double ball

[Rifleman1776]

not getting the two balls seated against each other CAN be a problem. It would probably act like a bore stoppage and your pretty gun might look like a daisy at the end, or worse.

Worth repeating. :shocked2:

not getting the two balls seated against each other CAN be a problem. It would probably act like a bore stoppage and your pretty gun might look like a daisy at the end, or worse.

 

[George]

That was in a smoothbore, not a rifle. There are many references to the use of multiple balls from that period, including Roger's Rangers, but with smoothbores, both military and civilian, not rifles. That's a totally different game.

Spence

 

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

I think the risk, while real, is easily mitigated and no worse than all the other risks you expose yourself to at the range.

Improperly seating the ball is probably the biggest risk in double-balling. However the risk of that does not seem any higher than the improper seating of a SINGLE ball.

And if you want to get nervous about something - think about all the smokeless powder reloads you're standing next to at the range.

 

[roundball]

That was in a smoothbore, not a rifle.
/
That's a totally different game.
Spence

Not sure what this means as it relates to the issue of safety...maybe I'm missing a different point, dunno.

But on the subject of safety, if anything, I believe the separation of multiple projectiles would be easier in a smoothbore than a rifle, due to the rifling providing at least some resistance against projectile movement, compared to a bore that's completely smooth.

At any rate, my understanding is the use of 'double ball loads' has been well identified for some centuries now...and like anything else in a firearms related hobby, we all need to understand / know what we're doing to avoid problems.

 

[roundball]

I think the risk, while real, is easily mitigated and no worse than all the other risks you expose yourself to at the range.

Improperly seating the ball is probably the biggest risk in double-balling. However the risk of that does not seem any higher than the improper seating of a SINGLE ball.

And if you want to get nervous about something - think about all the smokeless powder reloads you're standing next to at the range.

Amen on all points...especially the last one.

 

[morehops]

Thanks for the correction Spence. I forgot about them being smoothies.

 

[George]

I assumed the OP was discussing rifles, but maybe I got that wrong.

If there is period documentation of the double balling in a rifle I'd like to have it for my files. Especially if details are provided.

Spence

 

[azmntman]

What is an OP?

 

[George]

OP = Original Poster.

Spence

 

[azmntman]

Oh thats me! Ya i was talking rifles. :grin:

 

[roundball]

Period documentation is always interesting for sure. In this sort of an instance, I believe it would be a stretch beyond belief that an established practice in smoothbores wouldn't have been tried / used in rifles as well.
Then it would follow that when double ball loads out of rifled bores were discovered to be so accurate they would have been employed for specific circumstances.

Also wonder what the basis was behind T/C's decision to publish 2XPRB load data charts for .45 and .50cal rifles.

Doesn't matter one way or another to my 2XPRB range & field tests from rifles as they speak for themselves, just thinking out loud about the past...

 

[George]

Period documentation is always interesting for sure. In this sort of an instance, I believe it would be a stretch beyond belief that an established practice in smoothbores wouldn't have been tried / used in rifles as well.

Yes, I think it's interesting. I see the hobby as composed of two basic camps, those who just like to shoot black powder guns and those who like to shoot them the way the old boys did. Both perfectly valid, but with different approaches, so that period documentation carries more weight with one than the other.

Depends on your point of view, of course, but i see no intuitively obvious transition from buck and ball with one bore size ball and multiple smaller ones in a smoothbore, used with wads, to two patched balls in a rifle. That's all I was trying to point out in my post to morehops. Buck and ball in a smoothbore is a very well documented fact, but it isn't a rifle thing, in either camp, IMHO.

I'm looking forward to the documentation of double-ball loads in a rifle. Surely, if as it has been said, "loaded for bear" and such things refers to two balls in a rifle, someone would have written it down.

Spence

 

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

What is an OP?

I love black powder internet forums. If you are ignorant of the common techno-lingo it is almost a badge of honor. Because it is just presumed that you recently came in from 10 years on the trapline!

It stands for Original Poster or sometimes referrs to Original Post.

 

[roundball]

Well, we know it was documented at least as far back as the last century...1970's...LOL

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

So,

Is it safe to say that there is yet to be any documentation that supports the theory that a double ball loaded into a rifle was in any way common or done to hunt bear as in "loaded for bear"

:hmm:

 

[George]

Well, I certainly can't answer that question. All I can say is that I haven't seen it, but that means absolutely nothing.

Spence

 

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

There may be no documentation - I don't know.

But, there may be an error committed by drawing too many conclusions based on lack of documentation. In other words, "no documentation" simply means we are basing our notion of the historisity of double-balling on reasonable speculation only.

Reasonable speculation is a weak form of evidence.

However, to draw the conclusion that "no documentation" means that the practice of double-balling was unheard of seems even weaker.

I submit:

The notion of double balling does not require any modern inspiration. Rather it merely requires the powers of imagination that a common shooter would have. To think that our predecessors lacked the imagination and creative ingenuity to try ramming two balls on top of a powder charge just seems flat out obsurd.

It seems reasonable that our predecessors thought about it and even experimented with it. And it seems reasonable that they got results similar to what our contemporary experimenters are getting using equipment similar to what our predecessors had.

 

[George]

There may be no documentation - I don't know.

And neither do I. But some people believe it's out there, because in this thread alone it has been said...

"I guess it is/was fairly common..."

"This was not an unusual procedure in days gone by. Back then it was called "loaded for Bear."

"A double ball load in a rifle is what was called "loaded for bear". Davy did it and had no troubles."

I hope they are right, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the old boys did it. But, until documentation is presented, it's all rumors and speculation. I don't need that, I can do that by myself.

Spence

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

For all we know "loaded for bear" could have been in reference to a double powder charge.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the old boys did it. But, until documentation is presented, it's all rumors and speculation. I don't need that, I can do that by myself.

:hatsoff:

 

[azmntman]

Or carrying a big bore and a back up hawkig pistol?