most inherently accurate roundball cal

[Kansas Kid]

I have owned probably 40 to 45 different muzzle loading rifles in my time from 32 cal to 62 cal and have always had trouble getting the small bores to shoot as well and consistent as the larger ones at a reasonable distance of say 40 to 50 yards and we will take wind out of this factor and are talking center to center groups.

I find the 45 cal to be the absolute tipping point where accuracy really starts to happen for me and all of them would stack balls into one ragged hole. The 45 and 53 cal have won many matches for me in the past and some pretty nice prizes as well.

So why does one suppose I can't get the small bores to do this? General educated thoughts are appreciated. The small bores I'm working with now are a 40cal with a A weight Colerain barrel and a 36cal with a Green Mountain BBL.

I have tried most all the standard tricks from ball diameters of +.005 from standard, .010 patch to .015-.018 patch. Clean well between shots and various lubes.

 

[Skychief]

With small calibers, any difference in charge weight, seating pressure, etc, etc is greater percentage-wise than with the larger calibers. I think MOST of the "inherent accuracy" boils down to this.

Skychief.

 

[Deadeye]

I have .32,.36,40, 45,50, 52, 54,.62 and 75 and they all shoot about equally well offhand. The .32 and the .36 are one holers from a bench but I only use a bench for adjusting sights.
Deadeye

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I don't believe any one caliber is inherently more accurate than any other. The .32's do seem a bit more "picky" as to load and loading technique, fouling seems a greater factor with the .32 and of course far more wind sensitive, which can be a factor even when the breeze is not noticeable. You say you find .45 caliber to be a "tipping point" for accuracy and perhaps not coincidentally it is also a tipping point for wind drift, smaller calibers being much worse while larger calibers are not so much better. The .40 and .45 are very popular for offhand shooting because they can be loaded up to good velocity without excessive recoil. Barrel weight also varies with caliber, the larger calibers tend to have larger diameter barrels and therefore stiffer barrels and, all else being equal, I would expect a 1" barrel to out shoot a 13/16" barrel.

 

[Otter]

I've shot well with everything from .36 cal to .54 cal. I've shoot poorly with everything from .36 cal to .54 cal. Many different makes of rifles, lengths of barrels and f-to-f dimensions. In all kinds of weather. I think it has more to do with the "nut behind the butt" than the caliber :surrender: .

 

[roundball]

I've always thought that even though I've bought and sold a few different .45cals over the years, they all seemed to share really great accuracy, and have had thoughts that the .45cal might be an inherently accurate caliber...also seemed to have been the case with various .45cal revolvers, autos, and a lever action rifle.

But then I got a .40cal Flintlock and wow...it lacks for nothing.
And there's the .50cal Ed Rayl round bottom barrel...well, its just scarey accurate...so
:idunno:

 

[Rat Trapper]

I have a 45 TC Hawken that really stacks PRB's and like roundball said the .40 don't lack for nothing either. My 36 Seneca shoots pretty well too. I think it is more on finding the load and how good the rifle is to start with.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Like others, I don't believe there is any one caliber inherently more accurate than others. The .45 has had a long popularity as a compromise between savings of powder and lead and still being good as a deer hunter. In recent years the .50 seems to attract more newcomers, especially in the 'bullet' twists.
Many benchrest target shooters like big calibers (e.g. .62) and earth shaking heavy charges to buck the wind. But, even they are downsizing due to increasing costs of lead and powder.
One of the top offhand champions at Friendship uses a .40.
Really, pick yer pizzen and enjoy.

 

[Kansas Kid]

Good thought's and observations guys. I done an internet search and and have been a subscriber to to a couple of traditional muzzle loading magazines and have never seen a study on the matter, while we pick locks and their speed and function to death as well as barrel maker's.

One thought I got from another source is that a defect of the same size on say a 36cal ball vs a 50cal ball is that the smaller ball would have a greater overall affected area in relation to surface area.

 

[tiger955]

Although I have no experience with any rifles smaller than .50 cal, let me throw something out there....
Take 2 barrels, both with proper RB twist, and say .008 deep grooves, one .50 cal, one .36, using properly undersized balls. When you ram the ball into the rifling the ball compresses slightly on the lands and also compresses the patch into the grooves. It seems to me that the smaller ball will have to compress more in relation to its diameter than the larger ball to get the same seal in the bore. Due to the much larger circumference of the larger ball, minor inconsistencies in patch thickness and ball diameter would be less critical to that perfect seal, thereby giving a relatively more uniform loading. Using that logic, I would suspect a smaller bore would be more accurate with shallower grooves and a thinner patch. Do smaller bore barrels generally have shallower grooves?
Another point... Black powder loads, as we all know, are loaded by volume rather than weight. Using a typical 60gr target load for the .50, and perhaps a 40gr load for the .36 a small variation in the charge (2-3gr) would be a larger percentage of the total load for the smaller bore. Here again, consistency is critical for good accuracy.
Any of this make sense, or am I just thinking too much this morning? Perhaps I should just go shoot something. :idunno:

edit: Yea, what KK said, he posted as I was trying to type this out.

 

[roundball]

Do smaller bore barrels generally have shallower grooves?

Not to my knowledge. My GM 32" and 38" .40cal barrels both came with typical .012" deep square bottom grooves...proverbial tack drivers.

(2-3gr) would be a larger percentage of the total load for the smaller bore.

Insignificant in the world of black powder...you'd never see a difference at the target...too many other shot-to-shot variables that would mask over any tiny couple grains of difference...even the mix of powder granulation sizes from one charge to the next is different...more 'fines' in one than another and that can affect the burn rate, velocity, etc.

 

[ebiggs1]

I am going with roundball on this one, too. Black powder is just too variable. :hmm: I have done my own chronograph testing with carefully measured loads using the standard black powder measures and get varying velocities. But the gun still seems to shoot pretty darn good. The old tired worn out statement, “Way better than I can shoot!” :grin:

 

[Kansas Kid]

All good thought's guy's I can see reason in all well thought out answers.

 

[hanshi]

I go along with ebiggs and rb. Bp is good natured stuff and does just fine by volume. I certainly can't shoot well enough to detect minute differences.

 

[MeatStick]

Twist rate and too much powder in the little ones cause poor performance. Back that 32 down to about 15 or 20 grains of fff and let her eat. Mine had a 1/48 and shot 50cent piece groups at 50 yards with the 30 gr fff and a maxi and pie plate groups with the RB with 30gr fff but tightened up to snuff can groups when I backed her down. So it basicly comes down to matching ball weight, velocity and twist rate. This is my opinion and I have no scientific evidence to back it up other than holes in paper and meat in the freezer.

 

[bluesmax]

I started shooting black powder about 40 years ago, and one of the then "old timers" told me the best way to get accuracy with round balls, was a two fold approach. 1) Twist rate: He suggested that the twist rate in the kit rifles at the time e.g. TC, Lyman, etc. were too fast at 1 in 48". 2) Powder load: He suggested starting with a load of 1 grain per caliber (.45 cal. = 45 grains of powder), then increasing or decreasing that amount by 1 or 2 grains at a time till the rifle makes a sharp "crack" instead of a "boom" when fired.

I already owned a TC .45 cal. "Hawken" which was pretty accurate, but I bought two more kits in .45 cal. They were a CVA "Kentucky" rifle and another CVA "Mountain" rifle. Using his advice I found that both rifles shot best at 48 grains of FF. Going 5 for 5 cutting playing cards in half at twenty yards was the result that convinced me.

Hell, the TC wouldn't even shoot maxis that well!
But based on that old man's advice, I'd suggest for accuracy to try that method no matter what caliber you are shooting, but remember the faster twist rates tend to shoot curve balls, and with breezes constantly changing velocity, serious accuracy problems can develop.

Other shooters at our club were getting similar results, with various calibers, so it wasn't just me.

I don't remember now what the twist rate of the CVAs was but I think it was either 1 in 60" or 1 in 66".

 

[mr.flintlock]

I don't believe that one caliber is more accurate than another. I believe that the wind affects drift more in smaller, lighter balls. My 32 caliber is easily capable of making head shots on squirrels at 25 yards. Some of the top shooters in out club prefer the 40 caliber. I use a 45 caliber when I shoot matches and most of the time hunt with a 58 caliber.

 

[George T.]

It's odd but I have never owned a .45. I have .40's , 50's , 54's and 58's and from what I can tell if you get the right powder/patch combination they all shoot about equal. I think that barrel quality and ball consistency are more important than bore diameter.

Geo. T.

 

[hanshi]

The best way to find a good load is with the use of a target AND a chronograph. :thumbsup: