-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Rifling questions
- Thread starter deadin
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
I can't answer your first question, but to me it looks ideal for a lubed paper-patched ball like I've been experimenting with:
https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/...all-tail-up-or-tail-down.182056/#post-2645161
https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/...all-tail-up-or-tail-down.182056/#post-2645161
rich pierce
70 Cal.
That would be tough to load with a patched ball.
Depends mostly on the size of the ball, not so much the patch, no? I tried various papers for patching the same ball, with little difference in loading.
Last edited:
rich pierce
70 Cal.
Good point. With a .100 ball it would go pretty easy. Just kidding!
I was thinking “load and get acceptable accuracy”. My concern is getting no engraving of those incredibly wide lands on the patched ball. I can’t see how to get the ball to spin.
The patch gets the ball to spin. If the patch is compressed into the grooves upon loading, and at the same time compresses against the ball, it forms a gas seal, so then the powder ignition and gas expansion further compresses the patch into the grooves and against the ball, and then the ball has no option due to compression and friction but to rotate with the grooves as it travels down the barrel.
Antelope Pete
40 Cal
That's what most bores looked back in the day.......wide lands and narrow grooves, just the opposite as today.
rich pierce
70 Cal.
I understand how rifling works, and have found that all my rifles shoot best with ball/patch combinations that result in the weave of the cloth imprinting on the ball. In other words, tight enough to deform the ball as it is loaded. If this is a .29 caliber, it appears the grooves are quite narrow indeed. Much more narrow and the lands proportionately much wider than most 1850s barrels. We can speculate further, but I’d prefer a range test of different ball/patch combinations and targets shown.
Well, I understand you'd prefer more definitive and visually representative results, but I did try as you requested and reported here:
https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/...did-you-do-today.134755/page-744#post-2646256
So sorry I forgot to take my iPad and so have no pics to show representative results.
rich pierce
70 Cal.
This doesn’t appear to be targets from the above barrel. Kibler guns I’ve seen have narrow lands and wide grooves. I’m totally confused now. Over and out.
Phil Coffins
69 Cal.
I would be curious to see what the rifling looks like down inside the barrel. The muzzle may have been coned then these grooves were filed in not representing the rifling of the bore. Many muzzles were filed in a manner different than the bore, some rather extreme.
Here;s a couple, one near the muzzle and one near the breech; (Some bad scaling in the bore but I haven't started working on it yet)
Looks to me that the narrow grooves go all the way down.
