How loose is to loose?

[Thunder1964]

I'm trying to find the correct size bullet and patch for my rifle. I talked to BACO and was told a .441 bullet with two wraps of 9# onionskin paper would work. That came out to .4455. I slugged my barrel, it came out to .4575 with a bore of .4485. I just tried the recommended bullet and had better patterns with my shotgun. I would like to shoot bore diameter but I not sure if going over the bore or staying under is the way to go. Any thoughts and advice would be greatly appreciated.

[rfd]

i patch a JIm443530e slick for my .45-70 sharps, with it's slugged .450 bore and .458 groove, to .4485 and then the rest is up to how i load and aim and push the trigger. sounds like you might need a fatter slick. you have a PM incoming ....

[25ring]

I'm trying to find the correct size bullet and patch for my rifle. I talked to BACO and was told a .441 bullet with two wraps of 9# onionskin paper would work. That came out to .4455. I slugged my barrel, it came out to .4575 with a bore of .4485. I just tried the recommended bullet and had better patterns with my shotgun. I would like to shoot bore diameter but I not sure if going over the bore or staying under is the way to go. Any thoughts and advice would be greatly appreciated.

I use Pacon tracing paper .0025 with a BACO .443 slick.Makes for a slight interference fit in my .450 bore.Since your bore is .4485 the thicker paper may help.FWIW--Mike.

[BrentD]

Thunder,
The key here is to have bullets that are snug. Not tight, not loose, not falling through the bore when dropped into the muzzle, not spraining your thumb when chambered from the breech.

I like paper that will give me two wraps that are about as thick as my rifling is tall, or a titch less. This is not superduper critical but as a good rule of thumb 9# paper will add about 0.007+" of paper to the bullet when wrapped twice around the shank. So I like a .443" bullet or even a .444 and that 9# paper and then, if need be, size it down a thousandth or not.

[country gent]

I use the Seth Cole 55W 8 lb. and a Bullet from a Brooks adjustable mould that's 442 dia. Wrapped dry with my tension and patch board I end up at .448-.449. This fits my 45 bores very close.

Wrapping damp or wet and the amount of tension used will cause some stretch and thin paper a little when wrapping. I would imagine grain direction may affect this some too.
Paper thickness X 4 and bullet dia should get you pretty close. IE .002 pt X 4 = .008 + .442= .450 wrapped dia which in reality may be .448 due to stretch and compression. I have used the pacon paper with good results also some helix 25% and 100% cotton rag paper. Your numbers given indicate a paper thickness of around .0012 measure your paper with a set of micrometers and see where it falls. going to a .0015 paper ( .0015 X 4 =.006 + 441 gives you .447 with no stretch) paper in the .0018 range will get you .448.

[BrentD]

In a dead nuts 0.450" bore, I would consider 0.450- to be too loose. 0.449, definitely too loose. 0.451" is probably too tight and will wear out your thumb in a match.

The only really good way to measure the thickness of paper with normal measuring tools is to measure a bullet or drill bit shank with calipers or micrometer then wrap it with two wraps of paper and measure it again, just like you did before. Subtract the two diameters and divide by 4.

Measuring single sheets with calipers or normal micrometers is problematic in my opinion.

[Bent Ramrod]

Some more data would help.

How do you manage the fouling?

What is the BHN/alloy of your boolits?

How do you patch your boolits?

What is your load?

Ideally, you want to make up as much windage as possible with lead and bring the boolit to an easy push fit in the leade/bore with the thinnest paper possible. That said, I have had at least reasonably satisfactory results (~2Moa + or - out to “Mid-Range”) in my .45-70 with boolits ranging in diameter from 0.441” to 0.444” and paper from 0.0015” to 0.002”, depending.

Shotgun patterns are not exactly an uncommon phenomenon when starting out. Some people “get it” right away, and then there are “the rest of us,” who have a longer row to hoe.

[Lead pot]

You really can't go with the # weight for thickness. I have 7.5# paper that is as thick as 9# and .0015" thick that has a 8# rating.
Loose patched bullets are good for a hunting load where the shot might range 100-200 yards and a soft lead bullet is used that will obturate filling the grooves.
For accuracy you want a bullet like Brent said, snug fit. and an alloy that will obturate filling the grooves. 1/16 to 1/18 is just about right for a .45 caliber, for a .40 caliber I would stick with 1/16 tin/lead.
I order my bullet diameter according to the paper I can get. The #9 labeled is pretty common and it will range from .0018" to .0021-2". Do a little math with a two layer thickness than order the mould accordingly. I don't like a .446" PP bullet because it is on the tight side with the average (#9) a .443-.444" is the diameter I like. If it's a little to snug for the bore Lee makes a decent custom reducing die and I have a couple that are right on the money with what I ordered. I need it for my .40-65 because it has an undersized bore compared to my other .40's.
I don't know what your alloy composition is your casting with but if it's hard with the undersized bullet try a 1/30 tin/lead mix but just extend the wrap slightly past the shank up into the ogive maybe a 1/16" and try that to see if you get some accuracy or get some thicker paper.
I have even used three wraps of .0015" thick paper to get the proper diameter and it shot very good also.

Kurt

[Thunder1964]

My load is Starline brass wlr primer with wad, 68 grains Swiss 1.5 some with wax paper greese cookie others with .60 veggie wad compressed .60 baco swagged .441 cup base bullet with 2 wraps of 9# onionskin

[BrentD]

Thunder, ditch the cookie and add another 14 gr of powder. YOu should not need any or at most very little compression. Seat to 0.1" into the case. Not more. Wipe with two damp and one dry patch between each shot. Save shooting dirty for later.

I am pretty sure your bullet is too loose, but it will do better with the above changes.

[Thunder1964]

I did remove the old wrap and wrapped with 3 this time. My bore is .4485 and the bullets are .449. I've only got 30 of those bullets then I'll move up.

[Bent Ramrod]

I wrap the patch dry, having found that wet wrapping helps stick the patch to the boolit. When I shoot cup base boolits, I use the rim of the cup as the limit for how much patch to fold over the base, leaving the cup uncovered. In any case, the center of the base should be left bare. Twisting the end of the patch around and packing it into the cup will cause flyers at distances. You want the patch to stay on in barrel and whirl or shred off as soon as the boolit clears the muzzle.

Brent is right—more powder. The original Sharps loading was 75 gr for the .45-2.1”, and mine didn’t start performing until I got to 80 gr. The chambered cartridge should have most of the boolit in the barrel, so you have room for more powder.

Until you get your load down, your bore should look unfired between shots. Any residue will induce a “random factor” that has an excellent chance of deranging the results of your charge weight variations, wads and compression, boolit size and shape, and other experimental variables. Once you get a load that works, then you can figure out how much you can abbreviate the cleaning process. (Most people, by that time, use bore pigs, being unwilling to give up any percentage of the hard-won accuracy they have sweated to develop.)

[Thunder1964]

Thank you all for your help

[Gellot Wilde]

Interesting reading for sure.

I've been paper patching for a few years now and have had some very good results and now an again some very bad ones.

I'm currently shooting a swaged bullet which measures 0.44990" and when patched dry it comes up at 0.45590". These seem to work very well in my Pedersoli in 45-90.

I've been considering loading some paper patched loads from my Ballard R&PC but with the bullet I have currently there is no way will it chamber patched at 0.45590, I'd need something other than my thumb to get it into the bore.

I have the same bullet for my muzzle loader, which when patched comes up to O.44900" which is a nice slip fit in the Pedersoli and the Ballard barrel.

Am I kidding myself that the muzzle loader patched bullet might just work in the Ballard although it's a bit on the loose side or should I just bite the bullet (no pun intended) and order another swage die for use in the Ballard.

[BrentD]

Gellot, I would, for certain, shoot the smaller diameter bullet before doing anything else. The true answer to your question will be on the target. Assuming that fails (which I doubt), you could look for a thinner paper. If you can't find thinner paper then you could buy or make a sizing die that would size your current bullet down the small amount needed for a perfect fit.

I'm ab it mystified by your dimensions. Measurements to 1/10,000 of an inch are pretty challenging for most people. Heck I can't measure much better than 1/1000. Also, I find Pedersoli barrels to be pretty tight. I cannot imagine starting with a bullet that is only 0.0001" that's 1/10,000" less than the land diameter of most rifles, with Pedersoli's, in my experience, being on the short side of that! Most people would find that your naked bullet would fit pretty well in their rifles with no paper at all.

What is R&PC?. I know Ballards 1 through 9, and Pacifics, Montanas, and Galleries, but not R&PC.

[rfd]

Interesting reading for sure.

I've been paper patching for a few years now and have had some very good results and now an again some very bad ones.

I'm currently shooting a swaged bullet which measures 0.44990" and when patched dry it comes up at 0.45590". These seem to work very well in my Pedersoli in 45-90.

I've been considering loading some paper patched loads from my Ballard R&PC but with the bullet I have currently there is no way will it chamber patched at 0.45590, I'd need something other than my thumb to get it into the bore.

I have the same bullet for my muzzle loader, which when patched comes up to O.44900" which is a nice slip fit in the Pedersoli and the Ballard barrel.

Am I kidding myself that the muzzle loader patched bullet might just work in the Ballard although it's a bit on the loose side or should I just bite the bullet (no pun intended) and order another swage die for use in the Ballard.

if your bore is .450" at the lands, and you've patched a slick to mic at near .460", that's not a bore rider, it's a near groove rider, and that's not a good thing and not what you want. what brent said about an easy push into the chamber is what you want, just not too under bore. that's the trick with the paper patch way - finding the right combination of slick diameter and paper thickness (not paper weight, which is bogus most of the time). only sane way to get a proper answer is getting a slick that mics at .443" in your target alloy, or very slightly more (which can be controlled with .443" push up sizing die, like a custom ordered lee, and/or different alloy ratios) and then play with a few different paper thicknesses. when you find the right paper, STOCK UP on it! ;)

[Gellot Wilde]

Thanks for that quick answer rfd, I appreciate it.

That's why I've been reading this thread with great interest...what I have does shoot rather well but from what I've read here it's not the correct thing to do for good accuracy.

I bought this swaging set up from a pal who in turn had bought it new from Corbin back in the mists of time and as I understand it with advice on slick size from Mr. C himself.

I think I need to think about trying a smaller slick by what I've read here.

[Lead pot]

:) If you shoot PP and shoot a lot, find the paper that fits your bullet and do as rfd suggests, stock up :)
My supply of 7.5#, 8#, 9#, and 11# Southworth cockle finish paper is running out and hard to find at a realistic price. Cant find it at $23. a ream anymore :)
I just restocked with a dozen rolls each of 55/W and 55/Y and measured the paper in several different places and found the thickness varied quite a bit at different locations on the paper. So a push through die would be a good piece of equipment to have on hand. It also makes a good tool for folding the wrap under the bullet base :)

By the way, you mentioned that you had the cup based bullet. The cup based bullets have a thin skirt rim by average and this gets damaged very easy with a wad that gets pushed into the base that lets the gas pass the wad and gas cuts the bullet shank destroying the accuracy. A thick wad under the bullet base will help preventing this or use the cup base for what it was intended, push a twisted tail into it. This will also protect the skirt.

[Bent Ramrod]

As mentioned, your setup looks to be for groove-diameter patched boolits. Martinibelgian and the late Montana Charlie have done more published work on that variant of paper patching than most of the rest of us. Such boolits have to be seated in the case as deeply as grease groove boolits in order to chamber the cartridge. Check out their experiments and results on this forum, and also on the Shiloh and Historic Shooting sites.

For target accuracy, depending on the nose shape, the hardness of the bore diameter paper-patched boolit needs to walk the wire between soft enough to slug up into the rifling upon firing, and hard enough to keep the nose from slumping off center while it does so. Somewhere in the bhn 8-12 range, about 16/1 lead/tin, is a good place to start. If you can swage lead that hard, make up a batch, and then, as Brent suggests, size the resultant slugs down into the 0.443” + or - range for your bore diameter experiments.

You may find it easier to just get a mould of the correct diameter. I haven’t done any .45 boolits, but bringing a 0.314” cast boolit down to 0.308” for one of my finicky .30 caliber rifles takes three dies; 0.002” reduction per die, if I don’t want a mangled lead banana for a final boolit shape. You will need some lubricant on the lead for this, which, of course, will have to be removed with solvent before patching.

