Patched roundball range day

[2Stamp]

I’ve got a package and half on the way. When I ordered the stuff, the sales person was like “wtf, what are you doing with this”. Haha.




I was given a place and asked not to repeat. I’m not even sure they are online, I will ask if it is ok to state.

No worries. Black powder is a touchy subject.

 

[Steve300xcw]

. In regards to cleaning, ask 10 different shooters how they clean and you will get 10 different answers. In reality, most all of them work. The ones that will argue with you about it would almost always be better served learning how to shoot rather the formulating their cleaning concoctions.

We always pulled the barrels and stuck em in a bucket of hot water and murphys oil soap. Though I donot know why Wet patch and pretty soon you are pulling/pushing that stuff through it all.

Worked good enough. An at the time we were going through a lot of powder.

 

[Formidilosus]

These are from the other day. For the PRB guys, what do they look like?

 

[Natty]

These are from the other day. For the PRB guys, what do they look like?

View attachment 986691

Look fine to me. Conventional wisdom among the match shooting crowd will tell you pre-cut patches won't shoot well. (I don't buy into this as long as care is taken while loading and the pre-cut patch is big enough/centered enough to go around the circumference of the ball at its widest point.)

What material/thickness/lube?

Is the kibler you have coming a woodsrunner or colonial? What sights are you planning on trying?

 

[Formidilosus]

Look fine to me. Conventional wisdom among the match shooting crowd will tell you pre-cut patches won't shoot well. (I don't buy into this as long as care is taken while loading and the pre-cut patch is big enough/centered enough to go around the circumference of the ball at its widest point.)

Appreciate it.

What material/thickness/lube?

I believe these are Traditions pre lubed cotton patches. .015” thick.

Is the kibler you have coming a woodsrunner or colonial?

Woodrunner.

What sights are you planning on trying?

Flip up Jeager style. Something like fig7 here-





Or a Ferguson-

 

[Natty]

Woodrunner.

Excellent handling rifle. Hadn't seen one in person until about a month ago. Seriously considering picking one up for a hunting gun. I believe he sources barrels from rice and green mountain, so they will be shooters.

Flip up Jeager style. Something like fig7 here.

I like that. Looking forward to seeing what you can do at distance.

Dug this up today. Fifty yd but it was the only thing I had with 10+ shots lying around. Open sights. Match is 13 shots score the best 10. Offhand so I'm positive the rifle can do better. Group is 1.95" center to center. Widest shot is 1.25" from center of target.

 

[Formidilosus]

Excellent handling rifle. Hadn't seen one in person until about a month ago. Seriously considering picking one up for a hunting gun. I believe he sources barrels from rice and green mountain, so they will be shooters.

I like that. Looking forward to seeing what you can do at distance.

Me too sir.

Dug this up today. Fifty yd but it was the only thing I had with 10+ shots lying around. Open sights. Match is 13 shots score the best 10. Offhand so I'm positive the rifle can do better. Group is 1.95" center to center. Widest shot is 1.25" from center of target.

Oh that’s nice.

 

[Natty]

Oh that’s nice.

Good day with a rifle I bummed off a friend. Wish I owned it. Oh yeah, and no cleaning that rifle at any point during that match or the shots prior used to zero.

 

[Formidilosus]

(I don't buy into this as long as care is taken while loading and the pre-cut patch is big enough/centered enough to go around the circumference of the ball at its widest point.)

I was thinking about this. Does the latch need to be perfectly centered? Or does it just need to cover the ball so that it is contained?

 

[Natty]

I was thinking about this. Does the latch need to be perfectly centered? Or does it just need to cover the ball so that it is contained?

This is something that would be worth testing once people start shooting 10+ shot groups to see the effect of centered vs. intentionally not centered.

I haven't tested it but here are my anecdotal thoughts/experience. I started shooting prb with pre-cut patches. I logged 2,000+ shots a year for a series of years. The first several were with pre-cut patches. At some point I switched to cutting them at the muzzle. I never saw any significant change in the scores I was shooting that could be attributed to the change.

For me this switch was out of convenience. I could keep a bolt of material on hand and when it was time to go to a shoot all I had to do was cut off how much I needed and put it in my shooting box or bag. No time spent pre punching patches and no need to inventory different sizes for different calibers.

Another nice biproduct of switching is I no longer had strangers coming up to me while I was in the middle of shooting a match to tell me I would never be able to shoot competitively with pre-cut patches. Every time these conversations happened, I would ask the person if they had ever tested this or had anything quantifiable to prove this, such as a difference in scores. I would always try to figure out their grounds for this belief. The response was always to repeat their opinion or make an appeal to authority.

The theory of the anti pre-cut camp is that you are not getting the ball perfectly centered in the patch like you are when you cut them at the muzzle. They think the lack of concentricity of the ball in the patch effects accuracy. I have never gotten an explanation of what they think is physically causing said effect.

My theory is that as long as the patch has full contact around the circumference of the ball, it will do its job. When I was shooting pre-cut I would try to keep the ball reasonably centered in the patch but not to the point of getting OCD about it. With the right sized patches, you have some wiggle room.

I think if a nonconcentric patch is effecting the balls flight as it exits the barrel, it would only be in extreme cases. Basically unless you are to the point where you feel like the ball is going to slip off one side of the patch when you start it or you have a super long tail sticking up on one side when you are starting it I would say it is fine. If lack of concentricity had an effect, I also suspect it would be magnified with a higher pressure load or loose loading ball/patch combinations.

 

[Formidilosus]

This is something that would be worth testing once people start shooting 10+ shot groups to see the effect of centered vs. intentionally not centered.

I haven't tested it but here are my anecdotal thoughts/experience. I started shooting prb with pre-cut patches. I logged 2,000+ shots a year for a series of years. The first several were with pre-cut patches. At some point I switched to cutting them at the muzzle. I never saw any significant change in the scores I was shooting that could be attributed to the change.

For me this switch was out of convenience. I could keep a bolt of material on hand and when it was time to go to a shoot all I had to do was cut off how much I needed and put it in my shooting box or bag. No time spent pre punching patches and no need to inventory different sizes for different calibers.

Another nice biproduct of switching is I no longer had strangers coming up to me while I was in the middle of shooting a match to tell me I would never be able to shoot competitively with pre-cut patches. Every time these conversations happened, I would ask the person if they had ever tested this or had anything quantifiable to prove this, such as a difference in scores. I would always try to figure out their grounds for this belief. The response was always to repeat their opinion or make an appeal to authority.

The theory of the anti pre-cut camp is that you are not getting the ball perfectly centered in the patch like you are when you cut them at the muzzle. They think the lack of concentricity of the ball in the patch effects accuracy. I have never gotten an explanation of what they think is physically causing said effect.

My theory is that as long as the patch has full contact around the circumference of the ball, it will do its job. When I was shooting pre-cut I would try to keep the ball reasonably centered in the patch but not to the point of getting OCD about it. With the right sized patches, you have some wiggle room.

I think if a nonconcentric patch is effecting the balls flight as it exits the barrel, it would only be in extreme cases. Basically unless you are to the point where you feel like the ball is going to slip off one side of the patch when you start it or you have a super long tail sticking up on one side when you are starting it I would say it is fine. If lack of concentricity had an effect, I also suspect it would be magnified with a higher pressure load or loose loading ball/patch combinations.

That all makes sense, thank you.

 

[43.6N]

This has been a masterclass to sit on the sidelines and listen too!

Thanks you guys for this.

 

[mtnbound]

This is something that would be worth testing once people start shooting 10+ shot groups to see the effect of centered vs. intentionally not centered.

I haven't tested it but here are my anecdotal thoughts/experience. I started shooting prb with pre-cut patches. I logged 2,000+ shots a year for a series of years. The first several were with pre-cut patches. At some point I switched to cutting them at the muzzle. I never saw any significant change in the scores I was shooting that could be attributed to the change.

For me this switch was out of convenience. I could keep a bolt of material on hand and when it was time to go to a shoot all I had to do was cut off how much I needed and put it in my shooting box or bag. No time spent pre punching patches and no need to inventory different sizes for different calibers.

Another nice biproduct of switching is I no longer had strangers coming up to me while I was in the middle of shooting a match to tell me I would never be able to shoot competitively with pre-cut patches. Every time these conversations happened, I would ask the person if they had ever tested this or had anything quantifiable to prove this, such as a difference in scores. I would always try to figure out their grounds for this belief. The response was always to repeat their opinion or make an appeal to authority.

The theory of the anti pre-cut camp is that you are not getting the ball perfectly centered in the patch like you are when you cut them at the muzzle. They think the lack of concentricity of the ball in the patch effects accuracy. I have never gotten an explanation of what they think is physically causing said effect.

My theory is that as long as the patch has full contact around the circumference of the ball, it will do its job. When I was shooting pre-cut I would try to keep the ball reasonably centered in the patch but not to the point of getting OCD about it. With the right sized patches, you have some wiggle room.

I think if a nonconcentric patch is effecting the balls flight as it exits the barrel, it would only be in extreme cases. Basically unless you are to the point where you feel like the ball is going to slip off one side of the patch when you start it or you have a super long tail sticking up on one side when you are starting it I would say it is fine. If lack of concentricity had an effect, I also suspect it would be magnified with a higher pressure load or loose loading ball/patch combinations.

I remember my dad going through the same process of cutting patches at the muzzle, which was supposedly more accurate, but he tried pre-cuts for convenience. After lots of shots, he didn't notice any repeatable loss of accuracy. He became convinced it was more of a mental belief of improved accuracy from the cut ones.

 

[Natty]

I remember my dad going through the same process of cutting patches at the muzzle, which was supposedly more accurate, but he tried pre-cuts for convenience. After lots of shots, he didn't notice any repeatable loss of accuracy. He became convinced it was more of a mental belief of improved accuracy from the cut ones.

Good on him for trying it and forming his own opinion. I lean more towards the mental belief theory as well. If there is any truth to the loss of accuracy, the number of people who would be able to shoot the difference and have a use case in which it would effect the outcome is extremely small.

 

[Formidilosus]

Shot a few rounds with the borrowed rifle late this afternoon. Light wa slow, and it was hard to center the bull, but…
There is definitely a tight spot in front of the breach, going to give it a good scrubbing tonight.


With that, this thing really wants the bore swabbed between shots. 1, it gets very hard to seat the patch and ball past that “ring” if you don’t swab the shots go haywire consistently.




Three different things going on here.

These were shot intermixed- blue are all slit swabbed between shots. Yellow is one dry swab between shots, red is no swabbed between shots. I shot a couple shots swabbing (blue), then didn’t swab (red), then swab again (blue). Then, dry swab (yellow), then swab- (blue). Etc.

Not swabbing between shots consistently has the shot going 4-6” high.





Made a sight adjustment up, swabbed the barrel, and fired one at 100 yards kneeling against a tree for grits and shins- barley clipped.

 

[mtnbound]

Shot a few rounds with the borrowed rifle late this afternoon. Light wa slow, and it was hard to center the bull, but…
There is definitely a tight spot in front of the breach, going to give it a good scrubbing tonight.


With that, this thing really wants the bore swabbed between shots. 1, it gets very hard to seat the patch and ball past that “ring” if you don’t swab the shots go haywire consistently.

View attachment 988898


Three different things going on here.

These were shot intermixed- blue are all slit swabbed between shots. Yellow is one dry swab between shots, red is no swabbed between shots. I shot a couple shots swabbing (blue), then didn’t swab (red), then swab again (blue). Then, dry swab (yellow), then swab- (blue). Etc.

Not swabbing between shots consistently has the shot going 4-6” high.

View attachment 988899



Made a sight adjustment up, swabbed the barrel, and fired one at 100 yards kneeling against a tree for grits and shins- barley clipped.

View attachment 988900

Are your ball patches wet or dry?

 

[Formidilosus]

Are your ball patches wet or dry?

Preluded patches so far.

 

[FrontierGander]

Have any pictures of the rifle?

 

[Natty]

With that, this thing really wants the bore swabbed between shots. 1, it gets very hard to seat the patch and ball past that “ring” if you don’t swab the shots go haywire consistently.

I have fought this before. Very similar experience with accuracy once a persistent crud ring has formed. Not sure what rifle/barrel you are shooting but the more stubborn cases of this I have had have been in percussion t/c rifles. First step is always thorough cleaning then start evaluating/changing variables to try to eliminate the ring formation.

Was the ring there to some degree when you started shooting and then got progressively worse or did it appear suddenly?

Based on previous posts, looks like you are shooting 70gr 3f swiss, .015 prelubed traditions patches and .490 swagged hornady balls correct?

Any history on cleaning methods/schedule used on this rifle?

 

[mtnbound]

Preluded patches so far.

I recall my dad using:
Damp/spit patches.
What he called Dry patch but was a water and oil blend.
Wet/greasey patches which was melted mink oil. Which he also used on his boots.
He had to swab after every shot with the Dry patch.
Spit patch, if I remember correctly he could get by with 2-3 shots before he would swab so long as he had chew in his mouth.
Wet/greasy he could get by with 5-6 and I remember seeing him go as high as 10. He stayed with the Wet/greasy patch but I don’t remember what thickness of patch he used.
I remember him saying “there are so many ways to do this shit I just have to find my way and you need to do the same”. That has stuck with me, **** I miss that old man.