Accuracy

Sorry- I just re-read the posts, and see this was at a mere 25yds. My mistake - so
: Question- is there a possibility that there was a double hole? Now, up here, the people who set the rules have never scored a smokeless target before, nor were they particularly good shots themselves. The reason I say that is If they had, they'd have to know that if there is a big hole, larger than calibre, they have to give any shots not visible, to going through that hole, providing it merely isn't two, side by side, positively only two shots by being plugged. By the rules, tested many times and always found for the shooter - a 1" or 3/4" dia hole for a 10 shot event(smokeless), held that all ten shots went through that hole, not just the ones visible around the outside perifery of that hole.
: I found this out at the first registered B.C.Summer Games match I attended. Up until that time, I was merely a BP hunter, BP sport shooter & I also shot position competition with smokeless & was an official of the Shooting Federation of Canada.
: My whole reaoning for bringing this up, is that perhaps, being schooled by this outside-count only, may have trained someone to think they had missed, when in all actuality, they hadn't. This also happens up here.
: SO - Did the missing ball, possibly go through another hole? A hole even slightly bigger than cal. would very well be the recipient of that ball - otherwise, a hang-fire flinch is the only way I can see missing something that big - at only 25yds., or a conbination of conditions noted. Little things can add up to a biggee. Sorry? or Good shooting, as the case might be!
: Now - at 50 or 75yds, with a smoothbore, perhaps this air void theory could have been a contributing factor.
Daryl

 

[squirejohn]

Well this AM I took out my fusil and shot some balls in an attempt to find out what the deal is with the "extreme fliers". Instead of using the balls that wereonly 5 to 6 g light I decided to cast the worst looking balls I could. Some were horribly wrinkled and others only partially cast. All were at least 20g light and would have obviously been rejected to re-melt pile. For this experiment I taped a rear sight on and shot at the same 32yd distance as on 3/15. The result was that all 6 shots were in a 2-1/2" group about 6" above the center of the bull. There goes the pooly cast ball theory. The obvious answer is that I had suffered a mental meltdown. (Apparently the Omega 3 fish oil pills I've been taking for the past few months to prevent one from becoming brain dead didn't work). I'm sure I must have shown too much barrel and shot over the backstop. Since I have to show quite a bit of barrel I thought about bending the barrel. (This 42" barrel is relatively thin and may be easy to bend. The 29" round portion of the barrel measures .950 at the wedding band down to .730 at the muzzle. Thickness at the muzzle is only .059 and a bore diameter about .612.) If I look straight down the barrel it shoots about 6" low at 32yds. Unfortunately heat distortion looking straight down the barrel is real bad so this doesn,t seem to be a viable option. Guess I gotta buy better fish pills ::

 

: Way to go - good accuracy from your smoothbore. Certainly looks as if the bad-ball theory's didn't work, eh? Kinda figured that, at that close range, something else must have been the cause of the missing rounds.
:I went to the range this morning with bro today, him sighting in a new small ladies 1/2 stock .50 cal. cap rifle he made for her, along with his 1728 Bess and our pistols, my .54 and his new smoothbore .60. My .45 flinter tagged alonee with us as well. We had a great time, and he amazed me with his accuracy with the smooth pistol and the Bess. Due to just purchasing the 1746 bayonette for his Bess, he replaced the bead he had for a front sight with the proper bayonette lug. Although it is quite wide, it's about the same width visually, as a 4" .44's front sight- not too bad at all really. He had no problem, it appeared, at 30yds., to shoot a 2 1/2" offhand group using tightly patched .735 balls(.775 bore dia). By the time he'd fired 5 shots, it was just a hole. The load was 90gr. 2F. We haven't chronographed this Bess, but the old one, a comercial repr usied to run 1,080fps with 80gr. 2F, considerably higher than Lyman's data from their book. it's possible, Taylor's patch is thicker than they used.
: I did try 2 ctg. loads with undersized blls, just as they did in the 18th century, except I used 90gr. 3F for the charge 7 priming from the ctg. as well. I fired two shots at 30 yds, and the balls were 4" apart. I was pquite surprised with that and doubt it could be repeated, but yu nevr know.
; Shooting buck and ball loads with 3, .350 cast balls on top of the big ball, cloth patch over the front to hold them there, at 20yds, 2 balls always(3 times) printed right beside the big ball, with the third striking about 2" to 3" low.
; We also tried buck and ball loads from the pistols. At a range of 12 yds. from both guns, my rifled barrel and his smooth one, one ball seemed to be welded to the side of the big ball(always struck there)with the other two balls being within 3". In the pistols as well as the muskets, the multi-ball loads sure showed good effectiveness for their intended purpose.
: At a range of 30 yds, with musket buck and ball loads, there was more spread. There was only two hits on an 8" X 11" piece of target paper, one a buck and the big ball. This was more spread than anticipated, but it's quite possible, I guess. Further testing will prove one way or the other. One of the big ball hits appeard to have a .350 right alongside it. It's possible the smaller buck, on the first shot, passed through the big ball's hole.
: Overall, these loads showed promise, but for hunting, a standard ball/patch load would be superior. With buck and ball, the big ball was less accurate than when shot alone.
Daryl

 

[musketman]

: One of the big ball hits appeard to have a .350 right alongside it. It's possible the smaller buck, on the first shot, passed through the big ball's hole.