I second Lead Pot’s comment that pounds-per-ream weight is useless for our purposes. Take your micrometer into the paper store and look for thicknesses in the 0.0015”-0.002” range. I use the Dutch Schoultz technique that he used to measure cloth for muzzleloader patching; no “feather touch” on the mike thimble; turn it down until it won’t go no more! That’s your paper thickness, as compressed into the rifling lands. I’ve had the best results with Tracing or Vellum paper, and what obsolete Erasible Bond typing paper I’ve been able to scrounge. Whatever it is, it should be translucent, relatively brittle and crackly compared to the usual opaque white printer paper.

A smooth, “hydraulic” push, neither too easy nor too hard, should be what you notice when shoving the patched boolit through the barrel with your cleaning rod. You should see the mark of the tops of the rifling lands on the paper when the boolit comes out of the barrel.

[Gellot Wilde]

Gellot, I would, for certain, shoot the smaller diameter bullet before doing anything else. The true answer to your question will be on the target. Assuming that fails (which I doubt), you could look for a thinner paper. If you can't find thinner paper then you could buy or make a sizing die that would size your current bullet down the small amount needed for a perfect fit.

I'm ab it mystified by your dimensions. Measurements to 1/10,000 of an inch are pretty challenging for most people. Heck I can't measure much better than 1/1000. Also, I find Pedersoli barrels to be pretty tight. I cannot imagine starting with a bullet that is only 0.0001" that's 1/10,000" less than the land diameter of most rifles, with Pedersoli's, in my experience, being on the short side of that! Most people would find that your naked bullet would fit pretty well in their rifles with no paper at all.

What is R&PC?. I know Ballards 1 through 9, and Pacifics, Montanas, and Galleries, but not R&PC.


I maybe should mention I suffer from dyslexic bouts when typing (or just plain stupidity & lack of attention)...I meant Ballard Rifle & Cartridge, when it was in Cody, it's a No.4 Perfection.

Those are my measurements with the digital micrometer...unless it's buggered of course lol. The swage is marked .450 and is from from Corbin.

[Gellot Wilde]

As mentioned, your setup looks to be for groove-diameter patched boolits. Martinibelgian and the late Montana Charlie have done more published work on that variant of paper patching than most of the rest of us. Such boolits have to be seated in the case as deeply as grease groove boolits in order to chamber the cartridge. Check out their experiments and results on this forum, and also on the Shiloh and Historic Shooting sites.

For target accuracy, depending on the nose shape, the hardness of the bore diameter paper-patched boolit needs to walk the wire between soft enough to slug up into the rifling upon firing, and hard enough to keep the nose from slumping off center while it does so. Somewhere in the bhn 8-12 range, about 16/1 lead/tin, is a good place to start. If you can swage lead that hard, make up a batch, and then, as Brent suggests, size the resultant slugs down into the 0.443” + or - range for your bore diameter experiments.

You may find it easier to just get a mould of the correct diameter. I haven’t done any .45 boolits, but bringing a 0.314” cast boolit down to 0.308” for one of my finicky .30 caliber rifles takes three dies; 0.002” reduction per die, if I don’t want a mangled lead banana for a final boolit shape. You will need some lubricant on the lead for this, which, of course, will have to be removed with solvent before patching.

I second Lead Pot’s comment that pounds-per-ream weight is useless for our purposes. Take your micrometer into the paper store and look for thicknesses in the 0.0015”-0.002” range. I use the Dutch Schoultz technique that he used to measure cloth for muzzleloader patching; no “feather touch” on the mike thimble; turn it down until it won’t go no more! That’s your paper thickness, as compressed into the rifling lands. I’ve had the best results with Tracing or Vellum paper, and what obsolete Erasible Bond typing paper I’ve been able to scrounge. Whatever it is, it should be translucent, relatively brittle and crackly compared to the usual opaque white printer paper.

A smooth, “hydraulic” push, neither too easy nor too hard, should be what you notice when shoving the patched boolit through the barrel with your cleaning rod. You should see the mark of the tops of the rifling lands on the paper when the boolit comes out of the barrel.


Good stuff indeed thanks.

