Safety & muzzleloaders - are we buying bombs?

[gmatov]

Just started a post and hit SOME key that lost it.

Innyhoo.

Sure, all the troops on both sides were excellent marksmen. They could put your eye out at 500 yards. BS.

OR, they were green draftees who couldn't shoot worth a damn.

FL,

"George,

I'll bet that reference comes from the same self-proclaimed "experts" ...."

Actually, my reference is from "The Story of the Guns", dated 1863, about the battle between Whitworth and Armstrong to re-arm Britain, and hence the world.

I don't know if I can copy from the PDF. Here goes.....Nope can't.

Quote:"The soldier was told, in firing at a man at 600 yards, to fire 130 feet above him." "Or in other words, if you wanted to hit a church door, aim at the weathercock", BUT, "considering the lateral deviation, the chances were certainly 2 to 1 that you would miss the church altogether".

These were not the Pennsylvania rifles, nor Kentucky rifles. They were mass produced muskets. .58 calibre, no? NOT 500 yard hit you in the head rifles. And I don't mean those .36 and .40 cal. rifles that woodsmen used.

Here's another citation. I haven't read this one. Ranges are minimal:

http://books.google.com/books?id=NW...X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPA150,M1

Rifled muskets were NOT accurate. You guys are not, for the most part, shooting rifled muskets. Nor are you shooting in battle conditions.

As to that, you are also saying that you will shoot at a deer sized animal at less than a 100 yards, and advising others to do the same. You can't in one breath say that you have a 1,000 yard gun, but you "prefer", possibly because the deer will spoil by the time you trek that far to gut it, to shoot JUST 100 yard shots, so you can get it before it spoils.

44cap,

Never happen. You're dreaming, or you are thinking of some of the oaters you've watched.

Why, if you guys have such superaccurate BP rifles, do you still brag about your 50 and 100 yard groups? One inch 50's, 4 inch 100's, and if you went to 200, what, 12 or 16 inches?That is with your rifles, today. Off the bench. Swab after shots.

Heat of battle, all fouled, load a ball or bullet and knock a general off his horse at 1,000 yards? A once in a lifetime shot, never to be repeated.
There were accurate rifles in the Civil War. Sharps, Bernards, others, Hall rifles. But the mass of the millions involved were armed with basically punkin ball shooters..

Accuracy was secondary. Further in the link above, it says that target practice was not done. Cost of ammunition.

Though I now shoot almost all BP revolvers, I did shoot long range target grade rifle. 20X scope. Good bench. 100 yds., sub one inch, 200 sub two inch. Had we a 500 yard range, probably could have held about 5 inches.
45 years since I was able to shoot a 500 yard range, at PI with an M-14. Though I liked the M1 better, that sumbitch COULD shoot, if you could hold it.

Cheers,

George

 

[Hawg]

I don't have to read the link to know it's all BS. Get you some real history books. My repro Enfield will tear a five gallon bucket all to hell at 300 yds. My original shoots better but I don't shoot it much. As for target practice during the war they did. I've dug a lot of bullets out of Rocky Face Ridge in Georgia where they had informal matches in 1863(Confederate troops). I too have super accurate modern rifles but that's not the same thing. You did stumble across one valid point "heat of battle" That right there is the main reason for the high number of rounds fired then and now. Nobody wants to stick their head up long enough to take aimed shots and risk it getting blown apart

 

[FL-Flinter]

George,

I'm not saying all or even "most" of the troops were marksmen, what I'm saying is that to claim smoothbores are useless beyond 50 yards is total BS.

First off, a round ball does not need spin to stabilize, in a perfect world the ball is a true sphere and will fly straight because there is nothing to make it not fly straight. No, we don't live in a perfect world and castings are not true spheres and there are voids, slag, mold lines and of course the sprue to deal with. All those aside, a reasonable quality cast RB will still fly reasonably straight despite "minor" flaws.

As for the effectiveness in battle, there are several things being lumped into one here and with no disrespect intended, I'll try to clear things up a little.

I don't have the British standards for accuracy on their smoothbore muskets right handy but IIRC they required an 70% hit rate at 150yds ... besides the point, the key things to note are that the shooting is done by someone familiar with the gun and using "other than" field ammunition. Those points are important because not everyone was given sufficient live-fire training prior to being put into battle and because the guy shooting on the range wasn't using the same ammo as the guys in the field.

