Opinions About Barrel Wear - PRB's Vs. Conicals

[arcticap]

I would like to know the opinions of folks about the differing amounts of barrel wear that could be caused by shooting patched round balls [PRB's] Vs. conical bullets.

I presume that there must be some kind of barrel wear since Sam Fadala had written that it can take 100 or 200 shots to break in a new barrel which would seem to indicate that a new barrel can often need to be broken in through the wear caused by simply shooting it.

If that's true then I suppose that the wear would not simply stop once the barrel is broken in. but would continue until a point that the wear becomes noticeable by losing accuracy.

Do folks think that PRB's cause the same amount of wear or a lesser amount of wear than shooting conicals?
Would a heavier or tighter fitting conical create more barrel wear than a lighter or looser fitting conical?

Can a barrel end up being shot out simply due to barrel wear?
Would some barrel twists rates sustain wear faster than others?
If there are reasons for barrel wear besides simply the type of projectile, then I would like to hear your thoughts about that.
If you don't think that there's any significant barrel wear as a result of the long term firing of thousands of shots of any kind of projectile then I would also like to hear thoughts about that too.

Projectiles and barrels can be made from different types of materials and alloys, some of which may be harder, stronger, and more or less abrasive than others.
So I realize that not every circumstance or opinion will be the same.
And some barrels, patches or bullets can have lubes, coatings or special processing that can make them to be more or less subject to wear.

I would also like to hear the opinions about whether one type of powder can affect barrel wear more than another, but only if it's due to normal use and not by abuse or lack of cleaning.

I guess that the all encompassing purpose for this thread would be to help determine whether modern made ML barrels can have an infinite lifespan or not, and which projectiles, powders or loadings can help to lengthen or shorten it.

Since most of us don't own the precision measuring devices necessary to prove how much barrel wear does or doesn't occur, I imagine that if there's any replies, that they will be more based on opinion and speculation than hard science.
But that doesn't mean that it's not an interesting topic to consider and accuracy changes can be observed.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Arctic, anytime two things rub against each other there is going to be some wear. With things like lead or cloth rubbing against the steel of modern barrels I believe it could take more shots than are countable to cause noticeable wear. For most of us the lifespan of a barrel can be longer than our own. I must admit, I have known some very serious target shooters, mostly bench rest and slug gun types, who have claimed their barrels wore and lost accuracy. Those same types will blame the stars and moon for not being in alignment as the cause of their shooting going bad.

 

[BrownBear]

The only true barrel wear I've seen is from ramrods at the muzzle, both from RBs and minies.

To my delight there's something else called wear, and it works to my advantage. Lovers of "seasoning" their barrels eventually build up enough crud in the bores to diminish or conceal the rifling, selling their barrels for near scrap prices. A good cleaning with carburetor cleaner or brake pad cleaner restores the bore to pristine condition, and I get a perfect barrel for next to nothing.

As for the patched balls wearing out the bore.... Wanna buy a bridge?

 

[Eterry]

First off I think of most of what Sam fadala says is sheep dip.

That being said, I believe a new barrel will have sharp edges along the lands and grooves because the manufacturing process.

The high heat of burning powder while shooting the gun a few hundred times should smooth down these sharp metal edges to where the gun is effectively broken in. I don't think that soft lead or cloth patches can wear a metal Barrel to any noticeable degree.

I think most wear on muzzleloading rifles (then and now) come from the corrosive effects of the black powder and/or leaving them uncleaned after using.

I know using a cheap metal cleaning rod can hasten barrel wear, but if a good range/ cleaning rod is used you shouldn't have much trouble.

I know barrels of old were often "freshed out", but I think combining inferior metals of the day with bad barrel hygiene may have led to many problems.

The modern barrel.. using either black or white powder, should outlive us and our children... if properly cared for.

 

[SDSmlf]

I have never seen a traditional muzzleloader’s bore worn out from launching a projectile out the barrel. Have seen ramrod and range rod wear. Have seen pits from not cleaning. But no measurable wear from the bullet.

As far as the types of projectiles we use in traditional muzzleloaders believe that paper patched bullets are likely the most abrasive (just my speculation). The bores of the guns I shoot paper patched bullets in appear the shiniest or most polished. I size the bullets with an adjustable die (adjustable in .0001” increments). One barrel has about 600 PP rounds through it and I have not had to adjust the sizing diameter since I set it up, unless I use a different bullet or lead:tin ratio. I have two reams of 100% cotton 9 lb onion skin paper I use so that won’t be changing. Doubt I will ever wear out a muzzleloader barrel from shooting, even using paper patches.

Barrel break in. Believe that is mostly cleaning up of the burrs that occur cutting the rifling. You can speed the process up by polishing or lapping. I have a couple of guns with Rice barrels. Never noticed a break in required (like with a Lyman for example). Rice runs a sizing plug or ‘button’ through the barrel after rifling is cut to remove any burrs or minor imperfections.

As a reference point only, I have an alter ego in a parallel universe that shoots milsurps in CMP matches. We have gauges to measure wear at the muzzle and in front of the chamber. And you see the changes in the bore diameter over time. Different game. Much higher pressure. Barrels are a common replacement item from wear. Just don’t see it in traditional muzzleloaders where it is abuse or neglect that will trash a barrel.

 

[hanshi]

I go along with most of what's been posted. Lead, cloth and black powder will "polish" a bore with machining burrs assuming enough shots fired. Other than that, any wear from shooting is basically an illusion.

 

[Grimord]

I agree with most of what has been said already. I believe with our modern steels, it would be several lifetimes before any wear would be significant, providing proper care and cleaning. I have a family heirloom rifle in .35 caliber built in 1842. The gun has always been a tack driver according to my great-great grandfathers notes, and my grandfathers notes. When I inherited the gun I checked it out with a endo scope to see what the barrel looked like after all these years. The area where the powder charge rests against the breech plug was slightly eroded. I believe this is due to the heat of combustion. I have no way to measure, but it appears that the grooves of the rifling are shallower in the first 6" or so of barrel from the breech. The rest of the barrel seems to have uniform lands and grooves right up to the muzzle, which is slightly crowned. When I first got the gun I used the recipe handed down by my grandfathers for loading the gun. 1.5 inch groups were pretty common at 25 yards, but I did not think that this was "tack driving" for a small caliber gun. I have several"'modern" bp rifles in .32 and .36 that consistently shoot into 3/4" at 25 yards if I do my part. So I did a little experimenting with the old gun and found if I put a 1/8" thick felt buffer between the powder and the ball the accuracy increase was significant. I was down to 3/4" at 25 yards, which I consider close to "tack driving" for me with iron sights and my old eyes. Long story short, I think the older steels of the early barrels could get worn out in a normal lifespan but our newer steels would last several lifetimes or more. I have been keeping records of the number of shots fired thru my rifles since they were purchased. Maybe someone relative in the future will be able to report on the wear of the barrels. For now I am not worried about it. I'll just be shure to keep them clean.

 

[ADK Bigfoot]

I shot with the N-SSA for twelve years before moving on to flintlocks and such. In those years, I shot a 2-band Parker Hale Enfield, approximately 5,000 rounds per year. I was shooting in the "top ten" at that time and found the only wear I could find was ramrod wear at the muzzle. I had the barrel shortened by "just enough" to sharpen the crown and it went back to being very competitive. Very competitive.

I now shoot flintlocks in competition. I started with a Lyman Great Plains, a new gun. It shredded patches to no end for a few hundred rounds. It smoothed out and became a good shooter. Apparently there were burrs or rough edges left behind when it left the factory. Three other Investarm products I have owned exhibited similar characteristics. After some shooting, they "settled down" and shot well. Patches stopped being cut or "shredded" and looked "normal". Unfortunately they also smashed flints regularly, another issues.

For the past fifteen-plus years, I have shot rifles produced by TVM (MATT AVANCE AND COMPANY.) From first shot to most recent (never say last) they have shot consistently well with no "shredded patch" issues. The groups I am shooting today with my fifteen year old Early Virginia .50 caliber rifle are indistinguishable from these I shot when I first brought it home. It will always outshoot me. I always use a muzzle protector with my range rod, and I always clean thoroughly between shots and after shooting. I expect it will shoot tens long after I am gone. There is no muzzle wear. The Chambers large Siler lock gets thirty or forty shots per flint; more if I "tap and knap" when it gets slow.

Modern steel will always outlast lead and cotton.

