I've been getting dry patches from RMC/Ox-Yoke. I've been happy with them, and measuring with my ratcheting Starrett micrometer, they tend to run from around .001" undersized to pretty close to the stated thickness.
I would like to put in a couple of words about tools. This photo shows a caliper on top and a micrometer on the bottom:
In my mind, if I want to measure something, the caliper is a mighty handy and very accurate tool. However, if I want to mike something, the micrometer is what I use. You rotate the knurled sleeve until the posts close on the stock to be measured, then you turn the little black knob on the end of the handle until it ratchets. This provides a very consistent and accurate measurement. The master from whom I learned advised that there is no need to "crank down" on it, and in fact the tool may be damaged that way.
With the caliper, you put your stock to be measured between the jaws and rotate the crenellated wheel until the jaws close snugly, and then you read the measurement. However, it can get tricky. I measured this patch with the material between the tips of the caliper jaws, and got a measurement of .015":
I then did it again, using the same caliper, same technique, and the same piece of fabric. The only difference is that I put the fabric deeper into the caliper jaws:
The result was a measurement of .019", or .004" greater than before. I attributed this to flex in the caliper jaws. So, all else being equal, where you put the fabric in the caliper jaws can affect the reading.
A lot of guys measure patch material by squeezing the caliper jaws with their fingers, reasoning that this simulates the compression the fabric would undergo in loading a patched ball. It would seem to me that this practice would eventually damage the tool, not to mention that human error in squeezing might cause some variance. I believe that using a consistent, repeatable technique is important, and I don't see how forcing the tool with fingers could be done with that degree of repeatable precision.
Personally, I think the way to go is to buy several different thicknesses of patches and try them in your rifle. Use the type that works best. Try to get an accurate measurement of its thickness, using a measuring technique that will be repeatable and consistent, and won't damage your tool.
I understand that the OP's issue is that there was some batch-to-batch variation in patch thickness. A call to the vendor might help reconcile the problem. I'm wondering how much difference that variation actually makes in shooting.
I found this a little while back, in Pioneer Days in the Southwest from 1850 to 1879, by Goodnight, Dubbs, Hart, et al. (page 145):
Note the comment near the bottom of the quote, "...a rag for patching..." I think they may have had some preferences, but if choices were limited, they probably used what they could get.
Best regards,
Notchy Bob
I would like to put in a couple of words about tools. This photo shows a caliper on top and a micrometer on the bottom:
In my mind, if I want to measure something, the caliper is a mighty handy and very accurate tool. However, if I want to mike something, the micrometer is what I use. You rotate the knurled sleeve until the posts close on the stock to be measured, then you turn the little black knob on the end of the handle until it ratchets. This provides a very consistent and accurate measurement. The master from whom I learned advised that there is no need to "crank down" on it, and in fact the tool may be damaged that way.
With the caliper, you put your stock to be measured between the jaws and rotate the crenellated wheel until the jaws close snugly, and then you read the measurement. However, it can get tricky. I measured this patch with the material between the tips of the caliper jaws, and got a measurement of .015":
I then did it again, using the same caliper, same technique, and the same piece of fabric. The only difference is that I put the fabric deeper into the caliper jaws:
The result was a measurement of .019", or .004" greater than before. I attributed this to flex in the caliper jaws. So, all else being equal, where you put the fabric in the caliper jaws can affect the reading.
A lot of guys measure patch material by squeezing the caliper jaws with their fingers, reasoning that this simulates the compression the fabric would undergo in loading a patched ball. It would seem to me that this practice would eventually damage the tool, not to mention that human error in squeezing might cause some variance. I believe that using a consistent, repeatable technique is important, and I don't see how forcing the tool with fingers could be done with that degree of repeatable precision.
Personally, I think the way to go is to buy several different thicknesses of patches and try them in your rifle. Use the type that works best. Try to get an accurate measurement of its thickness, using a measuring technique that will be repeatable and consistent, and won't damage your tool.
I understand that the OP's issue is that there was some batch-to-batch variation in patch thickness. A call to the vendor might help reconcile the problem. I'm wondering how much difference that variation actually makes in shooting.
Makes me wonderdid our forefathers worry so much about patch thickness or just use whatever was at hand. I'm really curious about this. Any replies greatly appreciated
I found this a little while back, in Pioneer Days in the Southwest from 1850 to 1879, by Goodnight, Dubbs, Hart, et al. (page 145):
Note the comment near the bottom of the quote, "...a rag for patching..." I think they may have had some preferences, but if choices were limited, they probably used what they could get.
Best regards,
Notchy Bob
