Round ball patch size and accuracy

[Erwan]

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.

Don't think that because we're not American and a little old, we're bad shooters...
You never know who can be behind a pseudo and an avatar...
A little healthy reading: Statis'tir - Championnat de France Armes anciennes

 

[biliff]

. 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.

Given the rotational velocity of the ball/patch as it leaves the muzzle, the patch will flair out immediately and not get caught on the ball. Think about the guy tossing a pizza or throwing a fishing net but on steroids.

 

[flntlokr]

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.

I pre-cut all of my patches for several calibres: 1 1/4" for .58 and .62; 1" for .40 .45 and .50; 3/4" for .31 and .36. I fold the patch fabri so I get it about 16 thick, then punch using arch punches into end grain chopping block. Store them in pill vials. Lube a vial full as needed. Nice and tidy.

 

[user 34300]

Short start a ball with a thin piece of cloth. Mark around the muzzle with a pen. Pull the ball out by the cloth. You will see a rough circle. That is your answer. You can make a patch cutter out of a hole cutter.

I made half a dozen patch cutters to match different bores. I eventually got tired of centering patches and now cut at the muzzle.

 

[necchi]

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,,,
You can see this with the chronometer,

"wedge effect", Interesting concept and observation.
At what point would "excess" material begin causing velocity inconsistencies? 5mm, 1cm or greater?
Can you define "scatter cone" as you use the term here?

p.s. Thank you for sharing your link to the Championnat de France Armes anciennes,
for those monoligustic,, it's the "French Ancient Weapons Championship".

 

[Tasbay]

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

.50 & .58cal

 

[centershot]

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.

Offhand shooting is NOT a test of the accuracy of the rifle. The gun has to be shot from a bench over bags or a benchrest in order to eliminate the human factor. The "size", meaning, square inches", is meaningless to accuracy as long as the contact surface of the ball is covered. The thickness of the patch, however, makes all the difference in the world!

 

[1BadDart]

I measured the hole in my patch material from when I shot my .40 the other night. The balls were started using the nub on my short starter then cut at the muzzle, the hole measured 1 1/16" and were kinda square with rounded corners.

 

[Erwan]

"wedge effect", Interesting concept and observation.
At what point would "excess" material begin causing velocity inconsistencies? 5mm, 1cm or greater?
Can you define "scatter cone" as you use the term here?

Well, I did look on Youtube, but no one accept the automatics subtitles, anyway I’ll try to find one that accept the subtitles and the translations : generally those videos are to old or the subtitles function isn’t in place…

I did that for some friends who don’t know the way to get this translation……. Translation Google -/) but it can help :

This one with my young friend Math accept the subtitles : , for the others you must make the test and try…

another accepting the subtitles, but not very interesting :



About the question of the "wedge effect" when the patch is too large (not enough to cover the ball, of course) this very simple. When putting the patch the normal way is that the tissue follow the walls of the barrel and that just a little goes beyond the axis (hemisphere) of the ball and it's normal, but you can’t avoid a very slight wedge effect due to the fact that the patch necessarily folds back on itself at the point of contact of the bullet and the barrel when the charge explodes and propels the patch plus bullet forward while the patch is slowed down by the rifling, but it's normal and regular (not the case with paper notepads with long bullets, this is another story). So, if your patch is largely too great the wedge effect will grow. Thus, if your patch is much too large, the wedge effect will be amplified if the patch fabric is (becomes) too large in relation to the bullet and the barrel....…

As far as the "dispersion cone" is concerned, the problem stems from the starting disturbance: a bad speed due to a too large patch will certainly lead to a larger and wider dispersion than normal, a bit like when the powder charge is not yet efficient or when this moment will have been exceeded: the group will be wider, not "galactic" but wider all the same.



Here is a summary reasoning that led us to check the speed measurements with the stopwatch and that seems to be confirmed in the case of a precision shot at 100 meters with PRB and comfortable loads, the kind of powder loads with which you can feel the taste of the fruit......



Excuse me for the language mistakes, but I never write so much and even less to explain what seems inexplicable at first reading...

 

[oldwood]

My huntin" , and shootin' buddy ,and I , argued for years about patch shape. In the end his roughly square cut patches shot as good as my home made , die cut round ones.

 

[doubleset]

Well, I did look on Youtube, but no one accept the automatics subtitles, anyway I’ll try to find one that accept the subtitles and the translations : generally those videos are to old or the subtitles function isn’t in place…

I confess that I don't see the relevance of any of those videos to the questions being asked about the size and effect of patches. They seem to be just generic/introductory videos on the the use of antique arms. If there is something specifically relevant in them to the questions at hand, could you perhaps point to the precise locations in them where these are addressed? I just didn't see any.

As far as the "dispersion cone" is concerned, the problem stems from the starting disturbance: a bad speed due to a too large patch will certainly lead to a larger and wider dispersion than normal, a bit like when the powder charge is not yet efficient or when this moment will have been exceeded: the group will be wider, not "galactic" but wider all the same.

