The starting ball diameter depends on the depth of the grooves and the thickness of the patching. If you are starting with about 0.018" patching that compresses to 0.011" and the land-to-land bore diameter is 0.456", I would use the 0.445" ball.I had B Hoyt rework a TC 45 cal barrel and it came out to .456. What size ball should I start with, already have .440, .445, .451 and .454.
Erwan:I don’t understand exactly what you want really do with this…
There is still another solution if you don't want to use a patch: load powder, a felt pad, or semolina, and on top of it, load a greased and chewed ball. So you can use a bit smaller ball greased for a higher initial speed
To chew a ball, roll it between two files for wood.
Regarding golf balls and the reason for the dips and bumps: I don't think the Magnus effect has any influence on the trajectory of a round ball...
The felt wad or semolina can help to get a bit of better sealing...
That's the way we do for muskets (no rifled barrels)...
A $10 word when 10¢ would have done. Had to use google.com to find it in wikipedia.
the thing that those pock marks in golf balls that add many yards to golf shots until the green is reached
I didn't talk about that at first but in conclusion and just answered about the hollows on a golf ball being different and are made to play with the Magnus effect, nothing to see with rolling the ball between two files for use in a smooth-bore by artificially increasing the diameter of the ball by a few tenths of a millimeter due to the metal pushed out by the teeth of the files...@Erwan, I would dimple the ball with a rasp to get points from the rasp imprinting on the ball. Comparing a golf ball to a dimpled (chewed) round muzzleloading ball is a misleading comparison. The ball spin differently in flight. Well, golf balls have mostly back spin. A ball shot from a smoothbore has no spin. A ball shot from a rifle has angular spin, perpendicular to the direction of flight. The effect of air flow over each of these projectiles is different and not to be applied to the other ball's air resistance in flight.
I usually size bullets .001 under bore dimensions. Sometimes I can fire 2 or 3 shots without swabbing the bore. I expect round ball would be similar, even easier probably. Depending upon the lube, leading may or may not be a factor. Using a card wad and then an oversized wool wad and Beeswax and Stihl HP Synthetic (2 stroke oil) would eliminate leading. Sounds like a fun experiment…I wouldn't want to be fighting .001 below bore diameter lead balls down a fouled pipe
The patch also sweeps the bore clear of fouling and lets you shoot more shots before having to swab
I can't see an advantage to this
Another experiment I did: High-temperature silicone grease MOLYKOTEStihl HP Synthetic (2 stroke oil) would eliminate leading. Sounds like a fun experiment…
I bought .575 balls to try bareballing in a .58 rifle or my Indian .58 smoothbore but I never got motivated enough to try itI usually size bullets .001 under bore dimensions. Sometimes I can fire 2 or 3 shots without swabbing the bore. I expect round ball would be similar, even easier probably. Depending upon the lube, leading may or may not be a factor. Using a card wad and then an oversized wool wad and Beeswax and Stihl HP Synthetic (2 stroke oil) would eliminate leading. Sounds like a fun experiment…
To my knowledge the dimples on a golf ball are not stochastic and are indeed intended to be specific in pattern and depth, as with our attempts with accuracy,, consistency/similarity is key for repeatable end performance.Mine query asked about a dry lube that would not clog the stochastic pebbling, and my stochastic roughening would be somewhat deeper than what a bastard file delivers and would be portions of a sphere, like what are found on golf balls.
Could you direct me to the location within the book where it shows testing that determined that the patched round ball receives obturation either when loaded or when fired?Might want to read this book; it is a good one.
OH Ok, GEESH I thought I had a bad edition or it was added in a later edition.No, I can't. Mann's work was cutting edge and he didn't discuss round balls which were obsolete by the 1840's. There are a number of places were he states all projectiles obturate. Another common myth he dispels is one of projectiles "stripping" the rifling. It is very technical book, and folks would do well to read it.
You probably missed out on the best shooting ball shooter you’ve ever owned… just sayin’…I bought .575 balls to try bareballing in a .58 rifle or my Indian .58 smoothbore but I never got motivated enough to try it
I had thought thumping them a few times with a ramrod would expand them into the rifling or bore but I basically pre-predicted mediocre accuracy or a stuck ball
Enter your email address to join:
Register today and take advantage of membership benefits.
Enter your email address to join: