Deer skin patches

[cynthialee]

Some of us are more interested in doing things as the old boys did them than in making the guns perform to 21st.-century standards. I find it very interesting to wring best performance out of a historic loading, whatever that is, more so than being able to put all the balls in one hole.

Spence

I was going to leave this be but it has been gnawing at me...

One hole accuracy with firearms is not a 21'st century thing.
During the Revolutionary period there are reports of astounding marksmanship aplenty. In fact some of those reports are so incredible that I would have just dismissed them as tall tales if it were not for my fathers marksmanship. Some guys are uncanny in what they can do with an old front stuffer and that ability is not a modern thing.

 

[George]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, Cynthialee, that happens.

My point wasn't that the old boys weren't interested in one-hole accuracy, but that with some of the historic loads we read about it's a forgone conclusion that it's not going to happen. Those of us particularly interested in the historic aspects of the hobby accept that as a given when we begin using them. Accuracy is limited with some of them, but we don't mind that, don't set out to "improve" them, but use them and investigate the best potential of them as they were used by the old boys.

In my smoothbore, for instance, I know what loading has proven to be the most accurate for me, consistently and over a lot of years. I don't always use it, though. It's not historic. I more frequently use an old loading, and accept up front that it's not going to give me what is considered great accuracy in today's world. We all play the game differently.

Spence

 

[azmntman]

"No doubt when on the frontier, if one ran out of cloth patches, deerskin could have been used, but in a pinch, a small part of a cloth shirt or pants would have been handier and would have loaded easier.....Fred"

Everyone had a shirt tail, how many folks wandered around with deerskin ready to go for loading?????

Huh...I have a few times whlst back n the deep cut a few inches off my T-shirt... but it twernt fer patchin, more towards swiping :redface:

 

[Artificer]

This reply is to everyone.

We can not be sure how tight the ball/patch diameter to bore diameter was in rifles during the 18th century and before the invention of precision calipers in the mid to late 18th century. This due to the fact that especially from the 18th century, the original ball mold is almost certainly missing and/or the bore may have been "freshed out" one or many times while the rifle was in active use. There is virtually no mention of short starters until around the percussion era, so that suggests they used a looser ball/patch combination than what we generally do today. So we really don't know how tight the fit of the ball and patch was to the bore size.

In 18th century accounts when they DO mention the patch, they often seem to be talking "generically" when they mention either a linen or leather patch. That does not mean that every rifle was loaded with either or both, but rather that both types of patches were used in rifles.

I know in the 18th century that there were rifles made with bores and oversized balls that had to be hammered down the bores, but we are not talking about that for most American Long Rifles.

Using the period tools and technology and understanding short starters were virtually not mentioned, it is very difficult for me to believe they used a ball size that was larger than .010" under the bore size and the ball may or probably was more likely .010" to .015" undersize (and maybe more, we just don't know). If that was true during the period, then it is more likely a brain tanned deerskin patch could have been used at times even when/if they normally used linen patching.

There are at least two cases where it was not only plausible they used leather instead of linen patches, but quite probable.

The 18th century Iron barrels had to be "freshed out" more often to a lot more often than our modern steel barrels. This probably due to the fact the Iron was not as tough as steel and/or some to many of the people were not as good about cleaning their guns. Once the lands were freshed, a bullet from a mold that was tight for a linen patch would have been looser to too loose. A brain tanned deerskin patch being a bit thicker, the rifle owner could still have used his original mold. More info on freshening barrels here: http://flintriflesmith.com/ToolsandTechniques/freshening.htm

The Second Case for using a leather patch in a rifle would been had the original ball mold been damaged or lost and the owner had to use a ball or mold that was too loose for his rifle. IOW, the replacement mold was not "matched" to his barrel like the original mold was. So a thicker leather patch would have "saved the day" in the case where the ball size he had was otherwise too loose for his barrel.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

DARN it!

I MEANT to type above:

"We can not be sure how tight the ball/patch diameter to bore diameter was in rifles during the 18th century and before the invention of precision calipers in the mid to late 19th century."

Sorry folks, my "rebuilt" eyeballs sometimes miss these things.

