.40cal Double Ball Accuracy test: Figure 8’s at 50yds

[RC]

:thumbsup: thanks RB fer tryin that,,results are more than impressive...I've shot doubles before,50,62. but jus one prb,other bare,under.. an same load as normal,,,group not that tight, but,for what I'd use it.. for more than good....
interestin to see! :thumbsup:

 

[Stumpkiller]

Dixie Gun Works. They used to (maybe still do) have a Information Section in the back of the catalog on proofing an unknown barrel. Double ball and double powder above service load (also provided there) and tie it in a car tire to test fire it using a line on the trigger from a safe distance.

 

[Stumpkiller]

No, I was serious about the losing confidence part. Why else shoot two? :idunno: (Seems you especially have done pretty well with one!) A double tap is usually used to ensure a disabling hit with a minor-caliber pistol. Not in hunting, where you should choose a sufficient caliber weapon to begin with.

And you did recommend on a thread in the Hunting Forum they check this thread out.

 

[sky hawk]

"Don't take life too serious - it ain't nohow permanent."

If it is reasonably safe, what's the problem with testing it for the sake of testing? I for one am interested in the results regardless of whether I would ever try it or not.

 

[Mort Scott]

I get a lot of good information from these posts. This on shooting doubles sound dangerous and un safe. If I can't do it with one than two won't help.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Never told him to stop. Just don't want to provide ammunition to the wrong camps.

"Look, even them long-term round ball shooters don't trust 'em."


I'm just a strong advocate of a single patched lead ball. And I intend to always be so.

 

[roundball]

And you did recommend on a thread in the Hunting Forum they check this thread out.

:nono:...I'm surprised at you...I hope these aren't word games trying to make an issue...if we tell the whole correct story, this is what I said:

"...RT, check the Flintlock section...I ran accuracy tests yesterday on the .40cal double ball load..."

The reason is that I had volunteered to run the tests mainly because of previous posts & discussions with RT (Rat Trapper)

 

[roundball]

Dixie Gun Works. They used to (maybe still do) have a Information Section in the back of the catalog on proofing an unknown barrel. Double ball and double powder above service load (also provided there) and tie it in a car tire to test fire it using a line on the trigger from a safe distance.

There are no official industry proof loads listed in any Dixie retail sales catelog I've seen...I assumed you had a credible official industry source to have made such a statement.

 

[Stumpkiller]

And you did recommend on a thread in the Hunting Forum they check this thread out.

:nono:...I'm surprised at you...I hope these aren't word games trying to make an issue...if we tell the whole correct story, this is what I said:

"...RT, check the Flintlock section...I ran accuracy tests yesterday on the .40cal double ball load..."

The reason is that I had volunteered to run the tests mainly because of previous posts & discussions with RT (Rat Trapper)

And this is what the thread topic within the Hunting Forum was:

.40 caliber deer loads

My abstract mind must have just gone all flighty that I put your suggestion to visit the Double Ball thread as something you recommended for hunting. We try so hard to keep posts related to the topic to avoid confusion for this very reason. I guess I incorrectly assumed you had connected the two.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Dixie Gun Works. They used to (maybe still do) have a Information Section in the back of the catalog on proofing an unknown barrel. Double ball and double powder above service load (also provided there) and tie it in a car tire to test fire it using a line on the trigger from a safe distance.

There are no official industry proof loads listed in any Dixie retail sales catelog I've seen...I assumed you had a credible official industry source to have made such a statement.

Nope. Just an old guy who did a lot of shooting and saw thousands of guns in various conditions. At one point in the 1950's Turner Kirkland was 50% of the muzzleloading industry.

US doesn't have a proof system so there are no "official" loads.
I'll scan it tonight. ;-)

 

[roundball]

I won't be drawn into a silly argument that only involve opinions.

I made a thoughtful, carefully controlled test as I promised I'd do, clearly labeled it as a test, and posted the specific detailed test results.

End of story.
:thumbsup:

 

[stormcrow]

It is unfortunate that noone has ever designed a gun specifically for the purpose of handling multiple balls with a powder charge behind them. Oh, wait a minute......

 

[jerrywh]

.One thing Zonie never mentioned is this. FFg while producing lower chamber pressure will not necessarily reduce the velocity in fact it may even produce a higher velocity. Chamber pressure and velocity are not directly proportionate

 

[Zonie]

The proof testing that Stumpkiller referred to was Turner Kirkland's and has been printed in the Dixie Gunworks catalog for years.

The following quote is from the 2009 catalog but it is the same as it was in the 1980 catalog.

"PROOF TESTING ANY MUZZLELOADING GUN
No matter whether you have an old gun or a reproduction, no matter if it is a revolver, shotgun, or rifle any gun should be proof tested with black powder before firing from the shoulder. Do this by referring to our loading charts and load the gun with twice too much powder and two lead balls of the correct bore size.
Then you will know the gun is safe to shoot.
The above picture shows a shotgun being proof tested with the butt inside the tire with the barrels of the gun lying across the other side of the tire. a string is attached to the trigger and fired from a safe distance. But we recommend removing the stock from the barrel and test firing the barrel only by using firecracker fuse to ignite the charge in the barrel."

The loading chart mentioned shows a powder load for a .40 caliber Dixie Flint & Percussion Rifle as 65 grains of 3Fg powder and a .395 diameter ball.

If "twice too much powder" is referring to this "STANDARD MUZZLELOADING CHARGES" that would make the proof test powder load a little over 130 grains of 3Fg.

In defense of roundballs load, 80 grains of 3Fg powder under two .395 roundballs, this is less than Kirklands proof test.

I will stick with my recommendation to switch to 2Fg powder. After all, the idea here is not to proof test the barrel but to shoot the rifle effectively without creating undue stress to the barrel.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Thankee Zonie.

I knew it wasn't all hallucinations.

When I got started (pre Internet and with no flintlock, let alone percussion, knowledgeable friends or sales clerks) I read through the Dixie Catalog word by word and very often.

 

[jerrywh]

The old dixie catalog has a lot of good info in it. All kinds of proof loads and standard loads may also be found in the Greener book if anybody has it. It is interesting that some shotguns were proofed with unpatched round balls of bore size. I patch them anyway.
The Gun and its Development == w.w. greener

 

[BillinOregon]

Roundball: No judgments from me, just a thank you for sharing the accuracy results. I am amazed both balls struck so close together. I don't know what a conical in .40 would weigh, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could find a mould for one that would outweigh your two RBs.

 

[roundball]

Roundball: No judgments from me, just a thank you for sharing the accuracy results. I am amazed both balls struck so close together. I don't know what a conical in .40 would weigh, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could find a mould for one that would outweigh your two RBs.

Of course...sometimes I worry that in any group of people there are always a few that take issue with anything new...they may not fully understand it or something, dunno...sometimes I think it's just called the "not invented here syndrome"...LOL.

Yes, my words to describe how they printed were: Amazed to say the least.
I conducted this simple brief exercise purely as a little test experiment...and I had no doubts if published load data of 100grns Goex 3F was OK for two .45cal balls...and it is...then 80grns for two .40cal balls would certainly not be excessive, and it wasn't.

Personally not interested in trying to make my .40cal round ball gun into a more powerful deer rifle so the conical, while it would also be interesting to experiment with, is not something I'm pursuing...I do see the occasional post where an individual or three are playing around with that idea, paper patching, etc.

I did notice a post in the hunting section where a member's Wife killed a deer at 80 yards using a .40cal double ball and 70grns of powder...

 

[nkbj]

Double ball .40 and 70 grains of powder...
Wow, yeah, that sounds like plenty of womp.

 

[nkbj]

Might test out double ball loads in the .36 in case of rabid zombie chipmunks.