Soft Pure Lead??

[N.Y. Yankee]

Ive never gotten a good answer about this but why must we use pure soft lead for round ball? It's said over and over that the patch engages the rifling not the ball, so what does it matter if the lead is pure lead or wheel weights or whatever, other than maybe weight consistency or expansion on game. A slightly lighter ball would give a bit higher velocity therefore flatter trajectory, albeit not that much. Seems like a rookie question but there are many other myths and wives tales about BP shooting. I'm just wondering if this is one.

 

[oldwood]

N.Y.Yank.........With the correct thickness of patching , the soft lead ball is gripped through the lubricated patch by the rifling. The rifling impresses itself into the lead ball to the degree ,that the rifling lands are visibly imprinted through the greased cloth into the ball. Without this very snug fit , the ball would strip across the lands , and the shot would be inaccurate........Hope this helps..........oldwood

 

[sussexmuzllodr]

I still shoot re-cast range lead in my almost thirty year old guns. RB and conical and the bores are still fresh.

 

[Jim]

I’m of the opinion that soft/pure lead is to be used because my procedure is to use the pillow ticking patch with the lubricant ONLY on the side of the patch THAT CONTACTS THE BORE!

The dry side of the patch will ENGRAVE the WEAVE of the cloth INTO the lead ball . . . .thus ENSURING a very tight grip.

Any harder lead alloy would diminish the grip a mite.

That’s my procedure and I’m sticking to it!! (If it ain’t broke . . .DON’T fix it!)

 

[EC121]

Here's an idea. Go get some hard lead balls and try to load them without having to use a hammer or cutting the patch. It can be done with a much smaller ball and thicker patch. The patch has to be thick and the ball smaller because the ball compresses the patch on the lands, but still has to fill the grooves. Lead will give allowing both things to happen.

 

[ohio ramrod]

Softer lead will let the patch "engrave" into it allowing for better grip with the rifling. Is it critical? I know some very good shooters who use what ever lead they can get and they out shoot me while I use the purest lead I can get in my rifles, saving the harder lead for the smoothbore.

 

[Dude]

I've read that with paper patching, hardness doesn't matter as far as accuracy is concerned. Softer lead will mushroom more on impact if for hunting.

 

[Erwan]

Ive never gotten a good answer about this but why must we use pure soft lead for round ball? It's said over and over that the patch engages the rifling not the ball, so what does it matter if the lead is pure lead or wheel weights or whatever, other than maybe weight consistency or expansion on game. A slightly lighter ball would give a bit higher velocity therefore flatter trajectory, albeit not that much. Seems like a rookie question but there are many other myths and wives tales about BP shooting. I'm just wondering if this is one.

Soft lead is far better : the patch is in the rifling, that's right, but the the threads of the patch weaving must be able to print in the lead ball for the correct transmission of the movement to the ball, it is impossible with hard lead...

I think that it works a bit this way........ but don't believe all what people say...

 

[deerstalkert]

i have reached an age where i thought i was unable to learn something new. and over these many long years i adhered to the gospel of Powder. Patch, ball in loading.
well imagine my surprise when i finished my last build that i named my whatzit. i thought it was a .32 caliber. turned out to be a .29 caliber.
my first attempt to shoot it when it was completed was with a .310 ball. figured it was like my smr and would use a .010 patch. nope, wouldn't swallow it. so i got a .005 patch. nope, wouldn't swallow it.
so i drove the bugger down the bore bare! had the devils own time getting it seated but being hardheaded i got it on the powder.
i figured it would be wildly inaccurate.
30g of fffg put it exactly to point of aim at 25 yards.
hmmm! repeated and the accuracy was the same, but the last 4-5 inches was brutal getting the ball seated.
the fouling was building and with no lube from a patch it was like concrete.
got some .300 balls and with a .005 patch it's accuracy is the same. also use some .283 balls with .015 patch with same results.
don't know if those swaged .310 balls would lead the barrel fast or not.
moral of this rambling is nothing is absolute.
i know people that use lead of 12-13 Bhn. for their balls and harder for conical.

 

[leadhoarder]

I cannot think of a reason to not want soft lead. The main reason that a roundball is so effective on game is because the lead is soft. The patch prevents any leading so there is no need to alloy the lead to be harder.

 

[leadhoarder]

i have reached an age where i thought i was unable to learn something new. and over these many long years i adhered to the gospel of Powder. Patch, ball in loading.
well imagine my surprise when i finished my last build that i named my whatzit. i thought it was a .32 caliber. turned out to be a .29 caliber.
my first attempt to shoot it when it was completed was with a .310 ball. figured it was like my smr and would use a .010 patch. nope, wouldn't swallow it. so i got a .005 patch. nope, wouldn't swallow it.
so i drove the bugger down the bore bare! had the devils own time getting it seated but being hardheaded i got it on the powder.
i figured it would be wildly inaccurate.
30g of fffg put it exactly to point of aim at 25 yards.
hmmm! repeated and the accuracy was the same, but the last 4-5 inches was brutal getting the ball seated.
the fouling was building and with no lube from a patch it was like concrete.
got some .300 balls and with a .005 patch it's accuracy is the same. also use some .283 balls with .015 patch with same results.
don't know if those swaged .310 balls would lead the barrel fast or not.
moral of this rambling is nothing is absolute.
i know people that use lead of 12-13 Bhn. for their balls and harder for conical.

While loading you probably turned those tight fitting balls into a short comical similar to a wadcutter.

 

[doubleset]

... the the threads of the patch weaving must be able to print in the lead ball for the correct transmission of the movement to the ball

This keeps being reported, but it seems to me to be something of a "likely story". Given how friction actually works between two surfaces, it's not obvious that macroscopic "imprinting" would actually contribute anything. Is there any real evidence for this (I mean experiments demonstrating it under controlled conditions with actual measurements)? Or is it just offered as "common sense"?

 

[Dude]

Does the weave show on recovered balls from snowbanks? (how's that for combining two different threads?)

 

[Erwan]

This keeps being reported, but it seems to me to be something of a "likely story". Given how friction actually works between two surfaces, it's not obvious that macroscopic "imprinting" would actually contribute anything. Is there any real evidence for this (I mean experiments demonstrating it under controlled conditions with actual measurements)? Or is it just offered as "common sense"?

Shoot a patched ball in water (swimming pool for example) or in a big bag of rags and after having recovered the ball look carefully at the imprint of the weaving in the lead and tell us what you see on the bullet (I did this experiment)...

 

[doubleset]

Shoot a patched ball in water (swimming pool for example) or in a big bag of rags and after having recovered the ball look carefully at the imprint of the weaving in the lead and tell us what you see (I did this experiment)...

And that shows what, exactly? That you can impose macroscopic marks on ball with the patch? Yeah. No doubt. Does it show that you gain anything from that over having just an appropriately tightly patched ball with no macroscopic marks of the fabric? No, it doesn't.

 

[Erwan]

Around sixty year ago I was a bit younger and thinking like you but the shooters of my father's generation (old and real hunters). Told me to do this to really understand the thig : I did it and now I know. Just do it and you can be surprised...
For the rest, an old Absurdian proverb says "You can never make a donkey drink that is not thirsty", in the same way you can't explain anything to someone who is already convinced before asking his question and who hasn't gone by an experimentation...

 

[doubleset]

So I'll take that as "Somebody told me that and I believe it."

 

[stikshooter]

So I'll take that as "Somebody told me that and I believe it."

So your not a thirsty donkey ! /Ed

 

[doubleset]

So your not a thirsty donkey ! /Ed

Might could be -- just not sure. I do have a hard time dealing with outright incoherence. Thought I understood what was being said until ...

in the same way you can't explain anything to someone who is already convinced before asking his question and who hasn't gone by an experimentation...

which is what I thought I was asking for. But I'm not even going to attempt to try to sort that out -- on the basis of the well-known pig-wrestling principle. No harm, no foul.

 

[Dude]

I like your proverb Erwan!

doubleset - as far as I can tell, the answer is to fire a ball into something soft (like water), recover it and take a good look at it. If you see the pattern of the patch imprinted on it, you'll have your answer. Arguing about it and saying "yes it will imprint!" when the other party emphatically argues otherwise, goes nowhere. Only hard facts will resolve the issue. Go get the evidence.