.520 or .526 RB in .54

[Flint1]

Does anyone use a .520 or .526 RB in their .54? If so, what are your observations on it?

 

[shmrck1]

RW,
Can't say i ever have, i've always used .530 with
a .015 lubed patch, 2ff and sometimes 3fff Goex in my
percussion Hawkens. I've really never concidered your
offerings i guess because .530 and .535 are so readially
availible. I do think using .520 or .526 you would have to go
with a .018 or even .020 patch. :hmm:
snake-eyes :m2c:

 

[MikeChapin]

I have a Sante Fe and have to use a .520. I do use the same ball in a true .54 pistol but use a heavy denim patch, about a .026 thick. It shoots fine.

 

[Samuel]

I used a .520 Bag mold for my 54 and a .015 linnen Patch material, I found it easy to load and plenty accurate for Hunting and informal Target shootin. :m2c:

 

[silverfox]

I have a Cimmaron Hawken and use a .520 with .15 or .18 ticking it shoots one hole groups 25 to 50 yds from the bench. It is marked as a .54 but a .530 ball with no patch would have to be hammered into the barrel. That size bare ball would load like the revolver balls, shave lead all around. Makes it hard to find proper size balls. Hornaday is about the only I have found. I got a mould from Jeff Tanner and it works just fine. Ball problem solved.
Fox :thumbsup:

 

[Larry (Omaha)]

RW1,
I have two .54 rifles, with the barrels having been produced by different manufacturers. They both shoot well with .535 RB and a .017 patch. It really boils down to what you have, and not what others shoot. Just because it is a stamped .54 does not mean that it is the same bore diameter of the other rifles that you are comparing it to. Now if you ask for bore diameter, along with rifling depth, you will be getting a more accurate comparison.
Keep your powder dry
Flintlocks Forever,
Lar :imo:

 

[Stophel]

I have a .54 smoothbore that won't easily take a .530. A .526 works well with linen fabric patching.

It ALL depends upon the barrel.

 

[oomcurt]

I could see where discrepancies would occur in a barrel by barrel manufature by a small one at a time barrel maker or by some outfit that put out shoddy merchandise..or if that barrel was an original from that period of time...but for that to be happening today...with all the means available as far as machine tools..nope...not acceptable in my book. In fact, it kinda scares me about ordering from some custom dealer/maker. Not that I would order..for one..I can't see putting that kind of money in a gun that I use to hunt with. But then..I'm not one of those that goes head over heels to be totally PC either.

 

[roundball]

Heck, even my .62cal GM smoothbore Flint barrel is not .620.
Tried to shoot .600 round balls this summer for the first time and I couldn't start the balls with .010" patches without using a scrap piece of 2X4 to hammer on the short starter...gave up...got home and found that the muzzle only mics .604/.605.

It's great with shot loads but balls are out...I already have an excellent .58cal rifle, so I see no sense bothering with trying any .5xx's in the .62

 

[Stophel]

oomcurt, you worry WAY too much! I would hardly call that a "discrepancy", and certainly would not consider it a defect or shoddy workmanship!

This barrel is a Colerain octagon barrel. The main reason that I need a smaller ball is that there are no grooves for the patch to go into!

I have NEVER measured a patch and am happier because of it! ::

 

[oomcurt]

Ooops. I guess i should have read more closely you were using a smoothbore...but even there...I would be a bit upset..well..a lot upset. I know if I ordered a 54 lets say..and it came to me and I had to use a .02 undersize ball...that would mean I would have to get a custom mold and cast my own...that maker would be getting that gun back in one dang quick minute with a lot of verbiage. Kind of like roundball said..I believe it was him..ordered a .62 and wound up with a sort of odd ball...more like a slightly blown out .58. Maybe some here might be satisfied...I sure wouldn't.

 

[silverfox]

I got mine with the knowledge that it was going to use .520 and was given about 5 boxes of RB,s with the purchase. The price was less that what the target sites would of cost so I thanked the seller and ended up with a very nice looking and shooting rifle. Just have to be sure the next owner knows its not what the barrel claims. I also heard somewhere that the Cimmaron barrels were closer to .52 or .53 than the marked .54 in my case that was true.
Fox :thumbsup:

 

[Stophel]

the mould cost me fifteen bucks. It is a standard size Lee mould.

 

[CG6018]

My deer hunting rifle is a .54 cal. Yorktown rifle with a Green Mt. barrel made by Brad Emig of Cabin Creek Muzzleloading. It shoots a .535 round ball wrapped in a .015 patch in front of 85 grains of FFFg Goex. We eat Pa. venison every year. :hatsoff:

 

[Flint1]

Thanks for all the replies. The barrel I was referring to is a Colerain swamped rifled barrel. I have loaded it with a .535 RB, but had to use a wooden hammer on the short starter--which is not uncommon for our club. At our last club shoot I used .530 RB--could wack the short starter with my palm, but felt it was tighter than it should have been. I had played around with .526 RB with it before with good results. What prompted my question was the articles Mike Nesbit has written for Muzzleloader on how he uses a .526 RB, and the letter in the current issue from a reader who uses a .520 RB. I still have to use a short starter with a .526 RB, but not with the .520. For hunting or short treks I would like to get away from the short starter. I know I will have to spend some time on the range experimenting--I was just wondering if anyone else had tried this and what their results were--favorable or unfavorable.
Thanks.

 

[Samuel]

Thats why I used a .520 in my 54 it had a getz swamped Barrel, and I could use a short starter with a .530 Ball. But the .520 Ball with .015 Patch material Loads with just thumb and Ram rod. also Acuracy was just fine. :front:

 

[roundball]

But the .520 Ball with .015 Patch material Loads with just thumb and Ram rod. also Acuracy was just fine.

:RO: There was a recent discussion here on that very point...my barrels let me thumbstart a patched ball, there are no rifling marks on recovered balls, and accuracy is outstanding.

 

[oomcurt]

Fwiw...I recently have discovered the same thing with my .54 renegade, .530 roundball. I had been using a .015 patch..but have switched to a much thinner one..some muslin material bought at wally world. No, I have no idea as to its thickness.

This in turn brings up another question...I doubt if any one back in the 1800's in the fur trade ran around with a micrometer..so anyone know what material was used? Yeah, there was trade cloth brought into the rondevous but I doubt they brought different thicknesses measured in the thousandths.

 

[roundball]

"...I doubt if any one back in the 1800's in the fur trade ran around with a micrometer..so anyone know what material was used? Yeah, there was trade cloth brought into the rondevous but I doubt they brought different thicknesses measured in the thousandths.

:front:

 

[rickystl]

Back in the 70's I ordered a .54 barrel from Bill Large. The .530 ball was a really tight fit - with ANY patching. Found out that the actual land-to-land measurement of the barrel was .535. So I bought a Lyman Mould in .526, used 10 thousands patching, and it still shoots well.