Please educate me on side hammer Percussion rifles

[10ML2/KN/TC4550]

I have wanted a T/C Hawken FOREVER but just never got around to buying one. I currently own Two Knight Elites, one Encore and one 10ML-II and combined between the four have fired well over 3,000 rounds and are very knowledge about in line ML's.

Unfortunately I know VERY little about percussion side hammer ML rifles.
I have decided to join my rifle clubs ML chapter and while they welcome all types of ML's to come out and shoot they only allow side hammer percussion or flint locks to compete with only iron sights and only allow round balls as projectiles. The primary purpose of this ML will be for shooting in my clubs ML competitions and not hunting. While I might hunt with it, I already have four in lines for that.

Before I ask any questions please bare in mind I am repeating what others have said, not what I believe or know to be the truth. So if any of my statements are incorrect please by all means correct me.

My VERY limited research seamed to indicate the 54 caliber ML has slight accuracy edge over the 50 and needs less powder to find an accurate load when shooting patched round balls so I decided to try to find a 54 caliber Hawken.

Based on the above, I then just researched and found out the consensuses on barrel twist rate to achieve your accuracy with round balls in competitive shoots is a 1:66 or 1:60. and NOT a 1:48 ROT.

So I would like to know if this is indeed truthful and should I try to find a 54 caliber ML with a barrel twist rate of 1:66.
This is of utmost importance because if indeed a 1:66 ROT is decidedly better for accuracy than a 1:48 then most T/C Hawkens are out and I will most likely have to buy a Lyman as they offer ML's in a 1:66 ROT.

I am most interested in achieving maximum accuracy with patched round balls in competitions not hunting.

Secondly what type of patch or wadding system best lends itself to achieving consistent accuracy when shooting round balls?

I realize I have a lot to learn about percussion side hammers and know developing a maximum accuracy load for one is just like any other firearm there are no short cuts and I will have to spend time at the range shooting and developing an accurate load.

 

[ohio ramrod]

Just my personal opinion , and worth exactly what you paid for it. I believe that there is little difference in accuracy between 50 and 54 calibers. For many years 40 calibers were considered the top caliber for target shooting. While most people prefer the slower twists for round ball shooting the 1/48 was what the Hawken brothers used. The slower twists became more popular as people started shooting heavier powder charges. The main draw back to the T.C. barrels was not the rate of twist, but the shallower depth of rifling.

 

[Bassdog1]

I would say if you are just shooting competition you could consider anything 40 caliber and above as there are extremely accurate rifles available from many sources. I had the chance to shoot a 40 caliber flintlock last year that was extremely accurate at 100 yards. Try and see if any of the members of the club have guns for sale or if they would let you shoot with them using some of their rifles to see what you like and prefer.

 

[leadhoarder]

I started my muzzle loading with one of those savage rifles and I am here to attest that once you burn real gunpowder to shoot PRB out of a sidelock you will never go back.

 

[deermanok]

A 1/48 twist barrel can be surprisingly accurate with a patched round ball.
Any production sidehammer guns will have the 1/48 generally speaking. Some are available in 1/66 twist.
100 % cotton material is best for shooting patch material.
You would have to experiment with different thicknesses for optimal accuracy.

 

[Kansas Kid]

I agree with what Ohio has said. You can be on the lookout for your TC that has a green mountain drop in replacement barrel. Nothing wrong with a little faster twist as it usually doesn’t need as much powder to shoot well. The shallow groove and wide land style rifling IMO make a poor round ball target barrel. Ideally.010 to .013 8 groove narrow land is the hard to beat.

 

[biliff]

I suggest you ask around at your muzzleloader club and see what the winners are using. Hell of a lot better than internet opinions.

 

[Grenadier1758]

It's going to take me a lot longer than the few minutes I spend on this entry to provide an education on traditional muzzle loading even when limited to percussion sidelock rifles.

Accuracy on target can be achieved by just about any caliber and fans of calibers from about 40 to 54 can be found among the members on the forum. The 54 will be better for knocking over silhouette targets which fall better when hit with a larger ball. I have had great success on the NMLRA silhouette targets with a 45 caliber rifle taking down the bears at 200 yards. Ultimately, it's the quality of the barrel whether the twist rate is 1 in 48 or 1 in 60. By the way I have achieved excellent accuracy with the aforementioned 45 caliber rifle with its 1 in 56 twist. Its more about width of the lands and depth of the grooves than rate of twist. For short ranges of 25 to 60 yards the 1 in 48" twist is fine and modest charges will get you the performance you desire.

You need more powder to get optimal accuracy with slower twists.

We probably need more information as to the type of targets are being shot during your club's competitions. We need ranges, weather conditions. Larger balls drift less in the wind than light balls. Heavier balls have more of an arching trajectory than the light balls. Is most shooting off hand or from a rest?

You are correct that the T/C rifle is not the one but mainly because they are no longer in production. Since you are looking for accuracy on target, I would be looking at a rifle to group. High on my list is the Lyman Signature series built by Pedersoli. This is a higher quality rifle than the Lyman Great plains rifle (which is no longer in production although the Investarms Gemmer rifle is the functional twin.

As a thought exercise, the rifle I would be considering is the Lyman Signature Series Signature Series - Lyman by Pedersoli that is built by Pedersoli. This is a heavy rifle at 14 pounds. To make life easier, I suggest the 54 caliber. This will be about 1 pound lighter than the 50. Something to consider is the deeply curved butt plate. The curved butt plate requires a totally different shooting stance than anything you have ever shot. You stand at 90 degrees to the target. The butt plate rests on the upper arm by the bicep. The rifle is held across the body and the forestock is supported on the side chest to take the weight.

A search for a good used custom gun with a relatively flat butt plate to shoot off the chest in a more familiar position in a caliber of 45 or 50 is also worth seeking.

If you can, ask to shoulder the traditional rifles being shot by the shooters during competition. The best accuracy will be attained using a rifle that feels most comfortable when put to the shoulder.


We can get into several pages of discussions when we get into patches. One thing we mostly agree on is to stay away from pre-lubricated patches. You are better off with a simple mix of water soluble oil (Ballistol or machine shop cutting oil) and water as a lube is about as good as one can get. I recommend a ball about 0.010" to 0.005" less than the land to land diameter of the barrel. The patch should be 0.015 TO 0.018" thick, tightly woven 100% cotton pillow ticking, mattress ticking or cotton drill cloth. You can cut the patch at the muzzle or before going to the range. Square or round makes little difference.

Performance will be better with real black powder, either Scheutzen or Swiss. If you must use a substitute powder to a lack of access to real black powder would be 777.

Once you start having success with a traditional muzzle loading rifle, it is likely that the modern muzzle loaders will loose their appeal.

 

[Wildrangeringreen]

A bore is a bore and a ball is a ball, the accuracy going out that bore is entirely dependent on the accuracy of the stuff going in it. The whole "this caliber/chambering is more accurate than that caliber/chambering, simply by virtue of it being X-chambering/caliber" is about as true in Muzzle loading as it is in modern guns.

The larger bore is going to be more expensive to feed (both in powder and shot), and paper can't tell the difference between a 45gr .31 ball and a 224gr ball. The recoil will be more for the larger guns (requiring more powder and shot), and that generally isn't ideal for target shooting. If you are shooting round balls at paper, most likely the distances aren't going to be far enough for the BC advantage the larger ball has (roughly .074 for the .54 vs .043 for a little .32) to warrant the extra cost, weight, and recoil, IMO. Cost is a major consideration when it comes to competition shooting, as much of your performance is directly related to how much quality trigger time you can put in.

While many people will insist that you "need" a 1:66 twist for round ball to achieve anything resembling accuracy, I would like to submit to the court the fact that many barrel makers throughout history used faster... sometimes much faster; and still got very good accuracy (3/4 turn in the length of the barrel was common on the 30ish inch barreled Germanic rifles). A faster rate of twist requires less velocity to achieve a stable RPM for the ball (lessening recoil and cost in powder). Once again, paper doesn't care how fast the ball's going. A "good" twist for a .32 would be a 1:28, .36 would be 30, .40 would be 40, .45 would be 48, 50 would be 50, and .54 would be 55. Slower rates of twist require higher velocity to achieve a stable RPM, and that increases costs and recoil.

