to patch or not to patch

[Alden]

:redface:

 

[Artificer]

Back when I competed with a Navy Arms Brown Bess Carbine, there really was only one size of ball mold for "close to .75 cal." and that cast a .735 ball for the .753 bore diameter. I tried as many card and wad combinations as I could, though again there were not that many back then to choose from and found nothing that shot well. So I used a patch and that allowed me to split the ball on a double bit axe at 25 yards every time I did not mess the shot up. It also allowed hitting a one gallon milk jug 9 out of 10 times at 100 yards, again IF I did not mess up the shot.

Back then I never thought about using a paper wrap for the ball. The only question I have about that is since the paper almost has to overlap, do you try to put the overlap in the same position each time you load it in the barrel?

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I am given to understand that the overwhelming number of households in the colonial are could afford only one firearm. additionally, many of these households were subject to military service of some sort, which entailed at least one male member of the household showing up on the town muster field with a serviceable weapon, ball and powder.

additionally, if this fellow could only afford one gun, he would pick one which could shoot both ball and shot, thus maximizing his chances of putting something on the table.

Well most militia laws require all males of the age of 16, and up to the age of 50 or 60, to show up for muster, equipped...so IF a son was still at home at 16, then both the father and the son would need to be armed.

As for versatility, that was probably the default position. Fusils were a lot cheaper than rifles and so would be the more common choice, and though they could use shot, shooting shot is expensive compared to a ball.

LD

 

[tenngun]

Something we some times forget. A pound of powder will give 50-100 shots, a pounds of lead 12-32 shots in 18th cent guns. A rabbit or an elk cost the same. Small game hunting both in cost and time investment was always a leisure activity. Even for someone using cut or teardrop home made shot.

 

[AZbpBurner]

(today's) common sense would indicate that a patched ball would work best, by simple virtue of being well gas-checked and centered in the bore.

Further, a raggedy wad of TOW fore and aft the undersized ball, would still allow it to rattle down the barrel in a very inaccurate manner.

In actual practice, the very opposite seems to be the case :idunno:

 

[spudnut]

Sorry just joining the conversation sorry if I offended

 

[tenngun]

Back when I competed with a Navy Arms Brown Bess Carbine, there really was only one size of ball mold for "close to .75 cal." and that cast a .735 ball for the .753 bore diameter. I tried as many card and wad combinations as I could, though again there were not that many back then to choose from and found nothing that shot well. So I used a patch and that allowed me to split the ball on a double bit axe at 25 yards every time I did not mess the shot up. It also allowed hitting a one gallon milk jug 9 out of 10 times at 100 yards, again IF I did not mess up the shot.

Back then I never thought about using a paper wrap for the ball. The only question I have about that is since the paper almost has to overlap, do you try to put the overlap in the same position each time you load it in the barrel?

Gus

Paper is just Like a patch. I had one rifle where the weave had to run North by north west with 2f north be northwest by west with 3f to get the best.Most of my guns have shot best with the weave running east by south. Unless its raining and 3500 foot elevation where my weave needs to run east by south east be east.

 

[MSW]

I am given to understand that the overwhelming number of households in the colonial are could afford only one firearm. additionally, many of these households were subject to military service of some sort, which entailed at least one male member of the household showing up on the town muster field with a serviceable weapon, ball and powder.

additionally, if this fellow could only afford one gun, he would pick one which could shoot both ball and shot, thus maximizing his chances of putting something on the table.

Well most militia laws require all males of the age of 16, and up to the age of 50 or 60, to show up for muster, equipped...so IF a son was still at home at 16, then both the father and the son would need to be armed.

As for versatility, that was probably the default position. Fusils were a lot cheaper than rifles and so would be the more common choice, and though they could use shot, shooting shot is expensive compared to a ball.

LD

I can see how a fusil would cost less than a rifle, since it requires less work (no rifling need be cut), and ornamentation would be unexpected. by way of dumb questions - were most ball cast by the user during this period? also, if you're casting shot (swan shot?) aside from the value of the shooter's time (which I think was considered pretty much de minimus) is there a substantial difference between the lead in a charge of shot and the lead in a ball? was lead an expensive commodity?

not trying to 'sharpshoot' you - you're much better versed in the history than I.

:bow:

thanks!

 

[Rifleman1776]

were most ball cast by the user during this period?

The few times this matter has been addressed in my readings indicates it was usually done by the village blacksmith or a similar craftsman. When the British controlled the land they brought moulds to the 'smith and required him to do the casting. Making extras and keeping them was forbidden and could result in severe punishment, even death. But they often did keep extras. But, I stray. :redface: Even though I have seen only a few references to this I am of the opinion that was the common practice for the 'smith to do it.

 

[George]

”¦.it was usually done by the village blacksmith or a similar craftsman. When the British controlled the land they brought moulds to the 'smith and required him to do the casting. Making extras and keeping them was forbidden and could result in severe punishment, even death. But they often did keep extras.

Interesting. I've never run across any description of that. References?

There are many ads for pre-molded balls for sale. Bullet molds were commonly for sale, too, many guns, when ordered or offered for sale, had molds which came with them, they show up in inventories, they are described as being of poor quality by a fellow describing an easy way to make accurate ones, etc.,, and I've always assumed they were used by the consumer.

Spence

 

[Artificer]

Back then I never thought about using a paper wrap for the ball. The only question I have about that is since the paper almost has to overlap, do you try to put the overlap in the same position each time you load it in the barrel?

Gus

Paper is just Like a patch. I had one rifle where the weave had to run North by north west with 2f north be northwest by west with 3f to get the best.Most of my guns have shot best with the weave running east by south. Unless its raining and 3500 foot elevation where my weave needs to run east by south east be east.

The reason I questioned the way the ball was loaded with paper is if the paper overlaps on the ball and is not loaded with the overlap in a uniform/repeatable manner, it will still send the ball off on a different direction depending on where the overlap was loaded and came out of the bore. Now, if the paper did not overlap, then it would provide a uniform wrap around the ball and not send the ball off in different directions.

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I can see how a fusil would cost less than a rifle, since it requires less work (no rifling need be cut), and ornamentation would be unexpected. by way of dumb questions - were most ball cast by the user during this period? also, if you're casting shot (swan shot?) aside from the value of the shooter's time (which I think was considered pretty much de minimus) is there a substantial difference between the lead in a charge of shot and the lead in a ball? was lead an expensive commodity?

Those aren't bad questions at all.

I base my assertion that the rifles cost much more based on some ads from the PA Gazette (which I can't seem to find right now - dang it) and the costs for both types of firearms listed at George Morgan's store in Kaskaskia, found in Sons of A Trackless Forest

Now as to shooting the fusil...a 20 bore fusil shooting a .600 ball will get 20 to 21 ball cast from a pound of lead. Shooting one ounce of shot you'd get only 16 shots, but...

Many of the smoothbore shooters use larger amounts of shot...so a 1¼ ounce load will give you only 12 shot per pound, and if you go as high as two ounces, you get as little as 8 shots per pound of lead.

Then think about the meat. Harvest three bunnies with one ounce loads each...you've got enough meat for say two pots of stew for a family of four. That same amount of lead would pour four .600 ball, and you need only shoot one of those and harvest a deer to have a lot more meat. If you hunt upland birds, the meat to lead ratio is worse. :shocked2:

LD

 

[Stumpkiller]

The reason I questioned the way the ball was loaded with paper is if the paper overlaps on the ball and is not loaded with the overlap in a uniform/repeatable manner, it will still send the ball off on a different direction depending on where the overlap was loaded and came out of the bore. Now, if the paper did not overlap, then it would provide a uniform wrap around the ball and not send the ball off in different directions.

Gus

I make a tube that is rolled and has 2-1/2 to 3 layers of paper around the ball.

If the "patch" has one paper layer difference around the ball it matters not at all. The ball is not rotating and the ball-and-patch unit is travelling parallel to the axis of the bore for the whole length of the barrel. So if on ball is loaded with three layers on the underside and the next is loaded with only two, the ball leaves the muzzle 0.003" lower than the prior shot but travelling in an identical trajectory/path to the prior ball. That's about the only difference.

I am not capable of holding a firearm anywhere near that consistently and have whimmies and wobbles that FAR outdistance 0.003" of muzzle travel.

 

[duelist1954]

I'm the guilty party who made the YouTube video referenced in this thread. I also have an article in the July/Aug issue of Muzzleloader on the same subject.

I noticed some folks commenting on the undersized ball bouncing down the bore. In a properly loaded smooth bore gun that does not happen.

You need a pure lead ball, of course...it should be as big as you can get that still loads without sticking in a fouled barrel... and you need a heavy powder charge.

The force of the powder going off actually obturates the ball, so it fills the bore...no bouncing...very accurate.

 

[tenngun]

I'm sorry, :redface: it was a real question but it stuck me funny. No insult intended

 

[Dewey]

Then think about the meat. Harvest three bunnies with one ounce loads each...you've got enough meat for say two pots of stew for a family of four. That same amount of lead would pour four .600 ball, and you need only shoot one of those and harvest a deer to have a lot more meat. If you hunt upland birds, the meat to lead ratio is worse. :shocked2:

LD

I guess it would depend on the availability of game in your area - the expenditure of lead on rabbits (or birds) would be much better than going hungry if no deer were about !!!

With a smoothbore you have options....

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Yes as I wrote, it's better to eat than not to eat, however, we seem to forget when there is a gun present, there are also other options to gathering game than by shooting. Snares and the age old "rabbit stick" would be far better options.

LD

 

[tenngun]

I would say that while hunting small game for someone living beyond the pale, the idea of a poor farmer 'barely able to keep his family fed' is an exaggeration. Most people were poor only in lack of spendable coin. Most poor farmers dressed well ate well and slept warm. A farmer in New England or any where near a population center, could likly aford to spend a Sunday afternoon rabbit hunting. Life in Braintree remains different then a day south of the Ohio,

 

[MSW]

Yes as I wrote, it's better to eat than not to eat, however, we seem to forget when there is a gun present, there are also other options to gathering game than by shooting. Snares and the age old "rabbit stick" would be far better options.

LD

LD - thanks for your patience ... I hadn't 'done the math' (or, more correctly, done the arithmetic) about the weight of shot vs. how many round ball from a pound of lead... I recall reading about a lead mine in colonial Pennsylvania, which never produced much, but was significant in it's improvement on local infrastructure ... they did better by melting down a gilt statue of king George (it was in Boston) and using the lead in that. thanks again!

make good smoke!

 

[Alden]

The force of the powder going off actually obturates the ball, so it fills the bore...no bouncing...very accurate.

Mike, although I personally am more familiar with obturation in art'y the principle is the same. However, I'm not sure why you are saying that it centers the projectile in the bore effectively. Is there some reputable study for this?

Stump, I think Gus is presuming that the paper around the ball in a smoothbore isn't providing a tight fit, or one that stops lateral compression, at the microscopic level and although it may be mitigated the paper is not stopping the ball from being influenced by vertical and horizontal movement within the barrel...

...but I don't want to put words in his mouth.