Strange comment from UK

[TFoley]

This appeared on a well-known British website -

don't usually come onto this forum, but was having a look around as we were given a very good demonstration on how to load a BP pistol last weekend at our club. One of the things stressed was seating depth of the ball, it needs to be seated just to the front of the cylinder, any deeper and the ball will be travelling too fast to properly enter the rifling, that is apparently why you pack with a wad and semolina then grease on top of the ball if using BP rather than pyrodex or 777

This was my response....

Well, Sir, I have to admit that I've never heard THAT one before. I concur about the need to have the ball level with the front of the chamber or thereabouts, but as for the ball going too fast to enter the rifling if it's seated deeper, perhaps you'll advise me just where else it's going to go?

There's about 18,000 of us on muzzleloadingforum.com with bated breath, awaiting your answer.

tac

 

[Don]

Yeah, thats weird.

Don

 

[F.G. Ford]

Somebody is misinformed!

Several thousand of shots later, with no apparent malfunction.
Fred

 

[TFoley]

Somebody is misinformed!

Several thousand of shots later, with no apparent malfunction.
Fred

Hmmm. Well, I've been shooting C&B handguns since the late 1950's, with a gap where the ball is set into the chamber. Started to use a lube in 1978, kind of hand cream-y stuff, and sometimes I don't. Never noticed much difference, either.

I have to admit that it took me aback.

The 'explanation' is even odder....wait a minute.....

Uh, here y'are......along with my response

Originally Posted by XXXXXX
maybe i didnt explain it very well it went something like this....... you need the ball to enter the rifling as slow as possible, therefore by loading it right at the front, it will do just that as it's only just got moving before it gets there. If seated deep into the cylinder, it will be moving faster and not engage the rifling nice and evenly but tend to strip and cause innacurate flight

that was my understanding, maybe i got it all wrong, don't know, but this guy knew his stuff, he also knew which chambers gave the worst performance in his collection and fires a 5 5 3 sequence

And my response -

Thank you for indulging me with your response - much appreciated by me and the guys over on muzzleloadingforum.com.

I have to admit, since I have only got a City & Guilds in Mechanical Engineering, and not a degree, that that is the most unusual concept I've heard of in years.

I'd like for your expert to advise me/us of the difference in velocity between a ball moving from a standstill at the end of the chamber nearest the barrel forcing cone and moving from an undisclosed distance - probably not more than around a tenth of an inch more - down the chamber to the barrel.

Or on the other hand, never mind - I'm probably too old and set in my ways to understand anyhow.

tac

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Now I have always been advised that for best possible accuracy the ball must be seated only enough that the cylinder rotates in the gun. If for instance, the balls are seated down far into the chambers the groups will open up.

Now I will admit the few times I tried it, the accuracy was miserable, but my accuracy with the balls seated just at the chamber mouth was almost as miserable.

As with everything else in shooting black powder, consistency rules. And for the mere purpose of keeping things as consistent as possible. I developed the habit of seating the ball with a small home made press that stops when the ball is just below the chamber mouth. I could set the ball down further into the chamber with out filler, but like the chamber for many target quality cartridge rifles, the less free bore the better.

Whether the ball develops too much speed by traveling a half inch before engaging the forcing cone, seems like a theoretically plausible explanation. Measuring the speed of the ball in that half inch may be problematic.

Just from personal observation, the guys who almost always beat my revolver scores,(which isn't hard) usually load just to the chamber mouth no matter what kind of cap and ball revolver they shoot.

 

[Robert Egler]

I had never heard that, I'll have to try some experiments. So far I use loads that place the ball about 1 ball diameter below the cylinder mouth, and I'm getting 5 shot groups of 2.5 to 3 inches at 40 feet, standing, shooting offhand, one handed. Which is about what I get with a modern semiauto Ruger.

 

[Don]

I've never noticed any difference in accuracy when seating deeper or coser to mouth of cylinder. Then again I'm no expert pistol shooter. The biggest differences I see are with powder types or charges. Heavy charges generally being less accurate than smaller ones. As stated, in the world of competitive shooting small things can mean a lot more in terms of score.

Don

 

[zimmerstutzen]

I think some of these ideas may be hard to test. For instance, none of my cap and ball revolvers are tuned for target competition. In target competition, a one or two point difference over 10 targets is a big deal. To most shooters, it is barely noticeable. And so many other variables can skew the results. powder measure, powder compression, powder lot or granualation. Fouled from previous shooting etc.

More than one competitor has told me they even know which chambers of the cylinder are less accurate than others and number their chambers. (Talk about knowing your gun)

 

[David W.]

I'm waiting for Pletch to chime in on this one. He will probably say, "sorry guy, I'm too busy to waste my time and efforts on such a lame brain experiment".

 

[crockett]

I'm no expert so these are just some thoughts. On the velocity- I'm not sure that is an issue because on shotguns firing slugs you can put in a rifled choke tube and that is at the end of the barrel. On the seating of the ball at the front of the cylinder. It was my assumption- and it may be wrong- that if the diameter of the chamber was slightly larger than the bore, that the round ball could upset or enlarge somewhat while in the chamber and then change shape again when entering the forcing cone and rifling and the less changes the better- especially if the allignment between each chamber with the bore is not consistent or if the chambers have slightly diiferent diameters (which seems unlikely). In any event, if the first forward movement of each ball is leaving the chamber and entering the forcing cone area of the bore- then, theoretically- it is better because each ball is acted upon-or upsets- in the same manner. Of course the proof is in the pudding. On a lot of guns it doesn't seem to make much difference.
And, while speaking about the forcing cone, I know on modern handguns the angle of the cone is often a big issue. Brownell's sells a tool to lengthen this forcing cone which is claimed to improve accuracy but how the foring cone works on round balls in cap and ball pistols- I have no idea, if anyone has changed the forcing cone and obtained better accuracy- please let us know.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

As for a shotgun slug, it is just that. No single hole five shot groups off a bench at 100 yds.

I know that target 22 RF's have chambers that are engineered to have the bullet pushed into the rifling when the breech is closed. In some other target guns, the chamber is really short to minimize "free bore" ie the bullet jumping forward into the rifling. Harry Pope overcame this by muzzle loading the bullets through a false muzzle. Other target shooters of the early cartridge days, would breech seat their bullets into the rifling. Either method was designed to eliminate "freebore jump". From all this concern over freebore in the chamber cartridge guns, I accepted, but never questioned the wisdom of the likes of Harry Pope that free bore was to be avoided or minimized to preserve accuracy. Such thinking would seem to be applicable to cap and ball revolvers. On the other hand there may be a reason why it isn't applicable.

Seems that my Ruger OA and I will have to do some range time.

 

[earl jernigan]

I agree seating depth can have an effect on accuracy. The ball needs to be just deep enough to allow the cylinder to rotate. At the same time there is the need for the powder to be tightly, and consistantly packed. Thus the need for filler in the chamber, cereal, meal, kapok, regardless of yore preferance. Seating deep on a unsupplemented charge will shoot fine. It leaves a lot of room for improvement in accuracy tho.

This is the same principal which brings reloaders to the bench searching for the perfect OA length, seating depth, and dies which are adjustable to .oo1 for this reason. Best accuracy happens when the bullet has to "jump" the shortest distance to engage the rifling. If the bullet rest, touching or engaged in the rifling best results are achieved.

Having said all that, if you are not bench rest shooting it may not be worth the difference in aggravation.

HOSS

 

[Blizzard of '93]

I've been shooting BP revolvers for around 30 yrs. first I've heard of that malarkey.
also I've been casting my Lee mold slugs for my '58 .44 and my ROA for about 20 yrs. a felt disc under slug does tighten groups a bit

 

[TFoley]

Gentlemen - thank you all for your valued input and time spent responding to my rather odd query.

