Does size matter?

[tg]

I went out this morning to run a few balls thru my .58 French fusil and the pic below is the resuklt at 45 yds shooting from a position of leaning against the canopy of my PU while standing, the paper plate is 9" across, it is not a real formidable group but when considering the loads it is not to bad the first shot was the standard huntuing load of 85 gr 3f, 3f prime with a 5/64 vent, no liner, with an over powder card and a .562 ball in a .012 patch, then I used a .570 ball with the same powder and an over powder card then an over shot card to hold the ball in place, then I used a .550 ball with the same powder and patch, then a .535 ball with the same powder and patch, then a .550 ball with tow above and under it with the same powder load, also used the .535 ball with tow and wasp nest for wadding nearly every shot was a different ball size or wadding combo all powder charges were the same, I did not walk back and forth with each shot but may sometime to record any patterns that may show up.I am sure that the original combo would have tightened up the group but this shows how forgiving a smoothbore can be, and explains why in the early 18th century balls were often packed in barrels with balls of .54..55 and .56 and similar lots and why the bore size varied so much and still be considered a gun of xnumber of balls to the lb. I can feed this thing most anything and hit minute of deer or man at 45-50 yds if I were a child of the past, this is probably not accurate enough for most target shooters here but does shed some light on the historical useage of smoothbores and ball sizes.

 

[Rebel]

Looks like a couple of 'em keyholed on ya. :grin: Actually, i have found pretty much the same thing. I shoot .600, .595, .575, and .530 rd balls in the .20 ga and they all do fine. With a patch or just wads and a bare ball. They are versatile.

 

[hawk]

tg, glad to see you out makin' smoke with that .58 frenchie!
these smoothies seem to be pretty forgiving at those typical hunting ranges , did you get any flyers or any misses that you didn't call?
:hatsoff: :thumbsup:

 

[tg]

I had one that just barely cut the plate all the others are as youi see them, I had a 4'x3' cardboard behind it so I could spot any flyers.I was pretty happy with the way it shot, if I had shot from a solid rest it probably would have been better...from straight offhand considerably worse more than likely, was having a bad shoulder day today.it is interesting to put thedata and docums about ball sizes from the past to the test today, it kind of brings it all together and you kind of get the feeling you have experienced what those who passed before did.

 

[mazo kid]

I never heard of a round ball keyholing??!! Interesting presentation; looks like any round ball adequately patched will shoot somewhat accurately. However, if you cast for optimum diameter and patch with correct thickness, I really think you will shrink those groups down considerably, as you probably already know. In a pinch, you have shown that a round ball undersized will shoot close to POA if that is all you have.

 

[MSW]

i've heard the very early musketeers (sp?) and shooters of matchlocks had to chew their balls if they were too big to fit down the bore,so it was a prerequisite to me a musketeer that one had to have all your teeth. no OSHA back then... chewing on lead!!?...

anyway, a cool test. thanks!

msw

 

[Grenadier1758]

In the British military, the teeth requirement was for the need to tear the paper cartridge apart to load the firelock. The ball was quite undersized for the bore, typically 0.690" diameter ball for up to 0.770" diameter bore. Paper and fouling would hold the ball in place.

 

[Britsmoothy]

You can imagine the tuff choices the pioneer folk had to make when choosing a smooth bore or rifle. With the smooth bore they could make do but with a rifle you are pretty tied.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Actually the dilemna was even more difficult. Since the Indians could be effective with both their own guns AND bows and arrows at smoothbore ranges, the advantage of the rifle to kill well beyond those effective ranges of smoothbores became very desireable. No doubt shotguns and smoothies of other types went west. But a rifle was purchased for those treks, even though the actual number of Indian raids on wagon trains was very small.

Hollywood would have us believe that every trail herd coming up from Texas was attacked by both Indians and gangs of thieves, while Every wagon train was attacked repeatedly by hostile Indians. Neither was the case.There were a more settlers wounded and killed by accidental gunfire, by inexperienced and untrained migrants, than as the result of combat with Indians.

