Bess Round Ball Size

[Honeyman]

Musket Man stated in another thread that he shoots either a .715 round ball with .020 patch or a .735 round ball with a .015 patch in his .75 cal Brown Bess.

Can a guy go smaller yet with a thicker patch or is .715 about the limit?

 

Lee makes a .690 ball which should work OK with a .030" patch. Some denim is that thick. Other weaves might be too stiff. Well washed .030" denim is soft & that combo will load beautifully. Lets see, .690 ball + .030 X 2 = .750". Sounds perfect to me. As well, the patch will hold lots of lube to keep the fouling soft. The only draw-back is the pure lead ball measuring .690 only weighs 500gr.(or 495 or so) while the .715 weighs 545 approx. and the .735 comes in around 620 to 630gr. From .495 to 630 is quite a jump. I'd go with the middle ball and load a .018 to .020 patch depending on the alloy I'm shooting. I would definitey go to the .735 for paper ctgs. Just as Track suggests in the .20 bore. They say to use the .600 ball for cloth patches and .610 for paper ctgs. I just found that recommendation in the new catologe, this evening & was going to post it for Squire John, I think.Hope he reads it here or in the Track cat. The .595 would permit a thicker patch for more lube in the .620 bore.
: Just remember- with a pure lead ball, you can shoot a combo that's larger then the bore size becaszue the ball is easily compressed on the sides. For a WW ball (cheaper than pure lead - generally free) the combo should be no more than .002 (approx)larger than bore size in a smooth bore or it will be more difficult to load. With a bore size combination, it's no different than loading pure lead.
; BTW - my .715 mould casts at 519gr. WW ball. These won't deform on heavy bone like a moose's leg/shoulder joint, and penetrate right through. The pure lead ball will flatten out like a pancake, just on hide and ribs, to about 1 1/4" in dia. - a disk, so the WW ball is better for heavier game. At almost 7/10" in dia, it doesn't have to expand. It's big enough already & the Bess makes an EXCELLENT 100 yd. moose gun. We know!
Daryl

 

[riarcher]

"Bess makes an EXCELLENT 100 yd. moose gun. We know!"
Well, that answers one question! Thanks :shocking:

 

Just talking with the brother today, and he said the larger ball is definitely more accurate than the smaller one. For him, that's the .735 in the .775 Colerain barrel. This is about the equivalint to the .715 in the .75 bore. A .735 will probably be more accurate as it's larger,, however the patch must hold enough lube for it to do it's job. In a 46" barrel, it takes about a minimum of .015" to .018", which will be a bear to load in a .75 with a WW ball. Pure lead should be OK, but snug. The smaller ball might be OK, I can't suggest for sure if it will. Next time you have $20.00 with nothing to spend it on - that's about what a Lee mould costs for the .690 ball.
: Daryl

 

[riarcher]

Daryl (from the land of a thousand questions) you just gave me an "opening". :applause:
Now I'm assuming (from other past experience) that with a really tight (and really soft ball) one would actually deform the ball into a round nosed and round based slug when loading? The effects of this would cancell out the abilitiy to spin like a bowling ball on it's way down the barrel, Thus acting like a pitcher's curveball. This means the ball would only be able to spin radially (if at all). And since radialy is like rifling (good) and not a curved ball (not too good) it seems like a desirable thang.
Now I'm also thinking that if the ball was hard (like wheel weights) it would be such a bugger to load tight enough to get the cylintricaly round based / round nosed swedging action that most would submit to a lower diameter ball and/or patch thickness that the potential to act like a bowling ball (or nuckleball) would increase to the point of sacrificing accuacy.
Now this is just my ideas (and experiences with other things - like pool )On why a tight ball and moderately thick (and well lubed patches) seem to get the ball to point of aim,,, consistantly.
Now, on anouther tangent, I'm thinking that too much lube allows bullet movement before ideal peak preasure is reached (why I don't like oiled bores). But a lube that allows a patch to seat tight and hold the ball against a point of resistance before movement is beneficial (as long as it's consistant). I've felt this has increased FPS in most cases.
WOW, sorry to ramble, but, some ideas need reasoning. ::
What do you think? Is my reasoning flawed? (I'm judging by past trial and error)
Gary