I'd just like to say that I try and get the chambers loaded the same way every time and like you all, and firmly convinced that consistency is the key to good shooting with a BP revolver, whether or not we use a wad or another sort of filler, or even leave it out entirely like the old boys way did back then.

Thanks again.

Best to All

tac

 

[Greg Hardy]

The only thing I have ever heard even resembling this is forcing cone gap. If the gap is too large, it supposedly causes erratic accuracy. Personally, I have never really noticed an appreciable difference.

 

[aeatwood]

I don't have the book in front of me since I am away from home now, but I think I remember George Nonte recommending to use filler or wads under the ball if the powder charge was greatly reduced, since 1) a half-cylinder of grease makes for rather messy shooting, and the ball can suffer deformation from rough/non-concentric chambers. He was of the opinion that the sooner you could get the ball in the barrel, the better off you were.

All I know for certain is that all my guns but one shoot best (so far) with a more-or-less full charge of 2F Goex, a lubed felt wad under the ball, and a pure lead ball that shaves a healthy ring of lead when it is seated in the chamber.

Take this with the usual grain of salt, but I think pressure plays as big a role as anything else for a given level of production quality. For any given velocity, 2F will produce lower pressures than 3F - it is just not able to produce the velocity you get with a full charge of 3F. And since each grain of 2F is producing less velocity than 3F, small variations in charge weight from using a volume measure result in lower SD in velocity.

Give the preceding with as much/little credence as you wish. It sounds good, anyway. :rotf:

 

[nilo52]

Tac,
I know this will sound odd as well, but, At the risk of ridicule, Is there any historical evidence of shooters using any kind of "filler' when they shot revolvers ? I have done a little bit of looking and so far I can't find anything about people lugging around filler with them. I know from years of reading Forum accounts that it is a popular idea with some folks but I'm not sure.
Next question; why are cylinders made with chambers that are so deep to begin with ?? I would guess that "back in the day" they might have used 2f and therefore the thrown charge might have been larger ? Please give this old man the lowdown :idunno:
nilo

 

[CoyoteJoe]

There certainly evidence from the 1950's of revolver target shooters using a filler. If you're speaking of the 1860's, there wasn't any revolver target shooting being done and for combat or personal defense people were probably more inclined to load all the powder the chamber would hold.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Tac, as I understand what the fellow was trying to say, the farther the ball travels before encountering the lands, the faster it will be traveling and the more momentum it will have when it does encounter the lands. Just how much effect that may have on accuracy I don't pretend to know but we are speaking of a soft lead ball with a very short bearing surface, it could well skid across the lands a bit before beginning to rotate. I have examined hard alloy bullets fired from modern revolvers and have noted that the marks of the lands are noticeably wider at the front of the bullet than at the rear. That tells me the bullet did skid just a bit before beginning to rotate and follow the lands.
I just intuitively believe best accuracy will come with minimum free travel from chamber to bore. For that reason, when firing less than full powder charges I have always used fillers or wads to keep the ball just below flush with the chamber mouth. I have never actually tested a reduced charge without a filler so maybe I am wasting time and resources but when I can keep five shots from a Navy Colt in an inch and a half group at 25 yards I don't think I'm doing anything terribly wrong.

 

[flibuste]

The practise of filler and having balls very near the forcing cone of revolvers is mainly important with revover suffering from inadequate alignment of chambers / bore. In this case the faster the ball will engage in the bore the more it will be damaged , because it will have to deviate, with impact on final accuracy.

I had a very poorly built Palmetto 1858 remington with terrible misalignment of chambers and bore. The forcing cone was enlarged but I noticed that the closer the balls were to top of the chambers, the better the accuracy.

Many revolver suffer from slight misalignment of chambers with bore and this practise may impact.

Regards