Here is a summary reasoning that led us to check the speed measurements with the stopwatch and that seems to be confirmed in the case of a precision shot at 100 meters with PRB and comfortable loads, the kind of powder loads with which you can feel the taste of the fruit......

You seem to keep referring to some sort of experiments that you've done that involve this concept of "dispersion cone" and the "reasoning" that illustrates how that all works. But we have yet to see any specific experiments described, or to have any specific data that you recorded. So that makes it look as though what you're describing isn't actually any experiment or empirical results, but more something along the lines of a "theory" you have, or a "thought experiment". In short, speculation in place of science. Which of those are you doing here?

 

[necchi]

I confess that I don't see the relevance of any of those videos to the questions being asked about the size and effect of patches. They seem to be just generic/introductory videos on the the use of antique arms. If there is something specifically relevant in them to the questions at hand, could you perhaps point to the precise locations in them where these are addressed? I just didn't see any.

I am the one that added the first video,, and did so just to show our members what/where Erwin hails from and how he's involved in our sport.
Your right, nothing in them refers to the source topic.
Erwin added a few more from the Ancient Weapons Championship venue that have sub-titles.
I'm sorry if that was mis-leading,,
My Bad,,

From what I gather his "dispersion cone" is what we would call "standard deviation" in regard to Point of aim or MOA aka; a bad group.

 

[Erwan]

So that makes it look as though what you're describing isn't actually any experiment or empirical results, but more something along the lines of a "theory" you have, or a "thought experiment". In short, speculation in place of science. Which of those are you doing here?

Besides a bookish culture, what do you do? Are you a shooter? Are you a hunter? Are you so experienced in competition that you live in constant criticism?
It is from studied and experienced details that everything progresses, not by being nose in books and forums, reading or copying/pasting what others have experienced and described before you.
I have never read a single post of yours that doesn't transpire only pretentiousness, the display of pseudo-knowledge and your underlying aggressiveness.

It's often a small detail and a lot of practice that makes the difference between a 10 and an 8 in target and, from that point of view, a top seed or a loser, but that's not in the books....

As for the videos that bother you so much, they were not intended for you and even less to call you to display your bookish pseudo-science, just an illustration of what can be done by activating or not the subtitles of Youtube....

Sorry to have perturbed your great knowledge and your no less great capacity for dialogue.

 

[longcruise]

. 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.

Here we are, examining this proposition within the parameters of the question as stated. Sooo, i must ask, was there any difference in the patch material that suddenly was grouping nicely. Different material, different thickness, age of the material..... anything at all?

 

[Uncle Miltie]

Use the thinnest patch you can get away with. Excess patching material will hurt nothing, but a patch that is too small will hurt accuracy.

 

[flntlokr]

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.

I punch my patches. 1" for .40-.50, 1.25" for .54-62. Could it be that your lube is gluing the patch to the balls for a split second? That might influence the accuracy. Your spit may not be wet enough? I'd try some soapy water lube: soak the day's patches in a soapy solution. Prior to loading, take a small pile out and squeeze all of the water that you can using yor fingers; they should still be plenty wet, and no way will they stick to the balls (plus you get a clean bore for each shot-no fouling).

 

[Sun City]

PRB

IMG_3565 by Sharps Man, on Flickr

530" 54 cal Hornady swaged RB with .018" thickness pillow tick with Canola lube plus 100 grains KIK 2F BP

Sharps Man, on Flickr

 

[SlidePicker]

For convenience's sake I turned to precutting patches rather than carrying a big piece of ticking and cutting it at the muzzle. So I needed to come up with a size. Cutting roughly square pieces is a lot easier than cutting or punching round ones. The patch needs to fully cover the contact area between the bore and the equator of the ball, and it should be open at the front to let the relative wind enter and blow the patch off. For a centered square patch to just reach the ball's equator, the width of the square must be 1/2 the ball's circumference. The diameter of a .50 caliber ball rounds up to .5", so 1/2πd is .7854". Giving a little room for error I cut my patches to a square 1" for .50 caliber. Now the corners of the square are going to be longer. Using the Pythagorean theorem, the diagonal of a 1" square is 1.414". The circumference of the .5" ball, πd, is 1.57". So with the ball centered in the square and the "ears" pressed down tightly against the face of the .5" ball, the tips of the corners can't get closer than .157" apart. Real balls are .490" or .495", and my squares are hand cut approximately, but 1" squares cover the ball-bore contact and leave the patch open for the wind to get inside at the front. Plus, centrifugal force from the rifling will pull the "ears" out toward the bore surface. This is way overcomplicating something that isn't rocket science and could quickly be determined by the cut and try method, but it would shock my 8th grade math teacher that I remember how to do it.

 

[Sun City]

This ain’t rocket science fellows! Some folks are way over thinking a very simple procedure!! D Boone wasn’t thinking in the NASA mode when he loaded!

 

[david w]

This ain’t rocket science fellows! Some folks are way over thinking a very simple procedure!! D Boone wasn’t thinking in the NASA mode when he loaded!

OK, what did Daniel do, use pre cut or at the muzzle? Asking honestly.