Engraving / obturation needed for PRB accuracy ?

[necchi]

Thank you, :bow:

 

[gizamo]

Confusion of goals and perfection of means seems, in my opinion, to characterize our age.

Albert Einstein

 

[Robby]

Well, I guess that all makes sense to you, oh and necchi.
I don't think there is any confusion of the goals. They were plainly stated, say I thought you were dead.
Robby

 

[gizamo]

Apples and Oranges. Lead has the highest atomic weight of known elements. Brass is a alloy of copper and zinc. It has no assigned number. The Brinell hardness is self explanatory in regards to deformation.

PM coming to you, ... I reread my post, and can do better
:wink:

 

[Robby]

I thought the heaviest naturally occurring element is Uranium. Other than that I have no idea what you are trying to explain or how it relates to anything I have posted. :hmm:
Robby

 

[roundball]

FWIW, here is the example of "ragged hole" accuracy as defined by some folks.
It's of course at 25yrds and with marbles and the photo is only ment as example of what accuracy is, I'm pretty sure that's a 9" paper plate.

I defy you to put up a link to my marble target above, where I specifically referred to that target as ragged hole accuracy.

Indeed, my supporting text for that paper plate target talks about testing different size patches and when moving to the .022" patches, the balls started eating out the center of the bullseye.

These are examples of my single ragged hole accuracy.

 

[jethro224]

If a 100+ yard test shows loss of accuracy due to slippage of the ball inside of the patch, I wonder what would happen if the brass balls were sandblasted instead of smooth. Would the rough texture enable a better grip? Would it affect accuracy? :hmm:

 

[cynthialee]

If a 100+ yard test shows loss of accuracy due to slippage of the ball inside of the patch, I wonder what would happen if the brass balls were sandblasted instead of smooth. Would the rough texture enable a better grip? Would it affect accuracy? :hmm:

that actually sounds like a genius idea

 

[roundball]

If a 100+ yard test shows loss of accuracy due to slippage of the ball inside of the patch, I wonder what would happen if the brass balls were sandblasted instead of smooth. Would the rough texture enable a better grip? Would it affect accuracy? :hmm:

Well, I shared a specific test plan I was running for specific purposes of alternative balls for hunting, they completed successfully, and I'm done with the project unless/until the day should come that a lead related ban of any sort would make me want to get back into it.

But yours is an interesting thought and I agree could be tested for...I assume you'd mean to run a couple groups at 100yds with balls as they came from the factory, then a couple groups that you've roughed up to see if there's any appreciable difference?
However, to be honest, IMO with the very tight groups I got at 50yds I'd bet lunch the 100yd groups would be pretty much what would be expected. Test to be certain...but I suspect the factory balls would perform so normally that I'm not sure roughing up a group of balls would make enough difference to be noticed among all the other variables.
Should be an interesting experiment...go for it.
:thumbsup:

 

[jethro224]

...unless/until the day should come that a lead related ban of any sort...

I'll just stick to lead for now. It was just all the talk about slippage got me thinkin'.

Hopefully "They" will leave things alone and I will never need to test the theory.

 

[necchi]

I'll not post a link to another forum to break the rules, sorry.
But does NCHF and 11:58 this morning ring a bell?

Most of the stuff is copy and paste duplicate posts as seen here, even brought in the KnuckleBall idea from another Gent.
This is part of one post. With the only marble target available in the topic as seen above

For me, the ragged hole accuracy of 9/16" solid marbles for practice, and .5625" brass balls for deer hunting...both out of my .58cal TVM Early Virginia...make the .58cal a complete performer to hang on to for a few more years.

You asked ? :idunno:

 

[nkbj]

I'm gonna cast up some hard round ball with wheel weight / #2 babbitt / pot skim (seeing as there's some that I've been wondering what to do with) and see how they work in a Hoyt .58 barrel with narrow lands.

 

[Robby]

GoodCheer, you have a plan and a good barrel. I think you should start your own string. I'm interested! :thumbsup:
Go for it

 

[gordy]

As always , your testing/expermenting have offered up some real food for thought. On another board there was some testing for soft lead ball distortion and basically the results showed some distortion . I,ve found weave marks on some balls from some loads , but only a small percentage , others my have found different conclosions,
For those who use wheel weights or other "hard" lead , there were no ball distortion on loading. So if the patch wont grip the hard lead (no marks} it must be all those shooting hard lead hve slippage (NOT).
Myself , I believe the grip of the patch is transfering the spin to the brass balls.
It does seem that the brass balls create a lot of heat. :rotf:
:thumbsup:

 

[gearheart]

Would the rough surface of a sandblasted ball improve the flight the way the dimples on a golf ball do? I don't think it is necessary for grip. When I use a tea towel to improve my grip on an obstinate jar lid it is not necessary to leave imprints on the lid to get good traction.

 

If a 100+ yard test shows loss of accuracy due to slippage of the ball inside of the patch, I wonder what would happen if the brass balls were sandblasted instead of smooth. Would the rough texture enable a better grip? Would it affect accuracy? :hmm:

that actually sounds like a genius idea

Yeah, maybe we can get even farther away from TRADITIONAL muzzleloading? :rotf:

 

[Rifleman1776]

There are those who say rolling a lead ball around between a couple rasps to roughen or 'dimple' it gives improved performance and accuracy in a smoothbore.
Just wondering if similar (mis?)treatment to a brass ball in a rifle would accomplish the same. :hmm:

 

[George]

My two separate tests...first, several hundred glass marbles a few years ago...

Roundball, I ran across this item from 1774 and remembered the tests you mentioned, thought you might be interested to see it:

THE VIRGINIA GAZETTE
September 22, 1774

LONDON, July 13. We hear from Haltwistle, that on Thursday last, a Collection of wild Beasts being in a Barn, a large Russian Bear broke loose, and instantly devoured two of the other Animals of the Collection; then made an Attempt upon one of the Keepers, who narrowly escaped with his Life. Upon this Alarm, the whole Town assembled together around the Barn, and fired several Times at the Beast, but to little Purpose, as they could not readily procure Balls, but at last a young Gentleman shot it dead with a small Marble.

Spence

 

[roundball]

That's an interesting reference for sure Spence, thanks.
PS:
Maybe a volunteer will step forward to conduct a current field test on bears ??

 

[BrownBear]

PS:
Maybe a volunteer will step forward to conduct a current field test on bears ??

I actually saw a Kodiak shot with a marble. Of course, it was with a wrist rocket slingshot rather than a ML and the bear kiyied across the creek and up the hillside. Come to think of it, the marble was used because the shooter was out of lead balls. And come to think of it once more, this particular group of shooters prefers .575" round balls for the right heft and range from a wrist rocket. Pretty good deterrent and "trainer" for troublesome bears. Can't imagine killing one with a marble even from a muzzleloader, but....