Flintlock and patched roundball performance

[EdP]

New flintlocks from custom builders usually shoot low so that you can file down the front sight to bring it up to shoot where you want. You may need to file down the rear sight a bit if you can but try it without shooting bags first.

 

[HighUintas]

That's impressive. I will have to record my eye next time I go shoot mine. I am 100% certain I will be disappointed

As a helpful tool for curing that issue, from someone who told me, competes, and instructs flintlock shooting, you can work up stepwise dry firing until the blink and flinch is gone. Start with a wooden flint and dry fire every day until there is no blink and no movement. Then use a flint. Same thing. No cheating and moving on until there's no blink or flinch whatsoever, anytime you do it. Then prime the pan and do the same thing. Then shoot light loads and do the same thing.

I haven't stuck with it but did make improvements when I was doing it. I was mostly through the wooden flint not blinking, but couldn't do it 100% of the time every time I picked it up. Don't know why, but it's not the case with a suppressed center-fire. I think for me it's mostly the lock sound and flash.

 

[EdP]

I shot 5 wood flint dry fire shots every morning for two decades and it helped my shooting more than live fire shooting did.

 

[Formidilosus]

A few of the patches from today. .490” ball, .020” ticking, spit lubed.




Swabbed after shooting. Top left to right, top then bottom.




The wings on the rear sight have to go. Tries to lay you open any time you get near it.

 

[ShootOkHuntWorse]

Have you found IdahoLewis on here and YouTube? He’s just north of Unknown and has a ton of long range shooting with BP.

 

[HighUintas]

A few of the patches from today. .490” ball, .020” ticking, spit lubed.
View attachment 1018700



Swabbed after shooting. Top left to right, top then bottom.
View attachment 1018699



The wings on the rear sight have to go. Tries to lay you open any time you get near it.
View attachment 1018708

Patches look mostly ok but one looks blown and some show some fraying/stress where the lands would be I think. The blown patch certainly will not help accuracy but I'm not sure how much the stress marks matter. Supposedly, they should look completely free of fraying/stress.

It could be sharp edges/burrs on the corners of the new barrel's lands (typical with green mountain) or could be the sharp edges of the crown on the new barrel if your patch/ball combo is tight.

There's two ways to fix the first problem. Shoot a few hundred shots. Supposedly that works. Or use 0000 steel wool wrapped on a jag, oiled, so tight you may have to beat in it into the bore, then go up and down the bore until it loosens up and repeat for a hundred strokes or so. I believe that originated with Lee Shaver. I've done it and it works. I've also used Marron 3m pads then steel wool. It works faster. I had a barrel that did this, verified the land edges being sharp with burrs, and the patches looked perfect after smoothing the land edges.

For the crown, this likely only applies if your load is tight and hard to start. Use some emery paper or 300ish grit wet/dry paper, wrapped around the tip of your thumb to make a cone, then work the crown rotating the barrel 90 degrees often to help make the smoothing even. Repeat until it looks real smooth and doesn't tear patches on loading. This also works.

 

[RockAndSage]

Patches look mostly ok but one looks blown and some show some fraying/stress where the lands would be I think. The blown patch certainly will not help accuracy but I'm not sure how much the stress marks matter. Supposedly, they should look completely free of fraying/stress.

It could be sharp edges/burrs on the corners of the new barrel's lands (typical with green mountain) or could be the sharp edges of the crown on the new barrel if your patch/ball combo is tight.

There's two ways to fix the first problem. Shoot a few hundred shots. Supposedly that works. Or use 0000 steel wool wrapped on a jag, oiled, so tight you may have to beat in it into the bore, then go up and down the bore until it loosens up and repeat for a hundred strokes or so. I believe that originated with Lee Shaver. I've done it and it works. I've also used Marron 3m pads then steel wool. It works faster. I had a barrel that did this, verified the land edges being sharp with burrs, and the patches looked perfect after smoothing the land edges.

