-
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
How accurate are your smoothbores?
- Thread starter Turtle Creek
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Turtle Creek
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2014
- Messages
- 143
- Reaction score
- 0
That'd tell the story but honestly speaking the shooting you guys are doing with smoothies is way beyond what I suspected.
Put's that type of gun in a whole new light and now I need another flinter!
Put's that type of gun in a whole new light and now I need another flinter!
Grandpa Ron
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 571
- Reaction score
- 10
Turtle Creek
Your question is well timed. In a previous post I mentioned I was going to try my hand at one of the Smoothbore matches at the Spring National Shoot. 13 shots in 30 minutes, count your best 10. Time does become a factor.
Well I shot my best but it was not to be. When I left the National Shoot Saturday my score of 81 was fourth place. Close but no Kewpie doll. The top score was 98, followed by a 94 and 87 points.
To put things in context the 10 ring is 3 “ in diameter, the 9 ring is a bit over 6 inches and the 8 ring is 9 ¼”. This means the top score put at least 8 of his 10 best shots into the 3” circle at 50 yards off-hand, no rear sight no set trigger.
I talked with the shooters, they were using either 20 ga. or 28 ga. guns. The loads varied considerably; a mallet driven ball and spit patch, a mallet driven ball and dry patch over an over-sized dry wad and a tight palm driven ball with a sloppy wet patch. What was common was, each shooter had spent considerable time finding the proper load, combined with the fact that they are excellent shots. Nothing mystical about it.
So off I go to tweak my load and prepare for round two at the Fall National Shoot. I cannot say I mind losing to a person who shot a score of 98. It is a real incentive. :wink:
Your question is well timed. In a previous post I mentioned I was going to try my hand at one of the Smoothbore matches at the Spring National Shoot. 13 shots in 30 minutes, count your best 10. Time does become a factor.
Well I shot my best but it was not to be. When I left the National Shoot Saturday my score of 81 was fourth place. Close but no Kewpie doll. The top score was 98, followed by a 94 and 87 points.
To put things in context the 10 ring is 3 “ in diameter, the 9 ring is a bit over 6 inches and the 8 ring is 9 ¼”. This means the top score put at least 8 of his 10 best shots into the 3” circle at 50 yards off-hand, no rear sight no set trigger.
I talked with the shooters, they were using either 20 ga. or 28 ga. guns. The loads varied considerably; a mallet driven ball and spit patch, a mallet driven ball and dry patch over an over-sized dry wad and a tight palm driven ball with a sloppy wet patch. What was common was, each shooter had spent considerable time finding the proper load, combined with the fact that they are excellent shots. Nothing mystical about it.
So off I go to tweak my load and prepare for round two at the Fall National Shoot. I cannot say I mind losing to a person who shot a score of 98. It is a real incentive. :wink:
I'd say 4th place is pretty dang good! Congrats! :hatsoff:
Joel/Calgary
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,251
- Reaction score
- 6
I do not have experience with long-range smoothbore shooting, but I have read a lot over the decades, both from ballistics literature and from individuals' experiences posted on various boards, lists, and forums. Beyond the effects of shooter capabilities, several factors enter into long-range round ball accuracy, whatever "long-range" may be in context. A major factor is spin.
If a ball is fired without spin, it is essentially a knuckle ball and will eventually break in a random direction, just like a baseball. Patched balls appear to be commonly launched without spin, while unpatched balls may or may not be, depending on the specifics of wadding and loading technique. The important questions for a shooter are how far downrange does the ball get before it starts to break and how fast does it diverge after it starts to break. Concerning the first aspect, many smoothbore shooters have reported getting their best accuracy with patched balls, usually tightly patched, at comparatively high velocities, so I suspect that suspect that pushing the ball hard gets it further downrange before it starts to break.
Another possibly related factor is the turbulence encountered at transonic velocities. This factor affects all projectiles and is significant enough that modern long-range shooters seeking the best accuracy try to use a cartridge/load that will keep their bullets supersonic all the way to the target. Here again, a higher velocity will move the subsonic transition further downrange. This turbulence may affect the onset and/or magnitude of the knuckle-ball break, but even if it does not directly affect the break, it will compound with it to increase dispersion (and wind drift IIRC) at ranges beyond the transition. This is also why those seeking the best shorter-range accuracy may choose to use a muzzle-velocity below the speed of sound - match-grade .22RF ammo, for example - to avoid this turbulence.
