In
The Kentucky Rifle, Captain Dillin wrote at some length on this. He stated that old-timers often carried two sizes of balls, one slightly under bore (land to land) diameter for shooting with a patch, and one a bit larger, just big enough to engage the grooves when shot bare. How they kept the balls sorted, separated, and accessible is anybody's guess. Anyway, Dillin's hypothesis was that the rifle would be carried loaded with a patched round ball. If a quick reload was required after that first shot, the slightly larger ball would be loaded bare, exactly as described by
@The Crisco Kid in post #7. I have not tried it, but evidently a bare ball just over bore diameter is easy to ram but stays where you put it, and is accurate enough for general purposes. James R. Mead, an old-time Kansas market hunter and Indian trader, also reported shooting bare balls when needed, while buffalo hunting. I think these were the same balls he was shooting with patches, though, and not oversized. Mead was not "running" the buffalo, but was shooting from a fixed position at reasonably close range, if I remember correctly. I don't remember if he was just reloading quickly, or if he simply ran out of patch material.
An article in a back issue of
Muzzle Blasts (late fifties or early sixties) about Don Coble, a noted roundball benchrest shooter of the time, indicated that he preferred balls about .001" over bore size, and of course he shot them patched.
So there is some precedent for shooting slightly oversized balls, and for loading them bare for fast reloads. However, I'm not aware of people using these for repeated shooting. Again, I have not tried this myself, but I would think a well-lubricated felt wad between the powder and the bare ball might help keep fouling soft.
If it were me, though, and I fell into a lot of 6,000 oversized balls, I think I would consider recasting at least some of them.
Thanks for reporting on this interesting experiment!
Notchy Bob