Strange comment from UK

[Larry Pletcher]

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".

Flintlock62,
I'm been lucky enough to test some cool stuff, mostly flint, but I've done nothing regarding ROA and forcing cones. So, I can only offer the same kind of gut feeling as everyone else.

Trying to get the ball into the barrel as slowly as possible doesn't sound right. Getting the ball into the barrel as perfectly as possible does. Someone mentioned mis-aligned cylinder holes, and here is where it starts IMHO. Serious shooters have their cylinders line-bored to insure perfectly concentric cylinder/barrel fit. When the shooter talked about knowing which cylinder holes were not accuratc, misalignment was probably the cause.

A fellow from "Cylinder and Slide" used to come to Friendship with guns very well tuned. Line boring was just one of the important operations done. An improved forcing cone was another. Never in conversations with him did a slow entry into the barrel enter in.

I have great respect to this guy and would have had him tune my ROA if I could have afforded it.

Regards,
Pletch

 

[Gatofeo]

I don't believe that British "expert's" explanation.
Too much velocity causes the ball to strip?
Balderdash!
The original Colts and Remingtons had gain-twist rifling -- rifling whose rate of twist increased at it neared the muzzle. Where the ball entered the barrel, the rifling was nearly straight.
It was claimed that this enhanced accuracy. Yet, today's modern-made cap and ball revolvers with constant-rate rifling can be amazingly accurate.
I began shooting cap and ball revolvers about 1970. I heard, "ball nearer the chamber mouth for best accuracy" even then. Frankly, I've yet to see the difference.
Now, if I could put a pistol scope on some of my pistols, benchrest it, and eliminate any shooter error I might -- might -- not a difference.
But we're talking about revolvers with fixed sights. Even those with target-adjustable sights still allow for some sighting leeway.
The British "expert" is likely passing on something he's read or heard, without subjecting it to real-world experience.
When it comes to black powder firearms, there are TONS of fables, guesses, apocryphal tales, braggings, exaggerations, fabrications and dowright lies.
This "expert's" warning surely falls into one of these categories.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

You say you have yet to notice a difference. Have you tried?

What does gain twist have to do with free bore? Even today, the best target rifles minimize free bore in chambering. My target rifles push the bullet into the rifling when the action is closed. In the old days shooters found the rifles were more accurate with breach seating, ie into the rifling.

even some centerfire rifles were gain twist without stripping.

Harry Pope would never have had an advantage by muzzleloading his bullets if freebore didn't matter.

I don't know if there is a difference. All the techniques of chambering of target rifles points to the explanation having some basis in fact.

Now until somebody comes up with a logical explanation why free bore doesn't matter, the statement that "I never noticed anything" doesn't mean much. I never noticed whether a Red oak grows faster than the White Oak. That doesn't mean that there is no difference.

So we are faced with a few possible alternatives. Deep seating is noticeably more accurate, seating at the chamber mouth is noticeably more accurate, there is no difference, or Without testing, no one will know. there is a very bare difference.