Gus

 

[Black Hand]

So a thicker leather patch would have "saved the day" in the case where the ball size he had was otherwise too loose for his barrel.

Likely two of the available cloth patches were used....

 

[Artificer]

So a thicker leather patch would have "saved the day" in the case where the ball size he had was otherwise too loose for his barrel.

Likely two of the available cloth patches were used....

Sure, that is another possibility as long as two thicknesses of cloth were not too thick to be used.

Gus

 

[BrownBear]

One thing about it, a greased deer patch is lots more compressible than any cloth I've ever seen, and therefore lots more forgiving. At least in my experience. When I'm sorting deer skin "by feel" there's a pretty big range of thicknesses that work just fine. Not so cloth. If you don't happen to have the right thickness of cloth, things get entertaining fast.

If I didn't have a caliper and a whole drawer full of assorted cloth, I'd be shooting leather all the time. Have to ask myself what a guy on the frontier would do without that caliper and drawer full of cloth, and a store right down the street. Keep on tearing up your clothes to get it right? Nah.

 

[Artificer]

One thing about it, a greased deer patch is lots more compressible than any cloth I've ever seen, and therefore lots more forgiving. At least in my experience. When I'm sorting deer skin "by feel" there's a pretty big range of thicknesses that work just fine. Not so cloth. If you don't happen to have the right thickness of cloth, things get entertaining fast.

If I didn't have a caliper and a whole drawer full of assorted cloth, I'd be shooting leather all the time. Have to ask myself what a guy on the frontier would do without that caliper and drawer full of cloth, and a store right down the street. Keep on tearing up your clothes to get it right? Nah.

In the rifles or guns where you use leather patches, how tight are the ball size to bore size?

I did not understand how compressible brain tan deerskin was until LaBonte mentioned it and you are correct it is more compressible than cloth.

Gus

 

[BrownBear]

In the rifles or guns where you use leather patches, how tight are the ball size to bore size?

I did not understand how compressible brain tan deerskin was until LaBonte mentioned it and you are correct it is more compressible than cloth.

Virtually all of them are .010 under. Mostly because that's what I've wanted when buying molds.

No way to prove it, and adding to already too much speculation, I keep thinking about what happens on ignition with deer skin and a "too loose" combo. BANG, and those gases pushing on the back of the ball will really flatten that compressible deer hide as all that hot air is also trying to go up around the ball. Where does all that "extra" deer hide go when the gases go to pushing?

My heartfelt guess is that the deer hide scootches up toward the sides of the ball and "tightens" the fit kinda like some modern gaskets or o-rings.

What got me to thinking about it is my GRRW 58 caliber Hawken with it's tapered bore. It's so tight at the muzzle that a .575 ball rests on the crown without dropping, and if there's the slightest flaw in a .570 ball, it hangs too. I have to use .562 balls in order to get a .018 patch past the muzzle. The last half of the seating stroke, that combo is so loose that the rod virtually falls out of my hand.

I tried deer, and it feels a little tighter going past the muzzle and stays tighter all the way down. And in fact the gun consistently shoots better with leather than with cloth.

Howcum?

 

[Artificer]

In the rifles or guns where you use leather patches, how tight are the ball size to bore size?

I did not understand how compressible brain tan deerskin was until LaBonte mentioned it and you are correct it is more compressible than cloth.

Virtually all of them are .010 under. Mostly because that's what I've wanted when buying molds.

GOOD info, thank you! As I remember, that was also the size balls to bore that LaBonte mentioned most often in some of his posts. That is right on the low end of the range that ball size to bore size may or probably was in the 18th century, though admittedly that is from speculation considering the technology of the day.

Have you ever conducted accuracy tests of linen vs leather patches in those rifles?

 

[BrownBear]

Have you ever conducted accuracy tests of linen vs leather patches in those rifles?

Only seriously with my 58 caliber GRRW Hawken and its tapered bore, as noted in the other thread running parallel with this one. It's bore is so tight at the muzzle that a .575 rests on the crown and a .570 hangs up on any flaw. I use .562 balls (as do most folks) in spite of a bore that's nominally .580 at the breech end. With .018 ticking, it's a fair grunt to get that small ball past the muzzle, yet the rod just about falls out of your hand on the lower end of the stroke.

