original wads!!

[roundball]

I read that Jackie Brown proofs his .62cals with 200grns powder and 6 round balls.
IMO, while I agree 2 ozs of shot and 123grns powder would be a stout load for sure, I don't believe there's a 1:1 correlation between what we've be programmed to understand about loads in modern shotguns and those in blackpowder smoothbores...

 

[paulvallandigham]

I have a good friend who built his own 8 gauge shotgun. He was shooting it with 4 oz. of shot, and 6-8 drams of powder! He has now backed it down to 2 oz. and 6 drams( 165 grains of FFg Goex. ) I have talked to him about enjoying a 1 1/2 oz. 3 dram load, that would not kick at all but would put out a killing pattern for practice shooting at clay targets, but he likes the heavier loads. But, its an 8 gauge, not a 20 gauge.

Because of the slower burning rate of black powder, you are not going to produce the pressures you get with smokeless powder, and what pressure you do get is not going to arrive as quickly as it does with smokeless. For that reason, Black Powder shotguns can shoot pretty stout load that if made with smokeless powder shells would endanger the barrels of the shotguns used to fire them.

 

[buck1]

What average powder and shot loads would ya'll use for hunting squirrell and rabbit with a .54smooth bore {28ga}? Thanks Buck

 

[Elnathan]

Bob Spencer took both those sources from Robert Held's Age of Firearms, if anyone is interested in tracking them down further. Held has a lot of such stuff, as well as excellent illustrations, which makes him worthwhile despite being rather outdated in many ways. There may be more on wadding in the book, but since I don't own a copy I don't know for certain.

Capt. Jas., thanks for posting the relevant extracts. I guess I should have done that in the first place.

 

[buck1]

I just found out that a local store sells plastic 28ga wads for reloading modern shotshells. will these work in a 54 smoothy? will they help the pattern? Thanks Buck

 

[paulvallandigham]

YOu have to measure the diameter of them to make sure they will fit in your gun, but they do work. The down side is that they leave plastic residue in your bore, and you need to use a bore brush and solvents designed to remove plastic to clean the gun when you use these. You can make a paper cylinder, fold over one end, tape or glue it shut, or simply close it and dip that end in molten parafin wax, then push the folds down on wax paper while the wax cools, to form a shot cup. Put your shot in the cut, tear or cut off the excess, and top the shot with an OS Card as you push the packet down the barrel. I like to cut at least 2 slits about half the length of the cup in the paper, to allow the sides to fold back and release the shot quickly when its leaves the muzzle of your gun. The length of the slits, and the number of the slits, will determine to some extent the density of the pattern by delaying the release of the shot from the cup. What works is something for you to work up with your gun, powder, and weight of shot.

 

[buck1]

Thanks alot! I am still learning on this smooth bore stuff. What kind of paper do you suggest and do I still need to use a wonder wad or op card over my powder before the paper cup? any info on this will be appreciated. I have tried a few differant loads in it and so far the best I have come up with is 65grn of 3f goex and 65grn of#6 shot but it still isn't that great I don't know right now if this is going to be good enough to hunt squirrel with much less turkey! Thanks again Buck

 

[paulvallandigham]

Coin wraps, or index card paper seems to work well in a single ply. I am using some 3M Post-it note paper, because of the sticky strip that I can use to close the cylinder when its formed on the mandrill I use. You have to find a pipe, or dowel that is smaller in diameter than your bore, to use to make the cups. I also am using some 20 gauge OP Wads, in the bottom of my cups to help keep the form, for the folds, I am probably going to switch to OS cards, and try to get some in 16 gauge for this purpose. In my 20 gauge, I may try to use OS cards that are about 58 caliber, or 24 gauge, and a mandrill that size to make the cups for that barrel. For a 54, I would consider using a half inch dowel or pipe for a mandrill, and 50 caliber OS cards in the base of the cup.

With the 3M paper, I am doing two complete wraps of the paper to make a sturdy enough cup. They seem to be able to protect both my #8 shot loads, and my hunting loads using #5 shot. I wrap was too thin, and three wraps were too much. ( sounds like Goldie Locks and the 3 Bears, NO?)

The next test I am going to do is to use these but grease the bore in front of the shot cups, using a lubed cleaning patch. This is to provide extra lube and to allow the cup and shot to slide down the barrel, without rubbing unnecessariy against the bore. I am trying to eliminate lead streaks in the barrel, by using the cups, as the lead build up helps to destroy subsequent patterns rather quickly.

 

[buck1]

So you don't use an over powder card before the cup? just one in the bottom of the cup? Is this correct? Thanks I am going to try this to see if it helps! Buck

 

[roundball]

If you'll use a powder to shot ratio of 1:1.5 you'll be pleased with the results for squirrel and rabbits at those small game distances.

In my .54cal/.28ga GM flint smoothbore barrel, an outstanding small game load is:
70grns Goex 3F
1 Oxyoke prelubed wonderwad
105grns #6 shot
Circle Fly over shot card

I substitute #7.5s for doves
I substitute #9's for skeet targets

 

[paulvallandigham]

No. I do use an OP wad on top of the powder.( The shotcup is too much smaller in diameter than the bore to be able to seal off gases. Without the OP Wad, the powder would burn right through the paper cup.) The OP Wad gives a firm surface to put against the shot cup. The OS card in the cup is there to push out the shot evenly when the cup and shot leave the muzzle. That hard, smooth surface of the card is particularly helpful in getting a uniform, even release of the shot. The OP Wad, is only about 1/8" thick and falls away from the shot and cup rather quickly.

 

[buck1]

Thank you Mr.Paul, I Think this info will really help me! I really appreciate your patience and your expertise on this problem. If there is anything I can do to help you just let me know!Buck

 

[paulvallandigham]

:thumbsup:

 

[pmwest]

Excerpt from Advice from Aimwell by Thomas Paige 1767

...thin brown paper rubbed soft, and cut into pieces about one inch broad and two inches long; so that when it is once doubled, it is an inch square. I punch a small hole at the corner of each piece, put a sufficient quantity upon a key-ring, hang them into my button hole, and tear off one as I want it. This being doubled, put it into to the muzzle, and close the corners up about the rammer (the end of which ought to continue of the same bigness for at least half an inch, or rather somewhat smaller just at the end) and thrust the paper thus put into the barrel gently down upon the powder. Your rammer will come back without danger of drawing the paper back, and will leave it closed against the sides of the barrel like a half cartridge. Put in another in the same manner after the shot. When your gun is quite clean, it is necessary to put in a second wad after the shot, to prevent its getting loose.

I have seen other references to using this technique for loading a shotgun. One specifically talks about “blotter paper”, another says “any paper or material that will conform and holds its shape”. Has anyone tried this?

 

[paulvallandigham]

Paper is NOT going to make a good replacement for an OS card. If you are not walking through fields, carrying your gun, muzzle down, or shooting a double barrel gun, where the recoil from firing the first barrel can cause the shot to shift forward in the second before you fire it, this kind of approach may work.

I am not a fan of using paper this way. Putting the paper down the barrel on the powder, as described, puts the paper too far away from where I can see that the sides or one side is not tipped over, or laying over the bore. If you instead push the paper " cup " down the barrel on top of an OP wad, so that they are sitting only an inch or two below the muzzle, You can then see, and " Fix " any tipped paper, straightening it against the side of the bore where it belongs.

Last problem with paper is that most " paper " is too thin to protect the bore from the lead pellets. The pellets are most likely to wear a hole right through the paper, and the purpose of using the paper-- to protect the shot, and to protect the barrel from lead streaks-- is lost! I have seen thick Plastic shot cups with holes in the sides of them, from the pellets pushing against the insides. This is more prevalent shooting Steel Shot, than lead shot, but with the hard lead ( High antimony and tin content) alloy shot being sold today, I find the holes even in wads I have recovered after using light trap loads. ( 1 1/8 oz. shot, and 2 3/4 dram Equi. powder charges, for about 1035 fps MV.) I think using index card stock, coin wrappers stock and similar thicker paper is required to protect the shot. If you use Post-it notes, you need to do a couple of wraps to put enough paper between the shot and the bore to get the job done. This is not all bad.

Try the paper you have out, and see what happens. I learned much from my failures. I do not try to repeat them. I did some early testing with my 12 ga. ML shotgun, and see no need to repeat the mistakes with my 20 gauge fowler, for instance.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Sometimes the objective is just to replicate the time frame and not focus on modern ballistic data and modern components. :thumbsup:

 

[paulvallandigham]

On that theory, one should then only use leaves and grass to make wads, both for OP wads, and for OS cards.

You are not going to get modern ballistics shooting black powder in any shotgun, so I would not lose any sleep over that issue. I stay away from Plastic Shot cups, as much as possible, but you kind of get stuck buying whatever kind of shot is available. I am not interested in making my own, thank you. Nor am I intersted in making my own black powder, or percussion caps, either. I know how, but I am not interested.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

This thread was started about early to mid 18th century shooting techniques and components.
My last comment was concerning that aspect and not an attempt to get modern style-traditional shooters to move to the dark side. There are documented first hand accounts to give us wadding techniques and components. An earlier post suggested there were none and the last post wrongly implies only leaves and grass which again is :bull:

 

[paulvallandigham]

And your arrogance suggests that TOW was uniformly available throughout the colonies. It was not. It was grown in the warmer colonies. Further North, and over the mountains, settlers made due with what was at hand.

I am happy that you have cited a couple of 17th century sources with which I was not previous familiar. That is the real joy of this forum- finding people who have found information I have not found in my own research. I don't appreciate the personal attacks.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

The 17th century and the colonies in specific were not part of the context of this thread Paul. They are 18th century documentations that were requested and given.

I am not trying to make a personal attack on you. I AM attempting to to discuss the original intent of this thread which is early to mid 18th century wadding techniques.

The information you had provided was not valid. I only tried to put the thread on track to it's original questions. The early techniques intrique me and it's a point of interest for me. You claimed no interest at all yet continue to post.

Much of what you write is readily absorbed by new shooters. The manner in which you present it is very convincing to the novice but many times the contents are laced with information that is simply not correct. None of us know it all. I usually run from those who imply to do so except when I see others taking in false information that has been presented as gospel.

If I have made an "attack" it was not directed to your "person" but to the dogmatic manner in which you have attempted to convince the "jury" of false information.

This IS a great website and I have learned much from many on here, including some things from your posts.

James