The one real exception to the above points would be in knock-over steel competitions, where the velocity and mass of your ball can make the difference between scoring a point and getting zip. Then again, I have always felt that those type of competitions are more angled towards hunting-type guns, rather than being simply the pursuit of accuracy.

As far as patching is concerned, you can either use a bore sized "belted ball" (essentially, a groove sized ball sized down to bore diameter) and no patch at all (which was done); or you could use cloth (a tightly woven cloth is desired, as it resists abrasion better than a loose weave, pillow ticking is often used, but silk and linen have also been used) cut into a square/triangle/circle that has enough material to envelope the back and sides of the ball. Another option is Paper patching your ball (not only is this cheaper, but it allows you to use a ball that is much closer to bore diameter, more on that in a second). To use paper patching for a ball, you essentially make a very thin paper sabot on a bore sized dowel, with a cavity on the end to accept a ball, a glue stick, and a tiny bit of thread to keep the ball from pushing through the paper cup. Another way to paper patch (or cloth patch) would be to use an "X" shaped patch (or two strips crossed, that are slightly under bore diameter in width). Shooting-quality Paper is roughly 10x cheaper than cloth, substantially more easy to find, and it's not like you are going to reuse it.

I have found that the easiest way to achieve accuracy with a ML rifle is to use the thinnest patching possible, and a bullet that is as close to bore diameter as possible. This minimizes the amount of deformation the projectile must go through to upset into the rifling. The less the projectile has to deform to take up the rifling, the less of an impact slight variations in the hardness and density of the projectiles has on pressures and velocity. The purpose of patching in a rifle is NOT to "seal the bore", as anything you can easily blow air through isn't going to hold 20,000 PSI ; rather, it is to provide a more durable bearing surface than the very thin line around the diameter of the ball that is going to be in contact with the barrel steel. If the bearing surface is inadequate to resist the incredible amount of shearing force (from the rotation of the rifling) and friction in the bore, the projectile will "skip the rifling" and not spin adequately/consistently. To this end, I have also found that "shallow groove" rifling (roughly .003"-.005" deep grooves), combined with paper, cup-style patching and a .01" under-bore-sized projectile to be easiest to achieve accuracy in. My only "dedicated" round ball rifle that I still own is a former Tradition's PA Pellet (1:48" twist) that has .005" grooves and is loaded with 100gr weighed charges of 3F powder and paper patched balls. With the crude sights Tradition's put on that gun, I get average 1.73" groups at 100 yards from a rest, and that's with that hunting load, I still need to work up a lighter target load with it (which potentially can be more accurate, for various reasons).

For accuracy purposes, I also recommend pre-weighing out your charges on a scale, and bringing them to the range in vials or paper tubes. Black powder of a particular formulation gives the same amount of gas for its weight, every time (obviously allowing for some lot to lot variations). BP, being irregularly shaped, is prone to not being volumetrically metered out as consistently as more symmetrical granular propellants (think: flake smokeless vs ball powder). Also, I recommend looking into using a drop tube, in order to ensure that the charge lands in the breech area the same way, every time; as opposed to some of the powder getting caught on the rifling down the barrel, and settling in the breech area a different way each load. As far as loading is concerned, I have found that compressing the load in the barrel leads to inconsistency, as there is no way you are going to put the same amount of pressure on that charge each time, by hand. Even if you use a tool like a precision packer (most trad competitions don't really allow those, in my experience), you are still not going to compress it the exact same way each time. I have found that just gently sliding the ball down the barrel until it just touches the powder is the most consistent way to load. I would compare charge compression in a ML to a combination of cartridge OAL and neck tension in a modern cartridge, and those are very important for consistency.

Another thing to consider is a set of pin gauges to monitor the erosion of the vent, as once a vent gets to a certain point of erosion, it tends to erode at a much faster rate. A rapidly eroding vent leads to wild pressure and velocity swings, which robs accuracy. During the development of your loads and practice, periodically check the diameter of the vent, and take note of where the accuracy started to fall apart. Change out your next cone before it gets to that point. They're cheap, and are a consumable component of shooting.

