Ball deformation on loading

[doverdog]

We have all heard the talk about how a ball is deformed on loading if you "throw" or tamp the rod against it. I usually throw the rod 2 times for a distance of 6"-8" when I load. I never seemed to suffer in the accuracy department, but then again, I'm not trying to shoot 1/2" groups at 50 yards over bags. I had just fired 17 shots from my .58 rifled Fusil when the rain chased me inside. I thought I might load a ball and remove it via my compressed air ball discharger and see just what the effects of throwing the rod was. The barrel was dirty and I loaded the same way as normal, even using powder. The load was a .565" ball, .015" patch, and my homemade liquid lube over 65 grs. of 3F. The balls are cast from cable sheathing lead. In order to get a smooth, uniform surface for rod contact, I loaded with the sprue down. After I was finished I thought that might not have been a good idea since if there was a sprue sticking up, it might take some of the impact from the rod instead of the actual ball. There was some damage but not as much as appears in the picture. The lighting effect make the dents look bigger than they are. The 2 toenail clipping shaped marks on the right side of the ball are from the rod and the mark about 11 o'clock is from the short starter. When next I have the gun dirty, I am going to try this again only check the unfired ball after loading with just rod pressure and see if there is any noticeable marking. The target shooters that load very tight ball/patch combos using a mallet have to have this much deformation, or more, and they seem to be happy with the results they are getting. Almost all of my shooting is done at metal targets, either on woods walks or at my backyard range. Loading in the manner I do, all my guns give more than acceptable accuracy for what I ask of them.

 

they used to sell a ball jag that would leave a cross,line or hollow spot on the face of the ball. i used the cross type one time . didnt seem to screw up my patern but it sure made a funny looking hole :shocking:

 

Very interesting topic, Superflint. All the books advise to use ONE stroke to set the ball. I'm eager to see your next attempt. :applause:

 

In my opinion, tapping, throwing or repeated Ramming's makes little different in accuracy with rifled barrel's. The powder below the ball and the sides of the barrel will keep 70 percent of the shape of the ball intact if you're doing this with a smooth bore I have no idea what the effect would be.

Several of the guys at my club use their rangerrods to seat the ball and then use an extra ramrod and throw it at the seated ball several times (the same way you stated). I've asked them why they do it and their response was "I've been doing this for years". When I ask again why? they say "I've been doing this for years" :shocking: :shocking: :shocking:

 

[roundball]

In my opinion, tapping, throwing or repeated Ramming's makes little different in accuracy with rifled barrel's. The powder below the ball and the sides of the barrel will keep 70 percent of the shape of the ball intact if you're doing this with a smooth bore I have no idea what the effect would be.

Several of the guys at my club use their rangerrods to seat the ball and then use an extra ramrod and throw it at the seated ball several times (the same way you stated). I've asked them why they do it and their response was "I've been doing this for years". When I ask again why? they say "I've been doing this for years" :shocking: :shocking: :shocking:

It is interesting how often we as humans do that sort of thing, myself included I'm sure.

I think a lot of that is what's behind most of the 'old wives tales' we hear...they just get repeated and read and re-repeated by so many people that after a few decades they become gospel and very few people have actually taken the time to personally go experiment for themselves...as I've mentioned in the past, a couple that I've now personally tested and disproven as generalizations are:
1:48" twist won't shoot roundballs accurately;
maxi-hunters are not accurate conicals;

There are so many variables involved with any set of ML circumstances that those kind of generalizations simply cannot be made as absolutes across the board...

 

I could be wrong but I believe most people starting doing that either because there teacher, Mentor or someone they respected did it or they had to fight a memory ring at the point where the ball meets the powder. :winking:

 

[Flintshooter in Indiana]

If you've ever watched bench shooters at Friendship, a number of them hammer the ball down to get it started and they shoot 50's at 50yds. I wouldn't think it makes that much difference.

 

[Stumpkiller]

I've got what is probably a very bad habit of ramming the ball home with the rod held in my fingers and then switching my grip and pressing it down with the heel of my hand on the end of the ramrod. It gives me a solid 'feel' of that last little bottoming out "crunch" and at that point there's not enough ramrod sticking out the get a good enough grip on. I don't use a short starter, but when I did I had a 1/2" countersunk hole to get the same result.

Anytime you get a body part directly over the bore it's in a bad position.

I've watched guys 'bounce' the rod a couple times on the ball - saying they can 'hear' when the ball is packed down properly. I think it's just what has been mentioned above. That's the way they were taught. Probably goes all the way back to Fes Parker doing it on Disney's The Adventures of Davy Crockett. :haha:

 

Back when I first started shooting black powder (late '70s) the guys in the club either used spit or No. 9 for patch lubricant, both would cause a climbing memory ring. You either swabbed out your barrel, used your ball starter as a hammer or repeatedly tapped your ramrod (monkey see monkey do I was a young kid and that's all I knew) I must be a poet. :blah: :blah: :blah:

Used your ball starter as a hammer!!!

Now I'm sure that none of you gentleman have ever done this! :bull: :bull: :bull: