accuracy

[Clark Badgett]

Milice carried privately purchased guns made by different arsenals over a period of time. The calibers varied.

And those arsenals made bores to set tolerances with go/no go gauges. They also had standard ball sizes to go with those bore sizes. Again provide some documentation to support your claim of chewed balls.

 

[Rob M.]

i heard a man on a video that i believe is knowledgeable on BP guns. he said he used no patch on his smoothbore, as they of course didn't in the past. he said it wasn't needed because the ball was centered down the bore by the gas from the explosion. i do not have a smoothbore gun but this seems plausible to me. one of these days i will have one, just never ran across one to buy, would this be correct? i have a friend who does have one and we will eventually do a test on this,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Depends on the barrel . Ive had some barrels where a patched ball didnt really shoot much better than an unpatched ball , ive had barrels where the patched ball made a WORLD of difference !! Just try em both and see what they like , prefer . Larry Zornes barrels , ones I bought anyway , were amazingly accurate with patched ball . Hitting the 75 yard spring loaded ground hog and the 100 yard circle was a rather regular occurrance .

 

[Ballshooter]

My Kibler 58 smoothbore shot decent with no patch @ 65 years.

 

[Ponderosaman]

My pop’s .69 shoots in a paper plate at 50 yards. He is a civil war buff, so he instructed me to throw in the powder, then the ball then the paper. The ball had to be “rammed” gently down the barrel, it wouldn’t roll down by itself.

 

[Clark Badgett]

My pop’s .69 shoots in a paper plate at 50 yards. He is a civil war buff, so he instructed me to throw in the powder, then the ball then the paper. The ball had to be “rammed” gently down the barrel, it wouldn’t roll down by itself.

He’s not using a regulation size ball. A .65” ball will easily drop all the way down a barrel.

 

[david w]

Wad of paper or tow or grass, etc.

Paper wasp's nests were also used.

 

[Wncman]

True bare ball shooting (just powder and ball) in the18th Century is rather rare and was done in “special” circumstances.
These circumstances include loading on the run or “quick shots”.

Incidentally these accounts usually involve rifles. The two most famous being the exploits of Lewis Wentzel and Simon Kenton.

Some type of wadding was used in a smoothbore gun.

Here are some examples of period wadding.
Tow from flax
Palmetto palm
Spanish Moss
Leaves*
Paper
Wool*
Wool blanketing
Wasp nesting*
Leather*
Waxed paper#
Waxed Wadding*#

Tow, Spanish Moss, Palmetto fibers, blanket fragments, and paper I know are documented.
* assumed but right now I cannot recall the reference
# waxed paper cartridges..... well documented in the 19th Century
*# waxed or lubed wadding
I cannot recall a reference for lubed or wax wadding. I have done it it works really well but the idea may come from greased patches ( rifles) or the military waxed cartridge.....

From above we can deduce a smoothbore gun used some type of fiber wadding material.

Real archeology vs experimental archeology.....

Real Archeology

The x rayed river guns....
These show powder, wadding (palmetto), ball, wadding.

Experimental archeology.....
Actually using the concept in in a real gun...
In this case using a fiber material like tow or Spanish moss as a cushion wad over the powder and another wad over the ball.

My personal opinion is this.....
A smoothbore gun shoots just as well, even better with wadding than it does with a patched ball.
My opinion based on the period loadings above. A smoothbore loaded in such a manner with wadding, is superior than a smoothbore loaded with a patched ball.
In short, it just works better.

This is my opinion from actually shooting these guns with wadding and a patched ball.
I have concluded a PRB is unique to rifles.
Why?
Wadding is just easier with no loss of accuracy and believe or not, even better accuracy than a patched round ball.

Wadding is more user friendly.

Multiple shots with in a smoothbore with a very tight PRB can be very difficult to load.
A really stuck patched ball, is a patched ball stuck in a smoothbore. A PRB will stick harder in a smoothbore than it will a rifle. At least a rifle has grooves so that helps some.
In a rifle the ball sticks hard to the lands. In a smoothbore the PRB sticks to the entire bore.

How I load a smoothbore with wadding....
I charge the powder...
I ram a wad
I drop a ball ( I may ram)
I ram a wad on top of the ball.
The gun can be loaded like this again and again. Ramming the wadding in some ways acts as wiping the bore.

I can use a worm or screw to pull the over ball wad. More often than not the ball easily comes out.
With the ball out, shot can be loaded. This can work vise versa.....

I have concluded..... just for me that......
Rifles and smoothbores are two separate animals.
Apples and oranges.

For the modern shooter, a PRB seems easier but most everyone started on rifles and they have a rifle mindset.

They are two different types of guns.

Paper cartridges.....
I think rifle mindset can pollute the musket shooter. I think we tend to make up paper cartridges with to large a ball. In other words, I believe to get many shots with cartridges requires a ball with plenty of windage to allow for a fouled bore. To large a ball and the paper wrapped ball will stick.
Lubed or wax paper tends to be more forgiving but the main issue is; for a battle load, the ball needs a good bit of windage in my opinion.

Powder charge.....
A wadded smoothbore tends to shoot straighter and has a longer range as the powder charge increases.
In my experience smoothbore guns tend to be more accurate with a heavier charge than a rifle of the same bore. Also the range tends to be extended with the heavier charge.
A theory you sometimes hear is a heavier charge makes the ball fly further, faster and straighter until it starts to yawl one way or the other as velocity decreases.
My experience shows there may be some truth to this.
Diminishing returns will be mainly from recoil and shootability.

The wadded load......
Sometimes the wadded load is wrongly referred to as a bare ball.
In reality we can consider a smoothbore loaded with an over powder and an over ball wad as a type of primitive sabot.
Upon firing, this 3 piece projectile goes down the bore as one unit. The ball is cushioned by the wadding so bore windage is minimal. As the projectile leaves the bore, the light over ball wad moves away and the heavy stabilized ball continues on it’s way. The light over-powdere wad quickly slows.

Just some thoughts....

Agreed. Good analysis

 

[tenngun]

My pop’s .69 shoots in a paper plate at 50 yards. He is a civil war buff, so he instructed me to throw in the powder, then the ball then the paper. The ball had to be “rammed” gently down the barrel, it wouldn’t roll down by itself.

It won’t roll down by itself!!!!
You may see references to ‘tap’ loading, whee the ball is dropped in and gun ‘tapped’ on the ground.
This is a recipe for having ball off powder when shot
Follow what P said

 

[54ball]

It won’t roll down by itself!!!!
You may see references to ‘tap’ loading, whee the ball is dropped in and gun ‘tapped’ on the ground.
This is a recipe for having ball off powder when shot
Follow what P said

Unrelated but somewhat relevant is the reenactor procedure of pouring powder down the bore without ramming. A common procedure is to “tap” the butt after pouring the powder.
I believe under the right conditions such as a humid day and heavily fouled bore you can have an off the powder powder charge. In other words some of the powder makes it to the breech while the rest plugs the bore off the breech. Upon firing this causes a double shockwave. The double shockwave is what causes a barrel to fail.
Barrels failing to a double shockwave has been confirmed. A good example is a short started ball.

I believe this is the reason for reenactor barrel failures. The powder is the bore obstruction.

I believe it’s important to always ram a load when shooting or hunting.

For the reenactor......
The gun needs to be wiped regularly throughout the event.

Since we are not being chased on foot by Shawnees, the loading on the run by pouring powder and dropping the ball can be risky for the reasons stated above.

 

[Cvkotvkse]

Despite some of the people for whom history is subjective and presumptive,,,, there is no evidence for use of a patch when shooting roundball from a smoothbore in the 18th century. There is reference to it,,, in a certain geographical area,,, in the early 19th century.
A patch is not needed, one of my smoothbores shoots its best groups with wads and no patch.
However, I don't buy this "cone of gas" theory some (one individual in particular) espouse. I see now way for a combustible material, restricted inside of a tube, that has a forward surface area the same size as the tube,,,, to somehow become a cone when it burns. Essential going from a leading edge like this, |||| , to this, <《
Every time I ask it's leading proponent on another forum about it,, he goes silent.

Actually, I seem to remembet one British defender of "No. 96" in South Carolina giving a good account of himself using patches in his smoothbore. He reportedly was shooting a Brown Bess downwards toward Patriot forces, using very tightly stuffed patched balls. The patching allowed him not only to retain the ball in the barrel for downwards shooting, but also to deliver his shots with surprising accuracy.
I will need to look this up, but I believe it was referenced in some NPS research and literature.
At any rate, the event evidently DID occur, and has been documented and studied.

 

[tenngun]

Just shot this today, made paper cartridges have not got all my sighting work done and plan on putting on some sights a might easier to use for these old eyes.
Shooting too low but was shooting for small bull top middle. But note spread and width, thirteen shots one for sure underneath one missing I bet underneath

 

[Clark Badgett]

Actually, I seem to remembet one British defender of "No. 96" in South Carolina giving a good account of himself using patches in his smoothbore. He reportedly was shooting a Brown Bess downwards toward Patriot forces, using very tightly stuffed patched balls. The patching allowed him not only to retain the ball in the barrel for downwards shooting, but also to deliver his shots with surprising accuracy.
I will need to look this up, but I believe it was referenced in some NPS research and literature.
At any rate, the event evidently DID occur, and has been documented and studied.

How would they even document this. Also where did he get the patching and how would they verify that. Also, paper wading from the cartridge itself will hold the ball in.

 

[Brokennock]

Actually, I seem to remembet one British defender of "No. 96" in South Carolina giving a good account of himself using patches in his smoothbore. He reportedly was shooting a Brown Bess downwards toward Patriot forces, using very tightly stuffed patched balls. The patching allowed him not only to retain the ball in the barrel for downwards shooting, but also to deliver his shots with surprising accuracy.
I will need to look this up, but I believe it was referenced in some NPS research and literature.
At any rate, the event evidently DID occur, and has been documented and studied.

Please look it up and post it if you can, if in a book maybe post a pic.
That would be great.

Again, I didn't say never.

the event

"The event,," singular. I'm sure there were other events, but we have no indication this was the norm. Maybe it was, we do not know.

A lot of people like to say things like, "well if we can figure ____ out, and ____ works for us, they must have figured it out of done it the same way at the time." (1st off, not necessarily) Well, if I steal that "logic" from those folks for a moment,,,, then our forebears at the time must also have figured out that you don't need a patch in a smoothbore to shoot roundball accurately.

Was it done on occasion, or at certain locations during certain time periods? Appears that way.
But was it common for the mid to late 18th century? It does not appear to be.

 

[Cvkotvkse]

Agreed. This man's accuracy with the musket, as I remember from the archaeology and the description, was quite surprising, especially given that he was shooting down from an elevated position. At the same time, the data seem to indicate a SINGLE shooter, as opposed to the use of this technique by multiple troops. Two possible explanations being that he a: had done, or at least pondered, this before; or b: it was a technique he, or someone he had seen, studied, etc., had tried previously.
As historic archaeology texts can be a bit arcane, this may take some work. I DO know I read it in the last 3-4 years, and that some of the work was approaching the level used in tracking the individual Lakota warrior at the Greasy Grass whose unique firing pin signature allowed his movements to be documented by researchers 120+ years later...

Will post as soon as I find it. Enjoying the discussion...

 

[Clark Badgett]

Agreed. This man's accuracy with the musket, as I remember from the archaeology and the description, was quite surprising, especially given that he was shooting down from an elevated position. At the same time, the data seem to indicate a SINGLE shooter, as opposed to the use of this technique by multiple troops. Two possible explanations being that he a: had done, or at least pondered, this before; or b: it was a technique he, or someone he had seen, studied, etc., had tried previously.
As historic archaeology texts can be a bit arcane, this may take some work. I DO know I read it in the last 3-4 years, and that some of the work was approaching the level used in tracking the individual Lakota warrior at the Greasy Grass whose unique firing pin signature allowed his movements to be documented by researchers 120+ years later...

Will post as soon as I find it. Enjoying the discussion...

Again, I am wondering how they would manage to determine any of this. I understand that the possibility of recovering British balls with evidence if cloth weave indentations, but how would they prove the accuracy part without examining the bodies that were impacted by his shots unless they buried those bodies on the exact sight. Even then there isn’t proof of percentage of hits vs misses unless there is a written account or two.

