Gents, I have used Dutch's system for a few decades, on and off. The problem I had with excess and prelubed patches,
is that the excess lube changed the fit and friction of the ball. Second, if the ball moves too easily, inconsistent powder
burn affects velocity, and thus group size. Although this is the ML group, cast bullet cartridge rifle shooters get this effect, when the cast bullet is undersize for the groove diameter. In cartridge rifles, the reason we have to crimp the cases is to ******
bullet movement until we can get a consistent burn time and pressure.
In ML rifle, we have the same issues, but instead of crimping, we control the issues with patch thickness, patch lube and
ball diameter. Powder charge has some effect, but is more related to rifling twist for projectile weight and ballistic coefficient
which with a round ball, is not such a problem. BC is very low, so we use slow twists.
I used soluble oil for years. I took occasional breaks from ML rifles, and when I had used up all the soluble oil (similar to lard based cutting oils for machining) Dutch recommended Ballistol. I have only short experience with the Ballistol dry patch
in my ancient TC Renegade and Lyman rifles, but at 7-1 and 8-1 they seem to have the same accuracy as with the previous lube. These are both .54 cal rifles, and starting the balls is hard requiring a hard rap on the short starter.
Dutch's system made the difference between being an also-ran and a winner, at the old 80's 'Rondyvoo' shoots where you didn't
have to wear fringed leather Jockey shorts in order to participate. I was allowed in with a period shirt, hat, and Dyer mocs,
but with my Levi's on. But that's another story.
Phil