Again, "in what little research " I have done. I read that the European Jaeger shooters used a mallet to seat the roundball they were using. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't that sort of make it into a conical projectile ??? I will be doing test shooting in a bit and I will try conicals along with RB's.
-
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
Back to the jaeger question
- Thread starter blackhorse
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Rat
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,310
- Reaction score
- 594
From what I understand, when the powder goes off (with a stout load) and kicks the ball down the barrel, the ball "sets up" a bit or shortens it, which creates a short straight-section, or mid-section, it's no longer a perfectly round ball...almost a round nosed, round base, very short slug. It kind of explains how a ball can grip the rifling so well when fired.
I know that happens to a round ball when you ram it down in a revolver cylinder...
However, I don't know if that's true, as recovered roundballs (from a long-gun) that are fired over a heavy load are pretty deformed when recovered. You would have to recover one that was fired into some super-gentle medium, and still was in the same condition that it was when it left the muzzle to prove the theory. But I believe I've seen recovered revolver balls that show that, but again, in that case it's a result of seating the ball with the rammer.
Indeed a ball driven down a bore with a mallet would no longer be a round-ball, it would have a short straight mid section to it, be swaged/swedge up, and have a flat nose.
I think the Baker rifles were originally issued with a mallet for pounding the ball in, but that these were discarded in the field and a smaller ball was used..???
Disclaimer: all the above info was guestimation retrieved from dusty memory banks.
Rat
I know that happens to a round ball when you ram it down in a revolver cylinder...
However, I don't know if that's true, as recovered roundballs (from a long-gun) that are fired over a heavy load are pretty deformed when recovered. You would have to recover one that was fired into some super-gentle medium, and still was in the same condition that it was when it left the muzzle to prove the theory. But I believe I've seen recovered revolver balls that show that, but again, in that case it's a result of seating the ball with the rammer.
Indeed a ball driven down a bore with a mallet would no longer be a round-ball, it would have a short straight mid section to it, be swaged/swedge up, and have a flat nose.
I think the Baker rifles were originally issued with a mallet for pounding the ball in, but that these were discarded in the field and a smaller ball was used..???
Disclaimer: all the above info was guestimation retrieved from dusty memory banks.
Rat
Ive never heard of that theory before, but there is some evidence when you look at spent ammunition. if you go to the scientific website that deals with the breach loading flintlock pistol, and the static spark test on black powder, theres a few pictures of lead pellets that went thru his breech loading bp rifle. The unfired round is a perfect sphere, while the fired ones seem elongated.
But the french Pillar breech rifle worked on that "whack with a mallet" principle. The little pillar in the breech would expand the bullet that was either a round ball with a flat wood base or a minnie ball with a wood plug in the base, ram ball home and hit hard with ramrod to expand into rifleing of barrel.
But the french Pillar breech rifle worked on that "whack with a mallet" principle. The little pillar in the breech would expand the bullet that was either a round ball with a flat wood base or a minnie ball with a wood plug in the base, ram ball home and hit hard with ramrod to expand into rifleing of barrel.
If this method was used it would probably just be a matter of engaging the rifling into the ball an causing little change in shape, I do believe that the normal method was a patched ball after the very early experiments with guns and projectiles proved this to be a better way to go.
I believe the ball & mallet routine was mainly a military expedient though it's probable the use extended to civilian hunting uses as well. I haven't seen a mallet illustrated a being carried by hunters in period illustrations but that may "artistic license".
Guest
What the heck do you think we are doing with a ball starter? We're hammering the ball into the barrel with a mallet!
We hammer the ball to start the rifle engraving process and then use the fiberglass, brass or aluminum loading rod, that everyone recomends, to force the oversized ball down the tube.
If the blast upsets the ball into the rifling you have a projectile the shape of a pie plate, not a slug. Remember, it is a sphere that is being hammered on the front and then whacked on the back, thicker in the middle.
I wonder what the exterior ballistics calculations are for a pie plate?
We hammer the ball to start the rifle engraving process and then use the fiberglass, brass or aluminum loading rod, that everyone recomends, to force the oversized ball down the tube.
If the blast upsets the ball into the rifling you have a projectile the shape of a pie plate, not a slug. Remember, it is a sphere that is being hammered on the front and then whacked on the back, thicker in the middle.
I wonder what the exterior ballistics calculations are for a pie plate?
The ball being rammed into the bore is normallay rammed with a coned shapped tip, plus even if it is not cone shaped it doesn't change the contour of the ball that much. I meand it doesn beat a RB to a flattened projectile just ot load a patch/ball combo, unless you are using too large a ball.
Also the ignition of the powder charge is pushing against a solid sphere & thus pushes against it evenly & doesn't change the form of it as it is less resistance to push the ball/patch out of the barrel rather than change the comformation of the ball.
Another consideration of the mallets could be the milita using Jaegers & possible use of mallets because it is faster to load shoot reload shoot reload. Seems reasonable to me the use a mallet is faster rather than adding in a swabbing sequence in between part...
:hmm:
Also the ignition of the powder charge is pushing against a solid sphere & thus pushes against it evenly & doesn't change the form of it as it is less resistance to push the ball/patch out of the barrel rather than change the comformation of the ball.
Another consideration of the mallets could be the milita using Jaegers & possible use of mallets because it is faster to load shoot reload shoot reload. Seems reasonable to me the use a mallet is faster rather than adding in a swabbing sequence in between part...
:hmm:
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,703
- Reaction score
- 2
:crackup: :crackup:
eldeguello
32 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
I have heard this idea also, but am not convinced that it is true. It was stated that the Germans loaded their rifles with plain unpatched balls and thus had to "hammer them down the bore using an iron rod and a mallet". The idea of using an under-bore diamter ball in a greased cloth or leather patch was presented as "a great improvement, allowing the discard of the mallet and the use of wooden ramrods", etc.
I don't believe this, as I have tried loading a naked, oversize ball (.535" vs a patched .526"), and found that I could start them by steady pressure with the short starter until they were engraved, after which they slid down the bore with no more force required than if they had been smaller and in a patch. In addition, the Maxi-ball and the LEE R.E.A.L. bullets are no harder to push downbore and seat after engraving than a patched ball. Such naked bullets can be quite accurate-as accurate as patched ones.
I think the "iron ramrod & mallet" theory is the product of some non-shooting historian's imagination, or was dreamed up by someone who considers the patched round ball idea to be a great improvement.
:bull:
A CORRECTLY FITTED naked pure lead ball does not require a patch, and works just as well as a patched one. Actually, a cloth patch, being porous, permits gas blow-by that does NOT HAPPEN with an obturated naked ball or conical bullet. It MAY require the bore to be wiped more frequently, but that is the only difference. Today, the use of a Wonderwad under the ball even eliminates this requirement. :thumbsup: :results:
(P.S. Take a look at the high-speed photos in such publications as the old Lyman B.P. Handbook - they show balls & bullets exiting the muzzles - this should give you a pretty good idea of how their shapes were changed by loading and firing! :m2c
Here's a group made with a plain, naked lead bullet, and it did NOT have to be hammered down the barrel!
Guest
Photos I have seen of balls in the air taken with hi-speed cameras show them to be round, loaded the normal way (patched ball rammed home with wooden rod)--I think deformation is minor unless you really hammer them after seating them with something lie a brass rod....
I kinda figured this thread would make for some interesting thoughts. And there has been very interesting replies. I do like this forum.... It was thought provoking when I read the "report" of Europeans hammering their RB's. But then again, early firearms were just that, early technology that the people of the time "played" with, meaning there must have been lotsa interesting trials and errors.
I've recovered a lot of round balls. I've been shooting at the same location for 25 years, and finally got around to buying a metal detector a few years back. Those that do not contact trees, roots or stones are generally pretty round. Some I believe reuseable with just a rinsing. I toss them in my scrap barrel and remelt them.
I've only ever recovered one from a deer, and that went from .490 round to .52" flattened spheriod after penetrating front-chest and lodging under the skin on the rear-left thigh without striking bone.
In all cases, the rifling shows as flattened regions with the weave of the patch evident (proving that cotton is less compressable than lead).
I've only ever recovered one from a deer, and that went from .490 round to .52" flattened spheriod after penetrating front-chest and lodging under the skin on the rear-left thigh without striking bone.
In all cases, the rifling shows as flattened regions with the weave of the patch evident (proving that cotton is less compressable than lead).
Correct me if I'm wrong, But my understanding is that Ball starters are a "modern" invention. There was a big discussion a while back on coned muzzles that pointed this out.
Also in regards to bullet deformation, This may not apply to a rifle as much, but I recall seeing a documentary where they dug up the remains of a soldier buried at Ft. Wm Henry. He had a musket ball in his chest, which had broken a couple ribs and killed him. It was still pretty much round. It would be interesting to do ballistic tests in gellatin [sp?] with various ML projectiles.
Interesting...I've only recovered a couple of .440's that were bulging out under the far side hide...flattened on one side to the shape of an igloo...neither had any rifling marks and if my memory serves well, I dont think they had any weave imprint on them either... :shocking:
Guest
Was a mallet then what a mallet is now?
Does the smack on the back equil the smack on the front?
Do we use hard lead or pure lead?
Do we use pure lead so the rifling will compress?