 

[Stantheman86]

Also, shooting 50 Minie balls is a heavy range session , vs shooting an "unmentionable " where I've easily burned up a 500 round half case or even 1,000 rounds if I pack a lunch and spend a full day shooting.

The pressure of Blackpowder and abrasion of lead will never "wear out" a modern muzzleloading firearm.

In the original era , barrels were closer to Iron than steel so maybe might have worn out from aggressive or lack of cleaning, or decades of using tow wrapped steel worms threaded onto steel ramrods to scrub bores.

 

[arcticap]

Here's a home cast .54 Lyman bullet that got stuck 3 inches down a clean bore when loading for the 1st shot which resulted in the owner needing to pull the bullet.
Some bullets had cast to the right size but this one didn't.
He used hard lead for casting because he had 400 pounds and some of it must have varied in composition.
And the lead impurities probably caused it to be oversized.
An analysis of a sample of his casting lead showed that it contained the following elements:

87.53% lead
6.66% antimony
1.97% tin
1.92% titanium
1.79% iron
0.12% copper

That it contained titanium seemed unusual.
Looking it up shows that some titanium can be harder than some steels.
It's been mentioned that antimony in lead alloy can have the form of sharp, crystallized cutting edges embedded within the lead.

 

[Zonie]

That seems to be some sort of lynotype alloy but the high iron and titanium level is confusing.
I'm sure these two elements would add a LOT of hardness to the material.

 

[dave951]

In my opinion, modern steels will last a very long time in a black powder arm and most of the wear will be at the muzzle from the ramrod.

As for modern centerfire, there are some cartridges that are notorious for eating up a the rifling in a barrel. Just to name a few- 220 Swift, 243 Win, and 6.5 Creedmore. The heat and pressure of rounds like these will erode the throat and rifling in fairly short order.

 

[FishDFly]

"As for modern centerfire, there are some cartridges that are notorious for eating up a the rifling in a barrel. Just to name a few- 220 Swift, 243 Win, and 6.5 Creedmore. The heat and pressure of rounds like these will erode the throat and rifling in fairly short order."

And I thought this was a muzzle loading forum, guess not any more, modern just keeps rearing it's ugly head. Will modern discussions ever stop here?

 

[SDSmlf]

"As for modern centerfire, there are some cartridges that are notorious for eating up a the rifling in a barrel. Just to name a few- 220 Swift, 243 Win, and 6.5 Creedmore. The heat and pressure of rounds like these will erode the throat and rifling in fairly short order."

And I thought this was a muzzle loading forum, guess not any more, modern just keeps rearing it's ugly head. Will modern discussions ever stop here?

Don’t see this as a ‘modern discussion’, but rather the exact opposite. You cannot take what occurs when shooting modern cartridges and firearms and apply results to traditional firearms. Many have real world experience with those pesky ‘modern firearms’ and assume or expect to see similar results as that is their reference point. Just not the case. Traditional firearms and projectiles do not see barrel erosion anyware what is seen in modern arms.

 

[FishDFly]

a few- 220 Swift, 243 Win, and 6.5 Creedmore

What is not modern in your discussion on calibers??????

Let the mods. decide where the line is drawn.

 

[SDSmlf]

a few- 220 Swift, 243 Win, and 6.5 Creedmore

What is not modern in your discussion on calibers??????

Let the mods. decide where the line is drawn.

I do not believe I have specifically brought up modern calibers that YOU have referenced in this particular thread. I just used quotes from another poster and stated that some may have only modern reference points of view when thinking about traditional firearms, and thought some education could help. I apologize. I was guessing there are those having difficulty downloading large files using dialup modems in their effort to stay ‘traditional’..... Personally, I am guilty of using a modern internet connection. FYI, this is called a traditional ‘straw man’ argument......

 

[Zonie]

a few- 220 Swift, 243 Win, and 6.5 Creedmore

What is not modern in your discussion on calibers??????

Let the mods. decide where the line is drawn.

I think that using modern cartridge guns for examples of barrel wear is not out of place as long as they are only being used as examples of things that have a problem.

Dave's comment clearly said in so many words that muzzleloading guns do not have problems with wear from shooting them.