Last thing is sights, for a purely target rifle, I would recommend a Tube sight (think a scope without glass, and an aperture at each end) and use "rabbit ear" mounts for a Malcolm Scope with the fine adjustment screw kit. Second best would be a hooded, dual aperture sighting set up; with a tang-mounted Veneer sight rear (preferably with an adjustable iris installed (they had them, look at Pedersoli's Hadley style eyepieces)) and something like a Lyman model 17A front (get a couple of different sized aperture inserts for different lighting). Third would be a plain blade front sight and a simple rear-mounted aperture sight. Fourth would be a fine bead-on-a-post front sight, and a semi-buckhorn rear sight with a 3/4 circle notch (sized to make the bead appear to fill the notch when sighting). Fifth would be a tight rear notch and plain blade front. Dead last would be a large "U" notch rear and a "Barleycorn" front.

Obviously, a set trigger is a plus. For an off-hand gun, proper balance and stock fit to you and your style of shooting are critical. I, for one, Use a "swiss hold, and that means that I not only can get away with a more butt-heavy, light weight rifle, but also require less mass out at the muzzle for a rifle to not feel overly heavy. That stance allows you to brace your supporting arm against your ribcage, rather than trying to hold the rifle up purely with your arm muscles. A rifle that is primarily going to be shot standing can afford to have more drop at the comb than one that is going to be shot in various positions (a hunting/general purpose rifle). A hooked butt plate is a nice thing to have as well (not the SMR or "Hawken" style meant to be shot off the bicep, the Continental European style meant to be shot from the shoulder), as it frees up your dominant hand to purely manage the trigger, rather than holding up the back end of the rifle. Look at Germanic "Scheutzenfest" rifles (off-hand shooting competitions typically shot at 40 rods (220 yards)) for an example of dedicated off-hand rifles.

 

[kelljp]

Definitely a can of worms to open a discussion about here.
Every rifle will shot different (even two of the same model).
Start with the minimum amount of powder, then start incrementing by 10 grains, and do try different patches and powder. Make sure to clean the barrel between shots.
Patience and time will get your rifle shooting where you want it. Don't over think it. It's suppose to be fun.

 

[frankie]

I have wanted a T/C Hawken FOREVER but just never got around to buying one. I currently own Two Knight Elites, one Encore and one 10ML-II and combined between the four have fired well over 3,000 rounds and are very knowledge about in line ML's.

Unfortunately I know VERY little about percussion side hammer ML rifles.
I have decided to join my rifle clubs ML chapter and while they welcome all types of ML's to come out and shoot they only allow side hammer percussion or flint locks to compete with only iron sights and only allow round balls as projectiles. The primary purpose of this ML will be for shooting in my clubs ML competitions and not hunting. While I might hunt with it, I already have four in lines for that.

Before I ask any questions please bare in mind I am repeating what others have said, not what I believe or know to be the truth. So if any of my statements are incorrect please by all means correct me.

My VERY limited research seamed to indicate the 54 caliber ML has slight accuracy edge over the 50 and needs less powder to find an accurate load when shooting patched round balls so I decided to try to find a 54 caliber Hawken.

Based on the above, I then just researched and found out the consensuses on barrel twist rate to achieve your accuracy with round balls in competitive shoots is a 1:66 or 1:60. and NOT a 1:48 ROT.

So I would like to know if this is indeed truthful and should I try to find a 54 caliber ML with a barrel twist rate of 1:66.
This is of utmost importance because if indeed a 1:66 ROT is decidedly better for accuracy than a 1:48 then most T/C Hawkens are out and I will most likely have to buy a Lyman as they offer ML's in a 1:66 ROT.

I am most interested in achieving maximum accuracy with patched round balls in competitions not hunting.

Secondly what type of patch or wadding system best lends itself to achieving consistent accuracy when shooting round balls?

I realize I have a lot to learn about percussion side hammers and know developing a maximum accuracy load for one is just like any other firearm there are no short cuts and I will have to spend time at the range shooting and developing an accurate load.

Great questions, this is the place to ask

 

[frankie]

I suggest you ask around at your muzzleloader club and see what the winners are using. Hell of a lot better than internet opinions.

great advice bilif

 

[frankie]

A bore is a bore and a ball is a ball, the accuracy going out that bore is entirely dependent on the accuracy of the stuff going in it. The whole "this caliber/chambering is more accurate than that caliber/chambering, simply by virtue of it being X-chambering/caliber" is about as true in Muzzle loading as it is in modern guns.

The larger bore is going to be more expensive to feed (both in powder and shot), and paper can't tell the difference between a 45gr .31 ball and a 224gr ball. The recoil will be more for the larger guns (requiring more powder and shot), and that generally isn't ideal for target shooting. If you are shooting round balls at paper, most likely the distances aren't going to be far enough for the BC advantage the larger ball has (roughly .074 for the .54 vs .043 for a little .32) to warrant the extra cost, weight, and recoil, IMO. Cost is a major consideration when it comes to competition shooting, as much of your performance is directly related to how much quality trigger time you can put in.

While many people will insist that you "need" a 1:66 twist for round ball to achieve anything resembling accuracy, I would like to submit to the court the fact that many barrel makers throughout history used faster... sometimes much faster; and still got very good accuracy (3/4 turn in the length of the barrel was common on the 30ish inch barreled Germanic rifles). A faster rate of twist requires less velocity to achieve a stable RPM for the ball (lessening recoil and cost in powder). Once again, paper doesn't care how fast the ball's going. A "good" twist for a .32 would be a 1:28, .36 would be 30, .40 would be 40, .45 would be 48, 50 would be 50, and .54 would be 55. Slower rates of twist require higher velocity to achieve a stable RPM, and that increases costs and recoil.

The one real exception to the above points would be in knock-over steel competitions, where the velocity and mass of your ball can make the difference between scoring a point and getting zip. Then again, I have always felt that those type of competitions are more angled towards hunting-type guns, rather than being simply the pursuit of accuracy.

As far as patching is concerned, you can either use a bore sized "belted ball" (essentially, a groove sized ball sized down to bore diameter) and no patch at all (which was done); or you could use cloth (a tightly woven cloth is desired, as it resists abrasion better than a loose weave, pillow ticking is often used, but silk and linen have also been used) cut into a square/triangle/circle that has enough material to envelope the back and sides of the ball. Another option is Paper patching your ball (not only is this cheaper, but it allows you to use a ball that is much closer to bore diameter, more on that in a second). To use paper patching for a ball, you essentially make a very thin paper sabot on a bore sized dowel, with a cavity on the end to accept a ball, a glue stick, and a tiny bit of thread to keep the ball from pushing through the paper cup. Another way to paper patch (or cloth patch) would be to use an "X" shaped patch (or two strips crossed, that are slightly under bore diameter in width). Shooting-quality Paper is roughly 10x cheaper than cloth, substantially more easy to find, and it's not like you are going to reuse it.

I have found that the easiest way to achieve accuracy with a ML rifle is to use the thinnest patching possible, and a bullet that is as close to bore diameter as possible. This minimizes the amount of deformation the projectile must go through to upset into the rifling. The less the projectile has to deform to take up the rifling, the less of an impact slight variations in the hardness and density of the projectiles has on pressures and velocity. The purpose of patching in a rifle is NOT to "seal the bore", as anything you can easily blow air through isn't going to hold 20,000 PSI ; rather, it is to provide a more durable bearing surface than the very thin line around the diameter of the ball that is going to be in contact with the barrel steel. If the bearing surface is inadequate to resist the incredible amount of shearing force (from the rotation of the rifling) and friction in the bore, the projectile will "skip the rifling" and not spin adequately/consistently. To this end, I have also found that "shallow groove" rifling (roughly .003"-.005" deep grooves), combined with paper, cup-style patching and a .01" under-bore-sized projectile to be easiest to achieve accuracy in. My only "dedicated" round ball rifle that I still own is a former Tradition's PA Pellet (1:48" twist) that has .005" grooves and is loaded with 100gr weighed charges of 3F powder and paper patched balls. With the crude sights Tradition's put on that gun, I get average 1.73" groups at 100 yards from a rest, and that's with that hunting load, I still need to work up a lighter target load with it (which potentially can be more accurate, for various reasons).

For accuracy purposes, I also recommend pre-weighing out your charges on a scale, and bringing them to the range in vials or paper tubes. Black powder of a particular formulation gives the same amount of gas for its weight, every time (obviously allowing for some lot to lot variations). BP, being irregularly shaped, is prone to not being volumetrically metered out as consistently as more symmetrical granular propellants (think: flake smokeless vs ball powder). Also, I recommend looking into using a drop tube, in order to ensure that the charge lands in the breech area the same way, every time; as opposed to some of the powder getting caught on the rifling down the barrel, and settling in the breech area a different way each load. As far as loading is concerned, I have found that compressing the load in the barrel leads to inconsistency, as there is no way you are going to put the same amount of pressure on that charge each time, by hand. Even if you use a tool like a precision packer (most trad competitions don't really allow those, in my experience), you are still not going to compress it the exact same way each time. I have found that just gently sliding the ball down the barrel until it just touches the powder is the most consistent way to load. I would compare charge compression in a ML to a combination of cartridge OAL and neck tension in a modern cartridge, and those are very important for consistency.

Another thing to consider is a set of pin gauges to monitor the erosion of the vent, as once a vent gets to a certain point of erosion, it tends to erode at a much faster rate. A rapidly eroding vent leads to wild pressure and velocity swings, which robs accuracy. During the development of your loads and practice, periodically check the diameter of the vent, and take note of where the accuracy started to fall apart. Change out your next cone before it gets to that point. They're cheap, and are a consumable component of shooting.

Last thing is sights, for a purely target rifle, I would recommend a Tube sight (think a scope without glass, and an aperture at each end) and use "rabbit ear" mounts for a Malcolm Scope with the fine adjustment screw kit. Second best would be a hooded, dual aperture sighting set up; with a tang-mounted Veneer sight rear (preferably with an adjustable iris installed (they had them, look at Pedersoli's Hadley style eyepieces)) and something like a Lyman model 17A front (get a couple of different sized aperture inserts for different lighting). Third would be a plain blade front sight and a simple rear-mounted aperture sight. Fourth would be a fine bead-on-a-post front sight, and a semi-buckhorn rear sight with a 3/4 circle notch (sized to make the bead appear to fill the notch when sighting). Fifth would be a tight rear notch and plain blade front. Dead last would be a large "U" notch rear and a "Barleycorn" front.

Obviously, a set trigger is a plus. For an off-hand gun, proper balance and stock fit to you and your style of shooting are critical. I, for one, Use a "swiss hold, and that means that I not only can get away with a more butt-heavy, light weight rifle, but also require less mass out at the muzzle for a rifle to not feel overly heavy. That stance allows you to brace your supporting arm against your ribcage, rather than trying to hold the rifle up purely with your arm muscles. A rifle that is primarily going to be shot standing can afford to have more drop at the comb than one that is going to be shot in various positions (a hunting/general purpose rifle). A hooked butt plate is a nice thing to have as well (not the SMR or "Hawken" style meant to be shot off the bicep, the Continental European style meant to be shot from the shoulder), as it frees up your dominant hand to purely manage the trigger, rather than holding up the back end of the rifle. Look at Germanic "Scheutzenfest" rifles (off-hand shooting competitions typically shot at 40 rods (220 yards)) for an example of dedicated off-hand rifles.

I just got schooled. Thanks wildranger. Great advice.

 

[William Sublette]

A bore is a bore and a ball is a ball, the accuracy going out that bore is entirely dependent on the accuracy of the stuff going in it. The whole "this caliber/chambering is more accurate than that caliber/chambering, simply by virtue of it being X-chambering/caliber" is about as true in Muzzle loading as it is in modern guns.

The larger bore is going to be more expensive to feed (both in powder and shot), and paper can't tell the difference between a 45gr .31 ball and a 224gr ball. The recoil will be more for the larger guns (requiring more powder and shot), and that generally isn't ideal for target shooting. If you are shooting round balls at paper, most likely the distances aren't going to be far enough for the BC advantage the larger ball has (roughly .074 for the .54 vs .043 for a little .32) to warrant the extra cost, weight, and recoil, IMO. Cost is a major consideration when it comes to competition shooting, as much of your performance is directly related to how much quality trigger time you can put in.

While many people will insist that you "need" a 1:66 twist for round ball to achieve anything resembling accuracy, I would like to submit to the court the fact that many barrel makers throughout history used faster... sometimes much faster; and still got very good accuracy (3/4 turn in the length of the barrel was common on the 30ish inch barreled Germanic rifles). A faster rate of twist requires less velocity to achieve a stable RPM for the ball (lessening recoil and cost in powder). Once again, paper doesn't care how fast the ball's going. A "good" twist for a .32 would be a 1:28, .36 would be 30, .40 would be 40, .45 would be 48, 50 would be 50, and .54 would be 55. Slower rates of twist require higher velocity to achieve a stable RPM, and that increases costs and recoil.

The one real exception to the above points would be in knock-over steel competitions, where the velocity and mass of your ball can make the difference between scoring a point and getting zip. Then again, I have always felt that those type of competitions are more angled towards hunting-type guns, rather than being simply the pursuit of accuracy.

As far as patching is concerned, you can either use a bore sized "belted ball" (essentially, a groove sized ball sized down to bore diameter) and no patch at all (which was done); or you could use cloth (a tightly woven cloth is desired, as it resists abrasion better than a loose weave, pillow ticking is often used, but silk and linen have also been used) cut into a square/triangle/circle that has enough material to envelope the back and sides of the ball. Another option is Paper patching your ball (not only is this cheaper, but it allows you to use a ball that is much closer to bore diameter, more on that in a second). To use paper patching for a ball, you essentially make a very thin paper sabot on a bore sized dowel, with a cavity on the end to accept a ball, a glue stick, and a tiny bit of thread to keep the ball from pushing through the paper cup. Another way to paper patch (or cloth patch) would be to use an "X" shaped patch (or two strips crossed, that are slightly under bore diameter in width). Shooting-quality Paper is roughly 10x cheaper than cloth, substantially more easy to find, and it's not like you are going to reuse it.

I have found that the easiest way to achieve accuracy with a ML rifle is to use the thinnest patching possible, and a bullet that is as close to bore diameter as possible. This minimizes the amount of deformation the projectile must go through to upset into the rifling. The less the projectile has to deform to take up the rifling, the less of an impact slight variations in the hardness and density of the projectiles has on pressures and velocity. The purpose of patching in a rifle is NOT to "seal the bore", as anything you can easily blow air through isn't going to hold 20,000 PSI ; rather, it is to provide a more durable bearing surface than the very thin line around the diameter of the ball that is going to be in contact with the barrel steel. If the bearing surface is inadequate to resist the incredible amount of shearing force (from the rotation of the rifling) and friction in the bore, the projectile will "skip the rifling" and not spin adequately/consistently. To this end, I have also found that "shallow groove" rifling (roughly .003"-.005" deep grooves), combined with paper, cup-style patching and a .01" under-bore-sized projectile to be easiest to achieve accuracy in. My only "dedicated" round ball rifle that I still own is a former Tradition's PA Pellet (1:48" twist) that has .005" grooves and is loaded with 100gr weighed charges of 3F powder and paper patched balls. With the crude sights Tradition's put on that gun, I get average 1.73" groups at 100 yards from a rest, and that's with that hunting load, I still need to work up a lighter target load with it (which potentially can be more accurate, for various reasons).

For accuracy purposes, I also recommend pre-weighing out your charges on a scale, and bringing them to the range in vials or paper tubes. Black powder of a particular formulation gives the same amount of gas for its weight, every time (obviously allowing for some lot to lot variations). BP, being irregularly shaped, is prone to not being volumetrically metered out as consistently as more symmetrical granular propellants (think: flake smokeless vs ball powder). Also, I recommend looking into using a drop tube, in order to ensure that the charge lands in the breech area the same way, every time; as opposed to some of the powder getting caught on the rifling down the barrel, and settling in the breech area a different way each load. As far as loading is concerned, I have found that compressing the load in the barrel leads to inconsistency, as there is no way you are going to put the same amount of pressure on that charge each time, by hand. Even if you use a tool like a precision packer (most trad competitions don't really allow those, in my experience), you are still not going to compress it the exact same way each time. I have found that just gently sliding the ball down the barrel until it just touches the powder is the most consistent way to load. I would compare charge compression in a ML to a combination of cartridge OAL and neck tension in a modern cartridge, and those are very important for consistency.

Another thing to consider is a set of pin gauges to monitor the erosion of the vent, as once a vent gets to a certain point of erosion, it tends to erode at a much faster rate. A rapidly eroding vent leads to wild pressure and velocity swings, which robs accuracy. During the development of your loads and practice, periodically check the diameter of the vent, and take note of where the accuracy started to fall apart. Change out your next cone before it gets to that point. They're cheap, and are a consumable component of shooting.

Last thing is sights, for a purely target rifle, I would recommend a Tube sight (think a scope without glass, and an aperture at each end) and use "rabbit ear" mounts for a Malcolm Scope with the fine adjustment screw kit. Second best would be a hooded, dual aperture sighting set up; with a tang-mounted Veneer sight rear (preferably with an adjustable iris installed (they had them, look at Pedersoli's Hadley style eyepieces)) and something like a Lyman model 17A front (get a couple of different sized aperture inserts for different lighting). Third would be a plain blade front sight and a simple rear-mounted aperture sight. Fourth would be a fine bead-on-a-post front sight, and a semi-buckhorn rear sight with a 3/4 circle notch (sized to make the bead appear to fill the notch when sighting). Fifth would be a tight rear notch and plain blade front. Dead last would be a large "U" notch rear and a "Barleycorn" front.

Obviously, a set trigger is a plus. For an off-hand gun, proper balance and stock fit to you and your style of shooting are critical. I, for one, Use a "swiss hold, and that means that I not only can get away with a more butt-heavy, light weight rifle, but also require less mass out at the muzzle for a rifle to not feel overly heavy. That stance allows you to brace your supporting arm against your ribcage, rather than trying to hold the rifle up purely with your arm muscles. A rifle that is primarily going to be shot standing can afford to have more drop at the comb than one that is going to be shot in various positions (a hunting/general purpose rifle). A hooked butt plate is a nice thing to have as well (not the SMR or "Hawken" style meant to be shot off the bicep, the Continental European style meant to be shot from the shoulder), as it frees up your dominant hand to purely manage the trigger, rather than holding up the back end of the rifle. Look at Germanic "Scheutzenfest" rifles (off-hand shooting competitions typically shot at 40 rods (220 yards)) for an example of dedicated off-hand rifles.

Or you could get you a vintage Great Plains Rifle in .54,

some .015 patches,

some .535 round balls,

75grs of 3f


and go win matches.

 

[SamTex1949]

Id suggest purchasing this book and reading what Mr Cline had to say on this topic !
The Muzzle-Loading Rifle.Then and Now

 

[FishDFly]

Everyone should have a copy and read it.

 

[ppb]

....also:

 

[52Bore]

Depending on your location.
There’s an upcoming event dedicated to Hawken.
Also, as others have suggested- find a local club. The NMLRA has many charter clubs that host shooting events.
You’ll learn more in a day attending than months on the Internet as there’s nothing like doing it 1st hand.

 

[rmagnus]

I only own one traditional ML a T/C Renegade .54. I find it shoots both TB & conicals just fine. .530 ball with .10 preluded cotton patch. Bought it as a back up to a CVA .50 Optima for hunting but it’s my primary target rifle for. club shoots. I shoot mostly RB. I have been using 777 2F but recently came into some GOEX. Enjoy ML are a lot of fun.

 

[kelljp]

As an after thought, one of the gentlemen that shoots with us on weekends, has a custom built 40 cal smooth bore (colerain barrel) rifle. I have never seen anyone out shoot him ( cut playing cards at 20 steps is common ).
He always uses spit patches (pillow tick) and refuses to use anything but round balls he makes. So I'm wondering how much the rifling really plays in accuracy, since his gun is a 1:0 twist.