 

sounds good- except that when loading a tight ball/patch combo, to the point of making a round-based slug, from a smoothbore, that slug will tumble all the way to the target & be innacurate. The spinning curve ball is what happens with most, if not all of the slugs from a smoothie - at some range. We load them tightly, to prevent them STARTING to spin in the barrel as a naked, undersized ball will, but by the time they make it to 100yds, they're spinning. That is why the safest place to be when being shot towards by a smoothbored musket at 200yds. is to be the one aimed at. When statements like that were made, the common practise was to use a .63 or .64 in the .69 to .71's(American or French muskets)or the .71 ball in the .75 to .77 Brown Bess. There was a piece of paper around the ball, but was still very loose in the barrel, to the point where the early musketoons (smoothbored short muskets for horseyback riders) would generally lose their load while riding as the muzzle was generally pointed down when slung. I still wouldn't want to be the one aimed at or anywhere down range. No sense in tempting the reaper.
: When I had the .45 with .028" deep riflng, I could indeed load a .490 ball and .020 patch, with only a short starter, noo mallet, and push it down with the 3/8" hickory rod. I had a funnel at the muzzle that swaged the ball into an elongated round top and bottomed slug, just as you described. This apporzimately .54" long X .505" slug of lead was very accurate out to 100yds.even tough is looked like a section of drive shaft hub. Out of a smoothbore, it would sound good, but miss the mark, I'm certain. A perfectly round ball should be the most accurate and once I get the 1728 E'tienne musket, I'll test that very thing, using pure lead against WW balls as well as, perhaps rolling flats on a .715 ball to get it small enough to shoot in the .69. Perhaps an elongated tumbling ball will be more acccurate than a round one as it would tumble and slow down, but not spin-off like a curve ball? Needs testing, I think, and a slightly elongted .715 ball will have enough weight to not slow down too quickly for shooting Moose at 100tds. \
: Small dia. balls are more easily swaged than large balls due to the amount of lead being moved around so the smaller ball will allow tighter patching than will the large ball. I used to shoot .375's in my .36 with .015 denim patching and the normal ball for the deep-grouved .45 was .454 or .457, whatever I had the most of. They'd sit on top of .448 bore, only down as far as the tapered crown would let them sit as the ball was already .007 to .009 larger than the bore size.
Daryl

 

[riarcher]

Hmmm,
Very interesting (food for thought).
Appears there are many differences between smooth and rifled bores. ::
Now I'm more determined than ever to get a .75 cal smoothbore, just as soon as I figure out the applicable attributes of a shorter vs. longer barrel. Still leaning towards a "trade" musket, but, the 30 1/2 seems so short for my intended "one for all uses" gun.
You seem knowledgable, if you picked one smoothie for deer to geese which would you choose (and why)?
Addmittedly, I'm "grabbling" here in a field I need to learn more about. I just don't seem smart enough to make a definative "smart choice" and know that no matter which way I go it's going to be wrong. :curse:
Boy do I need help! :redface:

 

[riarcher]

PS-
Know any links / sites that get into this train of thought / design of muskets?
I'm eager to get my newbie, but need "right choice" input first (at $7 to $900 a pop I cant afford too many "oops!" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

 