Using field ammo (smaller than normal diameter ball in a paper cartridge) an average quality smoothbore musket fired by someone familiar with the gun and load could be expected to maintain about 60% accuracy on a man-size target at 100 yards. When allowed to use better quality ammo, the same gun and shooter was easily able to meet or exceed the 70% @ 150yds standard. However, one must understand it's pretty much apples & oranges in the general sense but one cannot discount the fact that it would not be impossible for at the first shot in a battle to be placed fairly accurate and deadly to at least 150yds given the use of good ammo.

Another thing that kind gets blown out of proportion is the effectiveness of the large caliber round balls. I recall reading one account claiming something to the effect that "the 0.75 ball was ineffective beyond 75 yards because it was too-big and heavy and slowed too much." Anyone with even a passing knowledge of ballistics knows that the heavier the projectile is, the less velocity it needs to be deadly. Considering the fact that even the under-sized musket balls weighed in around 600 grains and even at a mere 500 fps, it still delivers 333 ft-lbs of energy, more than enough to be fatal or knock a limb off. As for the drop-correction, IIRC it was 60yds or less aim for the belt buckle; 60yds or more aim for the top of the head; this would put the ball somewhere in the torso out to 150yds.

When it comes to the fighting itself, there is a considerably amount of warfare techniques that were either unknown or disregarded by the western Europeans. Even back to the days of Sun Wu & Sun Tzu around 512BC in China, military tactics were employed that were greatly advanced from the European methods of suffering great losses by having lines of men stand in an open field blasting or hacking the snot out of each other with no rhyme nor reason for such stupidity. Over a thousand years after the Roman empire collapsed, the Brits & French maintained the same military theories with guns as the Romans did with archers - using them primarily as artillery rather than effective personal fighting weapons. The effectiveness failures associated with deploying archers that were not only identified but corrected and written about by Sun Tzu and again later by Sun Pin were still being repeated more than 2000 years later by the western Europeans now using muskets.

Take into consideration that when the lines came into bearing (marched by their commanders to within 50 - 60 yards of each other) they stood there and were expected to fire three to six volleys before breaking into retreat. Even 850 years earlier, it is well documented that the north east Europeans and on along the northern region out through Mongolia employed military tactics that were highly advanced compared to those being taught by the Brits & French. Archers were deployed in mass using chariots and in conjunction with both cavalry and supporting infantry. While the archers made the first strikes, their initial shots were made as accurately as possible and designed to take out specific enemy targets, the leaders and the strongest warriors were the primary first-choice targets. Once the first volley of arrows were loosed, the cavalry began their attack from the flanks while the archers continued their frontal assault buying just a little more time for the chariots to make the first delivery of infantry into the midst of the enemy's ranks.

Without the application of effective military tactics, the Brits and American's lumbered on like fools standing in lines and lobbing lead balls at each other with no clear leadership nor objectives. The entire combination is what lead to the muskets being seen pretty much as "ineffective" yet the problems were not with the musket but rather with the mindset of the leaders. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that letting the bulk of your men get cut down because they're standing still trying to reload is utter stupidity. Had the same methods been used that were proven more than two thousand years prior, the war would have over rather quickly.

I know this reply got a little off the topic at hand but it is necessary to understand that while the particular weapons may not have been considered "premium" the military tactics and leadership deserve the blame and not the guns themselves. The mis-application of blame rests upon those commentary writers who have neither a working knowledge of guns nor those military tactics that were proven effective and those that were proven ineffective. More often than not the Romans are held up as the standard even though their deployment of weapons was greatly inferior to their deployment of engineers. Yes, the Romans deserve credit for their engineering and construction capabilities but they deserve equal condemnation for their lack of properly deploying offensive weapons. The Romans used archers solely as artillery and artillery solely for the purpose of breeching walls despite the fact that centuries earlier archers were correctly deployed as making the initial direct attack and without delay that was immediately followed up on by infantry, cavalry and chariot attacks designed to break the mass of the enemy. Only after the initial direct archer attack was complete did they resort to directing their fire deeper into the enemy lines beyond their advancing troops as an artillery type support. On the other hand, the Romans rarely, if ever, used their archers for a frontal assault but rather chose to have them lob their arrows as an un-aimed artillery barrage; the result being long protracted battles and very high infantry loss rates. Applying the same ill-founded logic, one would have to conclude that the Roman weapons were deficient just as the claim is made that the musket is deficient when neither is correct. The deficiencies lied with the leadership and not with the weapons.

 

[DrLaw]

I just read part of that book from the link. Here is a quote,

"Armed with Colt's seven-shooter navy self-cocking .44-calibre..."

That is on page 157. Something, oh, call it common sense, tells me that something is ever so slightly wrong with the expert's research not to catch that something was wrong with that statement.

The Doc is out now. (and pretty much agreeing with Hawg and FL-Flinter)

 

[gmatov]

Doc,

That does make you doubt the author, does it not?
The post I got my copy of "The Story of the Guns", by Sir J. Emerson Tennent has expired. Here is a link to a DL. 9.3 MB. Interesting.

Should you DL it, read pps. 7 to 22.

http://books.google.com/books?id=5D...pN39DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

The rifled musket was by no means accurate, and this is the 1853 Enfield.

You may brag about how accurate your smooth bores and muskets are. If you are not shooting "rifles" that are and were designed to be accurate, as the rifles made in PA in the 18th and early 19th century, hand made rifles, you ain't gonna shoot clover leaves.

FL

A round ball most certainly DOES have to have spin imparted to it to be accurate. A conical bullet MUST have spin upon it to have any accuracy. An ARROW must have spin upon it to have any accuracy. You are trying to negate a couple thousand years of ballistic science. Arrows have had spiral fletching for most of those 2,000 years.

I will have to type the trials of the British tests, can't copy/paste.

"Not very long ago, a well trained marksman, provided with an old regulation musket, was placed to fire at a target 18 feet square from a distance of 300 yards, and found that he could put not even put into that spacious area even one bullet out of twenty."

Any projectile requires spin to stabilize, else it will act as an air foil. It will follow the path of least resistance, ala lower air pressure on one quadrant or the other. Base ball pitchers know that all too well. They can make the ball do as they wish, to a degree, because of the effects of aerodynamics.

Knuclke ballers impart NO spin, so the ball's flight is erratic. Hard to hit. But, if the batter doesn't swing, probably a "ball" called. Out of the "aim point" Just as smooth bores are out of the "strike zone".

Read the book, if you have room for a 26 meg tome. You might learn something.

Cheers,

George

 

[DrLaw]

I read the footnotes. The gun complained of, the Enfield, was a smoothbore at the time, and it was being used against a rifle, which allowed the French to kill from a greater distance. Since the British were not taught to aim, per se, and the trigger was slapped as opposed to pulled, it is not unconcievable that the 'accuracy' was limited.

These days, we know a little something about that thing called aiming, trigger pull and how to hold the gun.

My two cents.

The Doc is out now.

PS, got to page 29 before I realized that I had read past what you wanted me to.

 

[FL-Flinter]

George,

You didn't read what I wrote.

in a perfect world the ball is a true sphere and will fly straight because there is nothing to make it not fly straight.

I also went on to point out that there is a major accuracy loss using undersize balls in smoothbore without proper patching.

George: "Not very long ago, a well trained marksman, provided with an old regulation musket, was placed to fire at a target 18 feet square from a distance of 300 yards, and found that he could put not even put into that spacious area even one bullet out of twenty."

Well trained in what? I can pull a sniper off a .338 Lapua and put him/her on a flintlock and when they couldn't hit anything at a 100yds prove absolutely nothing....what's the point? I saw an alleged "expert" on the history channel make a complete fool of himself showing he didn't even know the proper loading technique for a flintlock ... what does it prove other than he's ignorant to proper operation of the gun he's trying to use?

Spin has no major affect on outside forces either. Take a BPCR shooter running a 500gr bullet, at some distance the bullet velocity is going to drop off and the bullet will transition from supersonic to subsonic flight. Despite the fact that the bullet is still spinning about 50,000 Rpm, it's going to move around during the transition from supersonic to subsonic flight. Same thing with a fancy boattail match bullet spinning at 200,000 Rpm, if you try pushing it through a 25 Mph crosswind or over thermal currents, it's going to get pushed around despite the fact that it's spinning at 200,000 Rpm or 20 Rpm.

Aerodynamics only come into play when a projectile is within the subsonic realm of flight because that is the only time they are in direct contact with the air surrounding them. Projectiles that are short enough in length while in supersonic flight are enveloped in a vacuum however they are still subject to affects of pushing them through air that is moving and different air density zones they pass through from start to finish. If you're going argue point for point, each point must be an apples to apples comparison in that if you wish to discuss subsonic projectiles then the discussion must be limited to those alone; you cannot make the same argument for subsonic and supersonic projectiles.

