Might be getting closer to the combination or else I got lucky...

[WOLF257]

Now Ole Betsy is a real 150+ year old Nepalese P-1853 Enfield with an .005" oversized bore that I mounted in a new stock.
I replaced the nipple because it was handmade and the flash hole was eroded so much that the hammer was getting blown back into the half cock position due to blowback.
I've been using 50 grains of Pyrodex R-S and have tried a variety of different minie balls as well as PRB's
My old Enfield has been a whole lot less than inspiring in the accuracy department.
In fact there have been some trips to the range where I would have been better off either throwing the minies at the target or using a slingshot since it would have been more accurate.

However, I might be on to something now.
I recently bought a new .584 Hodgdon N-S 419 grain mold and the handles finally showed up Friday.
Cooked up about a hundred minies yesterday evening and went to the range this morning.
Shot at the 25 yard target and missed the whole thing, looked like it was going to be more of the same, but I happened to see the dirt fly on the berm above the target this time.
So I aimed at the bottom edge of the target and hit in the center, figured it was a fluke so I fired 2 more rounds using the same point of aim and got a 2.5 inch group.
And just because I didn't believe it I fired 3 more rounds and got 3 more in the same place as the first 3.
So the rifle appears to be shooting about 8 or 9 inches high at 25 yards.

Moved to the 50 yard target and found the rifle was shooting about 12 inches high at that range and just a little to the left with about a 6 inch group.

At 100 yards she's shooting about 18 inches high, about 6 inches to the left with about an 8 inch group.

Now none of this may sound very impressive, but before I was getting 2 foot groups at 25 yards, all over the 4 foot square target backing at 50 yards and if I hit the 100 yard target at all it was a matter of luck.
I couldn't make any kind of meaningful adjustments because the rifle was so inconsistent and inaccurate I didn't have a point to work from.

I cut my powder charge to 40 grains and dropped the POI by about 12 inches at 100 yards but the group got bigger so I think 50 grains was probably pretty close to the optimal charge.
The original military powder charge was 68 grains but I'm a little leery about trying that in a rifle this old.
I think part of the accuracy problem is that I've been using minies that were close to the original Pritchett weight of 530 grains and they were just too heavy for the 50 grain charge.
Another problem was that the .578" minie was too small in diameter to seal in the barrel properly and I've been losing gas pressure.

I'm going to make an adjustable front sight extension and see if I can correct the POI like that since the rear sight is as low as it's goin to go.
The battlesight range is 100 yards so I'm not sure what's going on but it's possible that the front sight blade has gotten worn down over the years.

Just had to vent but I'm not as disgusted with the rifle as I was, now that I have a starting point I can at least make some adjustments.

Jim

[fouronesix]

Yes, I remember the trials with the first minie try- good to see the RCBS .584 doing better. They do cut very nice, round holes :) and on decent target paper, it's much easier to check for stability/yaw. Unknown what the theoretical zero range minimum design was supposed to be for most of the mid-late 1800s military type rifles but almost all of them shoot to similar, very high POIs out to at least 100 yds. For shooting at reasonable ranges they almost always require a taller front sight and having some windage adjustment will be a bonus.

Hopefully, later this week if the weather settles down, I'll likewise be blowing the cobwebs out of a 150 year old .69 cal Navy "Plymouth" rifle.

[missionary5155]

Greetings
Why not give a patched RB a try. My zouave would only shoot mediocre groups with mini's but will shoot cloverleafs with a tight patched RB.
Mike in Peru

[WOLF257]

I'm looking at a simple aluminum split collar clamp-on front sight.
Nothing permanent by any means, just something adjustable for testing purposes that I could slide up against the existing front sight that wouldn't mar the metal of the barrel.
A clamp would allow me to rotate the sight side to side to correct for rear sight misalignment and a screw in post would allow for verticle fine tuning.
I suspect that the hand made and fitted rear sight isn't aligned with the centerline of the barrel and I also suspect that it isn't mounted directly on top of the barrel either.
I don't want to try desoldering it from the barrel for any of a number of reasons but mainly because I have no idea what applying the much heat might do to the metal of the barrel and I don't really want to find out.
Making and silver souldering a new front sight might not be as riskey but I need to find the exact plane the thing will have to be mounted on to line up with the existing rear sight and the clamp-on sight should work fine for that.
According to everything I've read the Enfield should default sight at 100 yards but that's the British built Enfield, the Nepalese version should be the same but that's probably more than could be hoped for.
These guys were doing musket drills daily so they knew their particular rifle so well they corrected the sight picture to compensate for any variation without thinking about it.
The rear sight leaf on mine was bent when I got it, I stupidly assumed it was the result of being dropped or bounced around during shipping but I'm starting to think that bend and twist was probably to help correct the sight alignment.
I could probably do the same thing but I'd have to be carefull to keep from breaking something.

That Plymouth rifle sounds interesting and good luck on getting some good shooting weather, we've had a few days here so far when it was really nice out but we're also in the time of year when we get a lot of thunderstorms.


I tried PRB's and it just wouldn't produce a decent group.
I was probably doing something wrong and never could figure out what it was.
I tried different lube and different types and thicknesses of patch, I found that pillow ticking worked the best but still couldn't get it to make a decent group.
I suspect that the patches probably weren't thick enough because the patched ball didn't fit super tight like I've heard they are supposed to.
Keep in mind that this is my first muzzleloading rifle and the only muzzleloader I've fired more than a handfull of times so I probably picked a real bear to learn on.
I've fired my uncle's .54 cal Hawkins a few times but he's already figured out what patch/ball and powder combination works best in it.
I've fired a friend's Kentucky long rifle and 63' Richmond replica a couple of times but like my uncle, he's already got them dialed in.

Jim

[fouronesix]

I think you are on exactly the right track. I've modified the sights on a few of my originals just to see what they were capable of- but none of those modifications were damaging or permanent. JB Weld is a good sub for solder and it is breaks down with moderate heat for removal.

Still no break in the weather, but anxious to see how the 710 gr minie shoots in the .69 Plymouth!

[WOLF257]

Have you noticed any change in accuracy between using musket caps and #11 caps?
The reason I ask is that I ordered #11 nipples to use till musket caps get easier to find and wondered what kind of variation I'm potentially about to introduce into the mix.
Thanks for the suggestion about the JB Weld, I've given some thought to buying a complete rear sight assembly from the Rifle Shoppe and just replacing mine.
I could set the barrel up on one of the milling machines at work, find the actual centerline and scribe some reference lines to mount the new sights.
As I said in another post, since this one already has a repro stock and some repro parts I wouldn't feel too bad about rebuilding it with the musem quality parts from the Rifle Shoppe.

Jim

[fouronesix]

Truthfully, I haven't noticed much difference between #11s and musket caps. I think for battlefield conditions with heavy fouling build-up, the idea was for the nipple to have a fairly large flash hole and the cap to have a pretty large charge- both with the idea to better and more reliably "blow" through built-up fouling. Practically speaking, I never let things get that fouled so I see little difference between the #11 cap and the musket cap. The biggest problem with the larger nipple flash hole is obvious with the flash from the main charge blowing the hammer back or sending debris all around or amount of stock erosion around the bolster. For my originals, I simply add some masking tape around the bolster to protect the wood from the flash. For the musket shooters who must shoot during timed events for quite a few rounds, it may become an issue and I think they generally prefer all the poop they can get out of the cap.

I've heard good things about Rifle Shoppe products but never ordered from them. The only negative may be the turn around time for some special order items can be slow because they are a custom shop.

Oh, almost forgot. I shoot with a fellow who uses Pyrodex some and he does get delays frequently when using it. So for Pyrodex there may be a real advantage to using a full charge type musket cap. I know the "re-enactor type" CCI four wing musket caps have a fairly light charge.

[WOLF257]

I made a flash pan to keep the damage to the stock down to a minimum.
I'm ashamed to say I do combat shooting with my Enfield, as in I don't clean it till I get home from the range.
Main reason is that it seems to shoot a tighter group once it gets dirty, may be a case of powder fouling creating a better gas seal with the minies and it also might explain the bore forged oversize.
In any even I didn't have a problem getting the .584's to load and even the PRB's only got a little tighter after 10 or 15 shots.

I've ordered several items from the Rifle Shoppe but I always call first to make sure the item is in stock before I order.
The quality is first rate but you have to do the finishing and fitting yourself, like the trigger guard I ordered, it was as cast but the casting was top notch and it didn't take long to polish it.
I wouldn't be afraid to say you'd have trouble telling it from an original since that's what they used to creat their investment casting mold and they're products are museum quality and at very good prices.

Jim

[fouronesix]

Ya, I haven't done enough controlled testing to make an absolute statement about relative accuracy comparing cleaning between shots to not cleaning between shots with minies. But I have a feeling it has something to do with the fit of the minie and the individual rifle and as you pointed out- an equilibrium of fouling making for better fit or consistent shot to shot seal or fit. For example, I know that my Rem Zouave will shoot the .584 RCBS minie into about a 2 1/2" inch cluster at 50 yards for 5-10 shots without swabbing or cleaning. But if I swab and dry between shots, the group will hold at 3/4-1" for as many shots as I want to shoot. On the other hand my P-H repro P53 will shoot about 1-1 1/2" groups at 50 yards with the .577 RCBS minie whether I clean between shots or not.

[Omnivore]

I could set the barrel up on one of the milling machines at work, find the actual centerline and scribe some reference lines...

You may be over-thinking it. Assuming that the bore is straight and in in line with the exterior profile of the barrel may be a bit of an erroneous assumption, even for some modern barrels. In any case, your process of using a new front sight to determine the proper sight position is all you really need. You could attempt to line everything up, straight, square and plumb, with lasers on a machinist's layout table, but it's what happens on the target that counts anyway.

[WOLF257]

That's a good point, the complete antique rifle shoots pretty far to the left as well but the difference is you can actually see the front sight is out of line with the rear.
It's at least 3 degrees out of plane with the rear sight and it shoots that way too.
I wouldn't go to the trouble of mill squaring the thing unless I was going to replace both front and rear sights.
I'll probably just go with a temp front sight to figure out what's going on and I might replace the front sight if it turns out that it's actually creating the windage problem.

[fouronesix]

67933An update on the M61 Navy. Kind of cold and gusty today but I was tired of waiting!

Figured that the thing was going to shoot high and in who knows what direction- put up a large backer with a bull out at 40 yards. Fired one shot. Yep 14" high but the windage looked pretty close. Set up a regular target with a sighter bull about 14" lower than the target bull. Shot 6 more shots without swabbing. As far as I could tell all minies were stable in flight as all the holes looked perfectly round until another hit and cut into a previous shot. All in all thought it shot pretty well considering it may not have been fired since the Civil War.

The Lyman 69 caliber mold drops minies pretty close to spec but a little lighter at 710 gr. and .688 diameter which is a little fatter than spec. Nice easy fit down the bore but not too loose either. Used 4 wing re-enactor caps, 60 gr FF Wano and lubed with Crisco. Some sources list 70 gr as standard charge for the M61 Navy rifle but I don't know if that refers to a roundball load or minie load. I shoot an M42 69 cal smoothbore where a roundball was standard. Decided to be a little conservative with 60 gr. under the minie.

Pics show M1861 69 cal Navy rifle w/bayonet, Lyman 69 minie next to a 45 minie and the target.

[WOLF257]

That is one fine looking rifle and one huge chunk of lead.
One thing I noticed about those .584 minies was how symetrical the holes were, even out at the 100 yard target.

I recut the crown on the Enfield, the original crown was very rough and probably has been ever since the barrel was forged.
Nothing fancy, just made sure the crown was square with the centerline of the barrel, it took about .030" to square it up so that might have been affecting accuracy as well.
I'm not sure how big a role a square cut crown has on a slow twist barrel but any variable I can get rid of is probably a good thing.
I made a simple adjustable front sight as well.

I'm going to try and go to the range tommorow after work and do more testing now that the rifle is producing a more or less consistent group.
I've been seeing references to the sight picture on these old rifles being different than the more modern rifles in that the tip of the front sight is placed at the bottom of the rear sight vee.
If that's the case it would account for some of the high shooting since I was using what I consider the normal sight picture with the top of the front level with the top of the rear sight and centered on the vee.
I'm going to try to get the group on target at 100 yards and see how far the front sight is out of plane with the rear sight.
I guess after that it'll be time to work on charge development.
I still haven't ruled out making my own Pritchett mold and paper patching them like the originals but that'll be a project for down the road.

On an unrelated subject, the Snider I bought has a bad barrel, it's starting to delaminate so there's no way I'd even consider shooting it.
I got the gunsmith to double check it but it was just a formality since I already knew what he was going to find.
He told me the barrel was wrecked and after rummaging around a bit he handed me an Enfield barrel with a stripped out bolster and said " Here, you're a machinist, make yourself a barrel, it's what they did to make the originals and you have better equipment than they did."
Shame about that Enfield bolster being messed up since the inside of the barrel looks great but a doner barrel free of charge can't be argued with either.

[fouronesix]

That was my first time shooting a 69 cal minie. I got to thinking- 10 rounds downrange=more than a pound of lead! The M1861 Navy was kind of an odd critter because all other large bores were smoothbores and used round balls--- it was the only purpose-built 69 cal mil rifle. All the other 69 cal arms started out smoothbore with some of the M1842s (those in good enough condition or still in arsenal inventory) being brought back in to be rifled to help fill the urgent arms needs during the war.

Putting the tip of the front down at the bottom of the rear "V", I would imagine, is where the saying, "taking a fine bead" may have come from. A couple of problems I have when trying to do that is I lose front sight definition as it approaches the bottom and in many cases it's not nearly enough to put the POI down to even close at 50 yards. I'm not sure if I will just live with the way the sights are on this rifle or try to fashion a taller non-permanent front blade to glue or attach up front. Since the windage is pretty close it may be fairly easy. Until then I'll probably continue to add the sighter bull below the target bull. Judging by the POI, I'll need at least 3/8" taller front.

My theory for what it's worth--- Even these low velocity, slow twist, large bore minie ball rifles have enough muzzle pressure for poor crown edge to adversely affect accuracy. It may even be exaggerated because of the nature of the stability of the minie where some stability is imparted by spin but much or most is because of aerodynamically stable flight. The slightest "tip or yaw" force imparted right when the skirt clears the muzzle can have major negative effects on accuracy. Turning off a small amount like .030" won't even be detectible and won't hurt and may very well help- good thinking. For the Snider re-build that was good fortune finding that barrel- kudos to the gunsmith. Should be able to put something together to make it work. Be interested to hear how the Nepalese Enfield progresses along with the Snider project.

[WOLF257]

Ok, here's the results using the #11 caps and they aren't very encouraging.
First, I didn't have any failures but I had a noticable delay between the cap firing and the main charge going off and the charge sounded noticably weaker.
I noticed a marked reduction in recoil and more importantly, accuracy.

Now I have an admission to make and it sets up something of an esoteric question.
Against the advice of several people, I built a conversion system to use 209 primers and that's what I was using last weekend when the rifle decided to become more consistent with those 419 grain minies.
The only thing I noticed about using the 209 was that they set of the main charge instantly like a full strength musket cap but... how much extra zap did the 209 add to the normal charge of BP?
The reason I ask this is because out of 30 odd shots last weekend there were exactly no keyhole shots but I had several today and muzzle velocity was noticably slower.
This time you could hear the minie impact the target while last weekend the sound of impact was masked by the sound of the main charge firing, meaning to me that the bullet was getting to the target faster.
If the 209 added to the overall charge it could have been bringing the pressure up closer to the regular combat charge of 68 grains instead of the 50 grains I'm currently using.
I personally doubt it though because the recoil using the 209 was not noticably different than when I was using full strength musket caps.

I switched to the #11 caps partly because I was told using the 209's was dangerous, but now I'm starting to wonder if the people telling me that understood the primer was being contained in a closed holder and not simply inserted in an open nipple?
I'm probably going to go back to the 209 for the sake of consistency as I don't think there's enough difference between them and the full power musket caps to potentially damage the rifle.
Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

[fouronesix]

To be honest I don't know about the possible difference in pressure, velocity and minie stability between the "hot" ignition of a regular musket cap and 209 primer versus a weaker #11 cap or re-enactor musket cap. With all my muzzleloaders it is delayed ignition that causes basic accuracy problems because of follow through hold. Once in a great while I can just barely detect the delay if I've been careless in cleaning or prepping to shoot and know that it is junk in the flash channel. Really the same phenomenon applies to a flintlock. But, I've not noticed a lower pressure or velocity even with the delayed ignition- once the BP goes- it goes.... for lack of a better explanation. I know that Pyrodex is notorious for requiring a hotter, more robust ignition than is required for BP.

Trying to come up with a possible explanation, hmmm? I know it is certainly a factor for smokeless pressures, but BP is a different critter. Maybe in a lesser way and even for BP, a "hotter" ignition impulse will ignite more volume of powder simultaneously thus raising pressure ???

One thing to try with the weaker caps is to put about a 4-5 gr primer charge of 3F or 4F down first, tap the butt on the ground to settle some charge into the flash channel, then pour the regular charge. And as far as the 209 being "dangerous"-- I wouldn't think so comparing the chemical energy stored in a primer to that stored in 60 gr BP. Only maybe as you alluded to- where the encapsulated unit holding the 209 could come apart sending pieces flying??

Bottom line is I'd probably try to work on or refine what is giving consistency and accuracy- within safe limits of course.

[WOLF257]

I suspect a slower burn that might be unseating the minie and making it move before the skirt expands.
Loss of gas pressure due to it blowing past the bullet would explain the reduced recoil, the .584's did well last weekend but today they reminded me of how the undersized minies acted.
I think you're probably right about the hotter ignition causing the Pyrodex to light off faster thus raising the pressure and the evidence tends to back up that observation.
I can't get real BP local so I can't test the difference but the general opinion is that BP is much better in all respects than Pyrodex.
Since doing stupid questionable things is my second hobby I may just have to look into making my own BP.
I've read the sticky on the subject and it doesn't seem terribly complicated or dangerous as long as you follow common sense safety proceedures and the raw materials can all be had here really cheap and I have access to unlimited amounts of willow to make my own charcoal.
I realize we're talking about a fair amount of work but since I can't get real BP local I may have to go that route and the cost of making my own may actually be cheaper than what it would cost to order it.

I think the people who told me using the 209 primers would be dangerous thought I was going to be putting them into an open topped nipple and using the hammer to fire them.
I'm sure that would be dangerous since the spent primer would probably blow the hammer back and then hit you right between the eyes.
What the conversion amounts to is a nipple that the 209 fits in with threads on the outside and a cap with a firing pin that screws on to the nipple.
It's more work but it does eliminate flashback and 209 primers are readily available, cheap and seem to work at least as well as regular musket caps.

[fouronesix]

That sounds reasonable about what may be going on with Pyrodex. For sure look into at least trying some BP.

Unless you live in AK, out of country or in a restricted jurisdiction, BP can be shipped to your door including hazmat and shipping cost for about $17/pound with a 10 pound order. You can go in with others to split an order.

I just ordered 10# of KIK at $17 pound total to the door from Powder Inc.- be here Mon or Tue. Have ordered Graf Wano (Schuetzen) in the past for equal or less than that per pound. My local shop sells BP but it's about $20 per pound.

[WOLF257]

I live in Alabama so there aren't many restrictions on BP other than being limited to 50 pounds without special permits and storage facilities.
I think the state follows the Federal BATFE regulations and doesn't tack on any of their own.
I don't usually have the funds to bulk order and I don't know of anybody here that shoots real BP so I may have to accept the fact I'm going to get shafted with the hazmat fee and simply order a couple of pounds to try it out.

[WOLF257]

Here's the results from todays brief trip to the range.
Tried out a couple of other barrels but the existing one seems to be the most accurate.
I've bought a couple over the last couple of months but haven't taken them to the range till today.
Here is the pattern at 25 yards...

68655

The minies seem to be stable judging from the paper punch like holes in the target.
The red dot at the bottom of the target was the Point of Aim using the 419 grain minie, 50 grains of Pyrodex and the 209 primer.
All in all it seems to be doing ok, still having to correct for it shooting high and to the left at 100 yards but I can consistently hit the hundred yard target and put the bullets in the same area.
The pattern isn't great but I suspect this is about as good as it's likely to get.

Jim

[fouronesix]

OK,
I'll take a wild stab at it. I'd say if it produces a group shaped like that again with 5 or so shots, it probably indicates some "vertical". If that is classic vertical then that is both bad news and good news.

First the bad news. Sometimes the cause of vertical is a tough one to isolate. It can be sight picture, inconsistent hold and recoil management, inconsistent front rest, variable ignition delay, improper barrel bedding- things like that. None of those things are really "bad" or very difficult to correct... just isolating the culprit is the hard part. In arms with relatively low muzzle velocity, very small inconsistencies like most of the ones mentioned above translate into magnified vertical dispersions on target simply because the bullet has more time in the bore.

The good news- again after firing another 5 shots and if the horizontal stays relatively tight then it indicates the bore/minie/load all "want" to shoot. A rifle that doesn't want to shoot or if something is inherently wrong, then groups will usually be all over the place in a random pattern and may include a few yawing hits showing instability.

[WOLF257]

Sounds reasonable to me and a few of the things you mention come to mind right off.
First, the range I shoot at has a covered shooting pavilion with built-in benches and seats, unfortunately, when they designed this thing they were not doing it with 5 feet long rifles in mind.
The support is between the second and rear barrel band, closer to the rear one really so any movement on my part is going to give a lot of vertical movement to the muzzle and the bench is too high to simply kneel down behind it.
The barrel isn't bedded in the stock so I'm sure that's coming into play.
And some basic marksmanship things I havn't done or I'm not doing right such as blacking the sights, anticipating the shot, inconsistent cheek weld and recoil management.
I don't think I'm losing much gas pressure since it's got a fairly healthy shove to it and I'm pretty sure I'm flinching enough for it to be a factor, I suspect given more shooting time with this particular rifle I can train myself to relax while firing it.
Sight picture is something of an issue now since my eyes aren't what they used to be but blacking the sights might help with that.
The rear sight is far enough away that it isn't blurry but it doesn't have the definition I'd like for it to have and the rear sight notch leaves something to be desired, it's a wide notch.

I think the rifle is happy with these minies since the pattern closed up by 80% or more at 25 yards over what it was doing.
There's probably still a good bit of load developement left to do in regards to fine tuning the powder charge but it seems to like something in the neighborhood of 50 grains.

I was able to hold about a 6 inch group at 50 yards and about 10 inches at 100 yards.
Main thing that struck me was that I was able to consistently hit the target at 100 yards in a reasonably controlled manner, before, hitting the target at that range was a matter of luck.

[fouronesix]

Solving odd group behavior has always been hard for me to pin down. Since bedding can help, rarely hurts and is fairly easy, it's one of the things to consider. If nothing else it can strengthen the stock.

Yes, with these long rifles it can be hard finding a way to get a front rest out far enough on the forend to get a fair test on how that affects grouping.

Here's some pics of a Parker Hale P-53 that was shooting some "odd" shaped groups. I decided to bed the tang/breech area and the areas on each side of the barrel bands. The idea was to even out the barrel pressure exerted by the tang and all bands. To conserve compound I only bedded the area 1-2" either side of the bands. I don't think it would hurt to bed the entire channel- and may be better. Seemed to work, in this case anyway, because the odd group wandering and stringing went away.

[WOLF257]

What bedding compound are you using and is it difficult to use?
I've never bedded a stock nor seen it done but if it'll help with this rifle I'll definately look into it since they went a bit too deep on the tang slot and I can't really tighten the tang screw down without it trying to lift the barrel slightly.

If you haven't seen one, these Indian repro stocks are basically built to be used on all 3 marks of the P-53 Enfield as well as the P-1864 Snider/Enfield conversion and the purpose built Sniders.
They all use a similar stock but they are not exactly the same so they have to leave enough material to fit all the rifles.
The buttplate and endcap are already mounted, the barrel channel and tang slot are cut but the stock isn't inletted for the lock, barrel band springs, trigger assembly or trigger guard.
The stocks are made of either teak or some sort of rosewood, it has a nice grain but it's hard to hand work, inletting the lock took quite some time and a lot of effort.

[fouronesix]

Should have some time tomorrow so will try to write up a short description about how I do it for muzzleloaders. It's really pretty straight forward and not difficult at all. Just requires a couple of general guidelines. Materials will include: some sort of slow set two part epoxy, paste wax (auto, Johnson's, etc.), a couple of basic wood working tools.

[fouronesix]

Everyone does these a little different but this is what I do. First, I try to determine the best reason to do it then focus on that.

I have used JB Weld with success on some bedding projects with modern rifles but prefer a compound that can be colored to better match the wood. I have used Micro Bed, Score High and Miles Gilbert. I know some use Marine Tex. Recently I've used some Miles Gilbert which seems to work well and is fairly handy.

After deciding why and where, you need to slightly relieve and roughen the wood where the bedding will go. I mostly use a Dremel with small ball head cutters. All you want to do is "skin' some wood away and get down below any varnish or oil. A very small ball head cutter is ideal for putting a dimpled texture in the wood. Removing a thin layer and roughening helps the compound adhere to and bind to the wood. I prefer the Dremel for this, especially with the hard and odd woods. Some Asian and African woods are extremely hard as you have found. The power tool actually allows for a better job in these situations- at least for me.

Once all prep is done, lay out all the tools needed. Once the compound is mixed there is not a lot of time to have to re-do or get something. There is time but not a bunch of it. Make up a cradle if you don't have one. Even a couple of slots in the open end of a cardboard box works well. I like to have a couple of paper towels handy along with some alcohol or acetone. There will be some excess ooze out so I have a couple of popsicle sticks that I've whittled into a small sharp edged knives-- very handy to remove the ooze. Use the barrel bands for tensioning the fore stock to the barrel and something like a couple of rubber bands for the breech/tang area.

Next, the metal will have to be coated with some sort of release- you don't want to permanently glue the metal to the wood! I use Johnson's wax, applied with small rag or Q-tip, to all metal parts. Coat everything that may come in contact with the compound and then some. Next you'll have to figure out how to keep the compound from going where it shouldn't- like into screw holes, openings into the lock mortise and if present the ramrod spoon cut out. For the tang hole screw hole I just plug with a wad of tissue. For the hole in the tang I put a small, square piece of tape over the hole (you won't be using the tang screw during the bedding job). I just avoid the spoon cut out.

For mixing I use the slightly concave bottom of a med to small metal can- like a tuna can. I use popsicle sticks for honey dipping the hardener and resin from the containers. I try to judge how much volume to mix up... then add a little. Once you start it's kind of hard to quickly mix up more. If you have the matrix filler like Score High or M. Gilbert that will also add some final volume. Use a very tiny bit of coloring agent- a little goes a long ways.

I mix the two parts completely with a popsicle stick, add a little color with a tooth pick and stir that in, then finally add the matrix and stir. I usually add about 1/4 volume of matrix to 1 volume of compound. Precision measuring of the matrix is not critical- just add some. It will strengthen the epoxy and add some stiffness so it won't be so runny before setting up.

I use a popsicle stick and honey dipper method to apply the compound to the wood. Dab, dab, spread, dab, dab, spread and so on to try to get the volume of compound in the right area and in the right amount. All you want to do is use enough to completely fill the void with a little bit oozing up around the margins. Spend some time with this because this is where it can get messy-- when the metal is pressed into the stock. Too little is usually cosmetic but will work ok, too much and it will keep oozing out and going every where- have the "knife" popsicle stick, alcohol and paper towels handy to handle any excess. Once the compound is applied and double checked for coverage and quantity, simply lay barrel into the stock. Push barrel rearward as far as possible to make sure the breech and tang areas are a good fit. Slip on the barrel bands. Wrap the breech/tang area with a couple of rubber bands- not too tight, just snug into the stock. Once no more compound is oozing out of the seams and has stabilized, lay the gun in a cradle in the horizontal position and wait- usually overnight up to 24 hours. Pop barrel out of stock, sand off areas of excess, drill out the tang hole and clean up any compound residue off the metal. Usually small amounts on metal can be carefully scraped off with no damage to the metal.

I'm sure I left some details out but I think that's about it. Sounds involved, but really it isn't difficult. Just do some pre-planning and take the time to visualize the process.

[WOLF257]

Thank's for the write up, as soon as I get time I'm going to give it a go, it may be a while due to having far too many things going on at one time.
My honeydo list is pretty long right now with it being good enough weather to get outside and work in the yard... oh joy.

The tang area of my stock is probably in the most need of this but I suspect bedding the whole barrel would probably be a very good idea.
I've also just about made up my mind to try and make some BP, a very small amount mind you, just to see if I can actually make it.
About 4 ounces should be enough to evaluate the process and see if it's worth making a larger batch.
Oddly enough I found I already have everything around the house needed to make the stuff except for the 91% isopropyl alcohol and that's available at the local grocery store.
Bad idea? Probably, but if it produces a decent end product it'll be worth the effort and it's legal in this state to make BP for your own use.