New guy question...loading method.
- Thread starter John Spartan
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
I have a Centermark TFC and a smoothrife in a 1770s style Lancaster
To make a paper cartridge you have about a 5x3 inch paper with one side square and the other angled. You roll it around a dowel that’s about 1/16 smaller then your bore. And tied to form a tube. It’s easy to use a glue stick on one edge.
Drop in ball then powder charge then fold the bottom to crimp.
So it’s just paper around the ball. But even newspaper is pretty thick, and in two or three shots becomes pretty tight.
In my .62 I shoot a .575 for a cartridge and even then it’s tight by the tenth shot.
I use packing paper.
A .595 ball in a cartridge is too thick to load.
Drop in ball then powder charge then fold the bottom to crimp.
So it’s just paper around the ball. But even newspaper is pretty thick, and in two or three shots becomes pretty tight.
In my .62 I shoot a .575 for a cartridge and even then it’s tight by the tenth shot.
I use packing paper.
A .595 ball in a cartridge is too thick to load.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 157
- Reaction score
- 297
I am sure we all noticed that in the video, Mike Belaveau (correct spelling?) primed the pan of his Charleville BEFORE loading the main charge in the barrel.
We all KNOW that practice could get us thrown out of many shooting ranges. We also all know that it is the method used by soldiers in the old days of the French and Indian War, and the American Revolution. So we understand why Mike did it that way — to give an accurate demonstration of how it was done.
I also use paper cartridges, but opt to load the barrel first, and prime from a small horn last.
I enjoy Mike's videos very much and respect his knowledge, as well as his shooting skills.
I just could not resist ...
We all KNOW that practice could get us thrown out of many shooting ranges. We also all know that it is the method used by soldiers in the old days of the French and Indian War, and the American Revolution. So we understand why Mike did it that way — to give an accurate demonstration of how it was done.
I also use paper cartridges, but opt to load the barrel first, and prime from a small horn last.
I enjoy Mike's videos very much and respect his knowledge, as well as his shooting skills.
I just could not resist ...
As you can see from my avatar, I do a fair amount of reenacting. When do the mock battle representations, we try to keep the presentation fairly accurate even though the ramrod stays in the thimbles and is not touched. Our cartridges are blanks composed of a paper tube and powder. When we fire, only powder is poured down the barrel after we prime from the blank cartridge. We do fire directly at any other reenactor. I appreciate Mike Beliveau's (this is the correct spelling) videos and his desire to demonstrate the historical method of loading from the historical perspective.
We also participate in live fire competitions such as a woods walk with any number of targets to be engaged with live fire. Our cartridges for these events will include the ball. We rear open the cartridge to pour the powder down the barrel. Then we turn push the paper cartridge and ball down the barrel. We carry a separate priming flask to prime after loading. So our practice for live fire is as described by @beyu. Priming from the cartridge is not allowed during the live fire events.
We also participate in live fire competitions such as a woods walk with any number of targets to be engaged with live fire. Our cartridges for these events will include the ball. We rear open the cartridge to pour the powder down the barrel. Then we turn push the paper cartridge and ball down the barrel. We carry a separate priming flask to prime after loading. So our practice for live fire is as described by @beyu. Priming from the cartridge is not allowed during the live fire events.
Here's another of Mike's videos, in which he makes paper cartridges for his 1766 Charleville.
Actually, the archaeology has rounded that up, and they can be as small as .675.... military ammo was meant to continue to be fired from the increasingly fouled bore for as many as 24 shots..., so yes that small, and HENCE the inaccuracy.
Actually the ammunition was designed for volume of rounds fired, not the musket. The musket when loaded for accuracy was expected to strike a standing man at 90 yards each time. BUT..., as with the much more accurate rifle, it would foul between the 3rd and 4th shot so badly that it would need swabbing to allow the accurate cartridges to continue to be used. The standard infantry company was not going to halt action and spend five minutes swabbing and drying their bores in combat.
Yes the rifles were known to use patched ball, but there is merely no reference to using a patched ball in a smoothbore in the 18th century or earlier, AND there is good evidence that a smoothbore can be inaccurate that way. True, your military ammo using the ball they used will not be as accurate as a patched ball in the musket, BUT you may be able to get better accuracy than a patched ball.
The problem is that the patch does not fold the same way each time one loads.... the patch does fold the same way each time in a grooved barrel, rifled or straight.
When cartridges are loaded with the proper sized ball and the paper is made to snug up the fit, the ball is the same every time. This was why The Company of Select Marksmen loaded their own ammunition when making cartridges for accuracy, not for speed.
LD
