Ahh, now I see. If I try it and it doesn't work at least I can eat it!
Could a round ball about .001 inch less than bore diameter be used?
- Thread starter Naphtali
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2021
- Messages
- 735
- Reaction score
- 650
Meal. Like corn meal, only different. You can buy it anywhere
The starting ball diameter depends on the depth of the grooves and the thickness of the patching. If you are starting with about 0.018" patching that compresses to 0.011" and the land-to-land bore diameter is 0.456", I would use the 0.445" ball.
As part of the load development, test groups with the 0.440" ball and .024" patching and groups with the 0.451" ball and 0.018" patching would be an interesting experiment.
THANKS Grenadier that gives me a starting point.
Erwan:
My writing is obviously unclear, but you have described nearly precisely what I am asking about. The difference is your lubrication holder and stochastic device. Mine query asked about a dry lube that would not clog the stochastic pebbling, and my stochastic roughening would be somewhat deeper than what a ******* file delivers and would be portions of a sphere, like what are found on golf balls. Does technique that you describe work?
My rough reference to bore diameter shows that I have not yet used my telescoping gauge to identify each bore's precise I. D. Nothing more.
Regarding fit of ball to bore, my decision has much to do with experienced ball shooters informing me. Please keep in mind rhat my range session would be probably not more than half-a-dozen shots between mopping, and perhaps a dozen shots total. Hunting is perhaps two shots at whitetail or elk. . . . And if successful hunt goes south while I'm field dressing the game, maybe one shot before the grizzly gets me.
A $10 word when 10¢ would have done. Had to use google.com to find it in wikipedia.I don’t know what it is either. Except for @hanshi ‘s post, which I understand, the rest is lost on my simple mind.
Basically, it is rough wheat flour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semolina
Semolina is a hard wheat flour as opposed to most baking flours being a soft wheat. A hard wheat flour can be hard to find.
@Erwan, I would dimple the ball with a rasp to get points from the rasp imprinting on the ball. Comparing a golf ball to a dimpled (chewed) round muzzleloading ball is a misleading comparison. The ball spin differently in flight. Well, golf balls have mostly back spin. A ball shot from a smoothbore has no spin. A ball shot from a rifle has angular spin, perpendicular to the direction of flight. The effect of air flow over each of these projectiles is different and not to be applied to the other ball's air resistance in flight.
@Erwan, I would dimple the ball with a rasp to get points from the rasp imprinting on the ball. Comparing a golf ball to a dimpled (chewed) round muzzleloading ball is a misleading comparison. The ball spin differently in flight. Well, golf balls have mostly back spin. A ball shot from a smoothbore has no spin. A ball shot from a rifle has angular spin, perpendicular to the direction of flight. The effect of air flow over each of these projectiles is different and not to be applied to the other ball's air resistance in flight.
Erwan
50 Cal.
Of course, it does, this is what I do for musket smooth-bore shooting, but doesn't work with a rifled barrel...
Erwan
50 Cal.
I didn't talk about that at first but in conclusion and just answered about the hollows on a golf ball being different and are made to play with the Magnus effect, nothing to see with rolling the ball between two files for use in a smooth-bore by artificially increasing the diameter of the ball by a few tenths of a millimeter due to the metal pushed out by the teeth of the files...
You have never tried this method?...
It's not what I was talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effec
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 4,620
- Reaction score
- 8,343
I usually size bullets .001 under bore dimensions. Sometimes I can fire 2 or 3 shots without swabbing the bore. I expect round ball would be similar, even easier probably. Depending upon the lube, leading may or may not be a factor. Using a card wad and then an oversized wool wad and Beeswax and Stihl HP Synthetic (2 stroke oil) would eliminate leading. Sounds like a fun experiment…
Erwan
50 Cal.
Another experiment I did: High-temperature silicone grease MOLYKOTE
With smooth-bore and round balls, I don't know, but with Minié bullets it works fine...
I stopped it because it is not "classical" and a bit expensive, so why not some two-stroke oil...
With this:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 4,497
- Reaction score
- 5,649
I bought .575 balls to try bareballing in a .58 rifle or my Indian .58 smoothbore but I never got motivated enough to try it
I had thought thumping them a few times with a ramrod would expand them into the rifling or bore but I basically pre-predicted mediocre accuracy or a stuck ball
hanshi
Cannon
I already posted this but it bears another mention. Start with a ball .010" under bore diameter and use a patch (the strongest & heaviest you have) at least heavy/thick enough to compress in the grooves. If it seats to easily go to a .445" ball and/or a still heavier patch material. Get a few of each size and consider it an experiment.
Interesting discussion and theory, I've a few random thoughts (ouch)
As another has pointed out, the rotation delivered by the barrel rifling imparts a spin that is different than that of a golf ball in practical use.
So there are those things,, now don't get me wrong, I'm not being negative with your idea, just trying to expand the thinking,,
What kind of dry lube are you thinking, Alox? Powder coat? Molybdenum?
The practical me is thinking that in all of the history of mankind using these guns, with centuries of previous experimentation by the military of countries across the globe,, there is a reason they changed from round ball smooth bore to rifled bore using a patched ball and then to a lubed conical.
Along with our current manufactures and their marketing,, I'm just guessing that if someone found a patch-less round ball size/configuration that worked well,
,it'd already be on the shelf.
With the millennia behind the invention of the wheel, it doesn't matter how it's made,, it still has to roll like a wheel,
To my knowledge the dimples on a golf ball are not stochastic and are indeed intended to be specific in pattern and depth, as with our attempts with accuracy,, consistency/similarity is key for repeatable end performance.
As another has pointed out, the rotation delivered by the barrel rifling imparts a spin that is different than that of a golf ball in practical use.
So there are those things,, now don't get me wrong, I'm not being negative with your idea, just trying to expand the thinking,,
What kind of dry lube are you thinking, Alox? Powder coat? Molybdenum?
The practical me is thinking that in all of the history of mankind using these guns, with centuries of previous experimentation by the military of countries across the globe,, there is a reason they changed from round ball smooth bore to rifled bore using a patched ball and then to a lubed conical.
Along with our current manufactures and their marketing,, I'm just guessing that if someone found a patch-less round ball size/configuration that worked well,
,it'd already be on the shelf.
With the millennia behind the invention of the wheel, it doesn't matter how it's made,, it still has to roll like a wheel,
Last edited:
Could you direct me to the location within the book where it shows testing that determined that the patched round ball receives obturation either when loaded or when fired?
There is an interesting portion where it mentions the rotation of the round ball after striking an angled surface, but I can't seem to find the tests on round ball obturation.
LD
Uncle Miltie
50 Cal.
No, I can't. Mann's work was cutting edge and he didn't discuss round balls which were obsolete by the 1840's. There are a number of places were he states all projectiles obturate. Another common myth he dispels is one of projectiles "stripping" the rifling. It is very technical book, and folks would do well to read it.
OH Ok, GEESH I thought I had a bad edition or it was added in a later edition.
Thanks for the reply.
Yes it's fascinating some of the stuff he tries and then finds ; the results are quite illuminating.
LD
Uncle Miltie
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 4,620
- Reaction score
- 8,343
You probably missed out on the best shooting ball shooter you’ve ever owned… just sayin’…
I know what you mean though, I have all kinds of ideas rattling around in there. Sometimes I’m told it’ll never work only to discover that the conventional wisdom was just conventional and not wisdom at all. Often it’s the other way round. But what the heck, burning powder isn’t a bad thing is it?
Similar threads
