Undersized balls

[Cruzatte]

Example; If the bore is in good shape & the I.D measures .620,, a .610 RB & a lubed .015 patch will load easy, shoot accurate & also prevent excessive fouling buildup. Yes a .620 RB & thicker patch might work equally well.


Relic shooter

Excuse the pedantry, but the arithmetic doesn't work. Would you correct the error for me please?

 

[Relic shooter]

Excuse the pedantry, but the arithmetic doesn't work. Would you correct the error for me please?

Cruzette, perhaps there is a slight misunderstanding, your 2005 membership date indicates your also a well experienced shooter
Lubed patches compresses under pressure when loading, especially factory pre-cut patches.
Many of today's shooters buy pre-cut patches that often don't reflect thickness of the patch when it's compressed & that can effect accuracy & increase blowby & fowling.

Most of us who have shot serious competition buy our pillow ticking material in fabric stores with a micrometer in hand to get the materials compressed thickness & then wash the fabric a couple times to get the sizing & starch out for easier loading & a better gas seal..
Yes, ladies in the fabric store do occasionally give us some sideways looks & trying to explain often increases raised eyebrows
Hey, I just passed 81, maybe these old school loading techniques' are no longer being practiced
Relic shooter

 

[Cruzatte]

Cruzette, perhaps there is a slight misunderstanding, your 2005 membership date indicates your also a well experienced shooter
Lubed patches compresses under pressure when loading, especially factory pre-cut patches.
Many of today's shooters buy pre-cut patches that often don't reflect thickness of the patch when it's compressed & that can effect accuracy & increase blowby & fowling.

Most of us who have shot serious competition buy our pillow ticking material in fabric stores with a micrometer in hand to get the materials compressed thickness & then wash the fabric a couple times to get the sizing & starch out for easier loading & a better gas seal..
Yes, ladies in the fabric store do occasionally give us some sideways looks & trying to explain often increases raised eyebrows
Hey, I just passed 81, maybe these old school loading techniques' are no longer being practiced
Relic shooter

OK....Here's the question rephrased. Assuming a .620 bore diameter, and assuming a .620" ball plus let us say .012" patch thickness you have an object that measures .632" , not counting the added thickness of the folds of the patch that in a smoothbore have no grooves to fold into. One would really have to have a good mallet to swage that round down the tube.

The arithmetic works a little better if in a .620" bore one used for example a .610" ball and perhaps .010" or perhaps a .015" patch. Even my hypothetical round might require a short starter at least. Because don't forget, the extra folds of the patch have nowhere to go as would be the case in a rifled bore.

 

[markdwhite15]

In my case, math never made sense. What I do is take whatever ball I'm wanting to develop a load for, put it in a piece of the patching material in question, squeeze the patch around the ball with my fingers as tight as possible, then measure the patched ball with my electronic caliper thingee. Gets me some data, and it seldom matches ball diameter plus patch thickness. For what it's worth.

 

[Relic shooter]

OK....Here's the question rephrased. Assuming a .620 bore diameter, and assuming a .620" ball plus let us say .012" patch thickness you have an object that measures .632" , not counting the added thickness of the folds of the patch that in a smoothbore have no grooves to fold into. One would really have to have a good mallet to swage that round down the tube.

The arithmetic works a little better if in a .620" bore one used for example a .610" ball and perhaps .010" or perhaps a .015" patch. Even my hypothetical round might require a short starter at least. Because don't forget, the extra folds of the patch have nowhere to go as would be the case in a rifled bore.

Cruzatte I think we're on the same track.. P.S. please pardon the .620 & a thicker patch comment, was a typo
If loading with stiff unwashed & unlubed patches a thinner .012 patch will definately be easier to load in a smoothbore.
That being said, I've always been a competition shooter & have I've won several 50 yd. rifle matches with my smoothbore.
All of my PRB loads for smoothbore & rifled guns do require a short-starter because I'm a stickler for accuracy.
Overall, my loading preferences are not for everyone & thanks for catching my stupid typo....

 

[flconch53]

OK....Here's the question rephrased. Assuming a .620 bore diameter, and assuming a .620" ball plus let us say .012" patch thickness you have an object that measures .632" , not counting the added thickness of the folds of the patch that in a smoothbore have no grooves to fold into. One would really have to have a good mallet to swage that round down the tube.

The arithmetic works a little better if in a .620" bore one used for example a .610" ball and perhaps .010" or perhaps a .015" patch. Even my hypothetical round might require a short starter at least. Because don't forget, the extra folds of the patch have nowhere to go as would be the case in a rifled bore.

No actually it would measure .644
The patch is on both sides of the ball don't forget

 

[Cruzatte]

No actually it would measure .644
The patch is on both sides of the ball don't forget

Ah yes, duly noted. Thanks.

 

[Cruzatte]

Cruzatte I think we're on the same track.. P.S. please pardon the .620 & a thicker patch comment, was a typo
If loading with stiff unwashed & unlubed patches a thinner .012 patch will definately be easier to load in a smoothbore.
That being said, I've always been a competition shooter & have I've won several 50 yd. rifle matches with my smoothbore.
All of my PRB loads for smoothbore & rifled guns do require a short-starter because I'm a stickler for accuracy.
Overall, my loading preferences are not for everyone & thanks for catching my stupid typo....

OK. I wondered.

 

[Grenadier1758]

A couple of things are happening when a tight round ball and patch are loaded. The patch is compressed, but in most cases that windage or difference between the ball diameter and the bore diameter is much smaller than the thickness of any compressed patch that I have measured. That means that the circumference of the soft lead ball will be compressed into the patch and barrel. Yes, when doing the math the simple calculation is ball diameter plus twice the patch thickness. For reasonable loading of a smoothbore with ball, use a ball and double patch compressed thickness just slightly less than the bore diameter. Obturation of the lead ball on firing will further compress the patch and prevent gas blowby.

I use the micrometer that was lost for years in the garage for measuring patch thickness compression. That one my father, a tool maker, would let me abuse by overtightening. I never measured any patch that when compressed measured 0.005" or 0.0025".

 

[Coinneach]

And if you loaded with shot?

IME around 30 yards max, varies somewhat on the grade of Shot.

 

[Coinneach]

In years past I competed monthly with a great club. In those times I had a few really nice flintlocks (pre divorce) One was a 20 gauge flintlock fowler built by a pal in the club, Ken Netting. Quality of that fowler was top notch, I tried many different load combinations trying to find a winning load for the smooth bore matches. I shot it from 10 to fifty yards. Went from easy loading combos that kept the ball seated, to loads so tight they had to be hammered home. None really stood out for accuracy. After reading historical accounts about the loads my Shawnee grandpas used, I was curious just how close they had to get to hit anything. Personally, I think they should have stayed with their bows.

Strange that you mentioned Bows, Ben Franklin recommended that the Revolutionary Continental Army be trained in Long Bows because they far out ranged the smooth bore Muskets of the time and were cheaper, less expensive and more battlefield effective; and ol Ben was no fool.

 

[SOLANCO]

Strange that you mentioned Bows, Ben Franklin recommended that the Revolutionary Continental Army be trained in Long Bows because they far out ranged the smooth bore Muskets of the time and were cheaper, less expensive and more battlefield effective; and ol Ben was no fool.

Bow is easier and faster to reload, but, IMHO harder to hit with.

 

[flconch53]

I don't know. I can shoot fish with my bow. Tough to do with a smoothbore

 

[markdwhite15]

I'm a lifetime bow hunter, at 13 I could hit a quarter size trade mark on the targets we shot at 60 feet, on demand. This was in an adult archery league. Also shot in the junior Olympics. I'm sure my forefathers could put me to shame. Like to hear more from fellers who have actually shot under sized balls though.

 

[Relic shooter]

About 40 years ago at a rendezvous in Silver City, New Mexico a fellow demonstrated his superb
long range hunting accuracy with an Attle-Attle.
I wouldn't want to be his prey.

If your not familiar with this caveman era weapon below is a link;
https://www.google.com/search?q=Attle-Attle&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[flconch53]

I attended the International Stone tool show and world Atlatl championships a few years ago. It was something to see

 

[Notchy Bob]

I have read about native Americans using undersized balls in trade guns and fowlers. I am curious if anyone has tried using .562 balls in a 20 gauge fowler, and how that worked out.

