.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,371
It seems to me that ball/patch combos have been getting tighter over the past few decades, and I get mildly annoyed with the "tight patch" crowd - the ones who insist that incredibly tight patch/ball combos are the only way to get accuracy. I really shouldn't be, as it's their business, but whatever. There's just something about telling a newbie that his .54 will do best with a .535 ball and a .025 patch (to use a recent example seen on a Facebook group) that gets on my nerves. Hope the poor bugger brings a hammer.
At any rate, the topic comes up because I've just finished extensive load testing with what turned out to be a finicky .36 flintlock from Kibler. After hundreds of benchrest rounds involving balls from .340 up to .355, and patch thicknesses from .005 up through .020 (and multiple different lubes and four different powders) the rifle showed a real preference for a .350 ball and a .010 patch. This combo loads easily even in a fouled bore (it should, as it barely even fills the grooves) and outshoots nearly every other load, including the ones that have to be pounded down the bore. The only other load that is as good is the same ball, same patch material, and same lube, but a .015 thickness. I honestly can't tell any difference in accuracy between the two, but of course the tighter patch takes a lot more effort to get down the bore.
Some guns, of course, do their best work with a tight combo. The most common phenomenon, in my experience, is a rifle which is technically more accurate with a tight combo, but the difference is so marginal it gets lost in the noise of actual field shooting under realistic conditions. And every once in a while you will come across a gun which actually gets worse with a tighter combo, like my squirrel rifle.
Just based on what I'm seeing on the internet these days, a lot of folks won't even try a looser combo, apparently believing that either A) there's no way one could give good accuracy, or B) tighter is automatically better under all conditions, so use the tightest combo you can possibly manage. I'd encourage folks to keep a more open mind about the topic.
</rant>
At any rate, the topic comes up because I've just finished extensive load testing with what turned out to be a finicky .36 flintlock from Kibler. After hundreds of benchrest rounds involving balls from .340 up to .355, and patch thicknesses from .005 up through .020 (and multiple different lubes and four different powders) the rifle showed a real preference for a .350 ball and a .010 patch. This combo loads easily even in a fouled bore (it should, as it barely even fills the grooves) and outshoots nearly every other load, including the ones that have to be pounded down the bore. The only other load that is as good is the same ball, same patch material, and same lube, but a .015 thickness. I honestly can't tell any difference in accuracy between the two, but of course the tighter patch takes a lot more effort to get down the bore.
Some guns, of course, do their best work with a tight combo. The most common phenomenon, in my experience, is a rifle which is technically more accurate with a tight combo, but the difference is so marginal it gets lost in the noise of actual field shooting under realistic conditions. And every once in a while you will come across a gun which actually gets worse with a tighter combo, like my squirrel rifle.
Just based on what I'm seeing on the internet these days, a lot of folks won't even try a looser combo, apparently believing that either A) there's no way one could give good accuracy, or B) tighter is automatically better under all conditions, so use the tightest combo you can possibly manage. I'd encourage folks to keep a more open mind about the topic.
</rant>
Last edited:
