• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

very slow twist

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

George

Cannon
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
7,913
Reaction score
1,968
When I got into BP shooting in the 1970s the accepted dogma was that slow, deep rifling was the best for round ball shooting, because a round ball doesn't need much stabilization. The common 1:48 rifling offered on the available replicas of the time was said to be a compromise intended to make it possible to shoot both ball and conicals with acceptable accuracy. I never had a rifle with 1:48 twist, so I have no personal experience with those, but I certainly agreed that slow and deep worked extremely well for ball. I still do. All my rifles are slow and deep, and I have no complaints. The .30 has a 1:56 twist and I can shoot < 2.5-inch groups at 100 yards. The .40 has 1:66, and it also very accurate to 100 yards. The .54 has 1:70, and I worked up a load which gave me good deer-killing accuracy at 150 yards. All three guns are also very accurate with reduced, small game loads.

In my day it was said that very slow twist, up to 1:120 was used in some of the old rifles, but I’ve never seen or been aware of an actual one that slow. Hiding in plain sight...it turns out the famous Baker rifle is one of those, and it seems to have worked very well for the British.

_A British Rifle Man : The Journals and Correspondence of Major George Simmons, Rifle Brigade, During the Peninsular War and the Campaign of Waterloo_, edited, with Introduction, by Lieut-Colonel Willoughby Verner, late Rifle Brigade. 1899

From the introduction:

"The Baker rifle, with which the regiment was armed, was in every sense an arm of precision up to 300 yards, and at ranges of 400 and 500 yards it was possible to hit a mark with it. This alone gave the riflemen an immense advantage over their comrades armed with smooth-bore muskets, and, as proved by experiments at Woolwich, it was greatly superior to the rifles of Continental and American manufacture in use at the time.
“This rifle was invented by Ezekiel Baker, a London gunmaker, towards the close of the last century, and was the first rifle regularly adopted into the British service. It was tried at Woolwich in February 1800 by order of the Board of Ordinance, and was selected as the arm of the Rifle Corps, then in process of being raised. On this occasion eleven shots out of twelve were placed in a six-foot circular target at 300 yards’ distance. The following is a description of the Baker rifle : Weight 9 1/2 lbs., barrel seven-grooved and 30 inches in length, rifling one quarter turn in barrel, bullet spherical, 20 to the pound, charge of powder 84 grains, flint-lock. The ball was placed in the center of a greased leather patch and rammed home, considerable force being necessary to effect this. At first, wooden mallets were issued to the Riflemen to facilitate the process of ramming home, but these were very shortly discontinued (circa 1803). A supply of greased patches was carried in a small box with spring brass lid in the side of the butt of the rifle.”

As these things tend to do, opinion has swung, and many people now advocate much faster twists. The ”˜compromise’ twist of 1:48 seems to have become the recommended one for round ball as well as conicals. It’s too late in my career for me to find out if that idea works for me, I guess my old slow and deep barrels will have to do me. And they will.

Spence
 
Guns with 1:48 twists make me cringe....Anything with a faster twist than that, and I turn and walk away.....I much prefer the slower 60- 70 range....

Additionally, I also think slower twists enable easier loading..

Faster twists are great for conical bullets, but I don't like to shoot those....PRB all the way... :grin:
 
colorado clyde said:
Guns with 1:48 twists make me cringe....

I can see why. Those original Hawkens are just plain nasty. No one should have been foolish enough to buy one in the day, and they all need to go in the trash today. No way, no how could 1:48 be considered a REAL muzzleloader. :rotf:
 
Yep, REAL Hawken Rifles were most often rifled 1:48 twist.

My .45 caliber, 39" Douglas barrel on a rifle built in '74, has that twist and it shoots more accurately off the bench than I can hold it.

Gus
 
Spence,

I personally believe that the accuracy they got out of the Baker Rifle was greatly enhanced by the adjustable rear sight.

STILL, no matter how technical or basic the rear sight is, that 1 in 120 rifling twist AND the fairly large caliber ball, sure made the rifle accurate.

Gus
 
BrownBear said:
colorado clyde said:
Guns with 1:48 twists make me cringe....

I can see why. Those original Hawkens are just plain nasty. No one should have been foolish enough to buy one in the day, and they all need to go in the trash today. No way, no how could 1:48 be considered a REAL muzzleloader. :rotf:

"Cringe".....Yes indeed, as my preference is for full stocked long rifles....Not Hawkens....Not even full stocked ones......
It's just a personal preference....No need to read more than that into it.... :grin:
 
Artificer said:
Spence,

I personally believe that the accuracy they got out of the Baker Rifle was greatly enhanced by the adjustable rear sight.

STILL, no matter how technical or basic the rear sight is, that 1 in 120 rifling twist AND the fairly large caliber ball, sure made the rifle accurate.

Gus

And don't forget the leather patches! :rotf:
 
colorado clyde said:
BrownBear said:
colorado clyde said:
Guns with 1:48 twists make me cringe....

I can see why. Those original Hawkens are just plain nasty. No one should have been foolish enough to buy one in the day, and they all need to go in the trash today. No way, no how could 1:48 be considered a REAL muzzleloader. :rotf:

"Cringe".....Yes indeed, as my preference is for full stocked long rifles....Not Hawkens....Not even full stocked ones......
It's just a personal preference....No need to read more than that into it.... :grin:

Can't recall the sources at the moment, but I recall reading several that said back in the day of full stocks and empty wallets, 1:48 was the most common twist, too. Really slow twists kind of came up on my radar on English guns for the Dark Continent. Memory is a funny thing though.

Far as I can tell, this whole 1:48 "compromise" sin committed by TC to accommodate conicals was all about the shallow rifling and not the twist.

But 1:48 makes a dandy yarn to swap around campfires and keyboards. :rotf:

My own experience with my own guns tells me slow twists require more powder for best accuracy, and they don't like small charges all that much. I'm fascinated to hear of Spence's experience that his slow twists did well with small charges. That's a learning moment for me, and needs more study.
 
The .54 has 1:70, and I worked up a load which gave me good deer-killing accuracy at 150 yards.

Interesting. My Jaeger with a 1:72" Montana barrel only begins to give good groups at about 100-120 gr. real bp. With that kind of charge it is very uncomfortable shoot. I didn't venture into the 140 gr. or more range because the rifle was punishing me already and bp ain't cheap. BTW, the Jaeger is about 10 lbs. not a lighweight. So, I am not a fan of slow twists. Personally, my suggestion to anyone contemplating getting a rifle built should be a 1:48" twist, any caliber of .54 or under. I can't speak about bigger calibers because I have no experience with them.(well, I did have a .72 once that is a whole 'nuther conversation :wink: ) It works. And, in museums that show data for their rifles that twist seems to have been the choice 99% of the time 'back in the day', there has to be a reason for that.
 
Pistol barrels in the same caliber tend to have faster twists than rifle barrels, and guns intended for target work tend to have faster twists too, so in extrapolating that a bit, I deduce that it's not so much a function of caliber as it is that of the exit RPM rate. That said, I am still baffled why slow twist RB barrels are more accurate than their faster twist brethren with a RB.
 
I personally believe that the accuracy they got out of the Baker Rifle was greatly enhanced by the adjustable rear sight.

STILL, no matter how technical or basic the rear sight is, that 1 in 120 rifling twist AND the fairly large caliber ball, sure made the rifle accurate.

AH....NO

and...., NO.

First folks, you need to look at Instruction for the Formation and Exercise of Volunteer Sharp-Shooters by Captain Barber. In it he details exactly what they thought was wrong with the American and German styles of rifles. Unfortunately, you need to get the actual book as online all that one finds is excerpts, missing the essential historic information. :(

Barber cites "excessive recoil" and points out that some of the American,and especially the Germanic rifles, had a much faster twist rate than we use today. One can surmise that the British didn't like the torque that some felt with a fast twist.

Barber also points out that the necessity to clean the barrel between shots was less with the very slow twist rate that they chose. Important in a combat rifle, not in a sporting arm. The shorter barrel sped reloading up as well as keeping weight down..., (and we know that it will actually harm accuracy compared to rifles with longer sight planes.)

Barber also mentions the target that was used by the British to "qualify" their riflemen. It was 2 feet wide, and 6 feet tall, and although it had a black mark in the center, about 1/4 of the distance from the top edge, it was a hit or miss target with a hit anywhere on the target board counted for score. Which makes sense, because if you hit me in the ankle or leg, or the wrist or arm, with a 385 grain .600 lead ball when shooting at me from 300 yards...I'm pretty much done-for-the-day, and any worse place I'm hit I will probably be simply "done". Hardly the accuracy that we would demand from a hunting rifle reaching out that far.....

For information on the actual origins of the very slow twist rifle barrels and the origin of the idea that a bullet would "skip" across rifle barrel lands and grooves, refer to The Sporting Rifle and Its Projectiles by Lt. James Forsyth. In this masterful work, done in the 1860's, Forsyth explains where he got the idea to use 1:120 rifling, and why he settled on 1:108 twist. He mentions the reasons why some bullets skip across rifling and why others do not, and why he, a hunter of very large and dangerous game, when conical bullets were available, demonstrated that a patched round ball was superior to the conical bullets of his day.

Forsyth came up with Forsyth Rifling, which is a very slow twist rate of 1:108. with very thin lands, and wide grooves, using a patched round ball in an 8 bore or a 4 bore gun, with massive powder loads. Forsyth wanted a rifle that would stop tiger, rhino, and elephant out to 200 yards, without needing adjustable sights and using a patched, round ball.

You will also find that although he wanted his rifles to launch massive bullets, and to be accurate for hunting out to 200 yards..., he didn't really take shots beyond 100 yards, and normally took them much closer, just as we do today. :wink:

He also thought the minimum caliber for deer type animals was 14 bore....69 caliber....I don't know why he liked shoulder artillery, but that's what he thought. Maybe it was crazy, :youcrazy: , but he also mentions his experience is only in the jungles of India, and he may simply have wanted zero chance of the animal running off. I can imagine having a group of servants with him, who once in a while when Forsyth used smaller calibers, fibbed that they couldn't find the deer when it ran off a few yards...meat on the table for them. When he went to shoulder artillery, his animal was right where it had been when he touched off the trigger. :shocked2:

LD
 
colorado clyde said:
Boy!, Spence....You sure know how to get an argument going.... :haha:
Oh, yeah!? You want to make something of that, fella? :wink:

Spence
 
Uh, Dave,

You do realize the size targets used for the Baker were SMALLER than what you fired on at the 200 yard line on active duty? The 5 ring bullseye was 12" in diameter, the 4 ring was 24" (same width as the Baker target), the 3 ring was 36 inches and the 2 "ring" was the entire 6 foot by 4 foot target. Just because a target is big really doesn't mean much with good marksmanship and a good rifle.

I just can't get it out of my mind the British Shooter who recently fired his Original Baker rifle at 200, 300 and 400 yards OFFHAND and put the first shot into pretty much the center a man sized silhouette at each distance. He used an original mold, but I don't know if he used leather or cloth patches.

There were recorded kills with the Baker during combat, somewhat beyond 400 yards during the period as well, though most likely shot from some kind of a rest.

Gus
 
My rifle guns have always had pretty slow twist. I grew up with slow for ball fast for conical thing.
Now it makes me wonder. The big African double guns were often smooth, since rifling would 'strip'.
Now the bigger the ball the more it weighs, the more inertia it has to resist spinning. Them English guns weren't pea shooters. Would a faster spin stip that belt, or just as bad deform the belt?
That that works on a 60 grain .36 be too fast for a .54 that's four times heaver, but only one and a half times bigger,
Of corse a hawkein that could hit a one foot circle at a hundred yards was all the accuracy "Ol Gabe" needed. Any hit on an enemy is as good as a kill. The difference between a military gun and a hunting gun.
 
If you give a thought to the projectile being fired, you have to ask yourself why any spin at all is necessary for a roundball. There's no question an elongated projectile needs spin to stabilize it, and the longer it is the more/faster spin it needs. That's easy to prove by shooting one with too little spin and watching it keyhole. But a round ball...? No matter which way you turn it, it's all the same. Can't keyhole, but what if it does, it's all the same.

Ever since I figured out that accuracy with a round ball in a smoothbore is not all that different from a rifle, I've suspected that we've been thinking about it sorta backwards. The way I load my smoothbore guarantees the ball doesn't spin, and with no spin whatsoever it will shoot sub-4" groups at 100 yards. So, what is the spin contributing to accuracy when that ball is shot from a rifle with spin? It can't be much.

I suspect that the situation is more like this...spin certainly increases accuracy with long bullets, but it's the case that spin of a round ball adds nothing to accuracy, it just doesn't take anything away from it. Round balls don't need spin at all, they just tolerate it. Doesn't help, doesn't harm.

Spence
 
Last edited by a moderator:
George said:
...but it's the case that spin of a round ball adds nothing to accuracy, it just doesn't take anything away from it. Round balls don't need spin at all, they just tolerate it. Doesn't help, doesn't harm.

Onliest "proof" I can offer comes from another smooth bore and not a muzzleloader. Forgive me if I talk about "modern," but it's too related to ignore.

My grown nephew has been a serious air-soft team competitor for the last decade, serious to the point that his team competes against several police SWAT teams and a couple of military "special" teams. Real serious stuff, and he's been the designated sniper for his team all those years. The kid has been building and modifying guns throughout, and really stretched the accurate range of his sniper "rifles" beyond belief- especially by the guys who get whacked by him.

Here's the kicker.

Those "rifles" are smooth bores!

The neat thing is, you can watch those little plastic balls all the way to the target through his high power scopes, so you can really see what's going on.

There's a trick in that accuracy. The barrels have what he calls a "kicker" in them, basically a little raised nubin that catches the edge of the ball and causes it to spin as it comes out the bore.

You can also take the kickers on and off, change their size and position to affect spin, and more he won't talk about, it's held so close.

With the kicker off those non-spinning balls are all over the place. They don't benefit from a patch like a patched ball in a smoothbore muzzle loader, so accuracy is much worse. The best you can hope for is kind of a big spiral course as they wander downrange. I bet he can't keep a 15" circle at 100 yards.

But put in just the right kicker in just the right place and shoot it from the self-same smooth barrel and watch the ball go downrange. It drills straight and true just like an elongate rifle bullet. He gets 100 yard groups that would make many a 22 rimfire shooter drool. It's not till he gets well past 100 yards and the velocity has dropped to near nothing that the groups start opening up.

If I was a smoothbore competitor and inclined to cheat, I'd sure be putting kickers in my barrels. If I was running smoothbore matches and someone's gun seemed a lot too accurate, the first thing I'd look for is a kicker too.

Spin makes that much difference right in the SAME gun. I liken Nephew's kicker adjustment to load development to find just the right amount of spin for stabilizing that little plastic pellet.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top