For the crown, this likely only applies if your load is tight and hard to start. Use some emery paper or 300ish grit wet/dry paper, wrapped around the tip of your thumb to make a cone, then work the crown rotating the barrel 90 degrees often to help make the smoothing even. Repeat until it looks real smooth and doesn't tear patches on loading. This also works.

^^^ This is good stuff.

 

[Formidilosus]

Patches look mostly ok but one looks blown and some show some fraying/stress where the lands would be I think. The blown patch certainly will not help accuracy but I'm not sure how much the stress marks matter. Supposedly, they should look completely free of fraying/stress.

It could be sharp edges/burrs on the corners of the new barrel's lands (typical with green mountain) or could be the sharp edges of the crown on the new barrel if your patch/ball combo is tight.

There's two ways to fix the first problem. Shoot a few hundred shots. Supposedly that works. Or use 0000 steel wool wrapped on a jag, oiled, so tight you may have to beat in it into the bore, then go up and down the bore until it loosens up and repeat for a hundred strokes or so. I believe that originated with Lee Shaver. I've done it and it works. I've also used Marron 3m pads then steel wool. It works faster. I had a barrel that did this, verified the land edges being sharp with burrs, and the patches looked perfect after smoothing the land edges.

For the crown, this likely only applies if your load is tight and hard to start. Use some emery paper or 300ish grit wet/dry paper, wrapped around the tip of your thumb to make a cone, then work the crown rotating the barrel 90 degrees often to help make the smoothing even. Repeat until it looks real smooth and doesn't tear patches on loading. This also works.

Oh I’m just going to shoot it for a while. I will cone the muzzle to remove the need for a short starter though.

 

[Formidilosus]

It’s an interesting thing- there’s a whole bunch of “you need to do this”, “this is what ____ should look like to shoot well”, etc, etc. Yet, demonstrable results of relevant shot group sizes showing differences functionally don’t exist.
Some matches will show 5 shot groups, but the first 5 shots of most of my groups with the last two rifles have been 2’ish inches at 100 yards. I’ve shot several that haven’t been shown and when aiming center with sub par sights, 3.5-4.5 inch 10 shots groups at 100y is the norm.
So I’m +/- 4 inches for 10 shots At 100 yards with PRB’s- and haven’t seen any results better than that anywhere. Idaho Lewis shoots some bad arse stuff, but his PRB shooting is at something like 60 yards and 3-5 shots IIRC. So still not able to see what should be expected on demand.


The whole thing really seems to be another case of people picking the best they’ve ever done, and then reading tea leaves off of it, and claiming that one result is to be expected all the time.

 

[ElDiablito]

The whole thing really seems to be another case of people picking the best they’ve ever done, and then reading tea leaves off of it, and claiming that one result is to be expected all the time.

Yep

 

[HighUintas]

It’s an interesting thing- there’s a whole bunch of “you need to do this”, “this is what ____ should look like to shoot well”, etc, etc. Yet, demonstrable results of relevant shot group sizes showing differences functionally don’t exist.
Some matches will show 5 shot groups, but the first 5 shots of most of my groups with the last two rifles have been 2’ish inches at 100 yards. I’ve shot several that haven’t been shown and when aiming center with sub par sights, 3.5-4.5 inch 10 shots groups at 100y is the norm.
So I’m +/- 4 inches for 10 shots At 100 yards with PRB’s- and haven’t seen any results better than that anywhere. Idaho Lewis shoots some bad arse stuff, but his PRB shooting is at something like 60 yards and 3-5 shots IIRC. So still not able to see what should be expected on demand.


The whole thing really seems to be another case of people picking the best they’ve ever done, and then reading tea leaves off of it, and claiming that one result is to be expected all the time.

I 100% agree. The information I share comes from guys who I've seen many of their targets in monthly matches, generally 5 shots, and they can shoot. They also seem to be more knowledgeable on the fact that 3 shot groups don't really tell the truth. Many of them say go shoot 10 shots! So I do tend to trust what some of them tell me. But, it's almost never at 100 yards. I try to share it with the caveats of "supposedly" and "should" because I don't know the truth.