I can't swage lead that hard, I tried and it cost me dearly, those dies do go with a bang when they crack...Mr Corbin was only too happy to make me a bigger one once he stopped chuckling at me. However that one is for my muzzle loader so it will handle 1:16 although I tend to use 1:10 in that.

Yes what you say they is just what I'm doing, I'm seating them quite deeply in the case...and so far they seem to work ok, I've just made some more to try over the weekend.

That's what grabbed me, your explanation of how the bullet should feel when pushed through the bore with a cleaning rod...that's perfect.

I just told RFD that I have a .441 mold that is surplus so I am now planning on getting that opened up to .443 and go from there. It actually measures .433 at the base and is slightly tapered going by my dodgy digital cailpers so I may give that a go as is first before getting it modified.

[BrentD]

Gellot,
I used to swage with Corbin presses and dies. I had some from each of them. They didn't know anything about paperpatching for BPCRs but they made great stuff, and I was able to swage 16:1 bullets as heavy as 550 grs with them. It was not a lot fun, but it worked. If you have a 441 mould, you are close and could use that for making cores.

But in the end, you can cast bullets that shoot as well or better than your swaged ones and moulds cost much less and are delivered much faster (and are easier to use by a bunch). I sold all of my swaging gear at a profit and never looked back.

[Gellot Wilde]

Gellot,
I used to swage with Corbin presses and dies. I had some from each of them. They didn't know anything about paperpatching for BPCRs but they made great stuff, and I was able to swage 16:1 bullets as heavy as 550 grs with them. It was not a lot fun, but it worked. If you have a 441 mould, you are close and could use that for making cores.

But in the end, you can cast bullets that shoot as well or better than your swaged ones and moulds cost much less and are delivered much faster (and are easier to use by a bunch). I sold all of my swaging gear at a profit and never looked back.


That's quite nice to read, I did get that impression after an hour on the phone to them..well Dave about a core mold they made me that wouldn't drop a core it was so badly made...looked as though they'd used a broken cutter on it. However, he did make me one that works perfectly and I'm pleased about that as postage backwards and forwards across the pond gets expensive.

I fully intend to try this mold I have that came free with a rifle I bought from a guy...it's a lovely mold too...I may get it opened up but I'll try it first and see how it shoots.

I'm just reading an article that rfd kindly sent me...and it seems to be advocating parallel bullets not tapered...I thought the original Sharps bullets were tapered?

[Gellot Wilde]

250076

Just in case those kind folks who gave some great advice on this thought I'd forgotten and moved on, here's a short follow up.

I managed to get to the range yesterday and try some new loads with the .433 boolit at 100M.

I only had made seven cartridges just to see how they went so just left the sights where they were after adjusting a very low 5 (not shown), then the high 8 and then the five stringing L to R.

Shot from the prone position using the sling as per MLAIC completion rules.

I admit I'm not in full rifle shooting form so was not exactly expecting much but was pleasantly surprised non the less. I think with a bit of work on my part as I'm a bit rusty after spending most of the year pistol shooting, they will be just dandy.

90 grains of Swiss No.4, CCI Magnum primer, newsprint OP wad and two .O30 veg fibre wads. The paper is Esleeck 100% cotton rag content and the boolit is a C. Higginbottom flat base .443" cast to give a reading of 4 on the SAECO scale.

I was shooting my Ballard 45-90. The cartridge, well bullet just engages the rifling so a gentle push as described here. I guess I could go up a little on the slick but that's maybe something for later.

Have 1, 2 & 300M competition coming up this weekend so had already loaded up my usual greased loads but think I might just go with the PP and see how they go.

[Lead pot]

Gallot.

When I see an oblique string like you shot with this test load I see a lot of potential in it. I call that group, fat fingering, not having a good control of the rifle. That low vertical is a good start. When they cut shot by shot like I see your group it's control.
I see this with some of my loads now and then and I take a deep breath, spit in my hand and get behind the butt stock so I feel comfortable and grip the rifle with the damp hand and fire 5 rounds without looking through the scope till they are finished and most generally they look like a nice cluster.

Using a sling, uneven pull will give you problems like that string.

Kurt

[Gellot Wilde]

Hey Kurt

Yes you are bang on with that and I know I am in need of getting back to form after a long lay off, that will be the first time I have shot that rifle in over two years so I am very rusty.

