Chambers .54cal. Isaac Haines accuracy issues: It's NOT the rifle

[Maven]

My Waksupi-built Isaac Haines .54cal. flint lock rifle is a joy to shoot and ultra reliable, but sadly I haven't yet mastered it, i.e., the flintlock. I know it's more an issue of practice than component and load choice, but I've had a devil of a time trying to figure out which round ball diameter and patch thickness the gun really liked. After too many years of only so-so results, I think I've determined what shoots best. To wit, on Tuesday, I went to the range and bench rested two RB & patch combinations: a Lee Precision .535" RB + .014" pillow ticking patch v. a RCBS .530" - .531" RB + .018" pillow ticking patch, both cast (and weighed) by me and of "pure" Pb. The charge was 60gr. Diamondback FFg. All patches were lubed with 1 Ballistol : 6 H2O and were just shy of dripping wet. Below are the results (pdf images) of each combination @ 25 yd. bench rest. I should add that the .530" RB + .018" patch was a pleasure to start and seat whereas the larger ball - thinner patch was just the opposite. In short, I think I've finally found what the IH likes.

Btw, I had similar problems with my .50cal. Lyman Great Plains cap lock, but managed to overcome them enough to do quite well in the NMLRA postal matches several years ago.

[dondiego]

Pretty good groups and accuracy there Maven! I would definitely use the easier to load recipe.

[Maven]

don, when I first got the rifle I experimented with various ball diameters and different patch thicknesses with varied degrees of success (at 50 yd. no less). I actually telephoned R. Rice, who made the bbl. for the Chambers kit, who recommended a .018" patch with a .530" RB. He was right and I was stupid enough not to heed his advice.* That combination, btw, is very easy to start and load and would be my first choice for a woods walk and postal match competition.

*Waksupi, who built the rifle for me, thought there might be a slight obstruction in the bbl. and that it would require a ~.526" RB. Rick was partially right: I could roll a .535" RB gently down the bbl., but it stopped at the midpoint and then rolled back out. Hence the phone call to Rice. Btw, the .535" RB and thin .014" patch was a PITA to start and ram home. If I didn't have a plastic mallet handy (for the short starter) and a stout 3/8" steel range rod with me, I couldn't have loaded or seated that RB.

[jtaylor1960]

What twist are you dealing with?

[dondiego]

1 to 1 twist!

[Toymaker]

Maven, by changing more than one component in your load column at the same time you're getting mixed results and can't tell which change improved or reduced your accuracy.

[Maven]

Toymaker, I generally only change 1 thing at a time when trying to figure out what a gun, cartridge or ML'er, likes best. Past experience with the .535" RB and various thicker patches suggested that .014" thick (compressed) ones would be worth trying. They were, but the .530" - .531" RB + .018" patch grouped noticeably better. The point of my testing was to compare the 2, hoping I could eliminate the poorer performer for postal matches and woods walks. I think I succeeded.

[Wayne Smith]

I agree, Maven, but let's see if it holds up at 75 or 100 yards. I would hope that they would.

[waksupi]

Glad to see you're getting it tamed!

[Maven]

Thanks, Ric. It sure took me long enough! I'll try it offhand on the silhouette postal match targets Ohio Joe/Candle Snufffer uses next. One thing is certain, my eyes are happiest with a thicker, Patridge type front sight on all my open sighted guns.