Unfortunately, I can't shoot well enough to be able to root out these truths. So I'm hoping you can. I need to start saying.... This is what I'm told can you test it

 

[Formidilosus]

I 100% agree. The information I share comes from guys who I've seen many of their targets in monthly matches, generally 5 shots, and they can shoot. They also seem to be more knowledgeable on the fact that 3 shot groups don't really tell the truth. Many of them say go shoot 10 shots! So I do tend to trust what some of them tell me. But, it's almost never at 100 yards. I try to share it with the caveats of "supposedly" and "should" because I don't know the truth.

Unfortunately, I can't shoot well enough to be able to root out these truths. So I'm hoping you can. I need to start saying.... This is what I'm told can you test it

Haha. I get it man, and I appreciate the suggestions.

 

[MT762]

Your fired patches look fine to me. When things get bad they completely disintegrate and you won't find them.

My problem was always flushing the barrel/ getting all the BP salts out (never found a way that did not involve actually flushing with tons of water) and then rushing to get the barrel dry, then finding a preservative that doesn't contaminate the powder next time you shoot. A small amount of barrel roughness will start shredding patches pretty fast. At least in my experience which mostly involves frustration with these things...

4 MOA over 10 shots with PRBs is truly excellent. If you could clean the barrel to bare steel (which takes actual water in my experience, not just a bunch of damp patches, and is tough to do at the range) you could probably cut that in half, but then it would take hours to shoot the group.

 

[RockAndSage]

My problem was always flushing the barrel/ getting all the BP salts out (never found a way that did not involve actually flushing with tons of water) and then rushing to get the barrel dry, then finding a preservative that doesn't contaminate the powder next time you shoot.

Hot soapy water, cleaning jag and cleaning patch, run down the barrel without the stock attached. Make sure that water is hot - as in, as hot as you can stand it. Pour full barrel, swab repeatedly. It can help to do it inside a metal coffee can or similar, so that the can fills and you get suction, moving water in and out of the barrel through the nipple and drum. Do this with a few patches, pour out the water, repeat with another batch of hot soapy water, until there's no blackened or dingy water at all coming out.

Then do it again with similarly hot water but with no soap. The water should come out completely clear.

Using water that hot heats up the metal almost too hot to hold, and evaporates the water off before it can cause rust.

As for preservative, any thin gun oil will do, just a bit on a dry cleaning patch run through the bore and the barrel's exterior. Something thin like remoil or CLP is great, as it tends to dry off and leave a protective film, but doesn't interfere with powder. Before you shoot again though, run a dry cleaning patch down the barrel, and then fire 2-3 caps through it before loading in case any oil flowed and settled in the nipple. Flintlocks, probably the same with just a priming charge.

 

[RockAndSage]

It’s an interesting thing- there’s a whole bunch of “you need to do this”, “this is what ____ should look like to shoot well”, etc, etc. Yet, demonstrable results of relevant shot group sizes showing differences functionally don’t exist.
Some matches will show 5 shot groups, but the first 5 shots of most of my groups with the last two rifles have been 2’ish inches at 100 yards. I’ve shot several that haven’t been shown and when aiming center with sub par sights, 3.5-4.5 inch 10 shots groups at 100y is the norm.
So I’m +/- 4 inches for 10 shots At 100 yards with PRB’s- and haven’t seen any results better than that anywhere. Idaho Lewis shoots some bad arse stuff, but his PRB shooting is at something like 60 yards and 3-5 shots IIRC. So still not able to see what should be expected on demand.


The whole thing really seems to be another case of people picking the best they’ve ever done, and then reading tea leaves off of it, and claiming that one result is to be expected all the time.

You're going to get a lot of this - everybody has their "pet load" or approach that worked for them, that they'll swear by, but never really did side-by-side single variable tests on, over large volumes of shooting. Those who have, likely will have done so in situations that aren't really analogous to using a primitive field gun in field conditions. IE, some of the National Muzzleloading Rifle Association competitions saw guys were using hammers with short-starters to seat their patched bullets, on big, heavy barreled guns, when I paid attention to it in the late 80s.

Best I can offer is that some of them, especially if they were heavily shooting primitive guns in rendezvous competitions back in the 1970s-1990s, might have an element or two that might be worth experimenting with. But it's still iffy.

For example, I never used pre-cut patches - always just used a strip of patch cloth/pillow ticking, and seated the bullet the first 3/4" down the barrel into that, cutting it off with a small patch knife. The theory was that it got the most even nesting of the bullet without the patch getting a little lop sided during the seating. That approach, I believe, has some merit.

But another thing I did that may be a pretty suspect, in hindsight, is I always ensured the weave of the patch material was laid across the bore in the exact same orientation every time, perfectly. Keep in mind, I was a kid when I was doing all this, and was obsessive, but not obsessive or employed enough to put a lot of ammo downrange in single-variable testing.

Regarding @HighUintas ' suggestion about taking the burrs down on the edge of the rifling, that one I suspect might also have some merit, as it might help get a better seal on the gasses if the patches aren't getting cut into. It makes sense to me. But, who knows?

There's definitely just as much fudd-lore amongst primitive/traditional muzzleloader enthusiasts as any other segment of the shooting world, but almost all of it emerged and got set in stone as God's Truth before the internet could bust those myths.

 

[Wrench]

Balistol is your friend when cleaning. I use it along with very hot water. I twist a towel around the barrel to insulate myself and pour in the barrel....land it in a coffee can and pump away. Be aware that it will pump above the jag....so don't burn yourself. I then patch with ballistol and then patch till dry. Repeat if necessary and store the gun barrel down till it's cool. I've never had any ignition issues using that method and do the dame on my bp shotguns which get shot a lot.

10 shot groups without cleaning the nipple and breech is asking a lot for a percussion.

 

[ElPollo]

Hot soapy water, cleaning jag and cleaning patch, run down the barrel without the stock attached.

How do you think people used to do what you are suggesting in thin-stocked, pinned longrifles without patent breaches?

 

[HighUintas]

How do you think people used to do what you are suggesting in thin-stocked, pinned longrifles without patent breaches?

Spit or water, tow, let it rust, get it refreshed down the line.

Also, if you've looked at many originals a lot of them had crazy deep and narrow rifling, case in point being the original Hawkens and they were touted as being fine, accurate rifles. No way they would actually be able to get a good seal in the bore with that rifling unless the extra material in front of the ball somehow would wad up and seal it, but I doubt it.

They also surely didn't have the same patch thickness with them all the time... And we're acting like a 0.018 vs 0.020 patch makes a big difference.

So it really brings into question.... What was their accuracy truly like on a day to day basis? How would Daniel Boone have barked all those squirrels if he didn't have his 0.020 patching with him but had to use 0.018 and also didn't have his bore in the exact condition of when he regulated his sights?

 

[RockAndSage]

Spit or water, tow, let it rust, get it refreshed down the line.

Also, if you've looked at many originals a lot of them had crazy deep and narrow rifling, case in point being the original Hawkens and they were touted as being fine, accurate rifles. No way they would actually be able to get a good seal in the bore with that rifling unless the extra material in front of the ball somehow would wad up and seal it, but I doubt it.

They also surely didn't have the same patch thickness with them all the time... And we're acting like a 0.018 vs 0.020 patch makes a big difference.

So it really brings into question.... What was their accuracy truly like on a day to day basis? How would Daniel Boone have barked all those squirrels if he didn't have his 0.020 patching with him but had to use 0.018 and also didn't have his bore in the exact condition of when he regulated his sights?

My understanding of the purpose of depth of the rifling, was to allow for more firing between swabs, as shallower rifling would foul things up more quickly and prevent loading after fewer rounds. That's all word-of-mouth, inherited wisdom, but that's how it was explained to me.

Regarding patch thickness, those are great questions. It also makes me wonder what common patch cloth would have actually been like then, right at the dawn of machine textile weaving, both in weave density and in material thickness. As well as just consistency. I mean, was there a standardized "patch cloth" they had access to, or was it kind of a get-what-you-can type of situation?

@Olsolitaire1 , you have any info on this?