In a nutshell!

[RMulhern]

Either PP the way the ODG did...and the way the Sharps Company recommended......or you're chasing your tail!![smilie=w::holysheep:bigsmyl2:

[Kenny Wasserburger]

Another Nutt here and in the Same Shell.

The Lunger
KW

[Lead pot]

I don't want to be in a nut shell:lol: the squirrels are digging holes in the snow all over my yard digging them up :lol:[smilie=2:

[martinibelgian]

Hmmm.... Not too sure! Those groove-dia. PP bullets do seem to perform pretty well in my rifle. Mind you, that's also the ODG way - except the other side of the pond!

[Lead pot]

I knew an ODG that was the son of a ODG that was a hide hunter and he got me into shooting the black art. He used to load to groove diameter. I also load as close to groove diameter as my case, bullet and chamber will allow.
So not all where across the pond that shot that way.

[montana_charlie]

I'm groovy, too. Never have wrapped any other way...
CM

[RMulhern]

Guys

I KNOW....groove diameter will work; better sometimes in SOME RIFLES...than others! However....this was mainly meant for the 'odd balls' that go around the world using all sorts of krap for patching....from masking tape to tinfoil of all things to saranwrap...and then some using grooved bullets to patch with! In the final analysis....if that's what makes these guys happy.....I feel like they need to continue to go that way....and sometimes.....'scratching their heads' looking for the HOLY GRAIL!!

[nicholst55]

I've been wondering about this - groove-vs.-bore diameter thing, and now that a thread has started on the subject, let me ask why groove diameter is better in y'all's experience. Let me start by stating that I have absolutely zero experience with PP boolits. I've read Paul Matthews The Paper Jacket, and I'm waiting for some additional books on the subject to arrive. It will be a couple more years before I'm able to put any of this knowledge to use - until I return to the States for good.

In The Paper Jacket, Matthews states that he found patching to bore diameter to work better for him - at least at that time. He deduces that the BP fouling has to go somewhere, and he felt that it fills the grooves. He went on to state that the one time he patched to groove diameter for his Ruger #1, he was unable to chamber the second round because the grooves were full of fouling. That strikes me as a lot of fouling from only one shot, but all my experience is with grease groove boolits which are seated to a much shorter OAL.

Inquiring minds want to know; was Matthews mistaken, or is it like so much else - dependent upon the individual barrel/paper/boolit/lube/powder combination?

[idahoron]

I have never tried a smooth sided bullet. Then again I have never seen a .501 smooth sided bullet. I Paper patch for my muzzleloaders. I tried a Lee C-501-440-RF paper patched and sized to .501. I got sub 2" groups at 100 yards with a peep sighted TC Renegade with a green mountain barrel. The wide meplat has taken game with shocking results.
I use GG bullets for my other muzzleloaders too. Yes I would like to try smooth sided but when GG do so well why change? If you want Paper patching to be period correct or historically correct then you have a long row to hoe. The fact is GG bullets do work and I don't feel like I am chasing my tail. I do feel that if you have a fast twist ML I think you would like the PP lee C-501-440-RF. Everyone that has tried it thinks it is a great hunting bullet. Ron

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd294/idahoron/Muzzleloaders/Paperpatch501.jpg
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd294/idahoron/Muzzleloaders/500SW3-22-08small.jpg
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd294/idahoron/Muzzleloaders/Flatlander2.jpg

[montana_charlie]

I've been wondering about this - groove-vs.-bore diameter thing, and now that a thread has started on the subject, let me ask why groove diameter is better in y'all's experience.
I'd like to try and state a simple answer to that.

I know there were many paper patchers among the ODG, but one of the most prolific was the Sharps company.
The chamber Sharps cut in a barrel intended for paper patching was so small the case was already at the proper diameter for reloading immediately after it was fired.
That chamber only allowed a bullet of bore diameter to be used.

Then, we had a rekindled interest in BPCR rifles...and in paper patching.
Looking back in the historical record to see how it was 'properly' done, it was discovered that bullets patched to bore were the norm.

Because black powder is good at bumping a lead bullet up when fired, patched to bore bullets work quite well in modern barrels...with their modern chambers...which are different from the chambers used by Sharps and the ODG.
But, because of that difference in chamber shape, people shooting modern rifles have to make some adjustments to the old method in order to get the bullet out of the barrel without accuracy-robbing 'modification' at the time of firing.

The main 'adjustment' is that the bullet needs to be seated way out of the case so most of it is safely up in the rifling when the powder ignites. That only leaves a short section right at the base which can suffer modification as it tries to bump up into a chamber meant for groove sized bullets.

A bullet which is patched to groove diameter cannot bump up bigger than it already is. Therefore, when it is fired in a modern style chamber, it doesn't get modified at firing.

You can make up your own mind about 'better or worse'. I am just pointing out the difference, and what it means.

I decided to go with groove diameter for my own patching, and used this thread ( http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=42529 ) to record the journey.

CM

[Lead pot]

These discussions on how the ODG's did is sort of like the squirrel running around in the yard cracking open nuts :)
I would wager that they were no different than us when it came to loading and developing loads, maybe not so much out on the prairie hunting during the long days during the hunt and skinning the critters made a long day for them and not much time to reload.
Target shooting I bet there were cranks like us that are serious in shooting and anal with there loading I dont think there is any difference between them and us.

For a hunting stand point I can see a bullet diameter that is slightly under bore or a tapered bullet that will allow repeated loading before getting fouled out. I think that is most likely why the tapered bullet came about. It could be loaded so the bullet didn't fall out of the case while it was carried in the cartridge belt and it can be loaded several times before the throat was fouled to a point were they could not load with out wiping.

I have spent many winters and shot up a lot of powder just to see what happens to a bullet using different wads, powder alloy, and bullet profiles and how the wrapped PP bullet survives the shot in the hinder from the powder blast.

I patch to halve ways between bore diameter and groove. So Far this has showed the best engraving even using a harder alloy.
A alloy of 1/16 or harder with a bullet patched .001 under bore diameter will have very slight land impressions in the bullet sidewall and if it does it will be only about .250 above the base. In my opinion the bullet will not get enough rotation, only what the paper will allow to hold the grooves.

As far as the tight chambers loose chambers are concerned I get the same results with bullet diameter.
I have chamber casts from original 74 and 77 Sharps and when you measure the core at the point above the case mouth and the diameter of the chamber case neck wall the difference between those measurements tells me that there was just as much distance for the bullet to expand as a modern day chamber has.

My .44-90 SBN I had a chamber cast made from an original 1877 Sharps sporting rifle with a perfect bore and I had chamber reamer made with just a slight change to the bore, groove and case neck wall dimensions to be able to have a Shiloh barrel used.

I wont say that it has been a cake walk making it shoot the way I want but I think I have it worked out.
I have been working with three bullets and so far a bullet from a KAL mould has been the toughest to get performance that I look for but I got the job done.
Below are a few targets that were shot from the 200 yard line using a Shiloh with a MVA scope I put on it. All are ten shots except one has 18.
The bottom one I shot using the Lawrence barrel sights and that was shot at 135 yards.
The bullets were dry wrapped to .0035 over bore diameter and the alloy was 1/19 and some at 1/16.
This rifle is really coming around.

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/IMG_0441-1.jpg

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/IMG_0652.jpg

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/IMG_0403.jpg

[Baron von Trollwhack]

Pretty nice groups. Good for you.

BvT

[RMulhern]

Good shooting Kurt!

[martinibelgian]

I could live with those 200yd groups... In fact, I'd probably have a drink to congratulate myself afterwards!

[Red River Rick]

I have been working with three bullets and so far a bullet from a KAL mould has been the toughest to get performance that I look for but I got the job done.



LP:

Just curious, was that Dan T's "Eliptical" design that your referring too?

RRR

[Lead pot]

Hi Rick.

It is the one you and I worked on from the drawing I sent you.

I haven't worked on it to much since I got it Rick till just lately and you see the results in the above photo. It's coming along pretty good.
I really have to push it pretty hard in the 1/19 twist to get it to really hold tight groups.
It could be just a little shorter then 1.468 it is, that is why I wanted you to make one just like it in a adjustable at .433 diameter with the same profile.
I was going to take a little of the block but decided not to do this because I have a .44 getting build with a 1/17 twist that should really make this bullet smile.
I really haven't used this bullet yet at long range but one day at the 1000 yard gong and it did hit it 8 out of 8 times I shot at it during the practice day but the hits where all over it.
I shot it at the 500 yard and it really held a very tight group on it.
I did not shoot it for the match because I didn't feel quite right with it yet.
So I used the bullet from a Brooks .44 mould and managed to get a 3rd placed senior using the .44-90bn.

Kurt

[Don McDowell]

Don 't sell yourself short LP, that 3rd place senior finish was also good enough to stick you in the top 10 out of 90 someodd shooters,and only 6pts back of the first place. That was a fine performance you , that 44 and your spotter put on.

