"Thin barrel" question re: round ball

[IanH]

I have seen it written many times regarding a fowling piece that it is "not for round balls" because the "barrel is too thin". I don't understand this. Balls are usually less mass than a typical load of lead shot for a given gauge, so I cannot see how pressure would be a concern, nor excessive recoil from round ball loads vs. a shot payload. Fowling pieces are generally lighter overall than muskets or military smoothbores, but again, I do not see how that makes any difference whether one could effectively use a round ball in one. Trade guns, particularly the French ones, had paper-thin barrels yet were probably used more with round balls than shot.

So when someone says "That barrel is very thin, I wouldn't shoot round balls in it.", my question is "Why not?"

 

[64Springer]

My take on this is that a lead ball is solid mass/weight and shot is dispersed mass/weight.

The impact of a ball bouncing side to side down the bore is more of a solid hit to the walls than the individual lightweight shot moving down the bore.

Also, a ball gets spit out of the muzzle all at once, while shot would, more or less, come out in a dispersed fashion.

The sudden blast of the gases escaping behind the ball may be more than the thin muzzle wall can handle.

In my opinion, it's why cannon barrels have such pronounced flares at the muzzle. To counteract the violent release of gasses.

.02

 

[rich pierce]

I guess it’s good to be cautious but I note that trade guns had thin barrels at the muzzle and round balls were routinely used in them. My .69 based on parts from a French fusil ordinaire has a barrel that is thin at the muzzle. It’s based on originals and was made for round ball shooting.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Round balls are frequently used in smoothies. But, as with any ml gun, load wisely.

 

[Lorne Johnson]

When chokes came into broad use, cartridge guns sometimes were stamped "Not For Ball" because they wouldn't go through the choke smoothly, perhaps taking the choke with it. With a muzzle loader, the ball won't load if it doesn't pass through any choke fairly easily.

There are also standards for the taper on shotgun barrels, originating with some care experiments by William Greener, as I remember. The taper changed with the advent of modern powders. Devotees of antique cartridge shotguns, looking for a lift easy to swing and carry barrel, generally insist on a minimum wall thickness of .020 inches (or more), which is pretty thin when you look at it as an .020 feeler gauge or a dial caliper. I suspect that Springer is right that the shot column is more fluid than a ball, but I can't provide actual quantified evidence. I would want at least .030 (or more) of metal before I would start shooting ball out of a fowler.

 

[FlinterNick]

I have seen it written many times regarding a fowling piece that it is "not for round balls" because the "barrel is too thin". I don't understand this. Balls are usually less mass than a typical load of lead shot for a given gauge, so I cannot see how pressure would be a concern, nor excessive recoil from round ball loads vs. a shot payload. Fowling pieces are generally lighter overall than muskets or military smoothbores, but again, I do not see how that makes any difference whether one could effectively use a round ball in one. Trade guns, particularly the French ones, had paper-thin barrels yet were probably used more with round balls than shot.

So when someone says "That barrel is very thin, I wouldn't shoot round balls in it.", my question is "Why not?"

This is false.

yes a fowler barrel can use a patched round ball.

Full Round Muzzle loading smoothbore barrels are tapered from breech to muzzle.

If you’re only examining the muzzle, then you’ve likely confused yourself that the barrel is very thin when it is actually not.

If a full round barrel were equal in diameter and wall thickness from breech to muzzle the barrel would be extremely heavy, hence why they’re tapered.. Thicker in the breech area where they need to be and thinner in the muzzle where less weight is needed.

Most fowler barrels are breeched around 1.200 round or octagon to round. I’ve seen some that were as light as 1 “ at the breech.

 

[#blackpowderbill]

Maybe Damascus barrel in a upland Fowler.
I have one a 1840 Mills upland only for shot.

 

[#blackpowderbill]

You can't compare today's barrel steels , 20th century and up; with 200 to 400 plus year old steel!

Wrought iron strips hammered around a mandrel vs roto forged or power hammer is a vastly different critter.

The OP needs to add context to his question.

Is it an old or modern 20th+ century barrel.

 

[FlinterNick]

You can't compare today's barrel steels , 20th century and up; with 200 to 400 plus year old steel!

Wrought iron strips hammered around a mandrel vs roto forged or power hammer is a vastly different critter.

The OP needs to add context to his question.

Is it an old or modern 20th+ century barrel.

That’s just one way barrels were made.

Wallace Gustler’s video depicts this.

Many barrels were drilled from bar stock.

American gunmakers in the 18th century often forged barrels from wrought iron stock because they didn’t have the heavy machinery the Europeans did to manufacture barrels

Ordering a barrel from London could take an entire year to get to the colonies, forged barrels fro wrought iron was an efficient and easier way to make a barrel, however not all crown colonies permitted it, it was considered an illegal practice by many.

 

[IanH]

There is no context, really except for muzzleloader used with black powder or substitutes. I think this is just another misconception propagated by the ignorant, I was just asking to see if there was something I'm missing like a history of egged bores, split barrels, or bananaed muzzles when round balls were fired from thin smoothbores due to some factor I was unaware.

 

[rich pierce]

There is no context, really except for muzzleloader used with black powder or substitutes. I think this is just another misconception propagated by the ignorant, I was just asking to see if there was something I'm missing like a history of egged bores, split barrels, or bananaed muzzles when round balls were fired from thin smoothbores due to some factor I was unaware.

People say stuff without real data backing it up.

 

[tenngun]

I sure wouldn’t shoot shot in a gun that couldn’t hold a ball

 

[WALT53]

I sure wouldn’t shoot shot in a gun that couldn’t hold a ball

Don’t guys shoot round ball out of there double barrel shotguns.

 

[tenngun]

Don’t guys shoot round ball out of there double barrel shotguns.

Yup
That was often a pioneer load, ball in one barrel shot in the other

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

Don’t guys shoot round ball out of there double barrel shotguns.

I don't.

 

[BP Addict]

I have a 62-caliber Trade Gun. They were designed to shoot either a ball or shot. I get better accuracy with a PBR. Only 60 grains of 2F due to no rifling to overcome, Pillow Ticking, and a .600 cast ball.

The first two targets are Benchrested at 13 yards. I know the last was offhand but I'm not sure whether it was the same distance or not. The flier was a "Flinch" shot.

Walt

 

[hanshi]

I never got into that fray; I just loaded a ball for deer and my .62 flintlock smoothbore did the rest. If anyone ever tells you a ball in a smoothbore (modern built) is inaccurate or dangerous with prb they're likely also unable to tell a deer from a goat. I had always got three shots at 50 yards well under the 3" mark. These two targets were shot with a prb and a bare ball load.

 

[FlinterNick]

I have seen it written many times regarding a fowling piece that it is "not for round balls" because the "barrel is too thin". I don't understand this. Balls are usually less mass than a typical load of lead shot for a given gauge, so I cannot see how pressure would be a concern, nor excessive recoil from round ball loads vs. a shot payload. Fowling pieces are generally lighter overall than muskets or military smoothbores, but again, I do not see how that makes any difference whether one could effectively use a round ball in one. Trade guns, particularly the French ones, had paper-thin barrels yet were probably used more with round balls than shot.

So when someone says "That barrel is very thin, I wouldn't shoot round balls in it.", my question is "Why not?"

I don’t see how a think muzzle coudln’t handle a round ball, if the muskets or fusil is made appropriately, as in breeched correctly and the barrel is suitably tapered from breech to muzzle, i just don’t see why a smoothbore coudln’t hand ball or shot or buck and ball.

I’ve seen some brown bess muskets by Miroku with extremely thin muzzles at about the last 4-5”, they can handle a .735 patched round ball with ease.

If a muzzle cracks or blossoms its likely due to a short start or possibly some other type of obstruction or incorrect load type.

Now… depending on what type of gun maker you’re talking about.

Ive seen Indian musket barrels by loyalist arms listed with disclaimers staying can only shoot blanks or shot, this is because the barrel usually is too thin from breech to muzzle.

I have several original french barrels made from wrought iron that are pretty thin that were used on infantry muskets, these guns shot a .66 ball through a 47” barrel.

 

[PastorB]

I've shot round balls in my Robert Chaplain, Birmingham, UK, SxS 13 gauge shotgun for decades. It was mfg. in the 1850's, and has "London Fine Twist" barrels. Minute of deer out to 40 yards. Actually the individual barrels are more accurate than that, but the point of impact begins to diverge more than I like at that distance, so I limit shots to 40 yards. Works fine.

 

[Dphar1950]

Round balls are often loaded with a heavier powder charge since a 1300 +- fps rb load may not give the best accuracy and does not shoot flat. The other problem is the steel often used in ML barrels in the US, which has no official proof house or proof law. Cold rolled free machining steels like 12L14 cut like butter. But they are brittle and may (and have) fail at pressure levels lower than the paper tensile numbers FAR LOWER. Because, being brittle they are not very tolerant of shock loading. Actually for ML arms a barrel made of ”best iron” like the Springfield and other Rifle Muskets, is superior to some modern steels for safety. Thin barrels tend to flex a little and with this cold rolled steel is not good. Remington made number of shotgun barrels of 1144M (meaning “modified” which work hardens when flexed and they got seriously sued by some trap shooters (they run up high round counts) who had barrel failures and injuries when the barrels got brittle enough to fail. There was no recall but they had to send everyone who owned a shotgun in the serial number a check. Not much but I got one. I never shoot the thing but I guess I should rebarrel it.