 

[54ball]

Actually, I seem to remembet one British defender of "No. 96" in South Carolina giving a good account of himself using patches in his smoothbore. He reportedly was shooting a Brown Bess downwards toward Patriot forces, using very tightly stuffed patched balls. The patching allowed him not only to retain the ball in the barrel for downwards shooting, but also to deliver his shots with surprising accuracy.
I will need to look this up, but I believe it was referenced in some NPS research and literature.
At any rate, the event evidently DID occur, and has been documented and studied.

OK....
Let’s really look at this with the info we have.
This is what I would be looking for.
“I loaded my musket with cloth patches in the manor of a rifle.”

Now when you get into “that guy used cloth”.... How did he use it?
A witness sometimes 50 years later can make the fellow do a lot of stuff. Some of this can be assumptions.
He used cloth, so the assumption is he used it in the manner of rifles.
OK....
Very tightly stuffed patched balls. I know you are quoting from memory but the terminology seems odd to me.
This would make more sense....
“Very tightly stuffed packed ball”
^^^
From the info provided, this sounds more like cloth used as wadding. Stuffed?????
Again, that sounds more like wadding.

You can’t always trust the NPS as gospel. There’s the whole Liberty Valance truth vs legend thing.

Agreed. This man's accuracy with the musket, as I remember from the archaeology and the description, was quite surprising, especially given that he was shooting down from an elevated position. At the same time, the data seem to indicate a SINGLE shooter, as opposed to the use of this technique by multiple troops. Two possible explanations being that he a: had done, or at least pondered, this before; or b: it was a technique he, or someone he had seen, studied, etc., had tried previously.
As historic archaeology texts can be a bit arcane, this may take some work. I DO know I read it in the last 3-4 years, and that some of the work was approaching the level used in tracking the individual Lakota warrior at the Greasy Grass whose unique firing pin signature allowed his movements to be documented by researchers 120+ years later...

Will post as soon as I find it. Enjoying the discussion...

I would look forward to reading this.

You mention the Little Big Horn rifle.
For more than a century that battle had a narrative built off of assumptions and maybe less than accurate witness accounts.

It was assumed that a skirmish line was set on that portion of the battlefield. Archeology tended to agree with that.

The forensic evidence showed the same rifle being used along the assumed “skirmish line”.....
It was not a skirmish line at all. The forensics show that it was a running fight or more accurately a running “flight”.
This tends to agree with some of the native accounts.

This is an example of, there’s what’s said vs what really happened.

 

[Cvkotvkse]

OK....
Let’s really look at this with the info we have.
This is what I would be looking for.
“I loaded my musket with cloth patches in the manor of a rifle.”

Now when you get into “that guy used cloth”.... How did he use it?
A witness sometimes 50 years later can make the fellow do a lot of stuff. Some of this can be assumptions.
He used cloth, so the assumption is he used it in the manor of rifles.
OK....
Very tightly stuffed patched balls. I know you are quoting from memory but the terminology seems odd to me.
This would make more sense....
“Very tightly stuffed packed ball”
^^^
From the info provided, this sounds more like cloth used as wadding. Stuffed?????
Again, that sounds more like wadding.

You can’t always trust the NPS as gospel. There’s the whole Liberty Valance truth vs legend thing.

I would look forward to reading this.

You mention the Little Big Horn rifle.
For more than a century that battle had a narrative built off of assumptions and maybe less than accurate witness accounts.

It was assumed that a skirmish line was set on that portion of the battlefield. Archeology tended to agree with that.

The forensic evidence showed the same rifle being used along the assumed “skirmish line”.....
It was not a skirmish line at all. The forensics show that it was a running fight or more accurately a running “flight”.
This tends to agree with some of the native accounts.

This is an example of, there’s what’s said vs what really happened.

Totally agreing w/ you on the second part... the stories shared intertribally for decades were MUCH closer to what Curtis had gathered at Crow Agency from the survivors that (officially) "no one knew existed," and that he was prohibited by TR from publishing in any shape, form, or fashion. It didn't keep the story from being shared in languages other than English, and spreading across Indian Country.
Interestingly, there is a lot of research that supports the vieww that non-literrate peoples are much more likely to pass stories down, word-for-word and unchanged, than literate societies who are much more likely to embellish, summarize, or otherwise change the comtent or format in the retelling.