Discussion in 'Blackpowder' started by TwangBanger, Oct 3, 2019.
We await your results in the cause of advancing 19th century ballistic science.
So if chamber is about .451 or so... should I shoot for .440 balls and .010 patches or what do you think would be best? I have to pay for this crap and have no real use for .440 balls...
I can also do the test. I have an old jukar pistol that takes 44 balls, and I can use the same balls in a Pietta 44 revolver. Just a matter of when. For Science!!!
Let the games begin!
The rifling marks on the patch would have to be in the logical place. A rogue patch could get any number of weird marks from rifling as it hugs the back of the ball, but those marks would not be consistent with the grooves pressed or cut into an actual muzzle loaded patched round ball. That's why there needs to be a comparison. For Science !!!
Mr. Stumpy, I'll give you credit for deleting at least of of your post.
Maybe you're not such a bad guy after all.
Okay send me an actual Pietta NMA barrel threaded into a single-shot setup so we can make a USEFUL comparison then. Good hell. For science.
LOL... I explained it like that mainly because I get the sense you wouldn't know what the patch should look like when it has actually gripped rifling. A useful comparison would be patches from a 44 muzzle loaded pistol vs a patched ball from a 44 revolver. If you want, you can do the revolver part of the test, and I'll do the muzzle loader...?? If what you believe is true, they should have very similar markings.
In the mean time, take a look at this patched ball. I know it's not in a revolver cylinder, but it would look much the same if it was. See the awkward crinkled edges? You really think this would pass through a forcing cone unscathed?
Whereas you apparently believe that all patches from all pistols will look identical, regardless of the depth of rifling, width of the lands and grooves, patching material, ball hardness, lube, twist rate, barrel length, powder, roughness if the bore, etc.
Solid “science” from an internet tough guy. Say LOL a few more times so you feel better.
I would say that if the recovered ball shows alternate crossweave marks impressed on it by the lands and grooves acting in the patch, yes. Also. I searched and searched and found one YouTube on this. All it showed was that the gun fired. I'm open to change my opinion.
Uh, I think I said "very similar". Never said identical. The markings will be obvious no matter the groove depth... etc... This is just science, not the rocket variety. .. Pick any patch, and cut it flush with the ball. 30 grains 3f goex? oh yeah, lol.
Did you find this one? Fast forward to about 10:40 here
1KPD, I would say your recovered revolver ball patch would need to show a pattern "similar" to this.
While E is the optimal example, the others show patches that remained around the ball going down the bore as well. There, now I don't have to produce a comparison patch. Remember, the only thing we are trying to prove is that the patch either does or doesn't remain covering the ball while engaging the rifling after jumping the forcing cone. Not concerned about the patch thickness, powder charge, seated ball depth, etc... but you may want to try different tactics and see if you get different results, for Science. Really looking forward to your experiment.
I'm hoping this isn't a dead horse, and I'm certainly not trying to beat a live one, but I'm now in the camp that says a patched .440 round ball in a Pietta revolver may be dangerous. Not because of the b/c gap or forcing cone though. I placed a .440 ball (hornady swaged lead round ball, no sprue) on a 1858 cylinder chamber, and it did not fall in. It is a tight fit, but will not shave lead. If a patch is used, it may take quite a bit of effort to seat it, and it could be so tight that there could be pressure issues (proceed with caution). Additionally, I think the cylinder chamber would need to be chamfered to keep from cutting the patch (mine isn't). I was surprised that a .440 ball was so close to actual chamber diameter. I then tried a .440 ball on a ROA cylinder and it plopped right in there. I think if a patch vs b/c gap + forcing cone test is done, it should be from a ROA. Of course there are tolerance differences among pietta cylinders, and some folks actually ream their cylinder chambers to be closer to the barrel bore diameters, but I recommend you proceed with caution.
Thanks for the heads up
Even if the conventionally wrapped patch does come off the ball as it passes though the forcing cone, it would probably only affect accuracy to some smallish degree.
It appears that for practical accuracy and power purposes, loading with a loose patch worked just fine for Hicock45,
I noticed that he used wads behind his conventionally patched balls which should help to provide some additional velocity.
This thread has progressed from some folks saying that using conventional loose patches with balls was ill-advised, unproven and/or unsafe to now
guessing whether the patches adhere through the forcing cone or not.
It's possible that some patches will adhere through the forcing cone and some won't.
I wouldn't know how to account for that other than by doing some velocity and accuracy testing as well as by examining the patches for rifling marks.
Whether they adhere for one person or not, that doesn't mean that they will adhere for the next person or for everyone else all of the time.
Whether they do or not could be dependent on the components selected. the type and amount of powder, the gun and how carefully the components are loaded, and maybe even how clean the gun is.
So one test would not necessarily prove or disprove an entire theory for each and every person or gun under every circumstance.
I think that it's a noble effort to try, but it may not provide the universal proof that everyone expects it to provide.
If it can be proven that at least some patches engage the rifling than that's better than no proof at all.
But if no rifling marks are found during a single test, that doesn't prove that the patches never ever engage the rifling either.
I think that what's most important is that it can be considered to be a safe loading procedure that can provide relatively good accuracy and performance for practical purposes.
How accurately that the loose patched balls shoot compared to bare balls would be of more interest to me.
But even that may be dependent on the components used and the other variables mentioned.
If that can be determined then whether the patches actually engage the rifling or not becomes only a secondary concern.
My guess would be that the loosely patched balls may not provide quite as consistent accuracy and velocity as tight fitting bare balls, but I wouldn't be surprised if
they shoot equal to or better in some cases by using a carefully developed method and components.
You never know unless you try.
Many thanks to all of the posters for the interesting thread and commentary.
This kind of fascinating cutting edge discussion can usually only be found on THR!
1) Only found on THR? Not in my opinion. There are other forums out there that specialize in traditional black powder firearms. If you ask this question there, they will also be happy to discuss it with you.
2) Cutting edge? About the rather dubious practice of patching round balls in a revolver instead of using the correct diameter in the first place?
In my opinion, only a subject for argument. And since it concerns only an expedient practice with 1860s cap & ball revolvers, not exactly 21st century ballistics research.
3) In the end, if we are honest, I think that it's just another thread that devolved into back and forth squabbling by several members (myself included) that went on for far too long without resolving much of anything.
Sort of the modern equivalent question of: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
A very non-high-road response to a very high-road post, IMO.
Wait !! Was I the only one really interested in the Science? I NEED to know if a patch is effective past the forcing cone (as if I don't already, )...
In your opinion. In my opinion it sounds like you are calling me anti-THR, like some call others anti-American.
But, I think that my response is both incisive and honest, even if it is a little blunt.
And, I am in no way disparaging either THR or any member.
With reflection, I'm simply suggesting that we not take ourselves so seriously about such subjects.
I think that THR is a great forum. If it were not then I would have abandoned it many posts earlier.
Old Stumpy. I appreciate you and everyone else posting here since most earnest debate almost requires there being people on both sides of an issue for it to move forward, kind of like a courtroom adversarial system.
And let's not forget that it may be entirely possible to load undersized projectiles into revolver chambers using plastic sabots too.
People have done it with the Ruger Old Army and with another C&B as well, I think it was the Dragoon or the Walker.
Anyway, my initial question a long time ago concerned possibly loading a .433 ball with a .010 patch which would make the PRB measure .453.
But I don't know if the extra .002 of patch material would provide enough patch compression to hold the ball tightly in place inside of the chamber of a Pietta.
A .010 patch and a .440 ball would result in a PRB diameter of .460 which a patch compression of 50% may be doable, but I'm not sure.
A .005 patch and a .445 ball would measure .455 but a .005 patch is pretty thin and may be subject to tearing but there's a chance that it might work.
I am simply trying to illustrate that there could be some trial and error involved with coming up with the right combination of ball size and patch material to provide the best fit inside of a chamber, depending on the make of the gun.
What makes it more difficult is if someone doesn't already have the variety of balls and patches on hand to experiment with.
I didn't mention a .433 ball and a .015 patch which would measure .463.
That would require about 33% or so of patch compression and should be quite tight and possibly doable.
The thicker the patch, the more likely that it would be able to handle being compressed.
Another consideration is that if a patch is lubed, the lube can add a little extra thickness due to saturation of the fibers.
The amount can also depend on the type of lube.
Complicated decisions to make in order to conduct such an experiment.
That dead horse that noelf2 mentioned in post #91 has now been beaten to a pulp and pancaked flat with a steam roller.
Separate names with a comma.