 

[tg]

I never heard of a round ball keyholing

I think he was refering to a couple of places where two or three holes were touching, the group will shrink to 3" or less with the combo I use for hunting, even a bit tighter with the other gun which has a rear sight. I was just putting some things I have read in my research about ball size in the past to a little testing.I carried .535 balls with me last deer season and used one for an easy reload after I hit a small spike, he was down when I finished him, but the load would have worked if he had been standing within smoothbore range when I caught up to him.

 

[Rebel]

Ok come on now fellas, it was meant as a joke. :grin: I know rd balls can't key hole.

 

[Rob Dinwiddie]

While it's true that wagons moving west were rarely attacked in the 19th century, in the mid 18th century when smoothbores were more the rule than the exception, pioneers moving west into the Ohio Valley and certainly into Kentucky were attacked more often than not. The point that you have made was even more valid here. Choose a fast firing easily fed but short range smoothbore or a slow to load, accurate, range advantaged rifle. Most of those moving west in those times were fortunately pretty constrained by cost so pioneers moved in groups to Ft. Harrod, St. Asaph, Carpenter's Station etc. and usually had a variety of affordable weapons to cover most short and long range eventualities. And even at that, most fights quickly developed into knife and hatchet fights if one side or another didn't hastily flee. Literature does indicate that once behind log walls the settlers greatly preferred rifles since they were protected while reloading.


Capn D

 

[tg]

"I know rd balls can't key hole. "

I thought you were commenting on my excellant shooting, I tried to not have any holes touching as it is easier to count the holes but I did not hold off quite enough on a couple,(did I hear the sound of hip boots being pulled on?) maybe next time I will set up several fruit jar lids and only shoot one ball per target....

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Well that would guarantee a tight group. :grin: Now I think I'll have to try a similar test with a rifle, just offhand I would expect a rifle could also be loaded with greatly undersize balls if one is willing to settle for smoothbore type accuracy.

 

[Todd Rickard]

When using a smaller ball in a rifle, just use a thicker patch.
I have a variety of smoothbores in bore sizes just larger than 12ga. I have one ball mold in .69 that I use for all of them, adjusting the patch thickness. Before I had the nice round ball mold, I used an old sinker mold that cast a 1oz. ball. It was out of round to the eye (much like photos of antique musket balls I have seen) and they shot fine too.
Personally, I think military muskets were made in large calibers so they could utilize almost any size ball the shooter had available.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Well I tried it TG. To make my rifle test similar to your smoothbore experience, I chose a Navy Arms .58 caliber Zouave rifled musket. I first fired a group with the .570" Hornady round balls, .014" linen patch and 60 grains Goex 3f. That ate up the 10 ring with a group of 1.3" CTC and averaged 1288fps.
I then tried a bare .570 ball and was surprised that it didn't just fall down the bore. It required a light pressure with the ramrod and I felt confident it would not roll away from the powder. That one shot went 1218fps and impacted almost in the previous group, just one inch lower.
Next was a .535" ball in a patch of .032" canvas. Velocity was 1215fps but it was off the paper, 10" high and right of center.
Then a .495" ball patched with two flannel cleaning patches, again just snug enough to not roll out. Velocity dropped to 936fps and impact was 10" low and left.
Lastly I tried a .457" ball in one flannel and one canvas patch. To better seal the bore I first rammed a wadded up patch onto the powder. It didn't help, velocity was 987fps and impact 5" right.
I had thought that undersized balls from the rifle would at least be no worse than a smoothbore but I was mistaken, from this rifle only the .570 balls were worth shooting at all.

 

[tg]

It does seem to be a smoothbore thing so to speak, I have tried smaller balls with thicker patching when I shot rifles and could not go to far down in ball size before accuracy suffered, usually had to cut back the powder charge on smaller ball loads.

 

[Halftail]

TG,
Can you post a picture of that gun?

 

[tg]

There are probably sone other pics in past post also.

 

[Halftail]

Thanks!