Supporting our round balls

[longbow]

Yes nice accuracy!

How do those 0.678" RB's fit in the Helix cushion drivers... in the bore?

I have to recheck but I am sure mine were a snug fit in Pacific Verelite wads that I had a bag of (now almost gone) but they are a bit loose in my Winchester and Claybuster wads so I've taken to using a wrap of paper. Actually one wrap for my Mossberg slugster and 2 wraps for my fat bore single shot. Got to test both loads and guns side by side to see if it makes a difference.

I'd prefer to load for the largest bore and have things squish down for a tighter bore or moderate choke... as long as it shoots well.

Yes, too many variable and components! Too many powders, too many wads, too many hulls, too many primers, too much "stuff" to have all of it to match many recipes! I think Randy has the right idea... load like birdshot loads at moderate pressure with reasonably fast powders like Green Dot. Maybe not the highest velocity but if it shoots well and the powder can be used in multiple hulls and with multiple wads it makes like so much easier! If it wasn't so dirty I'd be happy using BP and have though about subs for slugs. In fact I used to have fun loading 0.690" RB's over up to 4 drams of BP. Accuracy wasn't very good but that was the loose RB. With good fit it would work.

I like the slug/RB in shotcup because they are easy to load and seem to produce quite decent accuracy easily. I think a naked full bore ball may have a tendency to roll when opening a crimp and or jumping through the forcing cone. As msm noted, I have seen uneven "belts" around recovered 0.735" RB's though they seemed to shoot well enough.

Yes... COW doesn't = cow http://castboolits.gunloads.com/atta...6&d=1549038592

COW = Cream 'O Wheat. Th eSouthern boys like Hogtamer like grits better. To each his own!

I'd have trouble squeezing a cow into a shotcup I think! Pretty easy to put a small scoop of COW into a shotcup though.

Longbow

[Mr_Sheesh]

I imagine if you DID manage to squeeze a cow into that shotcup, picking that shell up and loading it'd be quite tough, and messy; And then you'd probably have SEVERE pressure signs. Plus the range would kick you out instantly, can you imagine the MESS?

[centershot]

littlejack, In my experience, the "one jagged hole @ 50 yds." type of group was dependent on a REALLY tight fit in the bore. IIRC, I was running a combination that miked .739" through my M500 rifled bore. Nothing else came close until I stepped up the diameter. I did so incrementally by paper patching the ball inside the shotcup, using thicker and thicker paper until it came together. See here:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...tershot-Sabots

It is tedious messing with that paper patch so I'm now working with a .690" ball to see if I can duplicate the accuracy without the patch. We'll see..........

[longbow]

Dwarf cow? Still, you are right even if I got it to fit there be a heck of a mess!

Hah! On a slightly different topic... there is a guy in England that "shoots cows" and that meaning the cow is a projectile, though not jammed in a shotcup:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jul/17/johnezard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysAZStF51Yg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b49jTfqKrbw

Not a shotgun but pretty impressive medieval technology! I always liked trebuchets. I build a small one to launch water balloons for a Cuboree (Cub Scout) camp with medieval theme. It would launch a softball size water balloon about 30 to 40 meters.

But I digress...

Longbow

[longbow]

Centershot:

Even though you posted that thread recently and I read it and responded, I had forgotten details. I blame memory loss on a misspent youth!

That really is impressive! Not sure if you were part of the conversation or if it was in this thread (that darn memory loss thing) so I'll repeat it briefly. A member, TRG3, used 0.690" RB in shotcup (I can't recall brand of model) in USH rifled gun. He said it was a tight fit so he cut 2 opposing petals off and that worked. Not sure why cutting 2 petals off would shoot better than with both because effectively the diametral fit is the same, just less bearing contact. Anyway, he said that produced very good accuracy.

And if you missed it 725 uses 0.702" RB in a shotcup so REALLY tight! He says that works very well for him.

A search should find both threads. There may be something to help you out there though you seem to have this sorted out pretty well.

You might try cloth patching a 0.678" or 0.690" RB as the cloth should provide a somewhat adjustable squish fit in the shotcup ~ firm but still a bit of give. I'm thinking a 0.678" RB patched with thick cloth might provide better bearing area and more distributed pressure on the wad petals.

Longbow

[littlejack]

The wad petals measure .030 thick. My balls drop at .675 average, depending on where you measure them. For a total of .735. My bore slugs at .729. The wad and ball fit into the tapered Gun Club hull very snug. The combination fits down the bore very snug.
Finished securing the scope saddle yesterday, as well a tightening the barrell in the receiver for no movement. I managed to replace the .0035 shim with a .005 shim. Now I have to cast up more balls.
Regards

[longbow]

I just shimmed my Mossberg Slugster as well. I used 0.005" brass shim stock after having made a full wrap around shim out of pop can at about 0.0035". The pop can shim was a bit fragile and wrinkled. The brass is much better and is only a partial wrap but really snugged things up. Might not make a big difference in smoothbore but it won't hurt and if I get a rifled barrel it will be a bonus to have it fit tightly. I think anyway.

I am wishing I had loaded up earlier this week but the weather forecast was for -12 to -20 C this weekend and into next week. However, it is actually about 3 C right now and quite nice. I will try to load up slugs and round balls this weekend so I am ready for next weekend to finally get shooting and post some results for a change.

I'll load up some 0.678" RB's in shotcups to try out in the Slugster too. I just might give your hot melt glue idea a try while I am at it.

I should add that the fit you and others are using is much tighter than what was generally accepted in the past... at least for smoothbores. The old rule of thumb was no more than about 0.003" over bore or choke but the rifled guns seem to like a very tight fit. Plastic petals should just squish down anyway especially with the small contact a ball has.

Thanks for posting such detail. I am still learning and trying. Its all good stuff!

Longbow

[littlejack]

Of topic, need to know.
What type of stock, or riser do you fellas use to bring your cheek/eye to scope height? I have a leather lace up riser, but it doesnt really apeal to me. I would like to get a basic birch Monte Carlo stock, but I don't know if they even make them with cheap wood.

[megasupermagnum]

I use one of those Kydex adjustable combs on a couple guns. They work very well if you are willing to drill holes in the stock. The next best thing I've found is some foam pad and electrical tape. Ugly, but possibly the most comfortable. The beartooth is garbage.

[littlejack]

msm:
Thank you for the heads up on the Beartooth. That was one of the options I had.
I read a negative review on one of the other cheek risers. He didn't like the product, but went on to say how he made one for his rifle. He used a piece of the foam pipe
insulation, and banded it on and around the stock with the medical self adhering tape. Not the tape with adhesive on it, but it stretches and sticks to itself. Then he used mole skin to cover the area that you put your cheek on. Not the most beautiful, but functional.
I'm a courier for a medical lab. I think I can sweet talk one of our phlebotomists, and get a roll of the self adhering wrap they use.

[megasupermagnum]

I'll expand on my experience with the beartooth comb rising kit. There are two problems. One, it forms a square comb. Not the end of the world, but not very good. Two, the foam slips around. It would probably work if all you were doing was 1/4", but trying to monte carlo style 1" or more, it doesn't work.

I have some range reports. In the rifled gun, the round balls didn't shoot quite as good as the heavier powder charges. About 2 1/2" at 50 yards. I'm thinking more powder caused the balls to expand in the bore, and form a better fit. Through the smooth bore, they were horrible, not all were even on paper. I tried some rifled slugs as well, and they shot ok, nothing spectacular. I managed to recover one ball, the rest were lost. The interesting this was there is no bearing band on the slug! I later measured it at .731". I went through my stash of round balls casted the same day as this one, ever single one was .734". This is really puzzling to me, but I won't focus on it too much, as there is another problem. I slugged the bore of the gun, and found it to be .731". That's no problem, the problem is the bearing band on that slug is not even all the way around. I don't mean more on one side, I mean it is wavy. I confirmed by measuring, that almost all the balls are out of round by at least .001". It may not sound like much, but it seems to be effecting things greatly. I will try upping the powder, and see if they will shoot better.