If the pure lead "compresses to take the rifling" is the projectile still a sphere? (even of we can't see the diference)
If cloth will engrave the impression of the lands and groves, (or we can bite a nick in the ball with our teeth) how can we insure that the smack on the nose with the short starter (mallet?) will not deform the nose, and the ignition of powder deform the rear?
do minie balls really flair to take the rifling?
Do only the factors we whish to influnce the shot to shot consistancy count?
Can we selectively discard factors we do not wish to consider?
Do we actually load so badly and shoot so poorly that none of these factors really matter?
Will one of the next three posts begin with the words "you can't convince me!"?
You guys go ahead and sort this out, I have to mow the yard!
My primary concern is if "shortstarter" is really a long word for "mallet"?
ie. will my non-PC shortstarter become PC if I call it a mallet and claim I'm carrying a long barreled jaaeegger rifle?
:: :: :: ::
Does the smack on the back equil the smack on the front?
Do we use hard lead or pure lead?
Do we use pure lead so the rifling will compress?
If the pure lead "compresses to take the rifling" is the projectile still a sphere? (even of we can't see the diference)
If cloth will engrave the impression of the lands and groves, (or we can bite a nick in the ball with our teeth) how can we insure that the smack on the nose with the short starter (mallet?) will not deform the nose, and the ignition of powder deform the rear?
do minie balls really flair to take the rifling?
Do only the factors we whish to influnce the shot to shot consistancy count?
Can we selectively discard factors we do not wish to consider?
Do we actually load so badly and shoot so poorly that none of these factors really matter?
Will one of the next three posts begin with the words "you can't convince me!"?
You guys go ahead and sort this out, I have to mow the yard!
My primary concern is if "shortstarter" is really a long word for "mallet"?
ie. will my non-PC shortstarter become PC if I call it a mallet and claim I'm carrying a long barreled jaaeegger rifle?
:: :: :: ::
I've picked up a lot of balls and bullets that were fired into snow. Snow, if deep enough, will stop a bullet very gently, with no impact deformation. When the snow melts I recover whatever lead I find laying on top of the ground. I've never noted that balls were shortened front to rear, they look just like an unfired patched ball pushed through an unbreeched barrel. But I didn't mike them.
Some do insist that this "upset" by the force of powder gas is necessary for accurate shooting and that is why Dutch Shults insists that light powder charges won't shoot well.
But I've never found that to be true either, I often shoot as little as 20 gr. 3f in .45 caliber and 30 gr. in 50. But I do load a tight patch and ball combo, maybe with undersize ball and thin patch you do need enough powder blast to cause upseting of the ball.
Certainly long lead slugs do upset from the force of acceleration and some loads depend on that, such as when shooting round bullets from a Whitworth hex bore. I've also seen this on recovered maxi-balls, the base band slid freely down the bore but fired balls showed deep rifling marks on the base band and the whole slug was shortened.
I think some upset of a round ball may occure with heavy powder charges.
Quick, do some test shooting before the snow all melts. :: :: :: ::
Some do insist that this "upset" by the force of powder gas is necessary for accurate shooting and that is why Dutch Shults insists that light powder charges won't shoot well.
But I've never found that to be true either, I often shoot as little as 20 gr. 3f in .45 caliber and 30 gr. in 50. But I do load a tight patch and ball combo, maybe with undersize ball and thin patch you do need enough powder blast to cause upseting of the ball.
Certainly long lead slugs do upset from the force of acceleration and some loads depend on that, such as when shooting round bullets from a Whitworth hex bore. I've also seen this on recovered maxi-balls, the base band slid freely down the bore but fired balls showed deep rifling marks on the base band and the whole slug was shortened.
I think some upset of a round ball may occure with heavy powder charges.
Quick, do some test shooting before the snow all melts. :: :: :: ::
Do tell? I've fired some five-shot groups using 42 gr FFg charges (empty .45 LC brass) in a .54 caliber rifle at 25 yards that you could cover with a nickle. That's "shooting well" for me.
I like Ghost's point that what we're calling a mallet may be off. I can easily see setting the ball at the muzzle and rapping it to start it. But, pounding a series of rods to finish the task (you'd need at least three IMHO to get the ball down without snapping the longest and still being able to reach the end while supporting the gun). One glancing hit with 24" exposed and you have a split or bent rammer.
Now, a short starter with a heavy head that can be held by the dowel to swing and then held be the head to push in 6 or 8" makes a bit of sense.
That is a very impressive three shots, but cheeze it must have hurt some touching off 140 grains of powder behind a 370 grain bullet!! Don't blame you for firing only three, mine would have been a one shot group. OUCH!! :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:
Similar threads
