My Mould Kal Tool & Die for Pedersoli Gibbs

[Don McDowell]

Saltner I roll the direction shown in your bottom picture. As to the patch coming unrolled, I don't think it's going to happen. There will be anywhere from 8000-18000 lbs psi pushing the patched bullet down the barrel, the bullet should be bumped up to fill the grooves thereby trapping the paper between the bullet and the barrel wall.

[ResearchPress]

Pictured below are two bullets from an original 19th century range box for muzzle loading in my collection. You can see the direction of the wrap.



David

[montana_charlie]

Pictured below are two bullets from an original 19th century range box for muzzle loading in my collection. You can see the direction of the wrap.

Being intended for a muzzleloader, the direction of the wrap may not matter, but what was the direction of twist in the rifle that those bullets were to be fired in?

I'm curious to know how people in that direction patching the bullet. It seems to me that my barrel prefer the patch wrapped so that with the rotation of the projectile, the patch tightens to it.

To start with, I patch to groove diameter. If you patch to bore diameter, I would be inclined to believe that direction of wrap is a non-issue in a rifle with modern (deep) rifling.

But, my bullets don't sit up within the rifled bore while waiting to be fired. Since they must pass through the leade just like a jacketed bullet would, they are subject to damage from the patch 'crumpling backward' if not wrapped in a direction that tightens it as it hits the lands.

In support of my theory, I started this thread, sometime back.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...ection-of-wrap

Wrapping counterclockwise (like your upper picture) permanently cured the problem for me.

CM

[Don McDowell]

David do you have any info on that bottom bullet? It looks an awful lot like the "standard" Buffalo Arms bullet style.

[Lead pot]

Maybe the wrapper was left handed. I'm right handed and my patch is the opposite of those

[Gunlaker]

They sure do Don. My 500gr Creedmoor bullets look exactly the same. Except that they are newer. My .45-70 never liked them, but strangely they are very accurate in my fast twist .45-90.

Oops. I should have noticed that you were talking about the bottom bullet. Mine look exactly like the top bullet. Mostly shank and a short nose.

Chris.

[Don McDowell]

Chris I have their "creedmoor" bullet in a 40 cal. But the ones I'm talking about look about exactly like the bottom one. I don't know the 45 cal numbers, but the one I asked them to make in 44 is the 434470.
I believe Leadpot had a hand in them adopting that style of bullet....

[Lead pot]

Chris I have their "creedmoor" bullet in a 40 cal. But the ones I'm talking about look about exactly like the bottom one. I don't know the 45 cal numbers, but the one I asked them to make in 44 is the 434470.
I believe Leadpot had a hand in them adopting that style of bullet....

Yes Dave, Jim and I spent some time on the phone when they started making moulds. DAve sent me one of the first 2 hole guide pin moulds and later a three pin.
This is the first bullet, and it is a good one.

[Don McDowell]

Yes that's a good bullet.

[ResearchPress]

That last bullet looks very similar to an original Metford bullet.

Besides the muzzle loading bullets I pictured, I have an original unfired Gibbs No. 1 and a Westley Richards No. 2 cartridge, each loaded with paper patched bullets. All the bullets are wrapped in the same direction as those shown in the above picture.

Of those bullets shown above the top one is .45 and a cylindrical Whitworth bullet with a deep thick walled base cavity. It would have been sold by Whitworth, Eley and maybe others. The lower bullet is .46 and for a Gibbs-Metford and has a shallow and wide dished base cavity.

I'll get some pictures and post more, but will have to wait for some daylight...

David

[Lead pot]

I had a swage die made for a .45 Metford bullet that is a very close copy of it and it is a fine shooter out to 1200 yards.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

David do you have any info on that bottom bullet? It looks an awful lot like the "standard" Buffalo Arms bullet style.

I suppose the chronology means that the standard Buffalo Arms bullet looks a lot like it.

In theory the patch wound so that it tends to be unloosened by the bullet means that it will be shed quickly and consistently on exiting the muzzle. I think the centrifugal force, which some some appreciable fraction of that which can explode a jacketed bullet, means that the bullet will shed a paper patch wrapped in either direction.

I don't believe any patch can be unwound in the bore. An excessively hard bullet patched up only to land diameter might just possibly part company with its patch in the bore. But I think that is more likely just a question of the bullet being forced forward out of the patch.

There was a short-lived system in the days of lead-bullet scheutzen shooting, whereby a patch of exactly π times the neck diameter was rolled into an edge-to-edge tube, and placed in the chamber with a special applicator mandrel. The bullet was then inserted into the paper-lined chamber, and, I assume, the paper pressed down into a tail behind the bullet base. The idea was to make the bullet as concentric as possible in the bore. That certainly stayed on the bullet all the way down the bore, so I suppose just about anything would.he right width to fit the

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I had a swage die made for a .45 Metford bullet that is a very close copy of it and it is a fine shooter out to 1200 yards.

That is an extremely bullet-shaped bullet. Somebody has to do it!

[Saltner]

I think it's very interesting this system patching with the false muzzle.
What do you think?
Which method is better?

[Gunlaker]

I suspect that the cross patch system is superior, but don't know as I don't own one. One day I will though. Mr. Niedner also used an interesting system ( shown in Ned Roberts book ) which utilized a chase patch like setup, but with the base folded over. Dry patched nd muzzle loaded. The rifle and tools were recently sold at auction.

Chris.

[Don McDowell]

I think it's very interesting this system patching with the false muzzle.
What do you think?
Which method is better?

I would imagine when shooting patched in muzzleloading/schuetzen type events the cross patched may hold a slight advantage. But when shooting a cartridge I believe the rolled patches have the advantage.
We've found out/rediscovered that when you patch further up the bullets sides and on to the ogive you will need a few more minutes of elevation , than you do when patching shorter, and using something like the "Hyde based" patch. Also when using the harder alloy's as described as early as 1875 in Remingtons Catalog accuracy maintains better especially at distance.
The cross patch system provides what looks to be a more even layer of the patch across the base which would be a definet accuracy advantage, but it seems it would take a bit of careful measuring , trial and error to get the length of the patch right so it doesn't bug the ogive and nose of the bullet to much.

[ResearchPress]

Took some more pictures of some 19th Century bullets and ammunition.




From left: the first two are .45 Whitworth bullets as sold by Whitworth, Eley and maybe others. The central bullet is .46 and for a Gibbs-Metford. These all come from the same riflemans range box from the muzzle-loading era. The two bullets on the right are also Metford and from a later (breech-loading) period.




The leftmost cartridge (from the headstamp) is Westley Richards No. 2 Musket. The two on the right are Gibbs No. 1.

All the paper patched bullets are wrapped in the same direction.

David

[Saltner]

I would imagine when shooting patched in muzzleloading/schuetzen type events the cross patched may hold a slight advantage. But when shooting a cartridge I believe the rolled patches have the advantage.
We've found out/rediscovered that when you patch further up the bullets sides and on to the ogive you will need a few more minutes of elevation , than you do when patching shorter, and using something like the "Hyde based" patch. Also when using the harder alloy's as described as early as 1875 in Remingtons Catalog accuracy maintains better especially at distance.
The cross patch system provides what looks to be a more even layer of the patch across the base which would be a definet accuracy advantage, but it seems it would take a bit of careful measuring , trial and error to get the length of the patch right so it doesn't bug the ogive and nose of the bullet to much.

Even in my opinion are the best bullets with the rolled paper, the cross could be comfortable on the shooting range, costs less time, but the strips have to be perfect!

[Don McDowell]

Thanks David for the pictures and descriptions.

[Lead pot]

That is an extremely bullet-shaped bullet. Somebody has to do it!

It also is an extremely good shooting bullet. It makes a extremely good ringing sound on the 1K iron