.690" ball and a Pedersoli Bess.

[Britsmoothy]

Folks I just offered a .690" ball in a linen patch up to my ..750" Bess and it is a easy fit but not loose.
Any of you tried the above?
Maybe needs a wad under it.

Brits.

 

[BrownBear]

Huh....

Nope. I'm shooting .730's. Let us know how it goes.

 

[nwtradegun]

that is to small a ball for a 750 bore. I would suggest you mike the bore. they are notoriuse for having small diameters, mine is a 729 and I use a 715 rd ball and 10 th. patch. 690s are inaccurate in mine.

 

[wulf]

I use a 69 cal ball wrapped in paper to make a
cartridge for my Bess. Othewise I use a 735 ball
either naket or patched. I wrap enough paper around
the 69 ball to equal 730/5 for paper cartridges.
Wulf

 

[Grenadier1758]

The 0.690" ball was the standard diameter for the military paper cartridge load. In practice, its not accurate. It is very easy to load even in a fouled barrel. The British army was more concerned with rate of fire over accuracy of fire.

 

[Alden]

Other's Bess' may take that small a ball better...

 

[Rifleman1776]

I use a .731" ball in mine.
However, Ped Bess bores have been inconsistent in size over the years. So, what works in one might not work in yours. What was 'authentic' does not necessarily apply to your piece. Do try a variety of sizes then get a mould for your gun. When time comes to sell my Bess the mould will go with it.

 

[spudnut]

I have a Colerain barrel on my Bess and normaly shoot a 735 paper patched cartridge , but have shot a 69 on occasion and would feel secure in using it on deer.

 

[Britsmoothy]

Gonna have to try this.

Thanks men :hatsoff:

 

[tozzybum]

if it helps i have a .708 mould you can try ,just pm us if you want to give it a run out atb :thumbsup:

 

[Artificer]

The 0.690" ball was the standard diameter for the military paper cartridge load. In practice, its not accurate. It is very easy to load even in a fouled barrel. The British army was more concerned with rate of fire over accuracy of fire.

You are absolutely correct the documented standard ball size for the British Musket in the 18th Century was .69 caliber. However according to Colonial Frontier Guns by T.M. Hamilton, original and unfired British Musket balls excavated from British sites in North America have shown the diameters actually ranged as large as .71 Caliber. Since most Archeologists are not target shooters with BP muskets, they categorized the excavated balls into groups of sizes by caliber as shown below:

.68 Cal. .680" - .689"
.69 Cal. .690" - .699"
.70 Cal. .700" - .709"
.71 Cal. .710" - .719"

Out of the caliber "groups of sizes," the fewest numbers of excavated balls measured .68 Cal. The largest number of excavated balls was in the .70 Cal. size. There were almost equal numbers of balls in the .69 Cal. and .71 Cal. groups, though a tiny difference more in the .69 Cal. group - but not enough for a significant statistical variance. It was mentioned that they did not measure the balls over the sprue area, so these were "true" measurements of the ball sizes. What the book does not mention is whether the excavated balls were coated with oxidation. I GUESS that most or all of the balls had some oxidation on them. Still the added thickness for balls with oxidation would not have significantly changed the number of balls in each group had the balls had no oxidation on them.

IOW, the actual ball diameters of excavated 18th Century British Musket balls ran LARGER than the documented size of “.69” caliber and .700” to .709” was the most common size range.

We moderns also tend to forget the actual documented bore size of 18th century British Muskets was .76 Caliber and not the .75 Cal. bores (or smaller) that many modern reproduction Muskets have. (The actual bore diameters of two Pedersoli Brown Bess Muskets I have owned measured .754” for one I purchased in the 1970’s and .753” for the one I purchased in the very early 2000’s.) Original 18th century British “.76 Cal.” Muskets have been measured far enough down the bore to ignore bore wear at the muzzle and they actually ranged from .760” to .780,” or .76 through .78 Caliber.

We also know that from original documentation, the British Ordnance Department provided special “Cartridge Paper” from at least the late 1740’s and perhaps earlier than that. That paper was “rag paper” or linen paper and even though carefully chosen was probably not as uniform as paper is today and probably was a bit thicker than some of the paper we use today to make paper cartridges.

I do not intend to be “nit picky” by providing this information, but rather to demonstrate we really don’t know how accurate or inaccurate 18th century Muskets truly were other than in a general sense and also from period documentation and that also leads to many other variables. For example, documentation shows deliberate aiming was not taught by the British Army until around the FIW war. Though the British Army DID begin “practicing at marks” (early/crude target shooting in an attempt to improve marksmanship) during the FIW, we know that when jerking the trigger for Volley Firing, they could not have been as accurate as had they been firing individually. The stress of fatigue, heat or cold, and often poor diet also added to inaccuracy of shooting from the average British Soldier. The stress of combat added even more inaccuracy from the Soldier, rather than from what was the accuracy potential of the muskets and paper cartridges.

How I would LOVE to find original documentation where a number of muskets were tested off the bench with period paper cartridges and by good shooters to see just how accurate 18th century British Muskets may have been, but to my knowledge, there is no such documentation ”“ even if it was actually ever done. However, even then we would not know if the barrels were even made at the same place, let alone how they varied in actual bore diameter and a host of other variables that would still have been evident.

I CAN say that on one day in 90 plus degree temperature and very high humidity, I could not use the patching I normally used with a .735” ball in my .754” bore Pedersoli Musket. The barrel got so hot, it expanded and I had no thinner patch material with me. So I had to shoot the Musket with bare balls after the first round was fired. The accuracy of the bare balls on that day out to 73 yards and firing offhand were almost as accurate as the patched round balls in my .45 Cal Flint rifle. This even when having to “fight” the far heavier trigger pull of the Pedersoli Musket. However, that was an anomaly I was never able to repeat. I never slow fired those .735” balls without patching in my .754” bore diameter Pedersoli Musket from a bench, so I have no idea how accurate/inaccurate they normally would have shot that way.

Gus

 

[Britsmoothy]

Thanks Gus.

It did not work for me! The .690 patched and sitting on a wad was not too good.
I tried a few variations but it was not good enough. Also the gun would shoot high and right!

Never mind.

B :hatsoff:

 

[willowbilly]

One of the things I have learned reading about the weapons of the Rev War is that the notion that British soldiers were not taught marksmanship and to aim their muskets is incorrect.

"The Regiments are frequently practiced at firing ball at marks. Six rounds pr man at each time is usually allotted for this practice. As our Regiment is quartered on a Wharf which Projects into the harbour, and there is very considerable range without any obstruction, we have fixed figures of men as large as life, made of thin boards, on small stages, which are anchored at a proper distance from the end of the Wharf, at which the men fire. Objects afloat, which move up and down with the tide, are frequently pointed out for them to fire at, and Premiums are sometimes given for the best shots, by which means some of our men have become excellent marksmen"
http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/the-aim-of-british-soldiers/

 

[Wes/Tex]

Just keep experimenting the Brit. had one of your nice English made LLP I got from Dixie back about '79 or so and it finally decided to like .690's when I wnt to wad, card, bare ball and card. No idea why that combo worked when all teh others didn't...but I could keep them all in a dinner plate at 100 yards where I'd been lucky to fetch a flock of circus tents with anything else. That's the beauty of this game.
:wink: :haha:

 

[Britsmoothy]

I will try that but seems a mad combo!

:hatsoff:

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I've seen Pedersoli Bess that mic'd out to .720 or 12 gauge. What we also forget is that if a large enough order is placed, the Italian makers will meet certain requirements of the importer.

I have also seen a very old Bess, I think from one of the first run of Japanese guns, and the Japanese standardized the barrels for their version of the Charleville and the Bess because I think the importer got a break on the price..., the only difference being where they soldered the bayonet lug....so those Bess were .69 :shocked2: Which was unwanted in the American market back then, so the next run adjusted the Bess barrel to the larger caliber of their Italian competitors at .75. Today though, my friend with one of those Japs in .69 has a true "carbine", looks like a 2nd Model in length and hardware, but in the smaller caliber. :grin:

Anyway...I've been shooting .690 ball in my Bess for years, but I've learned to use a paper cartridge with a specific paper, and specific number of wraps, so the cartridge just fits inside the bore on a clean barrel, and the consistency allows for good accuracy.

Otherwise when using generic rolled cartridges, the accuracy suffers.

LD

 

[Artificer]

Anyway...I've been shooting .690 ball in my Bess for years, but I've learned to use a paper cartridge with a specific paper, and specific number of wraps, so the cartridge just fits inside the bore on a clean barrel, and the consistency allows for good accuracy.

Otherwise when using generic rolled cartridges, the accuracy suffers.

LD

So in effect, you have a paper patched ball with your specific paper and number of wraps. That is interesting.

I wish we could identify some of that specific cartridge paper the British Army and Marines began using in the 1740's. (I found documentation that paper was being issued at Portsmouth by the Ordnance Board that governed Navy issues, as well.) Unfortunately, we would most likely have to have a custom barrel made in .76 caliber to test accuracy as no common repros are made in that caliber to my knowledge.

Gus

 

[starlight]

Thanks Gus.

It did not work for me! The .690 patched and sitting on a wad was not too good.
I tried a few variations but it was not good enough. Also the gun would shoot high and right!

Never mind.

B :hatsoff:

Might need to play around with it a little. I started with RB cast from the Lee .690 mold in my DP Bess carbine, and ended up using the 715 Lyman mold and a .014" patch with 75gr of FFg for target work. Never bothered to mic the bore, just calipers that indicated around .750". Using that 715, it was necessary to swab the bore after each shot to ease reloading, as it was a pretty tight fit.
In the field hunting, after the first shot I took to loading bare ball over a wad and another wad on top. Not much difference in observed accuracy, but then a few shots was never going to demonstrate much of a sample anyway.

Best of luck with whatever you choose. :hatsoff:

 

[Tinker2]

Took one of my bess’s to the range last year, managed to bring .565 balls. :slap:
I just added more patch, it shot fine, just a little low.
.735 what I shoot when I know what I am doing.





William Alexander