Round ball patch size and accuracy

[Wolfmanjack]

I’m talking diameter not thickness here. I’ve read where the accepted view is that patch size doesn’t affect accuracy. What say you guys? I got out to do some shooting a few days ago: tc hawken 50 cal, 80gr by weight homemade black powder, .490 round ball, spit lubed pillow ticking. I cut some new patches that were much smaller and accuracy improved greatly. In fact previously at 75 yards I was lucky to get on paper. Now the gun is grouping very nicely shooting off hand.

 

[david w]

I cut my patches at the muzzle.

 

[Grenadier1758]

I cut at the muzzle so there is not much in the way of excess patching. The muzzle looks the same for pistols and rifles.

 

[doubleset]

As far as I can tell, neither exact size (within reasonable limits) or shape matters. Have never had any problem on my .50 GPR, and I use hand-cut 3/4" square patches in my .32 Crockett. The size of those isn't exact, and the shape is what I refer to as "generally or mostly square-ish". Sometimes more parallelogram-ish. That patch has a job to do. Anything beyond that job is in the domain of esoterica. But if your patches were "too big" (whatever that means), I guess I can understand some effect on accuracy. Also, maybe your new improved results aren't the result of the patch change at all. One experiment doesn't demonstrate anything reliable in terms of a conclusion.

 

[hanshi]

I precut all my patches so size variation is sort of "built in". I do try and keep them on the minimum size but prefer oversize to undersize. I have a chart of patch dia. recommendations for each caliber and try for the best size. But still I sometimes find a patch will work for two "close" calibers. But so far I've never found an effect the patch size might have on accuracy.

 

[Tasbay]

All my patches are about 1-1/4 inch square and shot out of both my 50 & 58 calibre guns with good accuracy.

 

[biliff]

In fact previously at 75 yards I was lucky to get on paper. Now the gun is grouping very nicely shooting off hand.

It’s unlikely a change in patch size will take a load from “off the paper” to “grouping nicely”. I would be more inclined to credit an improvement in your offhand shooting. Only way to know for sure is to bench the gun with both loads to remove as much of the human factor as possible.

 

[nhmoose]

Worry about thickness and cut at the muzzle will be a start

 

[granth]

I cut at the muzzle. It's the perfect size, and it is always centered! I use 0.18" ticking, but some people use muslin and some other stuff as well (I have yet to try those options).

 

[SDSmlf]

I’m talking diameter not thickness here. I’ve read where the accepted view is that patch size doesn’t affect accuracy. What say you guys? I got out to do some shooting a few days ago: tc hawken 50 cal, 80gr by weight homemade black powder, .490 round ball, spit lubed pillow ticking. I cut some new patches that were much smaller and accuracy improved greatly. In fact previously at 75 yards I was lucky to get on paper. Now the gun is grouping very nicely shooting off hand.

Doesn’t follow along with my experiences, but if it works for you, who is to say anything. Keep us posted with results from future outings. Interesting.

 

[Tasbay]

How far from the muzzle were your patches falling to the ground?. My understanding is yes you can have too larger patches to the extent that they can wrap over the front of the ball and carry along with it finally falling off and therefore affecting accuracy. I have never noticed this with my 1-1/4 inch patches so assume that they would need to be quite large to cause the issue I have afore mentioned.

 

[david w]

How far from the muzzle were your patches falling to the ground?. My understanding is yes you can have too larger patches to the extent that they can wrap over the front of the ball and carry along with it finally falling off and therefore affecting accuracy. I have never noticed this with my 1-1/4 inch patches so assume that they would need to be quite large to cause the issue I have afore mentioned.

Please state your caliber. I don't think I would use a 1-1/4" patch for a .36 caliber.

 

[necchi]

.490 round ball, spit lubed pillow ticking. I cut some new patches that were much smaller and accuracy improved greatly.

Well, there are a lot of things that can change the load combination.
Finding what works best is the key.
"spit lube" works great. Always has, (at the range) while it's in there short term and still "lube".
I wonder if in this case if the variable isn't more lube available while using the smaller patch?


I guess I'm mentioning that because in my experience in observation and practice,, is that extra fabric over the ball doesn't change the lube properties of the patch or patch/ball contact??
@Wolfmanjack, think about that,, was the smaller patch "wetter" than the large patch?

 

[Ben Meyer]

I cut at the muzzle. I think when we're initially working up "the load" for our guns, every variable should be explored, especially vall diameter, patching and patch lube. Every gun has 8ts preferred combination, it's our job to find it.

That said, I believe there's an ideal tightness between ball and patch. My accuracy, for example, was virtually identical using a .490 ball+.018 thick patch vs a .495 ball and .014 thick patch. Felt the exact same to load. Now, tighter or looser patch/ball combos gave WORSE accuracy.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Excess patching does not affect accuracy. I once watched Webb Terry (one of the ml greats) do an extensive test on this very subject. At times, he would cram quite a bit of patching down the bore over the ball. No change in accuracy from pre-cut or cut at muzzle patches. This is a non issue. FWIW, I cut at muzzle.

 

[Erwan]

About patches, I've seen that too big a size (not enough to cover the bullet anyway) can change a "milli-bit" the accuracy but especially the velocity: the wedge effect excess of the patch works as a brake and the velocity at the muzzle is lower and more irregular than with a good size, so especially at a relatively long distance, something like 100 yards, the scatter cone could be bigger (regardless of lubrication). Of course, this isn't really noticeable at 50 yards, let alone 25 (can't say because at my range, it is forbidden to shoot a rifle at a short distance like 25 yards or meters).
You can see this with the chronometer, but at the muzzle when the patch is open, there is no great difference in the accuracy.
I only do this with .45 caliber, simply because all my rifles are in that caliber. For example, in a Pedersoli Tryon caliber .45 and 1:47 twist, my best compromise is: 1.1" diameter and .010" thickness (0.25mm), for a Dikar (one of the old names of the Tradition brand), for an equal caliber and a twist rate 1:66", the thickness is .013" (0.34mm) and the ball .440" : the two barrels are different...
The diameter value of the patch can create some variation in the "behavior" of the bullet, but it is not so important, on the other hand the adapted lubrication and these are important: barrel (bit rusty or mirror), torsion, type and quality of grooves ...
I think that in the present case the variation is particularly due to the change of position of the shooter, even on the mental side: there are moments with and moments without...

 

[ohio ramrod]

I believe that s long as the patch covers the area where the ball and bore meet, and does not cover the ball when loaded patch diameter does not matter. If to small the patch will not remain intact, if the patch covers the ball entirely it will not separate evenly throwing the ball off line.But then this is just my opinion and is worth exactly what you paid fo it.

 

[Maven]

I’m talking diameter not thickness here.

WMJ, There's nothing wrong with cutting patches at the muzzle for the reasons stated above. However, if for some reason you'd rather not, try multiplying the RB caliber you're using by 2.3 and round up. E.g., .490" x 2.3 = 1.127" or 1 1/8". That's how I pre-cut patches for my .50cal. Lyman GPR: They're large enough so that you can easily center the RB. Just a thought....

 

[sheriff john]

My favorite ball starter has a very short "nub" which pushes the ball only far enough into the muzzle to allow slicing off excess patching material - same depth each time, patches are therefore round and same diameter. Longer rod on the starter pushes patched ball further down the barrel (same distance each time).

So...No matter whether I use ticking in a strip or pre-cut patches, as long as I use the same starter, I get the same diameter patches, perfect for the ball/patching material in use for that shot. Size of ball and thickness of patch can be varied, but the diameter of the patch is always the same.

IF I happen to find some pre-cut patches of the perfect diameter, that's fine, but by using the same technique with the nub first, I'm assured that shot will be consistent with every other. Too much patching atop the ball might be a problem, but too small a patch allowing the ball to not engage rifling is a for-sure problem.

 

[Rifleman1776]

About patches, I've seen that too big a size (not enough to cover the bullet anyway) can change a "milli-bit" the accuracy but especially the velocity: the wedge effect excess of the patch works as a brake and the velocity at the muzzle is lower and more irregular than with a good size, so especially at a relatively long distance, something like 100 yards, the scatter cone could be bigger (regardless of lubrication). Of course, this isn't really noticeable at 50 yards, let alone 25 (can't say because at my range, it is forbidden to shoot a rifle at a short distance like 25 yards or meters).
You can see this with the chronometer, but at the muzzle when the patch is open, there is no great difference in the accuracy.
I only do this with .45 caliber, simply because all my rifles are in that caliber. For example, in a Pedersoli Tryon caliber .45 and 1:47 twist, my best compromise is: 1.1" diameter and .010" thickness (0.25mm), for a Dikar (one of the old names of the Tradition brand), for an equal caliber and a twist rate 1:66", the thickness is .013" (0.34mm) and the ball .440" : the two barrels are different...
The diameter value of the patch can create some variation in the "behavior" of the bullet, but it is not so important, on the other hand the adapted lubrication and these are important: barrel (bit rusty or mirror), torsion, type and quality of grooves ...
I think that in the present case the variation is particularly due to the change of position of the shooter, even on the mental side: there are moments with and moments without...

Erwan, the shooter I referred to in my post, Webb Terry, was a near unbeatable, bench rest champion for many years. He experimented with many techniques in pursuit of hitting the
'X' precisely in the center everytime. One day I watched him do this "too large" a patch experiment. Results: no affect on accuracy.