It's more than fair-to-middling accurate with that combo none-the-less. But it's a whoooooole lot more accurate with deer, and over a fair range of thicknesses of deer patches.

Lots of scratching of chins and hineys here by me.

 

[Artificer]

Spence,

Sorry, I should have asked you as well. My apology.

In the rifles you use leather patches in, what are the ball to bore sizes? Also, have you conducted accuracy tests of linen vs leather patches?

Gus

 

[George]

If this description of the 3rd model Baker rifle from the Wiki is correct, then it gives some insight into the relationship between bore-ball-patch measurements.

"The third and final model had the barrel shortened from 32 to 30 inches, and the calibre reduced to .653, which allowed the rifle to fire a .625 calibre carbine bullet, with a greased patch to grip the now-seven rectangular grooves in the barrel."

Spence

 

[George]

My shooting with leather patches took place in the early 1980s, Gus, and I have no info from those trials. I only remember that I was able to get acceptable hunting accuracy, as an interesting historical experiment. That was when I was a newbie and before I began measuring and writing it all down. :grin:

Spence

 

[Artificer]

Have you ever conducted accuracy tests of linen vs leather patches in those rifles?

Only seriously with my 58 caliber GRRW Hawken and its tapered bore, as noted in the other thread running parallel with this one. It's bore is so tight at the muzzle that a .575 rests on the crown and a .570 hangs up on any flaw. I use .562 balls (as do most folks) in spite of a bore that's nominally .580 at the breech end. With .018 ticking, it's a fair grunt to get that small ball past the muzzle, yet the rod just about falls out of your hand on the lower end of the stroke.

It's more than fair-to-middling accurate with that combo none-the-less. But it's a whoooooole lot more accurate with deer, and over a fair range of thicknesses of deer patches.

Lots of scratching of chins and hineys here by me.

Thank you. So if I understand correctly, you are using leather patches with a "muzzle" bore size to ball size that is only .008" different?

Gus

 

[Artificer]

My shooting with leather patches took place in the early 1980s, Gus, and I have no info from those trials. I only remember that I was able to get acceptable hunting accuracy, as an interesting historical experiment. That was when I was a newbie and before I began measuring and writing it all down. :grin:

Spence

Thank you. At least your experience shows the use of a leather patch still made the rifle accurate enough for hunting and that's good info.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

If this description of the 3rd model Baker rifle from the Wiki is correct, then it gives some insight into the relationship between bore-ball-patch measurements.

"The third and final model had the barrel shortened from 32 to 30 inches, and the calibre reduced to .653, which allowed the rifle to fire a .625 calibre carbine bullet, with a greased patch to grip the now-seven rectangular grooves in the barrel."

Spence

I wonder if the .625" ball size mentioned was really that accurate or accurate only for the tests? The reason I wonder is it was often reported that .69 cal. was the ball size used in British Brown Besses, but actual measurements of excavated unfired balls (per Hamilton) usually ran at least .700" and a large percentage ran .710".

STILL, that shows a very undersize ball to bore size, by our modern methodology, shot VERY well in the period with leather patches. Thank you.

Gus

 

[BrownBear]

Thank you. So if I understand correctly, you are using leather patches with a "muzzle" bore size to ball size that is only .008" different?

Yup. Meanwhile the difference is more like .018" down at the breech. And the patch would have been compressed some by its passage through that tight muzzle.

Never tried it, but I kinda wonder if I'd get a rattle from that seated ball if I shook the rifle. :wink:

All "good sense" and logic about cloth patches would say that rifle shouldn't shoot. Okaaaay.... So much for good sense and logic, when it's the most accurate I've ever shot. :rotf:

 

[Artificer]

A "muzzle" bore size to ball size that is only .008" different most probably was tighter than most 18th century rifle makers made their molds, but I admit that is only speculation. Yet in your rifle, it shoots well and that is not speculation.

I admit I probably won't be using leather for patches because I have rarely used brain tanned leather or other leather that would work. (My bags of scrap leather are all the wrong kinds. )

Still it is very interesting to me that period type leather WILL work well even with our modern and tighter ball to bore sizes.

Gus