How tight to patch a ball

[Sparkitoff]

I have always thought, based on tons of internet information, that a tightly patched ball will provide more accuracy and velocity. I guess I've been lucky in a sense. I started with .018 patches and a ball .010 less than bore. Several .54's with .530 ball and .018 patch are accurate and have a good velocity that I expect. I have one .50, and the same applies - a .490 with .018 patch is accurate with good velocity. This includes caplocks and flintlocks.

I've got two items that are newer additions that this does not apply to. A .58 caliber rifle using .570 ball and .018 patch is hard to load. The accuracy is just "on the paper" at closer range and non-existent at long range. The other is a .45 single shot with the same story. A .440 with .018 is hard to load with poor accuracy and dismal velocity.

Finally the stubbornness wore off and I started with different patches. In the .58 rifle, I used a .015. It was somewhat easier to load and the accuracy and velocity increased. Dropping down to a .010 patch, the accuracy and velocity increased yet again. The high velocity out of a string was still a bit higher with the tighter patch but the SD went down to single digits with the .010 and the average loss was only 54 FPS.

I did the same with the .45 and found the .015 were much easier to load. Accuracy increased exponentially and velocity stayed the same. Dropping to a .010 patch, the accuracy increased to a one-ragged-hole group and the velocity is still the same average.

All the patches had the same lube. For my experimenting I used the same powder and charge that for all the combos.

So, while some of you already know this, for me I debunked what was apparently a myth that I fell for. Each rifle needs a ball/patch combo that it likes. The tighter patched ball does not always increase velocity or accuracy! I hope at least one person having a similar experience reads this and tries a thinner patch. My intent is to save you frustration that I put up with for so long.

 

[Old Hawkeye]

My recent experiments with two 58 cal rifles would concur with yours. I have tried both .570" & .562" balls with various patches. Maker of one rifle recommended a .562" ball with a .013" patch. Not having any .013" patches I used a .015" patch & got fair groups at 50 yards & it loaded multiple shots without any wiping. Tried a .570" ball & I missed the whole 15"x15" target. The other rifle used a .570" ball with a .018" patch & loaded hard. Tried a .562"ball & shrunk the groups. Settled, "for now", on .562" balls with .018" patches in both with powder charges of 60 & 70 grains, but will continue the experiment to see if I can get better accuracy. Gonna try a .570" ball with a .10" patch, as it should fit the same as the .562"/.018 combo. Heavier powder charges may change the whole theory. Based on my experience I don't see any reason that I shouldn't be able to fine tune a load that both loads easy & is accurate. BTW, I hate wiping between shots as it always seems to cause a misfire more often than not.

 

[wiscoaster]

..... Each rifle needs a ball/patch combo that it likes. ....

Your rigorous methodology is impressive. I've come to the same conclusion, but it was more like a random walk trying this and trying that and eventually ending up there after many detours.

 

[leadhoarder]

I am no expert but I always heard that a lot of .58s are made for conicals or minies and have shallow grooves to work better with them. So, less room for a thick patch.

 

[Tin sandwich]

.58 cal with a .570 round ball and .010 patch is what i do . Shouldnt be a bear to ram .

 

[longcruise]

My experience is the opposite. Not citing velocities, but just accuracy.

My most accurate loads have been using the Dutch dry patch system in club matches. Patches were thick and loads were started using the short starter nub and a rubber hammer before cutting at the Muzzle. This proved out over many matches and many five shot relays.

I don't shoot the thick patches anymore because I'm usually keeping my hunting loads as standard through the year and don't want to hammer in the field. Presently I shoot tight but not hammer tight combinations for everything.

 

[Sam squanch]

Might be a compromise between a good grouping load and a broken ramrod. I don’t think our forefathers used a super tight ball/ patch combination. And probably did not need to.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Each rifle needs a ball/patch combo that it likes.

Bingo. Right on. Amen, Bro. Enuf said. The right ball/patch/lube combo plus holding yer mouth right is what will deliver the best performance. Shooting a lot and getting to know yer rifle is equally important.

 

[nchawkeye]

How deep is the rifling in the barrels? Is it button rifling which runs fairly shallow or cut rifling, specifically made for round balls??? Hard to draw good conclusions with only part of the equation....

 

[Sparkitoff]

How deep is the rifling in the barrels? Is it button rifling which runs fairly shallow or cut rifling, specifically made for round balls??? Hard to draw good conclusions with only part of the equation....

With the two that I referred to, the rifling is deep-cut. The .58 is an antique and the 45 is made in Spain and has deep-wide rifling for round ball. Also, the .58 is 1:65 ROT. I can't recall the ROT on the 45 at the moment.

 

[Grenadier1758]

What do the recovered patches look like? This will tell us a lot about the matching of the ball and patch to the bore. Are the lands too sharp? Is the crown too sharp? What is the depth of the grooves? What is the width of the lands? Answers to these questions help direct load development.

 

[LME]

.58 cal with a .570 round ball and .010 patch is what i do . Shouldnt be a bear to ram .

Minnie Balls are probably the easiest to load of all the .58 cal. types. They do foul up but still load better than patch and ball all things considered. During the "Civil War" Union troops used a round called a "Williams Cleaner" every once in a while to scrape the barrel clean. The troops must have hated these rounds as our local metal detectors have found cases of them buried by the troops that camped in my area.

 

[Sun City]

I believe whatever results are....as for patching will depend upon the type rifling is present. Deep rifling is more difficult to seal than shallow!

 

[waksupi]

Some are totally missing the boat on depth of rifling. That has very little to do with it. What determines between round ball and other projectiles is the twist rate of the rifling.

 

[LME]

I believe whatever results are....as for patching will depend upon the type rifling is present. Deep rifling is more difficult to seal than shallow!

I wouldn't say difficult. There are different thicknesses of patch material for any depth rifling.

 

[springfield art]

Might be a compromise between a good grouping load and a broken ramrod. I don’t think our forefathers used a super tight ball/ patch combination. And probably did not need to.

Agree. We have time to fiddle around with stuff, but forefathers were working for real, not just enjoying a hobby.

 

[JDBraddy]

I am new to muzzleloading and just starting to experiment with various lubes, patch materials, and ball sizes. So this thread caught my eye.

I Had also assumed the tighter the better, but this past weekend, shot with various combo's ranging from having to use a rawhide mallet to pound-in the ball, to being able to seat it into the bore using my thumb.

Honestly, didn't see a huge difference in accuracy. The loose combo I could seat with my thumb shot just as well as the tighter ones, with 3 of 5 touching at 50 yards. Will have to do more testing, but was really surprised.

 

[Nuthatch]

I've been shooting one rifle with a fairly loose patch and it did great. I never needed a short starter -- just a stiff thumb. Accuracy was there & I was getting a lot of confidence with that rifle. I even made a great 60-yard shot on a javelina last spring & it was my go-to for my woods-walk gun. I was using homemade powder & caps.

Then I made the mistake of pulling out a chronograph to check how that rifle compared with another that I know likes a very tight patch. I was disappointed to learn that I was only getting about 1000 fps with the homebrew in that rifle. After I bumped up the powder charge to get the velocity up, the accuracy went to crap. I have some thicker patch that I can use and I'm pretty sure that will fix my accuracy issue but I had to quit for the day before I could test that theory.

I guess my point is that it can be about what the rifle likes. It can also be an issue of velocity. Stiffer charges (higher pressures) are probably going to like tighter patches.

 

[JDBraddy]

Perhaps I'm measuring incorrectly, but broke out the micrometer to measure the thickness of the mattress ticking I just bought from Walmart, and it is measuring 0.026"

WOW! Much thicker than you guys are describing. The Pro-Shot cleaning patches I was using measure 0.015" and the pre-lubed commercial patch another shooter gave me to try measures 0.007"

 

[waksupi]

Perhaps I'm measuring incorrectly, but broke out the micrometer to measure the thickness of the mattress ticking I just bought from Walmart, and it is measuring 0.026"

WOW! Much thicker than you guys are describing. The Pro-Shot cleaning patches I was using measure 0.015" and the pre-lubed commercial patch another shooter gave me to try measures 0.007"

Did you clamp down on it to approximate the compression when loading? My recent purchase from Joanne's was only .008 when compressed.