I haven't seen enough comment about the second knuckle ball aspect - the magnitude of the break - to make any observations concerning the effects of velocity.
If a ball is fired from a smoothbore with spin, it will almost certainly be from contact with the bore, giving an axis perpendicular to the line of flight, and will be in effect a curve ball. There are then two possibilities. If the spin is random in orientation from a random last contact with the barrel, then one has a collection of random curve balls and the question is how far do they get before the curves becomes significant? If the curve is consistent, from a consistent last contact with the bore, then the dispersion will be reduced and there is one case where the effect will be particularly conducive to accurate shooting. It has been observed since at least Robins in the 18th century that a top-dead-center last contact with the bore will give the ball backspin, keeping the curve in the vertical plane of the sights (i.e. no lateral drift) AND the upward curve reduces the drop, at least at normal ranges. Robins noted that this effect was used by some British makers to improve accuracy in "guns" (i.e. smoothbores) intended primarily for ball, and the effect is still used today in the "kicker" in AirSoft guns.
All of this adds up to the fact that, except for balls fired with consistent spin, at some distance, balls fired from smoothbores will eventually begin to experience greatly increased angular dispersion compared to how they had been at shorter ranges and to comparable rifle balls or consistently-spun smoothbore balls. Then the question is "How far can we push this distance?" I still don't know, but anecdotally this may be as close as 50yds for some and at least 100yds for others.
Regards,
Joel
If a ball is fired without spin, it is essentially a knuckle ball and will eventually break in a random direction, just like a baseball. Patched balls appear to be commonly launched without spin, while unpatched balls may or may not be, depending on the specifics of wadding and loading technique. The important questions for a shooter are how far downrange does the ball get before it starts to break and how fast does it diverge after it starts to break. Concerning the first aspect, many smoothbore shooters have reported getting their best accuracy with patched balls, usually tightly patched, at comparatively high velocities, so I suspect that suspect that pushing the ball hard gets it further downrange before it starts to break.
Another possibly related factor is the turbulence encountered at transonic velocities. This factor affects all projectiles and is significant enough that modern long-range shooters seeking the best accuracy try to use a cartridge/load that will keep their bullets supersonic all the way to the target. Here again, a higher velocity will move the subsonic transition further downrange. This turbulence may affect the onset and/or magnitude of the knuckle-ball break, but even if it does not directly affect the break, it will compound with it to increase dispersion (and wind drift IIRC) at ranges beyond the transition. This is also why those seeking the best shorter-range accuracy may choose to use a muzzle-velocity below the speed of sound - match-grade .22RF ammo, for example - to avoid this turbulence.
I haven't seen enough comment about the second knuckle ball aspect - the magnitude of the break - to make any observations concerning the effects of velocity.
If a ball is fired from a smoothbore with spin, it will almost certainly be from contact with the bore, giving an axis perpendicular to the line of flight, and will be in effect a curve ball. There are then two possibilities. If the spin is random in orientation from a random last contact with the barrel, then one has a collection of random curve balls and the question is how far do they get before the curves becomes significant? If the curve is consistent, from a consistent last contact with the bore, then the dispersion will be reduced and there is one case where the effect will be particularly conducive to accurate shooting. It has been observed since at least Robins in the 18th century that a top-dead-center last contact with the bore will give the ball backspin, keeping the curve in the vertical plane of the sights (i.e. no lateral drift) AND the upward curve reduces the drop, at least at normal ranges. Robins noted that this effect was used by some British makers to improve accuracy in "guns" (i.e. smoothbores) intended primarily for ball, and the effect is still used today in the "kicker" in AirSoft guns.
All of this adds up to the fact that, except for balls fired with consistent spin, at some distance, balls fired from smoothbores will eventually begin to experience greatly increased angular dispersion compared to how they had been at shorter ranges and to comparable rifle balls or consistently-spun smoothbore balls. Then the question is "How far can we push this distance?" I still don't know, but anecdotally this may be as close as 50yds for some and at least 100yds for others.