I've tried shooting undersized balls.

Most antique Northwest guns were nominally 24 gauge, which would be .579", but by actual measurement most come closer to .60 caliber. I believe a true 20 gauge would be .615". It is my understanding that the military standard for round balls in smoothbores in the 18th and 19th century was .050" under bore size. That is not a typo, but is based on focused research I have done. This seems egregiously undersized to us 21st century hobbyists, to the point that some modern shooters may refuse to believe it. However, that's what the references appear to indicate.

You also see references to a "half ounce" trade ball. A true half-ounce ball would run 32 to the pound, and would measure .526". However, moulds recovered from old trading post sites throw balls closer to .550", which would be 28 gauge (28 to the pound), and at least one traveler (the Earl of Southesk) in Rupert's Land stated that balls of 28 to the pound were available virtually everywhere. The Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) did carry a few other ball sizes, but based on the reading I've done, I am convinced that the "half ounce trade ball" was around .550". This corresponds neatly with the military standard, in that a .550" ball in a .60 caliber gun would be .050" under bore size.

In The Journal of a Trapper, Osborne Russell described a firefight with native people and mentioned pieces of blanket that they used as "wadding" raining down on his band of trappers. I have often wondered if the blanket material was actually used as patching rather than "wadding," but we will likely never know. A thick fabric would make a good patch for an undersized ball. However, I have seen references to native people using shredded bark and (in the south) Spanish moss for wadding, and an old trade musket recovered from the Suwannee River a few years ago was still loaded, with lab analysis showing the wadding was palmetto fiber.

In any event, I took my .24 gauge/.58 caliber Caywood Northwest gun to the range one day with a few .550" balls. These would be "only" .030" undersized. I brought along a supply of palmetto fiber that I had sourced out in the woods locally, as well as some shredded inner bark of juniper. I shot the .550" balls, and loaded powder, wad, ball, and smaller wad.

Accuracy was terrible, all over the target back at 25 yards. I admit to being a poor shot, but this was bad shooting, even for me. The worst part, though, was fouling buildup. The gun had to be wiped every five shots or so, or it became difficult to load, even with a bare ball. I am sure Indians did wipe their guns, as coil worms, or "wipers," were in demand from the traders. I know of at least one period painting by Carl Bodmer that shows a native hunter carrying a spare rod with a wiper affixed to it, and there is at least one old trade musket in the NMAI which is accompanied by a rod with a coil worm affixed to one end, and I believe it has a jag cut into the wood on the other end.

I would like to point out that both shredded juniper bark and palmetto fiber (and dead Spanish moss) all make excellent tinder for flint and steel fire starting. That is, they are quite flammable.

Anyway, I like to actually try things the way they were done in the past, and I would encourage anybody to do the research and try it themselves. I don't like to assume any more than is necessary. My conclusions from this experiment, shooting undersized balls with locally sourced, documented natural fiber wadding, are that accuracy is suboptimal and fouling buildup is excessive. I suspect the flammable nature of the wadding may have contributed to carbon buildup and fouling, but that is conjecture. I would like to try wool fabric as patching, as wool is less flammable, but I have not tried it yet. I would also speculate the there would have been a substantial loss of energy from "blow by" around the undersized ball, but I did not have a chronograph to prove it.

Again, I would encourage you to do some research and experiment... and report your results! However, based on my own experience, I would try to find a more accurate and cleaner-shooting load for competition or hunting. Ethics regarding hunting were different back then. Meat for the pot, or a hide, was what they wanted back then, however they could get it. A quick, humane kill is what we want in hunting now, and I would not recommend this type of load for that purpose. Several years ago, on another forum, a fellow reported going on a bison hunt with his trade gun, loading as they did back in the day with an undersized ball. He used dried grass for wadding. If I remember correctly, he hit the animal six times, and the "hunt" consumed about eight hours from the first hit until the bison finally went down. Being period correct is one thing, but I think I would have opted for a gun and a load that would provide a cleaner kill.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[SPQR70AD]

geez when I clicked on this I thought it was about the GOP

 

[user 31232]

Saw the thread under sized balls. Thought it was about Joe Biden FJB

 

[flconch53]

Would that be someone with the initials CG