[Lead pot]

Well you helped too:drinks:

[Don McDowell]

Watched and smiled, and that was about all the good I was this past season. Got new blood pressure meds yesterday. Too early to tell but I'm not near as toasted after chores as I was previously, now if that nasty side affect from the direct sun goes away... maybe if we can afford the gas to go shooting.... things might look a bit better on the final tally...

[405]

Lead pot,
Make no mistake, that is exceptional shooting!
Aren't many 44-90 SBNs around but a few it appears. FWIW, the ODGs and some historical perspective here's some specs on an original 44-90 SBN rifle and cartridge. I have an 1874 original with very fine bore and what appears to be an original 44-90 SBN PP cartridge. Weighed and measured the cartridge as well as possible without pulling apart. The bullet is long RN and appears to be swaged.

Rifle
Bore............................444
Groove........................448
Chamb. Neck...............468

Cart.
Bullet w/PP..................444
Bullet wgt....................470 +/-
Neck dia......................467
Pwd charge.................85-90 gr +/-

[Lead pot]

405

Yes those are good groups, but unfortunately I cant do that every time I shoot it.

That is pretty close to the chamber cast for the 1877 except the bore was .444 and the groove was .451. and your case dimensions would leave .020 for the case wall or .010 per side.

[405]

Lead pot,
That's a humble response for certain. Wish I could do that one time in a row :)
As far as the chamber on my original- the chamber neck wall is minimum .468 and guessing the shrink-back it may be closer to .469. The other thing about the original is the throat. It is assuredly old design with generous throat and leade.

I tried PP in the gun but never pursued it. Got paper rings everytime and didn't want to sink a ton of money in a bunch of experimental custom molds. Went straight to a 420 gr .449 GG bullet and the thing shoots really well. Using JASS brass I found locally- bought all he had. It has neck wall thickness of .009" so works well in the original.

[Lead pot]

The cast on the right is the lead I put in my .44-90 BN. It's a 5-2.5 degree compound. The original was a 3 degree. I didn't want it to be that long, that is why I changed it.

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/IMG_0432.jpg

[405]

Thanks for posting the chamber casting pics- the modified throat/leade design makes perfect sense to me. Have had paper ring problems in two originals with the "old" style throats- the 44-90 SBN in the Sharps and a 43 Spanish in the RB. I now shoot GG bullets in both after a little dose of PP loading and paper rings. However, both my Shiloh 45-70 and C Sharps 45-110 shoot PP fine.

[martinibelgian]

With a standard chamber I usually have the paper ring issue when the rifle is new, i.e. without many rounds through the bore. However, after some shooting, the paper ring will disappear - at least that's what I noted with 2 rifles chambered with the same reamer. One is pretty well shot in, and shoots PP pretty well. The other one is still pretty new, and - still - gives paper rings. This is with the same tapered bullet, patched with the same paper.
OTOH, my 45-70 did have a generous chamber and always had the issue, so I gave it leadpot's treatment, which now makes it in my case a dedicated PP rifle, which shoots those diapered bullets quite well.

[Lead pot]

OTOH, my 45-70 did have a generous chamber and always had the issue, so I gave it leadpot's treatment, which now makes it in my case a dedicated PP rifle, which shoots those diapered bullets quite well.

I'm glad it worked out for you. What lead taper did you end up using?

You mentioned that after a few shots your one rifle quit making rings.
I have a .40-65 that did the same thing after about 10 rounds, not completely but in between several shots I would have one on the wiping patch. I took the bore scope with me and shot 5 rounds and I could see the lead fused to the .45 degree but it had a slightly build up ramp and that came loose in time.
I since cut a 4 degree/ 2.5 degree compound lead in it and that really made that rifle come to life using PP or lubed bullets.
I take that rifle along to the range to let the young people and Gals that shoot there to use it.
I have a .44-90 that I had a friend cut a straight 7 degree lead in it but I changed it to a 5 degree/2.5 too.
I have a .44-77 coming that I might use a 3 degree like the original I took a cast of had.

[martinibelgian]

I used a 5 degree angle on the 45-70 - and as I shoot groove dia., no issue seating a 530gr PP bullet over 76gr of powder: good for about 1250fps.
As to the rifle not making paper rings, case length is actually pretty spot-on, but the rifle already has 1,000+ rounds through the barrel, which probably 'softened' those corners... to the point of leaving the PP intact. Still, I not yet to the point of getting accuracy at the level of the 45-70 as yet - I need to shoot some more PP in it...