There are many cases during the Civil War where the buck and ball stuck together in flight...

This bullet has 4 small buck balls fused on the bottom of a .69 caliber musket ball. The intention of these type bullets was to break apart when fired giving 5 projectiles instead of just one bullet.

Adding a buffer (like cornmeal) between the buck and ball may help to sepperate them...

I suspect that if you were to recover the musket ball, the missing shot may be fused to the front of the musket ball...

 

Right-on - that was my first thought after seeing them from the pistol at the 12 yds range, showing smaller lumps on the sides of the holes. I've known double ball loads to stick togetherfrom the rifle, and, out of a slow twist barrel, they usually tumble due to being spun too slowly for something that long. The balls, stuck together think they're an elongated bullet and require a faster twist.
: Thanks for finding that picture - very nice to see proof of an expected phenominum.
: The troops in the States, prior to the 1850's switch to minnie bullets, went through some 2,500,000 buck and ball loads compared to 250,000 single ball loads - all in their issued ctgs. One fort, running low on ctgs. for their muskets, were able to disasemble canister shot meant for the 6 pound cannon, and use the balls from it. The balls being .64 cal. for the .69 muskets.
; Well, there I go again, thinking on the 1728 instead of the Sea Sevice Musket - Will I ever make up my mind????
: Say - did you see my report on the accuracy f the undersized ctg.s I fired form Taylor's 10 bore Bess? We wre both surprised.
Daryl

 

[musketman]

During the Civil War, buck and ball loads were a better choise when the ranks got close, 30 yards of less...

During the heat of the charge, the multi-projectile load would be king, there is a greater chance of hitting your target(s)...

69 cal. Confederate 3-buck "Buck & Ball" projectile. Dug
out of Tennessee near Chickamauga. The bucks were originally loose packed with the ball using paper wrap...

Very unusual "4-buck" 69 cal. buck and ball. 99% of the buck and ball you dig are 3-buck.

Another set of recovered bucks and balls...

Additional note for everyone: Buck and ball loads are not limited to .69 caliber only, any smoothbore can shoot them...

A .56 smoothbore with one ball and three BB on it will work as a scaled-down version of the classic Civil War load...

Down-sizing!
That's so 20th. century... :haha:

 

When Simeon North first started making the Hall carbines in .52cal. smoothbore, to take the common unpatched rifle and pistol ball of .525", Major Mason of the Dragoons tested and gave his aproval, but recommended the bore size be increased to carry 24 balls to the pound as that would be sufficient for buskshot and answer for the purpose intended. In line with those recommendatons the first 1,000 carbines were changed to .58 cal. smoothbores with 26 1/2" barrels, their overall length being 8" shorter than the Hall Rifles. The reason for the smoothbores was it was easier for a mounted dragon, at full gallop, to hit his target with buskshot than single ball. Because this was a non-standard bore size at that time, Ordnance decided to increae the bore size further to take a common ball size, and therefore ordered Harper's Ferry to begin production of a .64 calibre carbine which would shoot the standard musket ball. Overall, this sounded like a good idea, however the troops found the .64's to kick excessively and produce unacceptable gas leakage. Remember, at this time, the common musket ctg. charge was 130gr., so whatever would fit in the Hall's chamber, was used. Nonetheless, Harper's Ferry produced just over 2,000 of these model 1836's, while North continued to supply Model1833's in .,52 cal and by 1839, they had delivered more than 6,000 carbines by the end of that year.
: In 1840, a new model came out, all being .52 cal smoothbore, with barrel lengths of 21" & overall length of 40". After this, most changes were to the lever for unlocking the action to swing the front end up for loading. In all, 4 different systems for opening the action were used.
: The main problem with the Hall breechloaders was that when carried muzzle down, the charge slipped foreward away from the nipple, causing many missfires. Along with that, after wear, and much shooting, the recoil blocks were set-back allowing gross gas escapage, reducing the force of the charge & allowing powder to fall into the action, below the block. This would build up, then go off, blowing the sides out. ?they certainly did have their problems, didn't they.
Even with these problems, the Hall was well liked by many, due to it's rapid fire compared to muzzleloaders.
Daryl