FWIW guy's, I work in the paper industry. When we mic our paper we use ten layers for a sample to get an average. The paper is .00025" thick and some just a smidge thicker. When the sample is between the anvils you can barely pull it free. Testing is environmentally controlled, high moisture can affect results. We also manufacture calendared paper and best results are if the paper is some what damp when compressed. I think the bottom line is consistancy, do it the same way every time. If guy A measures the same sample as guy B but compresses a little more the results will differ, the sample is the same. I think a little trial and error will find the patch that works . Just be consistant when you check your patches, no matter how much pressure you use.
-
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
Micrometer / Caliper
- Thread starter Keppy
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Stumpkiller, twisting your mics that tight can damage them. :nono: I am guessing you are seeing a negative number because you are springing the mic jaws, by over doing it. This can cause the anvils to close in a non-parallel state, if they do not spring all the way back. Every good tool maker I know, uses his mics set to standards, by his "feel" of the mics. To me its feeling just the slightest contact, with the part, I am measuring. With my mics set in this fashion my measurements are about .00015 in accordance with our CMM's at work.
As to Roundball, in regaurds to precission, your statements are fair. I measure steel and plastics in my trade, not textiles. So there, in that area, I can claim no expertise. It was mentioned that after washing, patching material can "fluff up". At least that was my take on it. So to me, you would need to be able to compress the material to have any hope of being consistant with it. There should be a pressure, where the fibers stop compressing, and to me that is were you would want to stop, and take your reading. :2
The more I think about it, the best a guy can do is be consistant with himself. You should be able to measure the same localized area, of a sample, several times. Each time getting the same result, or something reasonably close. For this group to show true precision, well we should all start by having our tools calibrated, to the same set of gauges. I'll bring along a .125 ground dowel pin to Friendship this spring, it should do. :yakyak:
As to Roundball, in regaurds to precission, your statements are fair. I measure steel and plastics in my trade, not textiles. So there, in that area, I can claim no expertise. It was mentioned that after washing, patching material can "fluff up". At least that was my take on it. So to me, you would need to be able to compress the material to have any hope of being consistant with it. There should be a pressure, where the fibers stop compressing, and to me that is were you would want to stop, and take your reading. :2
The more I think about it, the best a guy can do is be consistant with himself. You should be able to measure the same localized area, of a sample, several times. Each time getting the same result, or something reasonably close. For this group to show true precision, well we should all start by having our tools calibrated, to the same set of gauges. I'll bring along a .125 ground dowel pin to Friendship this spring, it should do. :yakyak:
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 833
- Reaction score
- 14
Well,the only way would be to file a nut shape onto the handle and then use a torque wrench and see how much torque you need. Then we would need to run an extensive experiment with different fabrics to see what "torque" equals compression of an optimal "loaded" PRB. What means what shoots the tightest groups. Since I am in Germany and only can shoot once in a while, I can´t do it. I would need to do it at my friends place in the US.
Since the patching material is only compressed in a very small area, I think the micrometer measureing are is sufficient.
Since the patching material is only compressed in a very small area, I think the micrometer measureing are is sufficient.
Kelhammer said:
Yes. I know. That was my point.
I was objecting to the earlier suggestion:As I said: my shop teacher would have slapped me in the head for that micrometer abuse.
Mine has a ratchet-click torque clutch and I measure to three clicks for consistancy.
To try and measure compression is a false hope as the compression effects how the micrometer reads, as you and I both said, because the bail is deformed.
I guess my point was excessively obfustcated in the satire. :wink:
What you would need to do is apply conpression to the patching, with a weight, say, and then measure the deflection, like we use to measure the spine of wood arrows.
Or just shoot the darned things and keep buying the ones that work best. :rotf: Last time I bougt cotton tick I bought nine yards - enough for about 9,000 patches. THAT is consistancy.
I also said earlier if you know the bore measurements and you know the ball measurement then you can state definitavely what the thickness of the compressed patch will be by default. But what good is knowing that?
The only measurement that counts is distance between the holes and distance from the center of the holes to the center on the face of the target. :wink: If the last time you bought 0.018" patching the distances were smaller than the time you bought 0.015" patching, buy 0.018" patching. You won't know it is an improvement until you shoot it anyhow.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 833
- Reaction score
- 14
Do you know how much force you apply with your 3 clicks. Probably not. And it works for you.
I found out that I twist until the fabric starts to turn. And I don´t care what your shop teacher told you, because I only bought that micrometer for measuring patches.
Since I am an engineer I know about measuring tools. The steel of your micrometer will only be deformed elastic and will go back into its original state.
My point, where my micrometer starts to torque click is still the same. Yes, you can buy fabric and test shoot it. But if you run out of fabric and have to look for a new patch, I found out that with the described method I come very,very close to the optimal patch and can determine what will work and what not before buying something. I may alter my micrometer to be able to get a torque wrench on. Then I can determine my torque I apply. Measured with the torque clicker I get 0.42mm (0.0165") and compressed about 0.1mm(0.0039") with a denim patch I use on one €99 0.50 Hawken kit gun.
I shoot 5 shot groups at 50 meters of about 1 inch,and most of the time 3 are hole in hole. The problem here is, that I can only shoot in an enclosed shooting house after dark, so the target area is spot lighted, and the target glares, which makes it real hard to keep a good sight picture.But I shoot there anyways, the only neab possibility. I would love to shoot there during daylight to get a better sightpicture and I should try a peep sight,too. But the compressed measuring works for me :v
I found out that I twist until the fabric starts to turn. And I don´t care what your shop teacher told you, because I only bought that micrometer for measuring patches.
Since I am an engineer I know about measuring tools. The steel of your micrometer will only be deformed elastic and will go back into its original state.
My point, where my micrometer starts to torque click is still the same. Yes, you can buy fabric and test shoot it. But if you run out of fabric and have to look for a new patch, I found out that with the described method I come very,very close to the optimal patch and can determine what will work and what not before buying something. I may alter my micrometer to be able to get a torque wrench on. Then I can determine my torque I apply. Measured with the torque clicker I get 0.42mm (0.0165") and compressed about 0.1mm(0.0039") with a denim patch I use on one €99 0.50 Hawken kit gun.
I shoot 5 shot groups at 50 meters of about 1 inch,and most of the time 3 are hole in hole. The problem here is, that I can only shoot in an enclosed shooting house after dark, so the target area is spot lighted, and the target glares, which makes it real hard to keep a good sight picture.But I shoot there anyways, the only neab possibility. I would love to shoot there during daylight to get a better sightpicture and I should try a peep sight,too. But the compressed measuring works for me :v
Tom Compton
54 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,893
- Reaction score
- 193
Somewhere in all this it was said that the compressed thickness was the bore diameter minus the ball diameter. Not so. When using a .495 ball and .017 patch, the combination is .029 greater than bore. Seating a ball and pulling it reveals a band around the ball with the material imprint and upsets where the ball was extruded into the rifling.
Patch thickness is pretty subjective based on who is measuring and only serves, as someone else mentioned, to provide a reference when buying more material or trying different combinations. I don't find much difference between the measurements before and after washing because tension on the mic compresses the fluffed material.
Personally, I also look at how tight the weave is. IMO, a looser weave will have more of a tendancy to burn or fray. My favorite material was almost as smooth as a sheet but .015 by my measurement.
TC
Patch thickness is pretty subjective based on who is measuring and only serves, as someone else mentioned, to provide a reference when buying more material or trying different combinations. I don't find much difference between the measurements before and after washing because tension on the mic compresses the fluffed material.
Personally, I also look at how tight the weave is. IMO, a looser weave will have more of a tendancy to burn or fray. My favorite material was almost as smooth as a sheet but .015 by my measurement.
TC
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 833
- Reaction score
- 14
Well, you see that I obviously compress that patch even a little more than it should be. Using a .490 ball and the compressed measured thickness gives me about .49 + 2x 0.0039= 0.4978 in a .50 cal. So nominally I compress my patch too much while measuring. But it works great for all of my rifles so far.
Now I give you an example how I did it before:
I was told to subtract the ball diameter from the caliber and divide the remaining number by 2 and I would get my required patch thickness. Here in the ML shops,you can only buy precut patches. That´s what I did. I bought 100 0.05 patches for €5.00, could load easily and not even hit the target at 50 yards. Ok, next time I ordered at the shop the guy told me to use different patches,so I ordered 100 0.08 and 100 0.10 patches for €5.00 each. Still,the rifle was easy to load and did not hit the target.Now I went to 0.015 patches and to 0.020 patches,another €10 spent. The rifle started to hit the target, but the group was about the size of the target. I could not load the 0.020 patches. I thought,nothing else I could do. I probably would need a custom bullet mould and all the lead casting equipment. This was in the late 1990ies. Because of University I retired the rifle and the shooting for a while.
So I spent about €45 on completely useless patches, not my kind of fun.
Luckily, during the university time,I got internet access and was getting virtually into primitive skills. There I found the link to the Schoulzt system on one site. Years later I ordered it, went to buy a micrometer,did as I was told and the first time out was shooting a group about 2" around. Hey, much better than missing or shooting holes in a target sometimes. And I have different patching material which measures the same but compresses differently. Now, which one to buy if you do not measure compressed thickness? With the measurement you will get hunting accuracy from the beginning on. Most guys I see shooting ML (unfortunately not many) use the precut and most of the time even prelubed patches.Accuracy is ok,but most of the time not hole in hole like you want it to have.
Anyway, I will :surrender:
Now I give you an example how I did it before:
I was told to subtract the ball diameter from the caliber and divide the remaining number by 2 and I would get my required patch thickness. Here in the ML shops,you can only buy precut patches. That´s what I did. I bought 100 0.05 patches for €5.00, could load easily and not even hit the target at 50 yards. Ok, next time I ordered at the shop the guy told me to use different patches,so I ordered 100 0.08 and 100 0.10 patches for €5.00 each. Still,the rifle was easy to load and did not hit the target.Now I went to 0.015 patches and to 0.020 patches,another €10 spent. The rifle started to hit the target, but the group was about the size of the target. I could not load the 0.020 patches. I thought,nothing else I could do. I probably would need a custom bullet mould and all the lead casting equipment. This was in the late 1990ies. Because of University I retired the rifle and the shooting for a while.
So I spent about €45 on completely useless patches, not my kind of fun.
Luckily, during the university time,I got internet access and was getting virtually into primitive skills. There I found the link to the Schoulzt system on one site. Years later I ordered it, went to buy a micrometer,did as I was told and the first time out was shooting a group about 2" around. Hey, much better than missing or shooting holes in a target sometimes. And I have different patching material which measures the same but compresses differently. Now, which one to buy if you do not measure compressed thickness? With the measurement you will get hunting accuracy from the beginning on. Most guys I see shooting ML (unfortunately not many) use the precut and most of the time even prelubed patches.Accuracy is ok,but most of the time not hole in hole like you want it to have.
Anyway, I will :surrender:
