RAEDWALD
40 Cal.
Indeed and described as a 'short iron pin'.
Me as well. As far as accuracy goes I’m pretty sure it really doesn’t matter wether the PRB is super tight in the barrel. Also, I don’t use a short starter I find that in my 50 caliber a .495 round ball with a .01 thickness patch lubed with tallow is the way I always shoot. It takes pinky pressure to get the ball seated and the ball is as accurate as I can muster. Tight groupings always.I never fired tight PRB combos in my rifles. Nor did they fall down the bore, I always used a starter, put often it only required pinky pressure to start the ball. There is a certain amount of obturation (bump up) when the powder ignites behind a soft lead ball.
Here we go again. This argument keeps coming up like a bad penny. It is NOT a matter of thinking "these guys were just a bunch of rubes," we see time and time again that our modern thinking is NOT how they thought. For example, it seems pretty logical to us that a belt loop sewn to a knife sheath, at both ends of the loop, is the best way to secure a knife to one's belt, but, while there are few extant sheaths, the few we have, and the period paintings and other reference examples we have, show that the center seam sheath with a folded over flap to keep it from slipping past the belt or sash, was the most common sheath in use throughout the Colonial American times period and beyond. There is no evidence that short starters/ball starters, whatever you want to call them were even needed, much less commonly used until target shooting just for the sake of shooting targets, and the resulting dedicated target shooting equipment, came to be the normal shooting activity of the day.As far as PC/HC goes, if you can think of it now, and make it yourself with hand tools, then, most likely it was used then. Don't make the mistake by thinking these guys were just a bunch of rubes. I have a short started tied to my loading block for each rifle. On the knives I've made, I have a little nub to seat it enough to cut the patch.
Ye heretic!!!!!This may be heresy but, try an unpatched minnie. They slide down with a gentle tap of the butt of a knife then push easy the rest of the way. Once the charge goes off the back expands to the bore. I shoot both ball and bullet for target but by the end of a good day of shooting I shoot all minnies cuz my old hands just hurt.
I think it will only make since to try .05 inch increments. Every gun is different and bore size may be slightly larger or smaller in each gun. I know that it works for me but with a different twist rate it may vary wildly if the twist is too tight, or more quick. My barrel is a 1/60 twist.Very interesting. I've been using über-super tight patch and ball combinations. I've tried to avoid using a short starter, but I can't thumb the ball into the muzzle, and I did not use a knife due to concerns with distorting the shape of the ball/ flattening out a part of it.
I'll have to try getting a thinner patch and maybe a thinner patch and smaller ball. I was using a .310 ball with a .015" grease patch with a short starter and metal range rod.
For a .32 cal, you patch only has to be about as thick as shirt fabric or pyjama flannel. Squishing .02 of patch has to be altering your ball as you hammer them in. Your load should always be comfortably pushable with a wooden rod.Very interesting. I've been using über-super tight patch and ball combinations. I've tried to avoid using a short starter, but I can't thumb the ball into the muzzle, and I did not use a knife due to concerns with distorting the shape of the ball/ flattening out a part of it.
I'll have to try getting a thinner patch and maybe a thinner patch and smaller ball. I was using a .310 ball with a .015" grease patch with a short starter and metal range rod.
Sorry but the "they coulda made it" theory doesn't work. With no internet, no movies, no TV, no cheap books, no lending library, people were limited in what they might have been exposed to. Even today, the world is full of stuff that could have been made much earlier but were not simply because with zero prior knowledge, no one had thought of it yet. People rode horses for thousands of years before someone invented the stirrup. Once that person had their totally original thought, the things worked so well that the idea spread like the proverbial wildfire.
Well said as well.
I couldn't have said that better, myself.
I also think that the average 18th century (and even 19th century) rifleman did not have the luxury of choosing patching material of exact thicknesses. They certainly didn't go around a fabric store with a micrometer... I propose they used smaller balls with thicker patches. This gives you more leeway in patch material. Oh, you might not get the ridiculously tight patch and ball combo for the utmost in one hole MOA accuracy that people today absolutely demand, but you would more easily be able to get something that WORKED well enough. You used whatever fabric (or leather) that you could get.
...period paintings and other reference examples we have, show that the center seam sheath with a folded over flap to keep it from slipping past the belt or sash, was the most common sheath in use throughout the Colonial American times period and beyond.
Enter your email address to join: