Gentleman I have a unique idea. I have heard that one of the reasons that a smoothe bore is not that accurate(in addition to the fact the ball is not spiraling) is because as the ball leaves the muzzle it may not leave the muzzle the same way every time. One side of the ball may leave sooner than the other. This causes the gas to escape on that side first causing the ball to be forced to the opposite side of the barrell. This will cause the ball to travel up,down,left or right. Does this make sense? If so I have a few fixed sighted colts. None of them shoot point of aim. Most shoot high some right some left. Now here comes the interesting theory. My Colt 1860 Army is shooting high. What if I took a small site file and filed a small notch in the rifling groove at the muzzle. The expanding gas would exit before the ball forcing the ball down. The bigger the notch the further the push. It's kind of the same principle as magnaporting. This would move the ball instead of the barrel and change its impact. If this works you could apply this to change right and left impact as well. I could always buy another barrel if I screw it up. As long as I keep the notch in the groove I do not see it affecting the accuracy. Has anyone tried or thought of this before? I get great groups from my colts its just frustrating holding 12" low or 4" left and remembering which one shoots where. Your thoghts Gentlemen
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
filing your barrel
- Thread starter fraungie
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Messages
- 6,502
- Reaction score
- 1,437
That's not the same as magnaporting, and you are looking for trouble in my opinion. First off, your muzzle may easily not be square now. To square it, use a rotary ball file, larger than the caliber, in a variable speed drill running very slow. When you see it has made contact all the way around inside the muzzle, it is square. However, even original Colts shoot high, and if you're getting good groups, just replace the front sight with a taller blade, or add to the one you have. You may also consider cutting back the sight portion of the hammer then re-grooving the notch deeper. On the one I have, I was able to stretch the height of the sight blade with a ball peen hammer. That takes care to not mar the barrel finish though. A lot of care! Use masking tape, a small hammer, and a solid anvil of some sort.
Blizzard of '93
Cannon
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2006
- Messages
- 7,237
- Reaction score
- 14
mistake IMO. you can twist the barrel slightly to correct for windage on a fixed-sight model and for elevation do some rear sight fileing.
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,692
- Reaction score
- 15
Oh No...no..no..no..no
I see your logic though,,,,but filing on the rifling is not the correct way to manipulate the POI. to chang the point of impact, you ahould manipulate your sights...or your load.
I see your logic though,,,,but filing on the rifling is not the correct way to manipulate the POI. to chang the point of impact, you ahould manipulate your sights...or your load.
Rick Davis
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 1
fraungie said:
New one on me. It's an interesting idea, though. I may be called a heretic for saying this, but I'd go ahead and try it. I would add this: I wouldn't experiment with the original barrel. I'd buy an old barrel somewhere cheap and I'd cut, drill & file that one. Thus, the original remains unmolested.
Keep us posted.
aragornelessar86
32 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2008
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
My guess is that it wouldn't hurt to try, but I don't think it'll work and would never do it to any of my guns. There are several problems which I see. The first is that the accuracy of your powder load will be far more critical. A little too much or too little will steer the ball off course much more easily than if the muzzle is unaltered. The second is that over time the gases are bound to begin eroding the groove (albeit much more slowly than with a modern smokeless gun) as they are forced through at high pressure and temperature. What may start out as a great fix may actually cause worse accuracy than before. If you do go through with this, I would recommend filing the entire face of the muzzle to a slant, thus reducing the likelihood of erosion, and never practice on any gun you like. :wink: Let us know how it goes if you try it.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Messages
- 6,502
- Reaction score
- 1,437
Don't do it!
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 423
Your Colt shoots high because it was designed to shoot high. If you don't want to learn to compensate for different ranges by holding high or low, then pick one range and zero the revolver at that range. Filing the rifling will cause you to cease worrying about shooting high--you will be too busy trying to figure where in the devil it is now shooting!
The old story about smooth bores tossing the ball in whatever direction the ball last struck the bore refers to the days when the ball was loaded naked. When a correctly sized ball with a properly fitted patch is loaded, the ball's path is quite predictable within reasonable ranges.
The old story about smooth bores tossing the ball in whatever direction the ball last struck the bore refers to the days when the ball was loaded naked. When a correctly sized ball with a properly fitted patch is loaded, the ball's path is quite predictable within reasonable ranges.
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 423
Which post?
"...One side of the ball may leave sooner than the other. This causes the gas to escape on that side first causing the ball to be forced to the opposite side of the barrell. This will cause the ball to travel up,down,left or right. Does this make sense?..."
---------
I have several thoughts on this question.
Removing some of the rifling would allow the high pressure gas to start to escape but I doubt that it would force the ball towards the opposite side of the barrel. After all, the ball is already restrained by the opposite side of the barrel.
If it did anything, it would lower the gas pressure on the relieved side (because the gas was escaping). As the ball exits the muzzle the higher pressure gas on the non relieved side would (I believe) force the ball towards the lower pressure area. In this case, that would be the relieved side.
I also think the effects at pistol ranges would be minimal. Perhaps at 50 or 100 yards the deflection would be noticeable but at 15-25 yards I doubt that it would be seen.
As for the "smoothbore" analogy, in a pistol shooting a patched ball the ball is not loose and rattling down the bore.
Likewise, in a revolver the ball is deformed by the rifling grooves and is a tight fit in the bore so again, it is not loose and capable of being moved from one side of the bore to the other by gas pressure.
If your gun is shooting high (as most of them do) the best fix for it would be to either replace the front sight with one that is higher or learn where to aim the gun so the ball hits where you want it to.
Believe it or not, for informal target shooting and plinking that method works quite well but it does take a lot of shooting to get good at it.
---------
I have several thoughts on this question.
Removing some of the rifling would allow the high pressure gas to start to escape but I doubt that it would force the ball towards the opposite side of the barrel. After all, the ball is already restrained by the opposite side of the barrel.
If it did anything, it would lower the gas pressure on the relieved side (because the gas was escaping). As the ball exits the muzzle the higher pressure gas on the non relieved side would (I believe) force the ball towards the lower pressure area. In this case, that would be the relieved side.
I also think the effects at pistol ranges would be minimal. Perhaps at 50 or 100 yards the deflection would be noticeable but at 15-25 yards I doubt that it would be seen.
As for the "smoothbore" analogy, in a pistol shooting a patched ball the ball is not loose and rattling down the bore.
Likewise, in a revolver the ball is deformed by the rifling grooves and is a tight fit in the bore so again, it is not loose and capable of being moved from one side of the bore to the other by gas pressure.
If your gun is shooting high (as most of them do) the best fix for it would be to either replace the front sight with one that is higher or learn where to aim the gun so the ball hits where you want it to.
Believe it or not, for informal target shooting and plinking that method works quite well but it does take a lot of shooting to get good at it.
Thankyou gentleman what a great tool we have here in this website. All this knowledge and experience at the touch of a finger. I think I may buy another barrell and give it a whirl. If I screw it up I can always make a smooth bore out of it and use it for snakes when I go fishing. I will let you know. I know the gun is designed to hit high but 28" at 20 yards is a litle much. Thanks again.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,069
- Reaction score
- 5,360
I don't claim to be an expert on black powder shooting, but I DO know a lot about modern firearms - although I only have eighteen of them including two BP handgund and two BP rifles. Many of you will no doubt scoff at the pathetic collection I have managed to accrue over the years here in UK, but I have been shooting since age 6, and I am now just turned 62.
Like many of us over here, I also had a collection of cartridge-firing handguns of all kinds, although they were taken from me ten years ago.
During my thirty-three years as a soldier, which included many years of competitive rifle and handgun competition - something I still do even though I retired almost eight years ago, it has been instilled in me that the second most precious component of any rifle or handgun is the muzzle, and that any damage here would seriously affect the intrinsic accuracy of the piece. This is why manufacturers put protective crowns, often of the magic eleven degree chamfer, on the muzzle, or like Savage, recess the totally flat and razor-edged muzzle in order to protect it.
I have never heard, in all my years of shooting and coaching, of actually taking a file to the muzzle of any weapon to improve its accuracy.
So I await the results of this, to me, very strange operation, and look forward to reading about the results achieved by it, although I have to say that I feel that it is most unlikely to have the hoped-for improving effect.
However, I ask the poster to show me that all the many makers of firearms over the last three hundred years have actually been doing it all wrong.
tac
Like many of us over here, I also had a collection of cartridge-firing handguns of all kinds, although they were taken from me ten years ago.
During my thirty-three years as a soldier, which included many years of competitive rifle and handgun competition - something I still do even though I retired almost eight years ago, it has been instilled in me that the second most precious component of any rifle or handgun is the muzzle, and that any damage here would seriously affect the intrinsic accuracy of the piece. This is why manufacturers put protective crowns, often of the magic eleven degree chamfer, on the muzzle, or like Savage, recess the totally flat and razor-edged muzzle in order to protect it.
I have never heard, in all my years of shooting and coaching, of actually taking a file to the muzzle of any weapon to improve its accuracy.
So I await the results of this, to me, very strange operation, and look forward to reading about the results achieved by it, although I have to say that I feel that it is most unlikely to have the hoped-for improving effect.
However, I ask the poster to show me that all the many makers of firearms over the last three hundred years have actually been doing it all wrong.
tac
