "military intelligence" or "honest politician." Foisted on us by guys who push slooooow twists. JD summed it up pretty well, I think.

 

[jdkerstetter]

...."compromise twist" is just like..... "military intelligence" or "honest politician." ......

:haha: :haha: :haha: .....good one BB! Enjoy, J.D.

 

[George T.]

Those are funny! Just a thought but the 1 in 48 barrels will shoot round ball accurately with lighter powder charges but shoot heavy charges pretty well as well. Do you think that was their intent? Geo. T.

 

[jdkerstetter]

Whose intent? The Hawken brothers or T/C? And what accuracy at what range? Enjoy, J.D.

 

[George T.]

Well we know why T/C did it but in the 1800's I doubt that they were looking to introduce Maxi Balls! Geo. T.

 

[mooman76]

The way I understood it, the Hawkin brothers used the 1/48 because that's all they had or at least during some peiod in time that's all their rifling would do. 1/48 is mostly a compromise twist for 50 cal but I'm sure it works in a few other calibers.

 

[jdkerstetter]

Maybe the Hawken brother's bench was set up to do only 1:48" twist. But if that is the case then it was likely done for a reason. Other twist were known about and done for some time before.

1:48" was excepted and according by some folks who know it was the most common twist of the period....though others were used.

1:48" was not considered a compromise twist as it is now and now it has more to do with the depth of the rifling than the rate of twist. And by compromise they mean it is just adequate for either, but not ideal. If rifled 1:48" with roundball grooves it can be ideal....but not for conicals.

You can't have it both ways and still maintain accuracy much over 100 yards. As Brown Bear indicated above, it's an oxymoron.

If real accuracy is ones desire then it is best to get a barrel set up for the projectiles they want to shoot.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[D Sanders]

Thanks guys for your input. The Hawken brothers and the history behind their business is an interest of mine since I am from close to that area. I am always looking for information on them. I am also trying to educate a newcomer to our sport and explain to him the reasons and theories behind rates of twist. The subject of "compromise twist" came up and I wanted to give him an educated answer. :thumbsup:

HH 60

 

[nkbj]

Well, it's like my daddy would say when I asked "Why'd they do that?" And he'd say "They do what works."

As concerns TC barrels, inevitably brought into the conversation when someone trots out the term "compromise twist", some people find that their TC 48" twist barrels produce excellent round ball accuracy with maximum loads and some have experiences to the contrary, depending on whether or not they adjust ball diameter, patch thickness, lube and over powder buffer as required to produce the desired results.

 

[ebiggs1]

And he'd say "They do what works."

And he was a wise man. :thumbsup:

Keeping with that same sentiment, everyone should try "what works" or at least shoot the barrel before you condemn it. You can not say, with any authority, "that barrel will not (or will) shoot RB" with out trying it first.
Granted if I had to spec out a barrel for a certain way of shooting I would ask for certain things because we know how they will generally act.

 

[jdkerstetter]

HH60, No problem. Keep up the go work educating...but remember that it's OK to say "I don't know"...but endeavor to find out. I had to explain this to one of our Boy Scouts last night....he feels he always has to have an answer even when he doesn't know. Funny thing is that his confidence in giving the wrong answer could convince one that he is right. Where do these kids learn this? :shake:

GC, T/C comes up in these discussions as they are the ones who touted their guns as such....or some writer thought to explain it that way for them as they bought advertising in his magazine.

I am not disputing that T/C rifles are not capable of producing good accuaracy....within a given range. But even one hole groups at 25 yards do not equate to even acceptable accuaracy at 150 or 200 yards, where guns rifled in the Hawken style do.

Experiment with your own guns if you feel the need, but I suggest that if you are going to have a T/C barrel rebored you do so with rifling either done specifically for roundball or conical....and not a "compromise".

As far as using over powder wads, one may be negating this effect, I don't know, but then one is not just shooting a patched ball.

Oversized balls and thin patches? One reaches a point when forcing a thin patched ball into the barrel where it upsets and becomes elongated and forms a short conical engaging the rifling.

Point is, one should not have to go to extremes to achieve accuarcy.

I'll try one more time: It is not the rate of twist that resulted in the "compromise" in T/C guns.....it was the style of rifling.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[ohio ramrod]

1/48 twist is very accurate with light loads. Back when the Hawken brothers were building they used much lighter loads than todays "hunters" do. They were not rying to match modern centerfire rifles in energy.They just intended to hit and kill the amimals they were shooting at!If you wonder about the effectiveness of lighter loads just get some oak boards and shoot them with light and heavy loads. You will find the light loads will shatter the boards while the heavier loads just poke a hole through them. This is common knowledge to those of us who shoot (and win ) stake shoots. :idunno:

 

[hanshi]

Before I came to this forum I always thought "compromise twist" was a dance old folks did. :hmm:

 

[Shifty]

On another post here about twist rates a well known barrel maker stated that the 1=48" twist was not a compromise twist but was a real good choice for a hunting rifle if the rifling was deep enough,that T/C had altered this to a shallow depth so conicals would work better.
I have 54 cal. with a 1-48" twist and with 80grns FFg and PRB it is as accurate as I am out to 100yds and puts a deer down real well.

 

[nkbj]

It muth be a foggy night 'cause the myths are making it hard to thee.

My brother's tack driving load with a (gasp) TC Renegade was .530 balls, max charge FFg, ticking with the red flowers (no longer available), neatsfoot oil and a paper buffer behind the ball.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Agree. I don't like that term "comprimise" for the twist. A lot of readings show rifles often only had 'half loads' in them. Enuf to bring down a deer or injun. Double loads were used if big griz or maybe buff were the target of the day. I doubt they hunted many 'X's at 100 yards at the time. A 1:48 would be perfect under those conditions, even for bigger calibers. We are very finicky about tack driving accuracy these days and may tend towards heavier charges. For calibers of .50 and above slower twists are more suitable.

 

[Birdwatcher]

Just this morning I was browsing my print copy of the Track of the Wolf catalog...

(well worth getting BTW even though they have the stuff online too, in the print catalog they show many things like knives and locks actual size which is HUGELY helpful)

...on the page of their Harper's Ferry 1803 rifle kit they quote a gentleman who has examined several surviving examples of this rifle.

The rate of twist of this .54 rifle?

1 in 49 inches.

Remarkably consistent with the Hawken Bros. product.

Hmm... I'm not recalling mention that the barrels were swamped :hmm:

Anyways, since ball starters were apparently an unknown quantity back then all might indicate that reliatively light charges and loose-fitting balls with thick patches were te usual practice.

Incidentally, ToTW on that page also gives the depth and diameter of the grooves on those original barrels.

Birdwatcher

 

[RedFeather]

How much math did the Hawken brothers have? Did they do experiments such as those performed by Whitworth, etc? I kind of doubt it. My bet is they went with "common knowledge" and, so long as the guns shot fine, stuck with it.

I fiddled around with the Greenhill twist formula and, IIRC, if you drop the K constant to 100 from 125 you start getting some generally accepted roundball twists. I looked up the T/C Maxiball dimensions and plugged them in. Sonofagun, gave me 1:48. What a coinkydink! :grin: