Guest
squire: Naw it ain't the alignment of the planets, it's the way you tied your shoes. Heck I thort everone knew thet. :bull:
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Daryl, 2 meters would be about 6 1/2 ft.
Squire, if you're having fliers in both guns then you know it's something your doing. Do you have rear sights? If not, get some or get something back there that will serve as a reference so you'll know you are holding the same each time. Make sure everything is the same for each shot.
Squire, if you're having fliers in both guns then you know it's something your doing. Do you have rear sights? If not, get some or get something back there that will serve as a reference so you'll know you are holding the same each time. Make sure everything is the same for each shot.
Guest
I live in a Country where metric is the standard so am familiar with metric measurments. The point was that our guns today, especially with the way we load them are considerably more accurate that those of yester-year.
: Military requirements used to be pretty slack, due mainly to the way they used to stand toe to toe and fire volleys.
: In the west, they found the volley-fire didn't work well on mounted Indians and the search for better accuracy started.
: It was found that if the musket charge was cut to 1/4 ball's weight, lock springs reduced in strength by 1/2, and balls increased in size to reduce windage to .020 per side, a Turkey could be hit 4 out of 5 shots at 100yds.
: For not using patches and ridiculously small balls, they still came up with fair accuracy. There are lots of people who shoot (anything)today, who couldn't hit that turkey the same rate with iron sights, but the guns are capable.
: Those who can shoot well enough, with the better loading practises of today, can reliably take deer to 100yds with a smoothbored gun, sans rear sight.
: Prctise and experimentation is pre-requisit along with a tube that will deliver.
Daryl
: Military requirements used to be pretty slack, due mainly to the way they used to stand toe to toe and fire volleys.
: In the west, they found the volley-fire didn't work well on mounted Indians and the search for better accuracy started.
: It was found that if the musket charge was cut to 1/4 ball's weight, lock springs reduced in strength by 1/2, and balls increased in size to reduce windage to .020 per side, a Turkey could be hit 4 out of 5 shots at 100yds.
: For not using patches and ridiculously small balls, they still came up with fair accuracy. There are lots of people who shoot (anything)today, who couldn't hit that turkey the same rate with iron sights, but the guns are capable.
: Those who can shoot well enough, with the better loading practises of today, can reliably take deer to 100yds with a smoothbored gun, sans rear sight.
: Prctise and experimentation is pre-requisit along with a tube that will deliver.
Daryl
squirejohn
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2003
- Messages
- 398
- Reaction score
- 0
The problem with these extreme fliers is they're not all that common. It's hard to say just how frequently they occur - but if I had to guess it would be once every 75 shots or so. Generally I can call my shots with either a smoothbore or rifle; e.g. "that one was a little low left "etc. Just last week I was shooting the smoothbore at a 6" bull at only 30+yds in anticipation of taking it to a snowshoe biathlon. The first 4 were all in the black and I have no idea where the 5th one went - missed everything. The thing I remembered was the shot looked perfect when it went off and I tried to convince myself that I must have put it through another hole - the other 4 holes were too perfect for me to believe that. (I wound up taking my rifle to the biathlon). Those shots were all loaded from a block and the barrel swabbed after every shot. For a timed event I normally use paper catridges and don't swab between shots, but since I hadn't been satisfied with my shooting a few days earlier I thought I'd use the blocks which are more accurate. Aside from planet alignment and incorrect shoe tying the only other explanation ,other than me just screwing up , is perhaps a poorly cast ball i.e. hollow cast ball may cause such a flier. At any rate I'm not going to loose any sleep over it; after all I'm not shooting for a brand new pick-up.
Guest
:snore:ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
I didn't loose much sleep over it either. ::
What I did loose sleep over was the hundreds of cawing crows in the woods behind the house, but a short walk with the old Mossberg shut them up for the day. ( I work mids)
You have a point about a poorly cast ball causing extreme fliers in a smoothie.
If a lead shpere were perfect in every way, and there aren't any, you would not need rifling to rotate the ball on its axis and thus balance the imperfections.
My guess is that your flyers are caused by air pockets in your balls. (ouch the thought of that hurts :
Do you wiegh your balls for uniformity.
(o.k. I ain't touching that line :haha
I didn't loose much sleep over it either. ::
What I did loose sleep over was the hundreds of cawing crows in the woods behind the house, but a short walk with the old Mossberg shut them up for the day. ( I work mids)
You have a point about a poorly cast ball causing extreme fliers in a smoothie.
If a lead shpere were perfect in every way, and there aren't any, you would not need rifling to rotate the ball on its axis and thus balance the imperfections.
My guess is that your flyers are caused by air pockets in your balls. (ouch the thought of that hurts :
Do you wiegh your balls for uniformity.
(o.k. I ain't touching that line :haha
Guest
:Off-centre holes inside the 'Odd" ball is the only thing I can think of. This is quite possible and there is the Odd ball I cast that has an interior hole with a perfect exterior.
: Foir example, I just cast up a bunch of .662's from an old (new)Ohaus mould that hadn't cast more than about 50 balls prior to me getting it. After a couple to perfect the heat of the pre-heated mould, they came out perfect - every one of them. I should say here that I run my temp a bit higher than some do, but I like all of the balls to be perfect and with the pot's thermostat on max all the time, That's the way the bottom pour works best for me casting balls with pure lead.
: I weighed them on the electronic scale, and 1 out of the 30 good casts, was 8gr. under all of the rest. The majority of them were within 1 gr. on the scale. The one that was 8gr. light, was sliced open and had a tear-prop shaped cavity just under the sprue.
: Due to not having the stability of rifling, any defect like that could immediately affect the ball, I'm, sure, much more dramatically than the same defected ball in a same calibre rifle, at close range. (supposition)
: At one time, I tried casting 1/2 balls(.684 balls -14bore rifle) for the string cut. It worked, but they didn't hit the same place as solid ball (close), being much lighter. In damp weather, it is very difficult, almost impossible, to cut a string with a large slow moving ball of around 1,000fps or less.The string just stetches and flaps out of the way. I could hit em almost every time, but not cut them. The 1/2 balls (kinda cheating - but not)solved the problem which showed the rifle, due to rifling, stabilized and shot quite accurately at close range, the grossly mutilated balls. Some had shrunken surface cavities, and the weight range, while close, probably varied cose to 100gr. In loading, the 'flat' of the surface wasn't always perfectly flat at 90 degrees to the bore. The point is the Rifle will shoot fairly well, a ball with gross defects. The smoothie is much less forgiving I feel.
: Perhaps we cast in a similar manner, Squire John? 1 out of 30 being bad, isn't, too bad!
Daryl
: Foir example, I just cast up a bunch of .662's from an old (new)Ohaus mould that hadn't cast more than about 50 balls prior to me getting it. After a couple to perfect the heat of the pre-heated mould, they came out perfect - every one of them. I should say here that I run my temp a bit higher than some do, but I like all of the balls to be perfect and with the pot's thermostat on max all the time, That's the way the bottom pour works best for me casting balls with pure lead.
: I weighed them on the electronic scale, and 1 out of the 30 good casts, was 8gr. under all of the rest. The majority of them were within 1 gr. on the scale. The one that was 8gr. light, was sliced open and had a tear-prop shaped cavity just under the sprue.
: Due to not having the stability of rifling, any defect like that could immediately affect the ball, I'm, sure, much more dramatically than the same defected ball in a same calibre rifle, at close range. (supposition)
: At one time, I tried casting 1/2 balls(.684 balls -14bore rifle) for the string cut. It worked, but they didn't hit the same place as solid ball (close), being much lighter. In damp weather, it is very difficult, almost impossible, to cut a string with a large slow moving ball of around 1,000fps or less.The string just stetches and flaps out of the way. I could hit em almost every time, but not cut them. The 1/2 balls (kinda cheating - but not)solved the problem which showed the rifle, due to rifling, stabilized and shot quite accurately at close range, the grossly mutilated balls. Some had shrunken surface cavities, and the weight range, while close, probably varied cose to 100gr. In loading, the 'flat' of the surface wasn't always perfectly flat at 90 degrees to the bore. The point is the Rifle will shoot fairly well, a ball with gross defects. The smoothie is much less forgiving I feel.
: Perhaps we cast in a similar manner, Squire John? 1 out of 30 being bad, isn't, too bad!
Daryl
squirejohn
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2003
- Messages
- 398
- Reaction score
- 0
Daryl; I do my casting with "pure" lead out of a large Lee pot that has a bottom draw-off. However I plugged the bottom and use a dipper. The temp is also on max because the thermostat is broken. For my smoothbores I use a .60c Lyman mold. I've had very good results with this setup - the first few would have wrinkles and then good casting until the mold gets too hot (frosted). I just pull the plug and keep on casting for a while and then plug it back in. Except for the first few wrinkled ones, a few have a small pinhole in the sprue. These go back into the pot.
Per your experience with the hollow ball I am going to weigh the balls from now on. If I find any light ones I'll try them out just to see where they shoot. If I don't find any then I must be experiencing a "major mental malfunction" !!
Per your experience with the hollow ball I am going to weigh the balls from now on. If I find any light ones I'll try them out just to see where they shoot. If I don't find any then I must be experiencing a "major mental malfunction" !!
Guest
Way to go SquireJohn - I usd to use a big 30lb. Saeco electirc pot, but the thermostat broke disabling the heating- It didn't work due to the method of mfg're.
: Now, I use the same Lee pot as you, 20 lb. but use the bottom pour feature. For now, the thermostat works well. Bullets from WW need to be cast at #6 on the scale or they frost too much, to the point of rounding grouve edges(alloys only).
: The lead will crust with pure lead at high heat, but I leave it on high, as the crust protects the lead undnerneath from Oxygen. I used to dip only, for BP shooting, but now prefer the bottom pour with adjustable pour- works for me.
Daryl
: Now, I use the same Lee pot as you, 20 lb. but use the bottom pour feature. For now, the thermostat works well. Bullets from WW need to be cast at #6 on the scale or they frost too much, to the point of rounding grouve edges(alloys only).
: The lead will crust with pure lead at high heat, but I leave it on high, as the crust protects the lead undnerneath from Oxygen. I used to dip only, for BP shooting, but now prefer the bottom pour with adjustable pour- works for me.
Daryl
squirejohn
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2003
- Messages
- 398
- Reaction score
- 0
Well I weighed up 150+ .60c roudballs, and while most were within +/- 1 to 2 grains there were six that were 5-6 gr light. This would roughly equate to an "air-hole" sphere of 0.15"d or about the size of a #2 shot. I don't have a clue whether or not this is significant as far as the extreme fliers but I'll try them out on a "side-by-side" comparison will the "good" balls. I'll let you know the results - probaly not till next week when the weather is suppose to be good - been spitting snow for the last few days and not expected to improve much until next Wed.
for the last few days and not expected to improve much until next Wed.Guest
I'm very much interested in your findings with the 5-6gr. divergence balls. It's merely my opinion that with no rifling, defects will show much more readily than from a rifled barrel - stands to reason. Without the 'guiding' spin, they may be quicker to take on their own spin, earlier in flight.
: The BIG test of that was with the friut guns we used to shoot on Vancouver Island - Fruit Wars they were called. Most of the guns shot oranges, but there were a few grapefruit guns as well. The range was around 100yds, and the two teams used to shoot at each other, from behind baracades. Picture getting hit in the middle of the chest with a grapefruit. Oranges were bad enough. For the young and stupid only. - HA! About 60 to 120yds out, depending on initial shape and perfection of roundness, they'd spin off line in a trumpet shaped line of trajectory. Cavities in lead balls should produce much the same effect from the imbalance. Due to the much larger size of the fruit, they'd take longer than a smaller projectile to go off line - generally. The 6 pounder field-piece my brother made, years ago, shooting iron shot from a ball mill (gold or copper processing), would travel perfectly to the butts on the 300meter range. Due to their size and mass, it was very accurate at that close(for it) range.
: Of course, the test should be done with more than 2 or 3 of them to be substantive.
Daryl
: The BIG test of that was with the friut guns we used to shoot on Vancouver Island - Fruit Wars they were called. Most of the guns shot oranges, but there were a few grapefruit guns as well. The range was around 100yds, and the two teams used to shoot at each other, from behind baracades. Picture getting hit in the middle of the chest with a grapefruit. Oranges were bad enough. For the young and stupid only. - HA! About 60 to 120yds out, depending on initial shape and perfection of roundness, they'd spin off line in a trumpet shaped line of trajectory. Cavities in lead balls should produce much the same effect from the imbalance. Due to the much larger size of the fruit, they'd take longer than a smaller projectile to go off line - generally. The 6 pounder field-piece my brother made, years ago, shooting iron shot from a ball mill (gold or copper processing), would travel perfectly to the butts on the 300meter range. Due to their size and mass, it was very accurate at that close(for it) range.
: Of course, the test should be done with more than 2 or 3 of them to be substantive.
Daryl
Guest
HA!- Taylor TRADED it for a VIOLIN of all things - aparently, it's avaluable one though, he thinks.
: That was a nice field gun to shoot, Musketman- you'd really have enjoyed it. We made the carriage out of Walnut, with wagon wheels and hubs from the 19th century. The trunnion and hoop was a shrink fit on the barrel, which was seamless tubing with a 1/2" wall.
: WE shot 1/4 pound of ICI 1F, which was actually not single F, but cannon grade powder. this powder had granuals up to 3/16" in dia. or 1/8" wide X 3/16" long. Wierd stuff.
: If I had to estimate the velocity, and knowing I can see .38's in the air at 50yds,sometimes less than 25, depending on the light, I'd have to say we were getting over 1,000fps - maybe more like 1,500fps. You could first pick them up, naked eye, around 150yds, then follow the blurr out to the 325yd. rock face of the Big Chief.(Mound of granite -uspposedly the largest unboken face - well, we tried- HA! They seems to be climbing all the way out there, with possibly no more drop than a foot.
: We'd go out to the base, find the balls wipe the rock dust of them, then shoot them again - over and over.
; When they hit the granite, they'd make about a rock dust explosion about 12' in dia. on the face of the small mountain.(sheer cliff to the ground)
:With 1/2 pound charge of ICI 1F powder, you couldn't see the ball at all, and it shot about 10' higher on the rock face, giving a 20' explosion of rock dust.- WHAT FUN!!
: I'm sure Taylor has some pics- I'll see what I can do as we're going shooting tomorrow.
: He's just finished a very early 1700's Horse Pistol in .60 cal. smoothbore. Makes mine look like it was built by a beginner. Compared to his skill - I am.
Daryl
: That was a nice field gun to shoot, Musketman- you'd really have enjoyed it. We made the carriage out of Walnut, with wagon wheels and hubs from the 19th century. The trunnion and hoop was a shrink fit on the barrel, which was seamless tubing with a 1/2" wall.
: WE shot 1/4 pound of ICI 1F, which was actually not single F, but cannon grade powder. this powder had granuals up to 3/16" in dia. or 1/8" wide X 3/16" long. Wierd stuff.
: If I had to estimate the velocity, and knowing I can see .38's in the air at 50yds,sometimes less than 25, depending on the light, I'd have to say we were getting over 1,000fps - maybe more like 1,500fps. You could first pick them up, naked eye, around 150yds, then follow the blurr out to the 325yd. rock face of the Big Chief.(Mound of granite -uspposedly the largest unboken face - well, we tried- HA! They seems to be climbing all the way out there, with possibly no more drop than a foot.
: We'd go out to the base, find the balls wipe the rock dust of them, then shoot them again - over and over.
; When they hit the granite, they'd make about a rock dust explosion about 12' in dia. on the face of the small mountain.(sheer cliff to the ground)
:With 1/2 pound charge of ICI 1F powder, you couldn't see the ball at all, and it shot about 10' higher on the rock face, giving a 20' explosion of rock dust.- WHAT FUN!!
: I'm sure Taylor has some pics- I'll see what I can do as we're going shooting tomorrow.
: He's just finished a very early 1700's Horse Pistol in .60 cal. smoothbore. Makes mine look like it was built by a beginner. Compared to his skill - I am.
Daryl
Daryl, I'd be interested also in knowing what effect the cavity has. Since they are usually right under the sprue and most shoot with sprue up , it might not make much difference but it seems to me that if it made a difference it would make a larger difference in a rifled barrel than a smooth one. Out of balance and rotating rather than just out of balance. We have 5 or 6 bowling ball cannons in our club and shoot them quite often, all the bowling balls have holes in them but seem to shoot about the same regardless of where the holes are.
Guest
Hey Musketman:
If you have a soft spot for cannons please check out http://www.hernironworks.com/cannons.html They sell some delightful peices that are good for home defence and casual plinking.
If you have a soft spot for cannons please check out http://www.hernironworks.com/cannons.html They sell some delightful peices that are good for home defence and casual plinking.
Guest
The holes in the bowling balls are quite small compared to the ball's size. On top of that, look at the size of the bowling balls. The larger the projectile, the more it takes to move it off course. Out of the 3" cannons, even dog-food cans filled with concrete were fairly accurate. You won't get 8" groups at 100yds, shootng cylinders of lead out of the Bess, but out of the 3" cannon, we could hit a 2 target at the 200yds. range, most every time with the cannon and again, that's why the 1 1/2" wall guns had such good range for smoothbores. The larger the ball, the better it shoots with defects. This also holds true with cast loads in modern rifles. The larger the bore, the easier they are to get to shoot. A 45-70 will shoot well with wrinkles on it's bullets, but try that in a .222 with cast bullets, and they'll keyhole, let alone shoot MOA at 100, as will the .45's with minor defects.
: We were trying to figure why the odd ball took off for space. The best place to look, other than for shooter error, it to the projectus - the ball & patch. What could be causing this to happen. Defects in casting is the most logical answer along with disintegrating patches, which normally doesn't happen in a large smooth bore due to mild pressures.
: Although the inner hole is 'at the nose' so to speak, it will soon be spinning or loping away with no imposed spin from rifling. The ball will take on a spin from the air - and is more likely to take on a wobbling spin if it has inconsistancies. It's just like throwing a curve ball.
: In around the 1830's a switch was made to compressed balls, to get away from the casting sprues. This allowed them to increase the ball to .65 (for the .69's) in the paper ctgs. which improved accuracy over the .63's they were using. As well, just the sprue itself is a destabilizing defect. I've cut many balls open, and although some inner holes are perfctly centred, many are not. A slight cant of the mould blocks as the lead hardens, causes the hole to run off centre, normally tear shaped, with a curved tail extending down into the ball's centre, sometimes. Rifling stabilizes the ball for it's flight. If the hole is perfectly centred, it will have no effect on the ball's flight, except perhaps for flatness of trajectory due to weight difference. Note HP bullets as well as Neumatic bullets loaded in the 30-30 years ago. The neumatics had an inner hole that was covered over by metal at the nose, much like RB's with casting defects. Becasue the hole was centred, and the bullet was stabilized by the riling, they wre accurate. Take away to rifling and they won't be.
Daryl
: We were trying to figure why the odd ball took off for space. The best place to look, other than for shooter error, it to the projectus - the ball & patch. What could be causing this to happen. Defects in casting is the most logical answer along with disintegrating patches, which normally doesn't happen in a large smooth bore due to mild pressures.
: Although the inner hole is 'at the nose' so to speak, it will soon be spinning or loping away with no imposed spin from rifling. The ball will take on a spin from the air - and is more likely to take on a wobbling spin if it has inconsistancies. It's just like throwing a curve ball.
: In around the 1830's a switch was made to compressed balls, to get away from the casting sprues. This allowed them to increase the ball to .65 (for the .69's) in the paper ctgs. which improved accuracy over the .63's they were using. As well, just the sprue itself is a destabilizing defect. I've cut many balls open, and although some inner holes are perfctly centred, many are not. A slight cant of the mould blocks as the lead hardens, causes the hole to run off centre, normally tear shaped, with a curved tail extending down into the ball's centre, sometimes. Rifling stabilizes the ball for it's flight. If the hole is perfectly centred, it will have no effect on the ball's flight, except perhaps for flatness of trajectory due to weight difference. Note HP bullets as well as Neumatic bullets loaded in the 30-30 years ago. The neumatics had an inner hole that was covered over by metal at the nose, much like RB's with casting defects. Becasue the hole was centred, and the bullet was stabilized by the riling, they wre accurate. Take away to rifling and they won't be.
Daryl
FYI...on the subject of ball flight being affected by sprus, cavities, etc:
Several years ago, I began saving "pulled balls" after hunts for plinking at the range, and as you know, a ball puller screw makes a huge hole in the ball, and creates a cone of lead sticking high up off the ball...major "cavity and spru" if there ever was one.
When I first started shooting pulled balls I was shocked to find that they would would center shoot coke cans off the 50 yard line just like brand new balls out of a box.
On this same note, the Bevel Brothers in MuzzleBlasts also just recently published exhaustive test results debunking the myth that spru location affects round ball accuracy.
It's a good example of something that gets repeated a lot in muzzleloading circles because it's been "handed down" for so long it gets legs of it's own as if it's gospel, but in practical reality, it doesn't seem to be true
Several years ago, I began saving "pulled balls" after hunts for plinking at the range, and as you know, a ball puller screw makes a huge hole in the ball, and creates a cone of lead sticking high up off the ball...major "cavity and spru" if there ever was one.
When I first started shooting pulled balls I was shocked to find that they would would center shoot coke cans off the 50 yard line just like brand new balls out of a box.
On this same note, the Bevel Brothers in MuzzleBlasts also just recently published exhaustive test results debunking the myth that spru location affects round ball accuracy.
It's a good example of something that gets repeated a lot in muzzleloading circles because it's been "handed down" for so long it gets legs of it's own as if it's gospel, but in practical reality, it doesn't seem to be true
Guest
- I've already discussed shooting mutilated balls from a rifle & their effects which are minimal - this is entirely different.
: We're trying to figure out what is causing the gross divergence of the very odd ball, at close range, which is eluding even a large target.
Aside from the odd brain-fart, gross malformation or defects that cause cause such a thing are about the only place to look at this point.
: We're talking about a bore without rifing, in which, when the ball starts spinning, it acts more like a baseball thrown for a curve. Al projectiles drift to the direction they are spinning, but like the baseball, musket balls diverge much more rapidly than balls or bullets that are stable. From a rifled bore, they're stable - that isn't even in contention here.
: The reason the baseball spins off line into a curve, is because it notspinning in line with it's forward, horizontal axis & is spinning also too fast for it's ballistic shape. This is also what happens to projectiles from smoothbores. We closely patch them in cloth or paper, to help them resist spinning, hoping they'll travel to the intended target before taking on a spin that causes them to vere off course, which is what they eventualy do - much in the same manner as the round fruit shot from cannons.
: Smoothbores are an entirely different fish than rifles - that they both shot projectiles is the only simiarity by the same mechanim is the only similarity other than possible appearance.
Daryl
: We're trying to figure out what is causing the gross divergence of the very odd ball, at close range, which is eluding even a large target.
Aside from the odd brain-fart, gross malformation or defects that cause cause such a thing are about the only place to look at this point.
: We're talking about a bore without rifing, in which, when the ball starts spinning, it acts more like a baseball thrown for a curve. Al projectiles drift to the direction they are spinning, but like the baseball, musket balls diverge much more rapidly than balls or bullets that are stable. From a rifled bore, they're stable - that isn't even in contention here.
: The reason the baseball spins off line into a curve, is because it notspinning in line with it's forward, horizontal axis & is spinning also too fast for it's ballistic shape. This is also what happens to projectiles from smoothbores. We closely patch them in cloth or paper, to help them resist spinning, hoping they'll travel to the intended target before taking on a spin that causes them to vere off course, which is what they eventualy do - much in the same manner as the round fruit shot from cannons.
: Smoothbores are an entirely different fish than rifles - that they both shot projectiles is the only simiarity by the same mechanim is the only similarity other than possible appearance.
Daryl
I understand, I've read the thread...was simply making the point that a mere 4-5 grn off-center variance in any ball is not going to cause it to "turn left" and entirely miss a "1.5 x 2 foot target frame" at that short of a distance...
I ain't no expert, but my experience: consistency in loading & Bullet speed. I can shoot bad balls accurately at higher powder charges, but not lower. Bad balls can be used at 25-50 yds, not 100.I don't believe a bad ball will cause much difference at 25-30 yds. In rifles I like to use as little powder as possible, and can get acceptible accuracy with 40 gr. in a .58 cal. rifle.(60 gr.) at 100 yds. In my .62 smoothies, I tried to get by with 60 gr., but had to go to 90 to get any paper accuracy at all. Once that ball gets slow, no telling where it will go. Of course caplock vs flinter too. However, most guns shoot better than the shooter's ability. I whould hate go to a shoot where a good shooter shot my guns. It would prove I'm a lousy shot. That's why they call them flinchlocks.
