swagged vs roundball in smoothbores

[taylorh]

I don't have alot of experience with rifled muzzleloaders, but my intuition leads me to believe that neither swagged or run balls makes alot of difference in a rifled barrel since any varience in weight would be averaged out by the spinning projectile. And the high ballistic coefficient would probably negate most of the advantage gained by shooting "perfect balls". But if I were shooting targets I'd choose the roundest, best ball I could find. Now my question has to do with smoothbores. Which type of projectile (run or swagged) will shoot best from a smoothbore? Does the fact that there isn't any rifling make the choice of ball more or less critical?
Taylor in Texas

 

[Swampman]

Either one will shoot perfectly in either one. Muzzleloaders are very tolerant of what they are fed.

 

[trent/OH]

Although nobody has ever accused a RB of having a high ballistic co-efficient.
And since smoothies typically are big bores, you usually won't see swaged balls in those sizes, like .678, 690, 715, 735, etc.

 

[taylorh]

I thought a high coeffieient corrosponded to large flat surfaces, and that low coeffient corrosponded to pointed, sleek projectiles?
Taylor in Texas

 

[jimeckersley]

Either one will shoot perfectly in either one. Muzzleloaders are very tolerant of what they are fed.

There's a country western song where the singer's girlfriend is "close enough to perfect fer me." When you say either will shoot perfectly in either one, you're giving an opinion, just like the country western singer. A more accurate representation is that some muzzleloader shooters are very tolerant of what they're feeding their rifles.

It all depends upon how well you want to shoot and how well you are capable of shooting. Top competitive shooters are very picky.

 

[jimeckersley]

I don't have alot of experience with rifled muzzleloaders, but my intuition leads me to believe that neither swagged or run balls makes alot of difference in a rifled barrel since any varience in weight would be averaged out by the spinning projectile. And the high ballistic coefficient would probably negate most of the advantage gained by shooting "perfect balls". But if I were shooting targets I'd choose the roundest, best ball I could find. Now my question has to do with smoothbores. Which type of projectile (run or swagged) will shoot best from a smoothbore? Does the fact that there isn't any rifling make the choice of ball more or less critical?
Taylor in Texas

Be sure to look in the Muzzleloader Accuracy Category at the topic: Smoothbore roundball There was a pretty lengthy discussion there about this subject.

Ballistic coefficient in a nutshell refers to the efficiency of a projectile. The greater the BC, the less the drag. In the case of round lead balls, the larger the diameter, the higher the ballistic coefficient.

 

[TANSTAAFL]

Have no idea which is best. I just shoot cast balls from wheel weights in my fusil de chasse, works good for me, other's results may vary.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Nor does rocks, glass, nails, or anything else you can get.

 

[Swampman]

"Top competitive shooters are very picky."

That makes them feel better, and that's fine. Any of them can shoot the same groups with their culls. It's not the projectiles, it's the shooters and their quality firearms.

Muzzleloaders are very tolerant of what they are fed. They are completely unlike modern firearms.

This is based on years of experience with both. A round ball is in a class by itself.

No offence meant, just thougt I'd share some facts. If you want to understand why a roundball is in a class by itself read Mike Nessbit's recent articles in Muzzleloader Magazine. :hatsoff:

 

[MikeFromON]

I thought a high coeffieient corrosponded to large flat surfaces, and that low coeffient corrosponded to pointed, sleek projectiles?

You are speaking of aerodynamic co-efficient. Two bullets with the same aerodynamic co-efficient could have very different ballistic co-efficients, depending on their shape. Ballistic co-efficient is an expression of how much energy a projectile will carry to target, and is a function of frontal area and mass only.

 

[Slamfire]

I thought a high coeffieient corrosponded to large flat surfaces, and that low coeffient corrosponded to pointed, sleek projectiles?

You are speaking of aerodynamic co-efficient. Two bullets with the same aerodynamic co-efficient could have very different ballistic co-efficients, depending on their shape. Ballistic co-efficient is an expression of how much energy a projectile will carry to target, and is a function of frontal area and mass only.

Frontal area x mass = Sectional density.
Ballistic coefficient also take into account the coefficient of form. A high number indicates a long bullet with a 5 caliber or greater radius on the ogive, and a 4 degree or greater boattail. I know of no small arms projectile with a bc of 1.000. :winking:
Please don't ask me how many hours I had to study that stuff to git it right. :redface:

 

[jimeckersley]

"Top competitive shooters are very picky."

That makes them feel better, and that's fine. Any of them can shoot the same groups with their culls. It's not the projectiles, it's the shooters and their quality firearms.

Muzzleloaders are very tolerant of what they are fed. They are completely unlike modern firearms.

This is based on years of experience with both. A round ball is in a class by itself.

No offence meant, just thougt I'd share some facts. If you want to understand why a roundball is in a class by itself read Mike Nessbit's recent articles in Muzzleloader Magazine. :hatsoff:

Well, I guess it depends upon how well you want to shoot and how capable you are of shooting well.

Are you saying that a batch of light weight balls will impact to the same point of aim that a batch several grains heavier will impact?

 

[Swampman]

1/2 of a ball will shoot pretty good. The most a void or wrinkle can throw a ball off course is it's diameter. A round ball seeks it's on axis. Off hand, none of us can shoot well enough to notice. Culls will shoot as good as a perfect ball.

 

[Richard Allen]

Mark, I read Mike Nesbit's article about shooting half-balls also and honestly I am not convinced that a load using a half-ball will produce acceptable accuracy when compared to a full-ball load at any practical shooting distance. I can not believe it is possible to put sufficient spin on a half-ball to stabilized it enough to prevent it from tumbling shortly after it leaves the muzzle. No, I have not tried shooting half-balls to verify my suspicions but neither have I tried loading extremely tight ball and patch combinations with a wooden rammer to find out if the sharp end of a broken rammer will penetrate my skin. Some things just don't seem to require verifying to me.

As far as culls performing as well as perfect balls, my experiences prove you are right at distances less than fifty yards, but beyond that distance I can see measurable diferences between culls and carefully weighed balls when shooting from a solid rest and using tight patch and ball combinations that require short starters and range rods for loading. Maybe my culls are of poorer quality that yours :hmm: or my minimal acceptable degree of accuracy is higher than yours.

For what its worth, hese are strictly my opinions and may not hold water for anyone but me. :v In case you haven't noticed, I don't believe everything I hear or read.

Richard/Ga.

 

[jimeckersley]

1/2 of a ball will shoot pretty good. The most a void or wrinkle can throw a ball off course is it's diameter. A round ball seeks it's on axis. Off hand, none of us can shoot well enough to notice. Culls will shoot as good as a perfect ball.

For you.