New to ML with lots of questions

[handirifle]

I won't ask them all in one post though.  I've done a little (VERY little) BPCR shooting, done a bit more reading on it than shooting, and just inherited a 50 cal percussion ML.  My first question, is why are the bullet weights (I talking about conical only at this point) on a ML so much lighter than say a BPCR rifle?

The cartridge people are firm believers in heavy bullet weights for more power.  Yet, when I look farther, I see the rifling in ML's are much slower.  I read one post of excess fouling in faster twist (1-28) barrels, but why would the ML foul (lead I assume) faster than a cartridge (BP) using a 1-18, like the sharps.

Seems to me that a 45 cal ML pushing a 400gr lead conical through a 1-20 twist would be accurate and VERY powerful.

Why the huge difference?

[Will Bison]

Quite a few ML guns use a compromise twist so they can fire round ball or short conicals.

[flintlock]

I will take a "guess" at answering this....

A "true" round ball gun will have deep, cut, slow rifling....(rifling .012-.016 inch deep) and twists from 1-48 to 1-72 inches (depending on caliber...from, smallest to largest bore)....

Now, when the Civil War broke out and Minies became more popular...the deep rifling didn't work with the Minie...good for a patch and ball, not good for a conical....So the rifling depth decreased....

Here come cartridges...like the 45-70 Sharps...What is it used for...Buffalo...So we need heavy bullets...

We all know a .45  caliber bullet from .240-300 grains is plenty for deer, but I'm betting in you cartridge guns you guys shoot heavy bullets because that's what the originals were made to shoot, therefore the slow bullets are probably more accurate......

Now...You mentioned that you had inhereted a muzzleloader...I am also assuming it is not an original....What make is it??? How old is it? When it became popular to start shooting muzzleloader again (from the mid 1940s to mid 1970s)...The muzzleloaders being made were "replicas"...Frankly they are not very good replicas of the originals...They didn't have cut rifling, or the slow twist....They are a "comprimise" gun, as mentioned...Some shoot very good and they can be used for both patched ball and a conical, with proper load build up....

"Back in the day" when the common man was using a muzzleloader (flintlock or percussion), he was also using a patched round ball...Minies weren't even invented until the late 1840s, and within 20-30 years we had cartridges and lever actions....That's when the original muzzleloaders were regulated to "hog rifles"....

The conicals used in Hawken replicas  today became popular in the 60s or 70s....The 1960s and 1970s....

[handirifle]

It is a Hawken replica, the brand I can't recall.  I'm at work right now and my memory is crap so I can't help there.  I'd talked to some before and they felt it was also a "compromise" rifle.

Yes and no on the heavy bullets, all weights were pretty accurate, but the heavies retained energy better.  Also since some tend to load the lighter weights faster than factory, they get poor performance due to bullet design/velocity.

I do realize the originals most likely used the RPB but what about newer barrels.  Do they keep the slower twists mainly cause that's what is popular?

The Sharps type rifles usually use a deep cut rifling, and with proper bullet lube they get minimal leading, but other black powder fouling issues are still there.

[flintlock]

I have two custom built flintlocks...Both have deep(.012 - .016) cut rifling....The .40 caliber is 1-48, the .54 is 1-72...Both of these are made for roundballs...These have the slower twist, because that's the most forgiving and accurate for roundballs.

[captchee]

 Couple things .
conicals have been around for a very long time . Many of the F&I battle fields  that are being excavated are turning up conical of sorts . The real question is were these  used in rifles or smooth bore  or smooth rifles ?
 that conicals didnt come about tell the civil war is  very much the same as saying smooth bores and trade guns never had rear sights .
 simply not accurate
  what did happen during the civil war was a much better conical design  which made the conical  more accurate  in give rifles and thus  more widly used


 The problem with the rifling is in the load really .   
 See it takes very little to turn a round ball  on its axes . Once turning it has a tendency to stay there . It can not tumble.  there is not front or back  thus longitudel stability isn’t a concern .
 A fast twist barrel will shoot a round ball IE 1 in 28 , 1 in 32 . However  the  charge most times  has to be very low or   the patch will strip through the rifling. This effects the rotation imparted to the round ball and thus makes it in consistent.

 This also  holds true for the other end of the spectrum .
 A slow twist will shoot a conical . One of my rifles has an iron barrel with a 1 in 70 twist .
 However the rifling is also round bottom .
 What kind of accuracy you ask ?
 Well I  use a 436 conical in that rifle for elk .
 However that conical is also hollow based  and I  back it with  100 grains . Now bench rested this  set up. In my rifle . Will hold a 6 inch pattern at 100 yards .

 So now whats happening . Well  it’s a combination of the rifling type  . The specific  conical   and the charge

 See deep rifling isn’t really as much of a problem as the number  of groves added to that deep rifling . To many groves  that are to deep . Combined with a heavy charge  needed to stableize the conical over longer distances , causes  the conical to strip through the rifle .  This cause leading which very quickly effects the accuracy .
 So    the  move for shallower rifling  . Different numbers of groves . Different types of rifling and many different conical designs .

 So really what you have is a trade off  , playing with charges and designs so as to still keep a effective  hunting load  or accuracy for target shooting

 here are some  conical found on the mamoth battle feild

[Will Bison]

The slow twist with deep cut grooves has proven to work well with round ball. Twist can be overdone in that it is possible to over spin a bullet. The ideal twist falls in a narrow range between too fast or too slow. The depth of groove is also critical, the PRB needs a deeper groove to engage the patch. The naked bullet deforms too much with too deep a groove.

As an example, my 1863 Sharps (Pedersoli), in .45 caliber likes 500 grain bullets. Twist is 1-18. With 400 grain bullets it won't cut paper, the 500 grain will shoot inside a 24 to 30 inch circle at 1,000 yards.

The Patched Round Ball (PRB) will shoot quite well from twists of say 1-28 up to 1-80. At the faster twist the PRB will strip and shread the patch. The PRB is pretty forgiving, the conical can be darn hard to control.

The "compromise bore" allows the use of PRB or short conicals.

Not many folks buy ML guns compared to center fire guns. How does T/C or Lyman compete against the Rem 700 or the Win 70, they don't.

ML guns are a niche market.

Bill

[flintlock]

Minies were invented in 1849 by Captain Claude Minie...This was the first successful or commonly used Minie.

Somebody, somewhere might have used some type of elongated bullet before, there were many efforts to develop an elongated bullet, but the common man of the time used a patched round ball.

I would love to know your sources for conicals being used in the French & Indian War and the Revolutionary War.

[captchee]

flintlock .

if you go to the manmoth battle feild site  you will see their documentation . i also believe and i could be wrong here  so dont hold me to it .but i want to say they have found then a fort Ticonderoga as well . The manmoth site is really interesting  in that  they have everything charted an laid out . They know where  each unite was at a give place and time
as to the F&i documentation  somewhere i have some writings  on sunken early ships  from here in the colonies during that time period  . in those writings they speak  the use of conical type munitions . when i get time ill see if i can round them up for ya . main time here is a qoute   on the information on the photos i posted above .
also a link to the manmoth battlefeild . you might find them interesting

The archaeological work shows that the men of the 42nd Regiment faced sniper fire from the north.
Figure 14 shows the locations where impacted musket balls were excavated. Based on their locations (in
the orchard area) and the two ranges of diameters, it can be concluded that these musket balls were fired
by the Americans at the Highlanders. Based on the work done by BRAVO, musket balls are grouped into
three basic diameter ranges. Less than 0.60" in diameter are typically used by rifles. 0.60" - 0.66" can
encompass a variety of smooth bore muskets, but are most commonly associated with French Charleville
muskets which were being supplied by France to America and British fusils. Greater than 0.66" in
diameter are usually associated with large fowling pieces and military issued British Brown Bess muskets.
Based on the data, the British were not using rifles at Monmouth, but the majority of impacted musket
balls in the orchard area were from rifles. Rifles took a greater amount of time to load than smooth bore
muskets, and were therefore not preferred as combat weapons. However, they were significantly more
accurate than muskets and were preferred by snipers.

Cylindrical shot were also being fired at the Highlanders in the orchard. A Continental sniper
altered round musket balls by hammering them into cylinders or “Sluggs”. This is equivalent to modern,
illegal “dum-dum” bullets. This shot would tumble after firing and rip through human targets causing
massive, irreparable injury.

The GIS data (Figure 16) shows the accuracy at which these sluggs were being fired. With such
tight patterns we might envision an intended target. Such determined fire might suggest a Highland
officer was being sighted. The question was raised as to what type of weapon was being used to fire these
sluggs.

They were all hammered down to a diameter of less than 0.60” in diameter suggesting that they
may have been altered to fit a rifle. Could it simply be that a rifleman ran out of ammunition and took
larger musket balls and made them fit his weapon? We thought we had something very unique.
However, the use of cylindrical shot is not unique to Monmouth and appears to have a long history. Five
specimens were excavated from the pirate ship Whydah which sank off Cape Cod in 1717.
The shot were found in the same leather pouch with 23 round musket balls. An analysis of the
calculated diameters of the cylindrical shot, using the Sivilich Formula, shows they were all made from
0.63” diameter musket balls. This strongly suggests that they were for the same smooth bore musket as
the round shot. Therefore, it is concluded that a Continental sniper was firing the sluggs from a musket at
Monmouth.

 heres is the PDF for you to read  as well
the battle of Monmouth]http://www.saa.org/public/resources/MonmouthBravo.pdf#search="bullets%20Monmouth%20battlefield"]the battle of Monmouth.

 

[Slamfire]

A significant number of conicals were also dug up at Saratoga. It would appear that they were more common, at least among sharp shooters than history text would have you believe.  However, it was much later, when Whitworth conducted his experiments in twist rates that led to the really fast twists that can stabilize long bullets.

[sharps4590]

As muzzleloading progressed into the latter part of the 19th century long for caliber bullets were more commonly seen on the shooting ranges and in the hunting fields, especially on the European continent and in the North East here in the Unites States.  Other items such as the false muzzle and the three and four strip paper patch also became evident.  Both items added time and steps to the loading process so in the hinterlands it wasn't really practical.  Also, by that time cartridge firing rifles were very much the norm.  Conicals were available and used, just not that practical, in the latter days of muzzleloading.  Indeed, the Irish used them at the Creemore match in 1876, firing mostly Rigby rifles.  I will add that the Irish lost to the US who was firing rolling blocks and Sharps cartridge rifles.  Even then, Lt. Bodine used his Remington rolling block loading the bullet from the muzzle.  We also only won that match because one of the Irish shooters put a round on the wrong target.  At the next match between the Irish team and the US we won handily.

Most traditional rifled muzzleloaders of today are aimed at the hunting/reenacting crowd.  The patched round ball was the projectile of choice on the frontier, that's what most of us use so I would suspect that's one reason you see so many of them.  That and they just plain work and work very well.  Many of us see no need to use anything else.  There's also the historical aspect of using the PRB.  Many traditional muzzleloaders are particular about doing things the way our forefathers did, so as to gain that experience, and while the conicals of one variety or another were certainly availale I doubt they were ever common prior to the 1850's or perhaps even later.

The posts of other pretty well sum up the rifling/load/projectile issues.

Vic