Muzzle protection when short starting etc.

[Mark Herman]

As said, this is how we load our "rifles used for competition" Over the log & table shooting.

 

[Ironoxide]

You misunderstood me- I'm sure your recrown worked- I'm saying any damage if any was caused by something else besides the short starter. did the accuracy drop off immediately, or over time?

Ahh, ok, I misunderstood. It dropped off pretty quickly. I shot the rifle a lot almost every day at the time and it went pretty much from one day to the next. It is possible the crown was damaged by something else. Strange that this damage wouldn't be visible, but possible.

Is this the Pedersoli .58 Double Gun? What ball patch thickness are you using? Pedersoli calls for a .575 ball with .015 patch thickness. But I know that .024 denim loads pretty easy too.

I've owned one of these since the 80's when they were originally made for Trail Guns Armory. Countless shots through it. Maxi's start well with a flat piece of wood as stated. I eventually switched to round balls for max accuracy- .570 w/.015- 120 grains powder.

Yes, it is. It is the so called "new Kodiak" with the shorter barrel (24 inch) and a ghost tang sight instead of double sights on the rib The rifling twist is 1:48. I also have a 28 inch .50 cal barrels for it, but I shoot only long conicals through those barrels as they are fast twist(1:24). Talking about .58. Yes, Pedersoli does call for .575 ball and .015 patch, but that is too tight of a combo even for me. I tested .575, .570 and .562 balls with .008 .010 .012 and 0.015 (where it would fit) and I have best accuracy across both barrels with .575 and .012 patch. I even measured both bore and grooves diameters - it wasn't that easy because there is a land opposite a groove in the rifling. I ended up with bore diameters of .579 and .580 and groove depth of .008 (per side, so total groove diameters of .595 and .596). Loading was a pleasure with .570 and all patch thickness. It is a pity the left barrel didn't group very well with it. I also tested REALs, (I couldn't get .58 cal maxis) and three types of minies. I found out that REALs shoot even better than the round balls.

I use maxis with my .50 cal barrels.

Your lead hammer analogy doesn't hold when you are talking about loading a muzzleloader from a materials standpoint- two different things going on, and I would dispute the thin walled barrels- many English muzzleloading double rifles have much thinner walls.

Fooling around with this stuff should be fun- even when it's frustrating!

It is fun to me, even when troubleshooting. I wouldn't do it otherwise . I'm not sure I get your point why my analogy doesn't hold. I mean, yes we're not banging a leaden hammer on the barrel, but having a lead ball on top of it and banging it with a wooden ball is pretty close. Also, the plasticity of the barrel material seems similar to mild steel to me. However, I'm not going to argue on that point. Perhaps the damage came from something else.

 

[Artificer]

Ironoxide,

Though we may be in the minority, I certainly appreciate wanting to get the most accuracy possible out of a firearm at all times, even if it is not necessary for some uses. So I have a great deal of sympathy with you!!

My very first ML was a .50 cal. TC "Hawken" Rifle I purchased and shot for the first time, while home on Boot Camp Leave in January 1972. I used the patches from the shooting kit, cast balls from the mold in the shooting kit, used the patch lubricant from the shooting kit and used the recommended 60 grains of FFg powder from the powder measure in the shooting kit: as I had no one to show me any other way of loading it.

It was only 10 degrees F that day and I had to brush snow off the ground so as to take up a good sitting position. (I had no bench and I wasn't going to use the prone shooting position under those conditions.) Also, it had only been a week after a Navy Doctor had wanted to hospitalize me for a couple of days for Walking Pneumonia. So even though I was in great overall physical shape, I wasn't in the best shape on that day as I was still recovering. We had used tape measures to lay out and verify the distance to the target was 100 yards. I sat on that freezing ground for three individual shots, but got up quickly after each shot to reload. When we went downrange, the greatest difference between two of the three shot holes was 1 5/8" in the three shot group. I was both astounded and hooked for life.

After I found a Mentor and learned about trying different types and volumes of powder. Trying different patch materials and lubricants, different size balls, different caps, etc., etc. The 3 shot group size shrunk a little more, even from the sitting position at 100 yards. When I got the 3 and 5 shot groups to right around an inch at 100 yards, I knew the load and rifle were more accurate than I was capable of holding. At that point I was satisfied and had a lot of confidence for both target shooting and hunting.

Once I really learned how to shoot well in the Marine Corps and especially at long range, I have always wanted my modern and ML guns to be as accurate as possible.

Gus

 

[hanshi]

I made all but two of my short starters. The two bought ones are wood and the ones I made are either wood or antler. I don't think it's actually possible for them to damage the muzzle.

 

[smo]

Cheap and easy.... on the muzzle!

 

[45man]

No, a short starter does no harm but the long starter I made has a protector on it. Wood ball with brass rods.

 

[LME]

Isn't the angle of the crown steeper than the angle of the starter ball on your rifle? If this be the case the starter ball will hit the top of the crown and never touch the bottom of the crown being the ball angle is less than the crown. It is impossible to damage the edge of the crown next to the bore with the starter if the rifle is properly crowned? If it is hitting the bottom edge change the angle of the crown. I have had to do it only once in my life which is longer than I care to mention.