Regards,
Joel
I've been seeing that statement for years, and it seems to be accepted by a lot of people in the hobby. Is there any physical evidence, any actual measurement, test of any kind to back up this claim?Joel/Calgary said:
Spence
If its patched that shold prevent that. Although a ball would twist a little from its center of gravity not being at its true center. Any iregularity on the surface would also rotate the ball. People who nest the ball into the wadding would get siular results to a patch,and a paper cartridge would do the same. The bounceing ball thing should only happen if a ball was just undersized and could be dropped down the bore IMHO
Maybe we could get Pletch to offer one of his ultrahigh speed cameras to find out.
We could attach it to a rocket sled and time the shot so the sled and the ball were traveling downrange at the same speed so the camera could film it?
I'm sure with a lotta luck it would work.
Of course, the sudden stop when the ball and rocket sled contacted the berm might put more than a few scratches on the camera. :rotf:
IMO, there is no need for such a test.
Irregularities on the balls surface is well known to cause a deflection of a non-spinning ball in a high speed blast of wind.
That's why the spin of a ball shot thru a rifled barrel doesn't deflect in a random direction.
The unequal forces created on the spinning ball when shot from a rifle are continuously being directed in a different direction relative to the path of the ball. This ever changing direction of force cancels itself out allowing the ball to fly true to the aim point.
We could attach it to a rocket sled and time the shot so the sled and the ball were traveling downrange at the same speed so the camera could film it?
I'm sure with a lotta luck it would work.
Of course, the sudden stop when the ball and rocket sled contacted the berm might put more than a few scratches on the camera. :rotf:
IMO, there is no need for such a test.
Irregularities on the balls surface is well known to cause a deflection of a non-spinning ball in a high speed blast of wind.
That's why the spin of a ball shot thru a rifled barrel doesn't deflect in a random direction.
The unequal forces created on the spinning ball when shot from a rifle are continuously being directed in a different direction relative to the path of the ball. This ever changing direction of force cancels itself out allowing the ball to fly true to the aim point.
54ball
62 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,116
- Reaction score
- 1,029
Will a ball fired along the equator fly true with no spin?
Will a ball fired across the equator start to spin one way, and as it crosses the equator, spins the other thus completely stabilizing the ball?
When is deer season in Ecuador?
Will a ball fired across the equator start to spin one way, and as it crosses the equator, spins the other thus completely stabilizing the ball?
When is deer season in Ecuador?
Grandpa Ron
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 571
- Reaction score
- 10
This goes back to the sprew up or sprew down question.
Once the ball is clear of the barrel and patch, do you want the sprew in front exposed to the air stream or do you want it in back, out of the air stream but exposed to the turbulence behind the ball? :hmm:
Personally I have never found one to be any better than the other but I keep testing when I am trying a different load.
I suspect that as long as the ball is above the speed of sound, it does not make any difference but the air drag plays a bigger part once it drops below the sound barrier.
There was an article in Muzzleblast some time back where the author claimed keeping the ball above or below the sound barrier to the target was better because the transition was detrimental to accuracy. Unfortunately he was working with rifles.
Admittedly, this is little more than a hunch but unless some grad student desides to write his thesis on it, I suspect we will never know. Maybe the Myth Busters might tackle it. :wink:
Once the ball is clear of the barrel and patch, do you want the sprew in front exposed to the air stream or do you want it in back, out of the air stream but exposed to the turbulence behind the ball? :hmm:
Personally I have never found one to be any better than the other but I keep testing when I am trying a different load.
I suspect that as long as the ball is above the speed of sound, it does not make any difference but the air drag plays a bigger part once it drops below the sound barrier.
There was an article in Muzzleblast some time back where the author claimed keeping the ball above or below the sound barrier to the target was better because the transition was detrimental to accuracy. Unfortunately he was working with rifles.
Admittedly, this is little more than a hunch but unless some grad student desides to write his thesis on it, I suspect we will never know. Maybe the Myth Busters might tackle it. :wink:
Of course....we are all assuming the ball stay's round!
Well most you's assumin'. I have never found a ball that stayed round in the barrel!
B :hatsoff:
Well most you's assumin'. I have never found a ball that stayed round in the barrel!
B :hatsoff:
It was of course the English Swallow, not the African Swallows airspeed. :grin:
I tried my faux fowler/trad gun again with my undersize balls the other day after working on the lock.
I shot five on a commercial fibre wad and a patched ball...double patched.
I got the first one on the target where I wanted which made me smile, the next two went right by 12", forth hit the first shot and the fith joined them way over to the right again!
Apart from being disappointed their height was all the same which pleased me as it meant I was mounting the gun good in that regard!
As it stands it is still disappointing however if it had to it would get the job done on big game under 30yds as is (I shot at 40 strides) and the lock seems quicker with a smoother release.
Another tangent is that the lock seems faster and more potent with a course powder over 4f! :hmm:
B.
I shot five on a commercial fibre wad and a patched ball...double patched.
I got the first one on the target where I wanted which made me smile, the next two went right by 12", forth hit the first shot and the fith joined them way over to the right again!
Apart from being disappointed their height was all the same which pleased me as it meant I was mounting the gun good in that regard!
As it stands it is still disappointing however if it had to it would get the job done on big game under 30yds as is (I shot at 40 strides) and the lock seems quicker with a smoother release.
Another tangent is that the lock seems faster and more potent with a course powder over 4f! :hmm:
B.
Love the "faux fowler" handle you hung on your baby. :wink: It seems fairly obvious it doesn't like double patched .570's at all. I don't know if further tests would help but you might play with just cards...sometimes they'll surprise the heck out of you...but I'm not too encouraged by a .059" difference. FWIW, a .06" difference is about normal for what the military used for rule of thumb between bore and ball sizes. With some fiddling, a couple shooters have gotten pretty good accuracy playing that game, but I like a lot less windage in there. I managed to get both .600 and .610 balls for the same brand "faux fowler" I used last fall. That one liked .600 balls with my lightly lubed chamois patch and did almost as well with the .610 balls and tow from TOTW. Went with the patched .600's only because I had more of them. No luck on Bambi's but the one I scared may still be running to this day! The squirrel, Yodels, still keeps me up at night! :wink: :haha: Find, or recast, some balls of better fit and see if it doesn't help. :thumbsup:
Wes/Tex said:
You may of said before but how well did yours shoot?
:hatsoff:
I'd settled on 80 grains FFFg some years ago with a 46" smoothbore and the 'fauxler' seemed to accept it O.K. I was somewhat surprised a few years back to find our Spence had settled on the same . He gets 1475 fps out of his 46" barrel but I wasn't able to chronograph this one. With a 36" tube, I'm guessing more like 1200-1250...latter may be high. When I really paid attention and shifted my bifocals up and down a bit I did manage to keep them in about 5" most of the time at 60 yards which is about as far as I felt comfortable with a borrowed gun with less than 3 trips to test it. I lube pieces of chamois weight leather I pick up from car parts stores when they run specials and a couple will usually save me scraps if they get damaged or torn ones they don't want to return. Lube is a olive oil/beeswax or sometimes Mink Oil from TOTW. My 67 year old eyes are what limit me and rifle sights are a waste with mine.Britsmoothy said:
Did discover that that load if aimed at a little finger sized twig (not deliberately mind you) will deflect down over 60 degrees from horizontal...best I could determine and land directly between the four feet of a four point! Sprayed in the tummy with all the soft dirt and leaf debris, he jumped what looked like about 5 feet straight up and probably touched the ground 3 times in 100 yards...well maybe a time or two or 12 more! :rotf:
It would be fantastic to get that performance...it must need larger ball in mine.
I am spoilt with my smoothrifle cap lock just now however.
One day a mould will pop up!
B.
I am spoilt with my smoothrifle cap lock just now however.
One day a mould will pop up!
B.
Mountain Rifleman
32 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 1
Turtle Creek, in 1985 I won our state smoothebore off hand championship with a 62 Cal Curly Gustomski Northwest Trade gun with a 36" barrel no rear sight.matches were best 5 of 7 shots 2 25yd Matches 1 50yd Match. I shot a 147XXXXX
Similar threads