The heat and the pressures inside a muzzleloading barrel don't even begin to approach the modern guns he mentioned and it is this heat and pressure that erodes bores. Since black powder doesn't create this amount of heat or pressure, people who think that shooting their muzzleloader will wear it out are very mistaken.

Without using a modern gun as an example of something that has a bad problem with barrel wear, how would you explain in words that we can understand why black powder pressures and temperatures won't harm a muzzleloaders barrel?

Of course, we are talking about barrel wear from shooting black powder rifles, not the problems that come from not cleaning them properly.

As I've said before, I don't have a problem with using a modern gun in the discussions to explain how our muzzleloaders differ but, I will not allow a discussion of actually shooting a modern guns on the forum.

 

[SDSmlf]

I think that using modern cartridge guns for examples of barrel wear is not out of place as long as they are only being used as examples of things that have a problem.

Dave's comment clearly said in so many words that muzzleloading guns do not have problems with wear from shooting them.

The heat and the pressures inside a muzzleloading barrel don't even begin to approach the modern guns he mentioned and it is this heat and pressure that erodes bores. Since black powder doesn't create this amount of heat or pressure, people who think that shooting their muzzleloader will wear it out are very mistaken.

Without using a modern gun as an example of something that has a bad problem with barrel wear, how would you explain in words that we can understand why black powder pressures and temperatures won't harm a muzzleloaders barrel?

Of course, we are talking about barrel wear from shooting black powder rifles, not the problems that come from not cleaning them properly.

As I've said before, I don't have a problem with using a modern gun in the discussions to explain how our muzzleloaders differ but, I will not allow a discussion of actually shooting a modern guns on the forum.

Agree.

 

[dave951]

Can a barrel end up being shot out simply due to barrel wear?
Would some barrel twists rates sustain wear faster than others? Yes- in modern barrels it's common

If there are reasons for barrel wear besides simply the type of projectile, then I would like to hear your thoughts about that.

If you don't think that there's any significant barrel wear as a result of the long term firing of thousands of shots of any kind of projectile then I would also like to hear thoughts about that too

Some of you guys are far too touchy here. I referenced modern firearms as a point of reference for barrel wear since steels, temps, pressures AND projectiles are different. To carry this point further, what about repros of originals made with modern steels and methods? I dare say that the changes in metalurgy over the years have made for a firearm that is more wear resistant than an original. If that is true, then probably the only "wear" you'll see from a PRB is really just polishing. That's why some modern black powder barrels "shoot in" or "season". Ever hear of "fire lapping"? What is that really? It's actually a polishing process by using an abrasive in the boolit to remove those micro edges that would shred a patch or hinder accuracy.

Of the "worn out" barrels I've seen, most were from wear at the muzzle from the ramrod/cleaning rod. Of original Civil War era guns I've seen with problems, yes, the barrel began to have issues of various types and most could be traced to wartime QC and metalurgy and again, most were at the muzzle end. I have seen examples where chunks of the rifling have broken off. Not eroded, but broken off the walls of the barrel. No way that was from ramrods.

 

[arcticap]

The following is a post that paraphrases what Sam Fadala has written about it.

"I have been reading "The Complete Black Powder Handbook" by Sam Fadala, copyright 1979 by DBI Books, Inc, Northfield, IL. He has a chapter on accuracy, in it he says that after 1,000 rounds accuracy begins to deteriorate. He used three rifles in a test to come up with this, he used patched ball in all of them. He says that groups went from 1 and 1/2 inches at 75 yards to 2 and 1/2 inches and a bit more by the time that the 2,000th shot was fired. He tried using a thicker patch, which helped a little and larger balls but the best accuracy was gone forever. This was in .50 cal guns. He also said that it took about 100 rounds for the new barrels to group well.
He thinks the patch may serve to lap the barrel causing wear."

If only about 50% of the black powder is actually burned with the rest basically being carbon residue, then would that act as an abrasive?
Another question is whether there's any heat erosion from hot gases and blow by.
Would a heavier projectile create higher pressure and possible more potential for heat erosion?
I've seen gas or flame cutting on a Remington 1858 cylinder pin in a very concentrated area below the barrel - cylinder gap but I don't know if anything similar can occur inside a barrel or not besides involving the nipple.
Only Grimord has mentioned barrel erosion in the bottom 6 inches of the breech in an old .36 cal. rifle.