Yes, arrows have fletching arranged in such a manner as to impart spin upon them to stabilize their flight path - however - if you manufacture the arrow in such a manner as to put the major mass in the lead, the minor mass of the shaft will create sufficient drag so as to create a stable flight path provided the arrow head and shaft are perfectly balanced and free of any defects and it is launched in such a manner as to prevent imparting instability. Since arrows do not have sufficient leading major mass nor are they perfectly balanced nor are they launched without injecting instability, they are allowed to impart spin via the fletching being in direct contact with the surrounding air.

Likewise, imparting an excessive amount of spin upon the arrow will reduce its level of accuracy because instead of using the rotational force to cancel out the imperfections, it will cause the imperfections to become amplified. Liken this to tire & wheel on your car; if you balance that tire & wheel combination to run smoothly at the rotational velocity equating to 60 Mph, at any speed above or below 60 Mph the tire is not going to be running smoothly. In the same manner as over-spinning a projectile, at speeds below 60 Mph you will likely not "feel" the instability however, at speeds above 60 Mph, the rotational force is subsequently increased to the point where the flaws become amplified and you will begin to feel them. When you spin a projectile, the same fact of physics remains in play; within a given rotational velocity range you will not see much of a change in accuracy but when you reduce or increase the rotational velocity above or below the acceptable limits, major losses of accuracy will be noted. This is especially true for round ball shooting muzzleloaders. Example is the common 1:48 twist used on mass-production rifles of .45-.54 caliber. Up to a certain velocity, they will produce an acceptable level of accuracy but when you exceed the upper velocity limit, the flaws within the ball become amplified by the rotational forces to a point where any hope of accuracy is lost. If the same imperfect ball is fired from a slower twist like 1:66 or 1:72, you can increase the velocity accordingly as the ball is still going operate within a given rotational velocity limit. Rotational velocity is directly proportional to velocity when launching a projectile because the twist rate of the bore is fixed. If you choose to see this with conical bullets, load some 100gr RN bullets in the .30-'06 having a fixed twist around 1:9 you will find that the short "light for caliber" bullets at maximum safe obtainable velocity will not produce acceptable accuracy yet when the velocity is lowered, the rotational velocity is also lowered and the bullets will again shoot accurately. The same applies when trying to push say a 230gr extremely long boattail spitzer through the same bore with a cartridge that will not provide enough velocity so as to allow the fixed rifling twist to impart enough rotational velocity to the bullet.

All of that is besides the point that if you have a perfectly flawless sphere, there is nothing for the rotational force to correct and thus it is not required. Rotational force is required to maintain stability of an elongated projectile and a spherical projectile that is somewhat less than perfect.

George: "Any projectile requires spin to stabilize, else it will act as an air foil. It will follow the path of least resistance, ala lower air pressure on one quadrant or the other."

No and Yes. "No" in that "any projectile" because if that were true, people would be extremely dizzy when they stumbled off an airplane. "Yes" in that external forces do affect objects passing through air but spinning the object has no opposing affect. No matter if you spin a bullet at 250,000 Rpm or 0 Rpm, there is no change in the amount of affect gravity or a 50 Mph crosswind will have upon it. If the bullet weighs 550 grains standing still, it still weighs 550 grains when it being rotated at 100,000 Rpm. If it is subjected to X amount of force from a 50 Mph crosswind, it will still be subjected to the same amount of force no matter what Rpm it's turning at or not turning at.

 

[44capnball]

Looks like Hawg Haggen and FL-Flinter pretty much covered it, but I'll add a couple things...

... as I recall, the entry requirement for Berdan's Sharp Shooters was to hit an anchored buoy at 1500 yards with a regular issue rifled musket. Just because you and I can't do it, doesn't mean nobody could.

... when Union troops tried to move through east Tennessee on the railroads, the Tennessee boys sniped at them from long distances with deadly effect. 200+ yards.

Rifled muskets were NOT accurate. You guys are not, for the most part, shooting rifled muskets. Nor are you shooting in battle conditions.

We are shooting rifled muskets. As for battle conditions, let's not confuse the limitations of the shooter with the limitations of the musket.

As to that, you are also saying that you will shoot at a deer sized animal at less than a 100 yards, and advising others to do the same. You can't in one breath say that you have a 1,000 yard gun, but you "prefer", possibly because the deer will spoil by the time you trek that far to gut it, to shoot JUST 100 yard shots, so you can get it before it spoils.

If I came on here and said I'd shoot at a deer sized animal beyond 100 yards with anything having iron sights, I don't think there'd be a good response.

I said the rifled musket could hit targets beyond 1,000 yards. I did not say I had the ability. The rifle's limitations and my limitations are two different things.

If you handed me a 1,000 yard match rifle in, let's say .338 Mag, I still would not take 1,000 yard shots at a deer.

 

[gmatov]

FL,

"In a perfect world..." That would have to include perfection in more than a perfect ball. Whitworth, 150 years ago said that even a perfect sphere would not fly true without the proper spin because of all the other perfections possible. Windage. Imperfect barrel. Even powder blast pushing differently on different portion of the seat of the ball.

"Well trained" in the arm in use in the day. What would you expect them to use? Well trained archers in the day of the gun?

I am well aware that different rates of twist are more fit for different calibers. I lived through the .244 Remington debacle, when the rate of spin was wrong for the heavier 105 ball that deer hunters preferred. So bad was the reputation that Rem had to rename it 6 mm Rem. I bought one of the first and loved it. ( I think it was 105. I didn't use it. I liked the 87 gr. Speer BTHP.)

I do find it interesting that Whitworth went all the way from one in 78 down to one in 5 inch twist and improved the results with every increase in spin. Settled on one in 20 as the to be production weapon.

Why is one in 60 and one in 72 being advised over one in 48, today.

Given, as I'm sure you agree, that balls are not perfect, a gyroscopic effect from proper spin will stabilize an erratic round ball to fly truer than an unspun/underspun, ball. Rotational force is required to maintain stability of ANY PROJECTILE. An airplane is not a projectile. It has wings upon it to maintain stable flight, and, yes, wind shear has an effect upon it. When the prevailing winds blow them off course, the pilot corrects for it.

A round ball or an elongated projectile cannot fly true unless you spin it. AND at the proper rate of rotation.

If you read the book, Whitworth even made a barrel 20 inches long with 1 in 1 twist, and buried a bullet 7 inches into elm wood.

I shoot BP pistol. Like to get into rifle, haven't. Can you buy a 36 or 40 barrel with faster twist?

44,

I don't know where you read the 1500 yards anchored buoy as an entry test. To hit it, it must have been a BIG buoy. Sharp shooters that they were, they held off till the enemy was 200 yards or so away? Why didn't they shoot them at 500 or a thou, as good as they were?

Or is that a local legend.

Hawg,

"Nobody wants to stick their head up long enough to take aimed shots and risk it getting blown apart."

This is a "today" thing. You keep seeing the films from Iraq where the troops stick their auto fire rifles around the corner and spray off a burst.

I don't think there has ever been another WAR in which soldiers did that. ONE, except Viet Nam, never have our troops been solely equipped with fully auto weapons. Spray and pray is not conducive to good soldiering. Nor good marksmanship.

Regardless, we are talking about a time when massed troops faced each other on a plain. Maybe 500 troops in phalanx facing 500 on the other side of a 30 yard field, and the first 100 on each side shoots and 3 men may fall on either side. You cannot in any way call that accurate fire, although it may have been as accurate as possible, given that they were shooting the guns you praise, today.

As I mentioned, I shoot strictly BP revolver, anymore. Well, some 22 auto and my 44 mags and a couple 357s, then, of course, my carry pistol, and the ones it replaced. They do need exercise on occasion. Haven't shot any of my rifles or shotguns for years.

New Walker last week, new Starr 58 on the way, so I have enough to chew on.

Cheers,

George

 

[FL-Flinter]

C'mon George, you've got to be trolling here ... I'm waiting for the "gotchya" because you can't be serious?

Even powder blast pushing differently on different portion of the seat of the ball.

Pressure retained by a containment is equal at all points within the containment - impossible for the "pushing on different portion" claim.

I do find it interesting that Whitworth went all the way from one in 78 down to one in 5 inch twist and improved the results with every increase in spin. Settled on one in 20 as the to be production weapon.

Geeze, isn't that point I tried so very hard to make in my last reply that the bullet must be matched to the rifling twist and velocity and likewise? 1:78 was not enough, 1:5 was too much but 1:20 was just right....... reinforcing what I said yesterday or are you trying to counter my statement with supporting statements?

Why is one in 60 and one in 72 being advised over one in 48, today.

I have to assume your talking muzzleloader here - it's for patched ROUND BALL not conical bullets. The fastest way to reduce accuracy on the round ball is by running it at too-high an Rpm, slower twist allows for higher velocity without imparting excessive Rpm's. Why do you think it's such a rare condition to find a 1:28 or 1:32 twist in-line that will shoot a PRB with any level of control beyond 50 yards or with a reasonable powder charge? Why did Forsyth use 1:130 to 1:160 twist in his round ball elephant killers? Simply because he couldn't get the velocity without loosing accuracy until he slowed the twists way down to compensate.

If you read the book, Whitworth even made a barrel 20 inches long with 1 in 1 twist, and buried a bullet 7 inches into elm wood.

Incomplete statement that tells us nothing - "a smoothbore cut a 12" diameter oak tree completely off with one shot" ... Yes, I'm fairly sure I read the book many moons ago, there was not point nor theory proven that I can recall other than a bullet can penetrate some Elm wood - serves no purpose nor does it answer any questions.

My question for you George: Are you wanting to discuss elongated conical projectiles or rounb balls? Both are completely different critters. If you want to clear-up the problem you seem to have with roundballs fired from smoothbores, you need to attend some smoothbore shooting matches and see what a smoothie is really capable of. You may want to carry some nitro pills with you just in case it's too much for your heart when you see real marksmen and markswomen busting clay birds at 50yds and two liter soda bottles at 100yds.

Like I said above, get a fast twist barrel or pick-up a cheap in-line and see how limited the accuracy and velocity is using a PRB. I'll be more than happy to help you get a grasp on this my friend, I just need to you to choose which subject you want to tackle first; round ball or conical because I don't think you're following the differences between the two.

 

[DrLaw]

I gotta stop coming back to this thread. It's wearing away my blood pressure medicine!!!!!

The Doc is out now.

 

[Hawg]

I don't think George is a troll, I think he actually believes this chit. The 1840 Springfield was the only smooth bore issued in any numbers and that was early in the war. Southerners used whatever they had in the beginning. After the first few battles most of those were discarded for 61 Springfields and 53 Enfields. Anybody that says a 61 Springfield or 53 Enfield isn't accurate doesn't know what they're talking about and I don't care who they are.

Hawg,

"Nobody wants to stick their head up long enough to take aimed shots and risk it getting blown apart."

This is a "today" thing. You keep seeing the films from Iraq where the troops stick their auto fire rifles around the corner and spray off a burst.

No, that was a "then" thing too. Have you never seen any of the documentaries where CW dead were disinterred and examined? Many of them suffered head shots.

Regardless, we are talking about a time when massed troops faced each other on a plain. Maybe 500 troops in phalanx facing 500 on the other side of a 30 yard field,

Have you ever read a real history book or visited a CW battlefield? Yeah there were some massed troop attacks all through the war but the ranges were a lot greater than 30 yds. and it was usually one side charging dug in forces on the other side and the troop numbers is a large battle numbered in the thousands. You have the American Revolution confused with the CW.

Have you never heard(much less read) anything about The Wilderness, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, Seven Pines, Cold Harbor or any one of the greater CW battles?

I shoot BP pistol. Like to get into rifle, haven't.

There's your problem. You do not have the experience to know what you're talking about. Get yourself an Enfield or Springfield and learn to load and shoot it with the powder charges and bullets they used back then. You'll sing a different tune if you do.
Go on a traditional muzzleloading forum and say a smoothbore isn't accurate past 50 yds. and see what kind or responses you get from people that won't shoot anything else.

 

[FrontierGander]

i had an african trade musket, .54cal smoothie with a 53 1/4" barrel. With 60gr Goex 3f and a .018 patch / .530 round ball that baby would lay a 4 1/2" group @ 75 yards and it only had a shotgun style front sight. No rear!

Smoothies can be very accurate. Back in the old'n days they used paper wadding, not cloth patches. The paper wadding was easier to reload in the field but as you can imagine, a loose fitting projectile, and especially in a smoothie can result in poor accuracy.

 

[MacGille]

Fl, I'm sorry but you are ignoring basic aerodynamics in your theory. A round ball that does not spin will create drag on one side of the ball due to the eddy current flow around the ball. Take a vacuum cleaner set to blow, point it straight up and place a small beach ball on the current of air. When the beach ball is of the correct mass, it will dart from one side to the other because of the drag. The drag will vary from one side to another because the ball moves into the lower pressure area. this changes the drag to another place and the ball will then move into the newly created low pressure area. However if you impart a spin perpendicular to the axis of the air current, the ball will spin in place and will not move. A round ball does the same thing when shot from a smoothbore.

As the ball travels the drag changes from one area to another and the ball moves toward the low pressure area. Since there is no predicting the areas of drag, there is no predicting the ultimate position of the ball when it reaches the target distance. Add to this the uncertainties of wind, powder quality, elevation of the target relative to the gun and you will find that a smoothbore musket is not reliable beyond about 60 yards

When a round ball is spun, it keeps the drag in the same place and is accurate to a much greater distance. Incidentally, rifling was invented to spin balls not to make cleaning easier or fouling less. The German riflemakers found it made their rifles the standard of the world in the 18th Century. Pennslyvania rifle makers copied the German designs.

Conical projectiles follow a different set of rules because their shape causes drag in predictable areas. Spin is required to keep the center of gravity aligned with the direction of travel. The amount of spin depends on the Ballistic Co-efficient of the projectile and the velocity. Every conical projectile wobbles on its axis regardless of spin, but the wobble doesn't last long enough to draw it off target except at long ranges. The speed of modern rifles doesn't leave them in the air very long. If it took very long we would have to factor in precession, and coriolus forces.

Arrows though, do not need spin because they are fin stabilised. I make my arrows out of spruce and put feathers (not plastic vanes) straight not helical. If you look a high speed photos of arrows leaving a longbow(which I shoot) you will see the arrow bending around the bow and flexing back and forth as it travels. The fletching reduces the flexing and at long enough ranges brings the shaft back into equilibrium. Center of gravity is not as important as aerodynamic forces in an arrow. Some archers spin their arrows but I don't because the spin reduces range. (increased drag).

 

[mykeal]

A round ball that does not spin will create drag on one side of the ball due to the eddy current flow around the ball.

Yep. And when the eddy is shed from that side another forms on the other side, which then sheds, and another forms on the first side, etc. etc.

So the sphere is thus subjected to alternating sideways forces, not just on one side only, as you claim (and then refute with your own description of the beach ball in a vacuum cleaner stream).

Those alternating forces are equal and balanced, so while there is sideways motion the net of the two is zero, resulting in a stable flight path with very low amplitude oscillation, as your beach ball example illustrates.

The amplitude of the oscillation is directly related to the mass of the sphere vs the sideways force caused by the drag of the eddy current, which in turn is a function of the speed through the fluid. For a round lead ball, the mass of the ball is much, much greater than the eddy current drag load (unlike the beach ball in your example) even at the very high speed of a bullet, so the oscillation is essentially ineffective.

 

[gmatov]

Mykeal,

Interesting. You DO have wind effect on the ball, BUT, since MacGille says "beach ball" and vac blowing on it, you deduct that a round lead ball will ALSO bob back and forth and up and down and ALWAYS be true on flight. I doubt it.

FL,

Pressure retained by a containment is equal at all points within the containment - impossible for the "pushing on different portion" claim.

That is a quote from the book. NOW, IF you would even deign to think that a ball or a bullet COULD be less than PERFECTLY even at the exit of the muzzle, could you say that a less than perfect ball or bullet would NOT be driven hither or yon, IF it were NOT, absolutely perfectly flat when it DID exit the muzzle?

Not COULD you say, but would you say that it could be sent off erratically?

Where did you say 1:20? I thought you liked 1:48 and 1:72.

Hawg,

Nah, I know they cost some, but if I decide to shoot BP rifle,l I think I will spring a few more bucks and try a Whitworth. I'm an old fart. I like to hit what I shoot at.

There is such a thing as a "Flat Earth Society". I don't equate round ball, smoothbore shooters with them, BUT, not too long after your musket became obsolete, you guys decided the rifle was a passing fad.

All well and good that you love and shoot smooth bores. They ain't in any way the bestest firearms you can shoot. FUN, if you can take the punishment of an overbore firearm. Beating your shoulder black and blue.

Cheers,

George

 

[FrontierGander]

old or not, if you cant shoot worth a chit, aint no gun going to fix that for you.

 

[FL-Flinter]

MacGille: Take a vacuum cleaner set to blow, point it straight up and place a small beach ball on the current of air. - - - When a round ball is spun, it keeps the drag in the same place and is accurate to a much greater distance.

That's all good but it means nothing because the round ball from a gun is normally at supersonic velocity for the duration of its flight, not sub-sonic so it's not affected in the same manner as a beach ball in a subsonic air stream.

MacGille: Incidentally, rifling was invented to spin balls not to make cleaning easier or fouling less. The German riflemakers found it made their rifles the standard of the world in the 18th Century. Pennslyvania {sic} rifle makers copied the German designs.

Don't even get me started - that's a discussion all in itself!

MacGille: If you look a high speed photos of arrows leaving a longbow(which I shoot) you will see the arrow bending around the bow and flexing back and forth as it travels. The fletching reduces the flexing and at long enough ranges brings the shaft back into equilibrium. Center of gravity is not as important as aerodynamic forces in an arrow. Some archers spin their arrows but I don't because the spin reduces range. (increased drag).

Well, I was a lot more of a bow shooter before my body crapped out so it's not strange territory for me even if it's not my strongpoint. In response to your quote on arrow stability, I see your quote and raise you by two that are not mine; the follow quotes come from those who are far more knowledgeable in bow technology than I...

We can easily increase drag as much as we like during the initial stages of the arrows flight by the simple expedient of putting the vanes on at an angle (i.e. with an 'offset') which will, before the vanes start spinning, cause the desired extra drag and parachute effects at the initial phase of the arrows flight, then (by design) we find that both the drag and parachute effects decrease steadily as the rate of spin increases.

Hence, it is possible to have a spinning arrow that has no more drag than a non-spinning arrow, the spin stability resulting from this can only increase the directional stability of the arrow - leading to the fairly well-known and easily verifiable result that spinning shafts give tighter groups than non-spinning shafts, and the greater the spin, the greater the benefits (that is, greater directional stability).

The fletchings should be installed so as to produce the maximum rotational velocity rate of acceleration. The drag force applied perpendicular to the arrow shaft acts only to rotate the arrow on its axis. The initial drag force used to provide the rotational velocity combined with forcing the shaft to rotate is what reduces the initial forward velocity losses caused by shaft flex at launch. As the rotational velocity increases, forward velocity drag is reduced resulting in less forward velocity losses and substantial increases in flight stability.

***************

George: Where did you say 1:20? I thought you liked 1:48 and 1:72.

The "1:20" came from your reply in the following quote:

George: I do find it interesting that Whitworth went all the way from one in 78 down to one in 5 inch twist and improved the results with every increase in spin. Settled on one in 20 as the to be production weapon.

PRB are not the same as conical bullets - pick one or the other to study because they are different.

You yourself admitted you have no experience with round balls yet you attempt to make completely erroneous statements while presenting them in a "matter of fact" manner despite the fact you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You go from talking about PRB's in a smoothbore then make a statement about Whitworth guns that used elongated conical bullets as if to try connecting the two when they are as different as night & day.

This "book" you keep referencing I believe is hurting you more than helping you. Reading the quote you provided is clear enough proof that the book is poorly written. Blow-by at the time the projectile clears the muzzle is not simply a matter of "pressure" - it is a matter of solids and gases passing at different velocities.

Absolutely I will agree with the general extraction of a statement from the quote in that a buggered-up ball and/or crown can in fact cause problems HOWEVER mechanical issues with a poorly made gun or components have no bearing on this discussion! Making that statement is like trying to make the argument that a Detroit Diesel engine doesn't produce its rated horsepower after someone removed three of its injectors - the statement makes no sense whatsoever because a mechanical problem is a mechanical problem and it serves no purpose in this discussion.

Please George, I'm trying to help explain this to you but I can't make any progress if you're not willing to accept facts and ignore BS that doesn't matter. You keep claiming that a PRB from a smoothbore is inaccurate beyond 60 yards and I'm trying to explain to you that you are wrong because they have in reality proven to be very accurate in actual application for the last eight centuries!

First thing I want you to do is take that book you have and lock in a drawer somewhere and forget every single thing you read. While you're in the forgetting phase, I want you to search the internet for "smoothbore match results" and follow a few dozen link taking note of the distances shot and the scores produced. Next thing I want you to do is find a local club that hosts black powder shoots and go to a smoothbore shoot and see for yourself.

(Edit-to correct errors)

 

[Gbro]

As I read these posts with interest I keep thinking about FL-FLINTER's statement,

As for the drop-correction, IIRC it was 60yds or less aim for the belt buckle; 60yds or more aim for the top of the head; this would put the ball somewhere in the torso out to 150yds.

I have a civil war Carbine and have shot it a number of times. I was displeased with how high it shot @50 yards, Now I have a full new respect for how this rifle shoots,
Thanks FL-Flinter, I will now work with what could be the intended concept of this rifles design.
There is a flip up sight that is marked 3=300 yards in an aperture, and 5=500 yards at the top notch, And the patent date is 1856.

Greg

 

[AdmiralB]

I have no dog in this fight, but it's not true to say that ALL projectiles must be spun. Once you get over a certain L/D (length/diameter) ratio, spin is detrimental to accuracy. Modern kinetic energy antitank projectiles are a good example - L/D is typically over 30; they are exclusively fin-stabilized and don't rotate at all.