[longbow]

Are those balls cast in a 0.735" RB mould?

Something I found is that some of the recovered balls showed an off center or uneven band that indicated rolling into the bore to me. Not terribly surprising since the ball is free to do what it wants as it opens the crimp and jumps through the forcing cone but the uneven bands (more on one side than the other) indicate that the ball somehow started and stayed off center in the bore! I'da thunk the ball would be self centering but I guess if it hits the forcing cone off center it can start a flat there and go into the bore off center. Having said that accuracy with the 0.735" RB's was pretty consistent and quite good from smoothbore. Even better from rifled gun.

What alloy are you casting from? I generally use WW or range scrap which runs pretty close to ACWW.

Longbow

[megasupermagnum]

These are cast from a JT single ball brass mold, supposed to be .735", but run .734". I'm using COWW + 2% tin alloy.

Accuracy is from good to great from any rifled gun I've tried them in at 50 yards. The smooth bore I am referencing is one of my Mossberg 500's. They shoot good from the smooth bore 24" slug barrel, but I am having very poor accuracy from my 20" barrel w/ cylinder choke and good fiber optic open sights. I don't expect this combo to be a tack driver, but I am looking for 4" at 50 yards, or else I might as well stick with 000 buckshot. The bore on that barrel is .731", and it seems there are tight and loose spots. It doesn't shoot good with factory rifled slugs either, so I may just keep it as a buckshot gun, as it patterns tremendously well. I have only tried two factory slugs in it, so not all hope is lost yet.

I too assumed the balls were entering the bore crooked, but it seems that may not be the entire story. In the smooth bore guns I can run the wheel weight ones through by hand with a ramrod, although I need pure lead for the rifled guns. Anyway, I get an uneven bearing band on them. This got me wondering, so I took a handful of good cast round balls, and measured them. Sure enough, they are out of round. Nothing visible, but it is there. I think they would shoot much better if they were bigger, maybe .739" as one poster had luck with. Before that, I am going to try more powder. The slug I recovered yesterday didn't show the slightest bit of upset. The most accurate loads I've found, showed upset of the ball, creating a good bearing band.

[longbow]

Have you tried heat treating?

I hadn't bothered for a ball but found when I made my ribbed Brenneke copies (not quite clones) I found that the ribs were flattening unevenly... one side at nose and the other side at the skirt (kinda diagonal) and that with screwed on wads! These were ACWW with 6 fairly wide ribs about equal with with grooves so substantial bearing area. I recovered several that showed this apparent cocking of the slug as it entered the bore. I never did figure out how it would even happen as the slugs were longer than diameter and with tail wad screwed on.

Oven heat treating fixed that issue but then the slugs were so brittle they often shattered on impact with the berm. I doubt that would be an issue with a ball.

As an observation, Brenneke Classic slugs are very hard alloy. I figured they hardened them for enhanced penetration but maybe they harden them so they don't deform in the bore... or maybe a bit of both?

I'll check my balls for round.... now that just sounds rude! I have mic'd them in the past and they cast at 0.736" and as far as I remember quite spherical. In fact all my Lyman round ball moulds cast well and at or above size using WW... and dimensionally better than Lyman bullet moulds in my experience ~ at least with regards to my newer Lyman moulds.

I'll drive a few through the bore too to see if I get an uneven band doing that. Can't say I have noticed it but then I wasn't looking for it either. I haven't shot any 0.735" RB's in several years now. I went more with the balls in shotcups.

Longbow

[littlejack]

So, are you fellas shooting 2 3/4" shells in 2 3/4" chambers? Or, are you shooting 2 3/4" shells in 3" chambers?
I am shooting the latter. I am wondering if the wad can , or does get tilted leaving the hull, and gets started in the forcing cone off center is where things start going south. There is so many different variables to take into concideration, and the tolerances are rather sloppy compared to a rifle. With a rifle and cartidge, you can size the case to fit just about perfectly in the chamber. Then you can set the bullet to, or a few thousanths from the lands. Also, there is the leade or freebore to hold the bullet straight before it engages the rifling.
I do believe there is certainly a "best" load that suits a particular shotgun and barrel, whether it is a rifled or smooth bore. But I don't believe they will ever get close to a rifles precision. I think when I look at a 2.5" group of balls or slugs, I subconsciously compare that to a 1" or 1.5" group my rifle will shoot, a d start to get dissapointed.
The balls I cast, are out of round, but I really don't think that is the biggest issue with the accuracy though. There is no way a person is going to get a ball in a cup (soft cup) to leave the hull when fired, make the jump to and through the forcing cone, and hit the rifling or bore exactly the same. When you throw in that the wads are not all the same, and the petals have variations in thickness. How much accuracy should we really expect? Not trying to be pessimistic, just realistic.
Regards

[megasupermagnum]

I've tried both 2 3/4" and 3", and can't tell the difference at all. I would have to think it has some effect, and I use 3" exclusively with my slug loads in rifled guns, but prefer 2 3/4" for the smooth bore guns. 2 3/4" is just easier/faster to load in a pump or semi auto, and gives you some room if there is an ejection problem.

[Cap'n Morgan]

Of topic, need to know.
What type of stock, or riser do you fellas use to bring your cheek/eye to scope height? I have a leather lace up riser, but it doesnt really apeal to me. I would like to get a basic birch Monte Carlo stock, but I don't know if they even make them with cheap wood.

I use a Beartooth on my Heym .375. The "riser" is just a piece of wood I carved into shape with a slot roughly matching the comb to secure it from wobbling on the stock.

[longbow]

All my shooting has been with 2 3/4" hulls in 3" chambers. I agree that this is a disadvantage for the reasons you mention.

Add to that a 0.730" diameter "bullet" being spun faster than is needs (for rifled gun) and picture any imbalances that can be quite far from the centerline then I think you have hit the nail on the head... you cannot expect rifle like accuracy from pretty much any shotgun with standard chamber and forcing cone.

Greg Sappington (ala 12bore) used to post here fairly often and on Shotgunworld. He was an avid 12 ga. shooter and hunter who tried about everything to get to the most accurate shooting he could. In the end that was a bolt action gun with custom barrel with chamber reamed by custom reamer to produce a more rifle like chamber. Than and custom sabot slugs got him to where he wanted to be.

My expectations are more than a little bit lower... especially for smoothbore. If I could get dependable/repeatable 6" group sat 100 yards from smoothbore I'd be happy. If I could get 4" or better groups at 100 yards from rifled gun I'd be happy.

I read lots of reports of stellar accuracy from both smoothbore and rifled guns but I see few targets. The Lyman sabot slug is one i have read reports of incredible accuracy at 100 yards from smoothbores yet I haven't seen repeat results or any confirmations by others. Not disbelieving that a tiny group was shot, just not believing it is repeatable on demand.

There are a lot of variable in shotgun slug reloading and wads are one. Greg asked me to make him a mould for testing using CSD wads. In the end I made two similar but slightly different. The slugs performed for him in terminal ballistics and gave him what he wanted but accuracy was not good enough. He commented on the inconsistencies of CSD wad wall thickness and now thta I have some I can see what he means! When compared to reloading for rifle or handgun you would toss anything with as much variation as those have. Even standard Winchester and other shotcups have variations in petal thickness that are beyond what you would accept for out of round boolits for a rifle or handgun.

For smoothbore some of these variations aren't nearly as critical as for rifle but still... if you could eliminate them you would if loading for metallic cartridge.

If a chamber was reamed like for a rifle and a brass hull used and slug seated as for a rifle then you would effectively have a .73" rifle. If all this was done on a solid single shot or bolt gun you should have a potentially accurate .73 cal. rifle.

My thought is that if full bore slugs are used for rifled guns then the wad petal thickness issue is eliminated. There is still the gas seal and wad column to affect the slug so it better be solid! Then there is the platform ~ pump guns are sloppy, no question. Even with sights or scope mounted off the barrel everything can flex during recoil so I do not believe a guy can expect tack driving accuracy from the best barrel, slug and cartridge fit if the barrel can flop around by a few thou in the receiver.

I just shimmed my Mossberg Slugster barrel and it took an almost 1/2 wrap of 0.005" brass shim stock to snug up the barrel into the receiver and this is still a slip fit, snug but slip fit. There is no comparison of slip fit to a barrel threaded to the receiver.

Since I have an obsession with H&H Paradox guns maybe I'll save a few words (for a change) by saying that H&H used to publish targets showing about 5" 100 yard groups from a side by Paradox gun so at best that is about 2 1/2" groups from each barrel at 100 yards.

Currently H&H shows one used Paradox gun for BP for $36,000.00 and one for $97,500.00... used!! There is a new one with no price listed ~ if you have to ask...

https://www.hollandandholland.com/guns/

If H&H is not capable of making a Paradox gun (not fully rifled but apparently one of the best of the type) that shoots like a rifle then what chance have we got using pump guns? A fully rifled single shot or bolt gun should turn in better groups than pump guns for sure if fed good ammunition anyway but those other variable are still there.

I really have to get me a rifled gun or rifled barrel and so some serious testing. Not that I am likely to get any better results than Blood Trail or Hogtamer and several others but I'd like to test a few things.

The one big issue I have with modern rifled shotgun barrel sis that they have too fast a twist. Detrimental or not? I can't say for sure but the twist is set up for sabot slugs not round balls or short fat slugs that really don't want or more importantly do not need fast twist. Around 1:110" should be correct possibly depending on velocity.

I contacted H&H to ask what twist they use in their Paradox guns and they couldn't tell me anything more than they use the same tooling a original. To my knowledge fully rifled bore guns used typical round ball twists which were very slow in larger gauges.

Okay so I don't save any words in the end!

If ever I win a lottery I will be heading to H&H with a wad of money in my hand to buy a side by Paradox gun! That is a given!

Longbow

[megasupermagnum]

What would be really cool is a paradox choke tube. If I could maintain the shot patterns I get from a cylinder bore, yet improve my slug accuracy, I would pay through the nose for such a device. I wonder if one of the rebore guys like Bobby Hoyt could do it?

On the paradox guns, did the rifling groove tighten as well, or were the lands the only choke?

[longbow]

To be honest, I don't know. Originally I had assumed the rifling was cut so that lands and grooves were even depth but I think all it is is rifling cut into a choke so grooves parallel with bore and lands being the choked portion. Oddly it seems difficult to find accurate and consistent info. Or at least I haven't found much.

I am currently reading the book about Fosbery:

https://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Colon.../dp/1450704549

Just getting to the development of the Paradox gun now.

I would have figured that these details woul dbe known but when H&H themselves (London gun room manager) can't tell me the rifling pitch after checking with the gunsmiths, well...?

I had also assumed that rifling would be slow twist since the slugs were short and heavy and I believe suited to round ball shooting as well. And since bore guns tended to have slow twists... again as far as I have found, then I would have assumed the Paradox would be slow twist. However, Ross Seyfried commented on his Paradox gun having a 1:36" or 1:38" twist or close anyway. That caught me by surprise and I am not sure he actually checked it which with a 3" rifled choke could be tricky.

As for a double, I have considered getting a block of steel milled to suit side by barrels and a slip on fit then silver solder and have this "binocular" tube reamed and threaded for screw in chokes that are slightly eccentric so they can be shimmed at a certain location/rotation to regulate the gun. That of course is a big issue with a double barrel gun. They are difficult and expensive to regulate.

Cap'n Morgan CNC milled a suppressor attachment for his over/under so the same could be done for a side by. it would just cost a buck or two.

For now I'll stick with single barrel guns and hopefully get my slow twist rifled choke tube finished one day. Fighting another hurdle now!

Longbow