• 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

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

deadin

32 Cal.
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
46
Reaction score
13
Is there a name for this type of rifling?
What are its advantages/disadvantages?
Thin patch/thick patch?
 

Attachments

  • Kail Bore.jpg
    Kail Bore.jpg
    263.7 KB
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.
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.
 
Pure lead, lot of lube, no patch?? Enough upset to take to the narrow grooves?
The barrel is from a Ohio Half Stock Sporting Rifle.
Full.jpg
 
Good point. With a .100 ball it would go pretty easy. Just kidding!

.....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.
 
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.
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • K (2).jpg
    K (2).jpg
    49.2 KB
  • K (12).jpg
    K (12).jpg
    16.1 KB
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.
Something like this?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2421.JPG
    IMG_2421.JPG
    82.1 KB
When was this type of muzzle treatment in style?
I ask because I have an 1858 Remington C&B that has been extensively converted to 44 Colt (or 44 Remington) at some time in its life.
I'm curious just how long ago as those cartridges have been obsolete for some time...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2312.JPG
    IMG_2312.JPG
    1.9 MB
Lots of different ways rifling was done.
The grooves on your barrel were filed out to the crown. This was commonly done. Some folks call it coning, but it's not.
Load your rifle with a thinner patch 0.010 and see how it work: it should shoot just fine
 
I’m curious to see HOW this thing turns out! I guess it was easier to pull a very narrow cutter by hand through the barrel than a wide one? Please post targets!
 
Back
Top