Undersized balls

[flconch53]

I've tried shooting undersized balls.

Most antique Northwest guns were nominally 24 gauge, which would be .579", but by actual measurement most come closer to .60 caliber. I believe a true 20 gauge would be .615". It is my understanding that the military standard for round balls in smoothbores in the 18th and 19th century was .050" under bore size. That is not a typo, but is based on focused research I have done. This seems egregiously undersized to us 21st century hobbyists, to the point that some modern shooters may refuse to believe it. However, that's what the references appear to indicate.

You also see references to a "half ounce" trade ball. A true half-ounce ball would run 32 to the pound, and would measure .526". However, moulds recovered from old trading post sites throw balls closer to .550", which would be 28 gauge (28 to the pound), and at least one traveler (the Earl of Southesk) in Rupert's Land stated that balls of 28 to the pound were available virtually everywhere. The Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) did carry a few other ball sizes, but based on the reading I've done, I am convinced that the "half ounce trade ball" was around .550". This corresponds neatly with the military standard, in that a .550" ball in a .60 caliber gun would be .050" under bore size.

In The Journal of a Trapper, Osborne Russell described a firefight with native people and mentioned pieces of blanket that they used as "wadding" raining down on his band of trappers. I have often wondered if the blanket material was actually used as patching rather than "wadding," but we will likely never know. A thick fabric would make a good patch for an undersized ball. However, I have seen references to native people using shredded bark and (in the south) Spanish moss for wadding, and an old trade musket recovered from the Suwannee River a few years ago was still loaded, with lab analysis showing the wadding was palmetto fiber.

In any event, I took my .24 gauge/.58 caliber Caywood Northwest gun to the range one day with a few .550" balls. These would be "only" .030" undersized. I brought along a supply of palmetto fiber that I had sourced out in the woods locally, as well as some shredded inner bark of juniper. I shot the .550" balls, and loaded powder, wad, ball, and smaller wad.

Accuracy was terrible, all over the target back at 25 yards. I admit to being a poor shot, but this was bad shooting, even for me. The worst part, though, was fouling buildup. The gun had to be wiped every five shots or so, or it became difficult to load, even with a bare ball. I am sure Indians did wipe their guns, as coil worms, or "wipers," were in demand from the traders. I know of at least one period painting by Carl Bodmer that shows a native hunter carrying a spare rod with a wiper affixed to it, and there is at least one old trade musket in the NMAI which is accompanied by a rod with a coil worm affixed to one end, and I believe it has a jag cut into the wood on the other end.

I would like to point out that both shredded juniper bark and palmetto fiber (and dead Spanish moss) all make excellent tinder for flint and steel fire starting. That is, they are quite flammable.

Anyway, I like to actually try things the way they were done in the past, and I would encourage anybody to do the research and try it themselves. I don't like to assume any more than is necessary. My conclusions from this experiment, shooting undersized balls with locally sourced, documented natural fiber wadding, are that accuracy is suboptimal and fouling buildup is excessive. I suspect the flammable nature of the wadding may have contributed to carbon buildup and fouling, but that is conjecture. I would like to try wool fabric as patching, as wool is less flammable, but I have not tried it yet. I would also speculate the there would have been a substantial loss of energy from "blow by" around the undersized ball, but I did not have a chronograph to prove it.

Again, I would encourage you to do some research and experiment... and report your results! However, based on my own experience, I would try to find a more accurate and cleaner-shooting load for competition or hunting. Ethics regarding hunting were different back then. Meat for the pot, or a hide, was what they wanted back then, however they could get it. A quick, humane kill is what we want in hunting now, and I would not recommend this type of load for that purpose. Several years ago, on another forum, a fellow reported going on a bison hunt with his trade gun, loading as they did back in the day with an undersized ball. He used dried grass for wadding. If I remember correctly, he hit the animal six times, and the "hunt" consumed about eight hours from the first hit until the bison finally went down. Being period correct is one thing, but I think I would have opted for a gun and a load that would provide a cleaner kill.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

The British ordinance regulations I have seen the requirements for Brown Bess (75 cal) were that the ball needed to be up to .690. They could be less. I wonder why they weren't that accurate

 

[tenngun]

I've tried shooting undersized balls.

Most antique Northwest guns were nominally 24 gauge, which would be .579", but by actual measurement most come closer to .60 caliber. I believe a true 20 gauge would be .615". It is my understanding that the military standard for round balls in smoothbores in the 18th and 19th century was .050" under bore size. That is not a typo, but is based on focused research I have done. This seems egregiously undersized to us 21st century hobbyists, to the point that some modern shooters may refuse to believe it. However, that's what the references appear to indicate.

You also see references to a "half ounce" trade ball. A true half-ounce ball would run 32 to the pound, and would measure .526". However, moulds recovered from old trading post sites throw balls closer to .550", which would be 28 gauge (28 to the pound), and at least one traveler (the Earl of Southesk) in Rupert's Land stated that balls of 28 to the pound were available virtually everywhere. The Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) did carry a few other ball sizes, but based on the reading I've done, I am convinced that the "half ounce trade ball" was around .550". This corresponds neatly with the military standard, in that a .550" ball in a .60 caliber gun would be .050" under bore size.

In The Journal of a Trapper, Osborne Russell described a firefight with native people and mentioned pieces of blanket that they used as "wadding" raining down on his band of trappers. I have often wondered if the blanket material was actually used as patching rather than "wadding," but we will likely never know. A thick fabric would make a good patch for an undersized ball. However, I have seen references to native people using shredded bark and (in the south) Spanish moss for wadding, and an old trade musket recovered from the Suwannee River a few years ago was still loaded, with lab analysis showing the wadding was palmetto fiber.

In any event, I took my .24 gauge/.58 caliber Caywood Northwest gun to the range one day with a few .550" balls. These would be "only" .030" undersized. I brought along a supply of palmetto fiber that I had sourced out in the woods locally, as well as some shredded inner bark of juniper. I shot the .550" balls, and loaded powder, wad, ball, and smaller wad.

Accuracy was terrible, all over the target back at 25 yards. I admit to being a poor shot, but this was bad shooting, even for me. The worst part, though, was fouling buildup. The gun had to be wiped every five shots or so, or it became difficult to load, even with a bare ball. I am sure Indians did wipe their guns, as coil worms, or "wipers," were in demand from the traders. I know of at least one period painting by Carl Bodmer that shows a native hunter carrying a spare rod with a wiper affixed to it, and there is at least one old trade musket in the NMAI which is accompanied by a rod with a coil worm affixed to one end, and I believe it has a jag cut into the wood on the other end.

I would like to point out that both shredded juniper bark and palmetto fiber (and dead Spanish moss) all make excellent tinder for flint and steel fire starting. That is, they are quite flammable.

Anyway, I like to actually try things the way they were done in the past, and I would encourage anybody to do the research and try it themselves. I don't like to assume any more than is necessary. My conclusions from this experiment, shooting undersized balls with locally sourced, documented natural fiber wadding, are that accuracy is suboptimal and fouling buildup is excessive. I suspect the flammable nature of the wadding may have contributed to carbon buildup and fouling, but that is conjecture. I would like to try wool fabric as patching, as wool is less flammable, but I have not tried it yet. I would also speculate the there would have been a substantial loss of energy from "blow by" around the undersized ball, but I did not have a chronograph to prove it.

Again, I would encourage you to do some research and experiment... and report your results! However, based on my own experience, I would try to find a more accurate and cleaner-shooting load for competition or hunting. Ethics regarding hunting were different back then. Meat for the pot, or a hide, was what they wanted back then, however they could get it. A quick, humane kill is what we want in hunting now, and I would not recommend this type of load for that purpose. Several years ago, on another forum, a fellow reported going on a bison hunt with his trade gun, loading as they did back in the day with an undersized ball. He used dried grass for wadding. If I remember correctly, he hit the animal six times, and the "hunt" consumed about eight hours from the first hit until the bison finally went down. Being period correct is one thing, but I think I would have opted for a gun and a load that would provide a cleaner kill.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

Good post. Makes one think
Injuns had them bows and arrows. Native boys got a bow as soon as they could manage one. Four or five years old. And played with them becoming fine shooters.
Could a native bows man compleat with the real life Robin Hoods of Crecy, or the Khans Mongols? I don’t know. But histort
Y records Indians as being good shooter.
So, how does your bad target compare to archery at that range
We are depressed today if we don’t get one hole at a hundred yards. But a pie plate group at that range will put venison in your belly or a scalp on you lodge pole.
Indians couldn’t get enough guns, they bought them cleaning out every shipment
They had to have got results at least comparable to their archery
Patching a ball is mentioned historically in 1847, and seemingly common, and no doubt a lot older

 

[Coinneach]

Bow is easier and faster to reload, but, IMHO harder to hit with.

So were Smooth bore muskets, indirect "lobbing" fire with a mass of Bows can be very effective against troops closed up in line formation, as the Brits, French and other European armies practised.

 

[SPQR70AD]

Saw the thread under sized balls. Thought it was about Joe Biden FJB

yes a real man would call for a land invasion of China and Russia

 

[Relic shooter]

I've tried shooting undersized balls.

Most antique Northwest guns were nominally 24 gauge, which would be .579", but by actual measurement most come closer to .60 caliber. I believe a true 20 gauge would be .615". It is my understanding that the military standard for round balls in smoothbores in the 18th and 19th century was .050" under bore size. That is not a typo, but is based on focused research I have done. This seems egregiously undersized to us 21st century hobbyists, to the point that some modern shooters may refuse to believe it. However, that's what the references appear to indicate.

You also see references to a "half ounce" trade ball. A true half-ounce ball would run 32 to the pound, and would measure .526". However, moulds recovered from old trading post sites throw balls closer to .550", which would be 28 gauge (28 to the pound), and at least one traveler (the Earl of Southesk) in Rupert's Land stated that balls of 28 to the pound were available virtually everywhere. The Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) did carry a few other ball sizes, but based on the reading I've done, I am convinced that the "half ounce trade ball" was around .550". This corresponds neatly with the military standard, in that a .550" ball in a .60 caliber gun would be .050" under bore size.

In The Journal of a Trapper, Osborne Russell described a firefight with native people and mentioned pieces of blanket that they used as "wadding" raining down on his band of trappers. I have often wondered if the blanket material was actually used as patching rather than "wadding," but we will likely never know. A thick fabric would make a good patch for an undersized ball. However, I have seen references to native people using shredded bark and (in the south) Spanish moss for wadding, and an old trade musket recovered from the Suwannee River a few years ago was still loaded, with lab analysis showing the wadding was palmetto fiber.

In any event, I took my .24 gauge/.58 caliber Caywood Northwest gun to the range one day with a few .550" balls. These would be "only" .030" undersized. I brought along a supply of palmetto fiber that I had sourced out in the woods locally, as well as some shredded inner bark of juniper. I shot the .550" balls, and loaded powder, wad, ball, and smaller wad.

Accuracy was terrible, all over the target back at 25 yards. I admit to being a poor shot, but this was bad shooting, even for me. The worst part, though, was fouling buildup. The gun had to be wiped every five shots or so, or it became difficult to load, even with a bare ball. I am sure Indians did wipe their guns, as coil worms, or "wipers," were in demand from the traders. I know of at least one period painting by Carl Bodmer that shows a native hunter carrying a spare rod with a wiper affixed to it, and there is at least one old trade musket in the NMAI which is accompanied by a rod with a coil worm affixed to one end, and I believe it has a jag cut into the wood on the other end.

I would like to point out that both shredded juniper bark and palmetto fiber (and dead Spanish moss) all make excellent tinder for flint and steel fire starting. That is, they are quite flammable.

Anyway, I like to actually try things the way they were done in the past, and I would encourage anybody to do the research and try it themselves. I don't like to assume any more than is necessary. My conclusions from this experiment, shooting undersized balls with locally sourced, documented natural fiber wadding, are that accuracy is suboptimal and fouling buildup is excessive. I suspect the flammable nature of the wadding may have contributed to carbon buildup and fouling, but that is conjecture. I would like to try wool fabric as patching, as wool is less flammable, but I have not tried it yet. I would also speculate the there would have been a substantial loss of energy from "blow by" around the undersized ball, but I did not have a chronograph to prove it.

Again, I would encourage you to do some research and experiment... and report your results! However, based on my own experience, I would try to find a more accurate and cleaner-shooting load for competition or hunting. Ethics regarding hunting were different back then. Meat for the pot, or a hide, was what they wanted back then, however they could get it. A quick, humane kill is what we want in hunting now, and I would not recommend this type of load for that purpose. Several years ago, on another forum, a fellow reported going on a bison hunt with his trade gun, loading as they did back in the day with an undersized ball. He used dried grass for wadding. If I remember correctly, he hit the animal six times, and the "hunt" consumed about eight hours from the first hit until the bison finally went down. Being period correct is one thing, but I think I would have opted for a gun and a load that would provide a cleaner kill.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

Notchy Bob's research is spot-on concerning early frontier loading practices.
Years ago I pulled a load from an original that was patched with what appeared to be buckskin but I don't recall if it was a smooth bore or rifled.
During the early frontier era & lacking access to fabric patch materials, bear grease lubed smoke tanned antelope, deer or other critter hides may also have been commonly used.
Necessity has always been the mother of invention.
Today due to corporate price & supply manipulating, some of us are now making our own black powder & caps.
Relic shooter