First of all, think positively - negative thinkng never bodes well for the future.
: A .75 gives the option of larger shot charges, which will increase the odds of bumping a goose. A good load would be 3 to 3 1/4 drams and 1 1/4ounce of shot. Most patterning I've seen with more shot usually blows the pattens- all guns are different. You can shoot more shot, but shouldn't increase the powder charge. This will tighten patterns.
: From Militaryheritage,com, the 1756 Long Land pattern Bess is the best choice of the British muskets, I feel. The India pattern, with it's 39" barrel would be better, howevr it needs to be improved in manufacture. The 1756 is newly improved, as is the Sea Service Musket. Because I don't like the flat-plate butt of the Sea Service model, my choice is the Long Land Pattern, and shorten the barrel to 36" to 38", and replace the brass fore-end cap.
: Another good choice is the 1728 or 1717 St Etienne muskets of .69 cal. This model, or the 1717 is my choice. I have a soft-spot for 14 guage. The 14 guage and wads are easily procurred from Track - for any shotgun shooting. For oversize or undersize wads, they also have 13 or 15 guage wads. They're also reasonably priced, come in bags of 500 for the thick ones, and 1,000 bags for the over-powder and over sot wads, which are thninner.
: For your interests, I would also shorten this musket to 36" to 38". The reason for that length of barrel, is for recoil reduction from weight, but most importantly, with a flintlock- it is imperitive it is imperitive that you follow through. The longer the barrel, the easier this becomes due to weight. The tendency of Flintlock BP shotguns is to stop the swing just as or before the gun goes off. This is NOT the way to hit moving targets.
: With .69's still in mind, the .1777 Carbine, also a St Etienne musket and so engraved on the lock-plate, appears to already come with about a 34" or 36" barrel. This musket is also a new one for the outfit, and has brass furniture instead of iron like the full length Charelville of 1777. The trigger guard has lumps for the fingers, a feature that sounds good. The brass pan is also a good feature, at least thought that way by your government way back when. A heavy load for this calibre would be 1 1/8 ounce of shot and 2 1/2 drams of 2F.
. Lead is for upland and bismuth for ducks and geese. Steel shot is supposed to be a no/no for muzzleloaders- I'm not certain why, but probably due to plastic wads being necessary, and plastic melts from BP and will coat your bore. it is possible and card wad down first might stop or greatly reduce the melting. Special wads ae required for steel shot use. I suggest with any plastic wad, that a piece of masking tape be wraped abour the base, to hold the petals more closely together to extend range. This becomes a part of the experimentatin to make your musket effective past 30yds.
: The .69 will have less recoil than the .75. Both stocks are well suited for handling recoil, due to weight, and profile of the butt stocks and butt plate width.
: Both will Handle any game on this continent or any around the world for that matter. The smack these large diameter balls has is truely impressive & both will shoot as well with WW balls as with pure lead, another consideration.
: WAD sizes - The true .75 cal, requires wads of 11 guage, due to the 12 guage wads being only .740" in dia. 11 gfuage is listed as ideal for the .751 bore. .001" tighter is nothing.
- The 14 guage, or .69 Musket, requires a .703" wad, ideal for the .693 bore. They will be a bit snug in the .69, but will work fine. 15 guage are too small, being less than .690" in dia.
: Both require card, over powder wad,preferrably 2 of them, then 1 or 2 cushion wads, preferably 2, then the shot, then a "B" wad formerly called "BB" wads for over shot wad to keep the shot from rolling out the bore.
: When using 2 cushion wads, if the top wad if a 1/2" hole is bored through it using a wad cutting in a drill press, the pattern will greatly benefit in centre density.
: Hope this helps - any more questions - ask away.
: Daryl

 

[riarcher]

Daryl!
Holly manure!!!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
You've no idea how I appreciate your reply! ::
I've got some "digesting" to do on all that, but, basicly, You're saying my thoughts are "on Par". Thanks for the input!!!!!!
30" for geese may be unreal as a shotgun for 30-35 yds with BB = Bismouth.
44" a bit long for swamping white tails.
The Sea Service musket (to me) would also be a 1st choice, but that butt plate is down right UGLY!!!
Today I was thinking, perhaps with a 2nd Bess butt, some browning, and stretegicly located bronze plating (frizen spring Frizen screw), and a piece of brass and a hand scrolled dragon (or somtin)could do "justice"? Perhaps a magic (altered) tang screw for a rear sight/referance would be appropriate and effective?
For some unknown reason (to ne) I feel gravitated towards the 37" barrel length. I've also read (somewhere) that the Bess' usually required a 10 pound (+/-) trigger pull. The Mariners had a lock that was capable of 4 pound pull (very significant to me).
I've been looking at Heritage as being "cost effective (?) but can't find any opinions on them. After studying about on "rifle bending / Fire Honing, etc. I think I can get most any "length of pipe" to do what I want,,,,, if I learn the charecteristics and apply to my choice.
I love this "learning curve",,,, But I'm going bankrupt on the "economies" of asprin!!!! :haha
:haha:
Oooops!
Here I go, Gettin off on a tangent again! (apologies "Kniferiver)
Daryl, Can I email you? (I'd hate to bore others with "crape" that "isn't impotant" :bull
[email protected] (Gary)

 

[riarcher]

Daryl- PS,
(knot-fer nuttin)
Your opening line (been "digestin') is absolutely contrary to my findings (sorry) Increasing shot to powder ratio Increases shot density, but does reduce (spreads less) patern Diameter.
Increaseing powder to shot ratio opens the shot (patern dia.) but decreases density (ie. term, "Blown shot patern"). Actually equates to "too few / too thin" That is the dif. between a duck gun and upland. Duck=long and concentrated, pheasant= short / wide/ and dense (#4 vs. #8 shot)(ie; chokes)
That's from "trial and error".
Now we can add shot cups "home made" for whatever, and made different ways as per purpose. But that's more off the subject.
WOW, I must be gettin old to ramble so,,,, just yesterday I was only,,,,

 

That was quite a mouthful I put down - perhaps I got mixed up. - Yes- increassing shot charge, but leaving the powder charge the same, does incease density.
:: Getting back to the guns, the 56 Model Bess is a newly IMPROVED patern, meaning it's better made, fit and finnish than the India Pater, for sure. The India Pattern is very rough. The '56 Bess can easily be trimmed in barrel length to 37 to 39", no problem.
: The Sea Service musket, already 37" long, is also about right, right off the bat. It should be a couple pounds lighter than the '56, due to the finer lock-plate escutchen(left side), the smaller trigger guard, smaller, lighter but plate and slightly smaller lock along with the shorter barrel and forewood.
; The original butt plate is identical to the one they've used on this reproduction. I guess that's just someting a person would have to get over due to authenticity, but I do like the 'big' one on the .56 Longland or even the short-land pattern. OH- hanging the bayonette on the end of a 46" barrel sure steadies things down, but the lug-sight disappears behind the roll of steel around the entry slot. it sure does extend the reach & ewiht 11 pounds of musket behind it, wouldn't take much to drive it in to the muzzle.- ouch!
Daryl

 

[musketman]

Perhaps a magic (altered) tang screw for a rear sight/referance would be appropriate and effective?

A trick I do to help other musket shooters learn to shoot without a rear sight is to super-glue a BB or #2 shot top dead center on the rear of the barrel...

It would work like a double bead shotgun...

After a few days of shooting like that, I would drop the rear bead to a #6 shot, and then a #9 shot...

Within a month, he was hitting targets without a rear sight at all...

Weanning them off the rear sight, so to speek... :winking:

This will save you from altering the tang screw...

 

[riarcher]

Musketman- Great idea, thanks. ::
Now do either of you have any "Heritagearms" in your arsenals?
Usually I can find dissatisfied "consumer reports" on about anything on this internet.
So far, NOTHING negative has been viewed on these arms (presumed a good thing).
Along with Daryl's advice I'm 100% sold on a .75 cal. (Canadian geese are tough birds! deer not a prob), I'm going to ask around on some other sites that I visit about info on Heritage and see what pops up. Unless I get something shocking I'll probably go that way.
(http://www.militaryheritage.com/musket10.htm)
The 1756 Long Land is really getting my attention.
Items like Tapered barrel, but plate, markings, and the eye appeal (for me) Kind of "blows my socks off!" It's a bit longer than wanted (or intended) but I may learn to like it, or learn to hacksaw(?) :no:
Thanks Daryl for your input
(Danged, glad I found this place! :applause
Gary