I didn't have the right feel on each shot that's for sure when you look at the group. I'm pleased you think it shows promise though.

I think I maybe could do with a slightly bigger slick, the one above is .443.

What is confusing me id my two reference books, the Matthews one in particular is using a slick of .448. But what I'm reading in here is a smaller slick is better.

Has there been a shift slightly to the smaller slick these days?

Rob


Here's a 100ex100@100M off the sling from a completion a few years ago when I had younger eyes.

[Distant Thunder]

With Mathew's book, "THE PAPER JACKET" you have to be very careful. He is talking about smokeless and black powder paper patching and he is not always clear which one he is referring to when it comes to diameters. I have that book and it is well worn from use, but I was very confused on the subject of diameters in the book until I started to understand how bore diameter ppb work with black powder.

Once I moved to patching to fit the bore diameter I actually began to see usable accuracy with black powder. It still took me a number of years to realized how important the proper fit to the bore was for match type accuracy. Just any diameter patched bullet doesn't work the best and one size does not fit all. It has taken many years of trial and error but I'm finally happy with my understanding of black powder and paper patch bullets and the result I now get.

So much depends on what you are happy with, but if you stay with it the level of accuracy a good rifle can achieve with paper patch bullets and black powder is amazing.

When reading any of the books about paper patching it helps if you understand the author's own preconceived ideas of how it is done correctly. We all tend to bend the truth toward our own beliefs and author's of books and people on the internet are among the worst in that area.

YMMV

[Gellot Wilde]

That's so true, he does bounce about and it can be confusing at times understanding if he is talking about smokeless or BP.

[Lead pot]

Both bore and groove diameters or slightly under bore diameter will shoot well. With my .45/325 I used to load groove diameter patched mainly to use up powder room because the 3 1/4" case is more than needed for powder and it shot very good.
I retired that barrel.
I also have a old Tom Ballard tapered mould that drops a 560 gr tapered that is .454" at the based I still use this bullet in the .45-2.4 with a 16 ROT.
When I breach seat I use a .454" to .458" diameter patched, they out perform the bore diameter.

[Distant Thunder]

Kurt,

I shoot 3 different types of paper patch bullets with match winning accuracy, 1) straight sided snug fitting bore diameter, 2) groove or slight over groove diameter (also straight sided), and 3) 2-diameter.

The last one is a combination of the first two, having a snug fitting bore diameter forward section and a groove to slightly over groove diameter base section. These work very well in grease groove chambers and reduce or eliminate the need to size your brass excessively. The place they become almost a necessity is in a gg chamber with a longer freebore section.

With any lead bullet, but paper patch especially, the important thing to accuracy is to fill all available space with the bullet. There should not be any area of the bullet's length that is unsupported as it rests in the case/chamber/throat/lead/bore. The bullet should fill all those details as much as is possible.

The idea being not to have any area that the chambered bullet is resting in that it will bump up into when the powder explodes and then have to be changed in shape or size as it moves out of the chamber and into the rifling. The less a bullet is distorted and reshaped as it proceeds through the throat/lead and into the rifling and then out the barrel the better the chance of a high level of accuracy.

Also the better a bullet fits the details of the chamber the better it is held in alignment with the axis of the bore so that when the powder does explode the changes to its shape and diameter are maintained in the best possible alignment with the axis of the bore/grooves.

All that being said, I have no doubt that this principle can be ignored and a level of accuracy can still be seen, I just doubt it will be seen as often or to the highest level possible.

In the end you have to shoot what works best for you in your rifle.

[country gent]

I prefer Randolph S. Wrights book Loading and shooting the paper patched bullet A Beginners Guide over Paul Matthews books. Its more in tune with BP and layed out much better and more to the point. He does a vey good job on the who what where and why.

[Gellot Wilde]

I prefer Randolph S. Wrights book Loading and shooting the paper patched bullet A Beginners Guide over Paul Matthews books. Its more in tune with BP and layed out much better and more to the point. He does a vey good job on the who what where and why.


I have that one too, it's a nice read, but not as in depth as the Matthews one.

[Distant Thunder]

They are both good books and worth reading, but I agree Wright's book has a clearer presentation of the procedure for loading paper patch bullets with black powder and is probably better for that reason. My Mathew's is well worn from many years of reading and rereading, it just isn't as well laid out and he bunches around between black powder and smokeless making it confusing to most people just starting out with BP and PP, at least it was for me.

[Gellot Wilde]

What do you gentlemen consider as 'shooting well' with PP?

I was speaking with a very competent group of shooters over the weekend all had shot PP and one was still shooting them. They all had come to the conclusion that the only real way to get excellent accuracy was to breech seat the bullet. None of them had been able to get assembled PP ammo to deliver the accuracy they were looking for.

[rfd]

"None of them had been able to get assembled PP ammo to deliver the accuracy they were looking for."

that statement is far too broad - what kind of consistent accuracy were they looking for, at what distances, and with what cartridges, guns and aiming systems? that's a lotta ground to cover ...


"What do you gentlemen consider as 'shooting well' with PP?"

"shooting well" is when you win a match. :)

once you have the PPB Way sorted out well enuf, and good consistent cartridges are built, the rest is up to the shooter's eye and trigger finger.

for me, and my poor to fair shooting skills, a consistent 2moa at 200 to 800 yards with iron sights of a PPB .45-70 would be wonderful. ;)

ymmv.

[BrentD]

What do you gentlemen consider as 'shooting well' with PP?

I was speaking with a very competent group of shooters over the weekend all had shot PP and one was still shooting them. They all had come to the conclusion that the only real way to get excellent accuracy was to breech seat the bullet. None of them had been able to get assembled PP ammo to deliver the accuracy they were looking for.

They will shoot as well as breech seated bullets when done properly. Basically, they ARE breech seated bullets. More than likely, they were not assembling their ammo correctly for best accuracy. Most breech seating, benchrest shooters load paper patches like they were grease grooves and then complain that paper patches won't shoot.

[Distant Thunder]

Because match conditions can vary so much from match to match I'd have to agree with rfd, I feel I'm shooting well when I win the match. Sometimes the overall scores can be low compared to other matches. I don't pay much attention to what the scores of other shooters are through a day of shooting. If the scores are posted at the end of the first day I'll look to see how I did compared to the other shooters in general. I think about what I could do to shoot better tomorrow.

More than once I have finished a match rather disappointed in my scores only to find out I won or placed in the top three. So you can't just look at scores. I've shot some pretty decent scores, in the 95% area, only to lose the match by a few points. One match I'm thinking of was actually my personal best for a 2-day match, someone else just shoot a little better than I did and I shook the winner's hand as I always do when I lose.

I don't believe winning matches is the only measure of "shooting well", I don't always win and there was a time when I hadn't ever won a match. I look at my shooting over time, year by year, and I look at how I've done compared to years past, where I placed in the overall standings. My biggest obstacle has always been ME! Keeping my head in the game and not making stupid mistakes is where I think I've improved my shooting the most in recent years. That's where most matches are won or lost. So no matter where I am in the standings I feel I've shot well if I gave it my very best and didn't do anything stupid that cost me points.

I haven't shot for groups with my long range rifle in several years so I can't show you any pictures an impressive group or two. I'm actually not very good at shooting impressive groups anyway. I almost always have one or two that I pull and mess up an otherwise good group. I know my rifle and I know what it can do under match conditions and I know the results it has produced over the past several years with paper patch bullets.

Could I have had the same results shooting grease groove bullets in a rifle designed for them? Maybe, I don't know and I don't care. I will continue to shoot paper patch because I believe they are more accurate, less problematic and otherwise superior to GG.

I believe I have won a good many matches BECAUSE I shoot paper patch. So many times during my GG days I lost matches because I fouled out or leaded up or some other thing related to lubed bullets went wrong. With paper patch I don't have those problems to even worry about. Leading isn't a problem, ever! Lube isn't a problem, ever! Fouling isn't a problem, ever! At least not since I switched back to bore pigs. And my scores reflect all the positive attributes of paper patch bullets. Why would I ever shoot BPCR with all the problems associated with greasy bullets?

I can't imagine loading grease groove bullets for BPCR and I don't even want to think about all the problems I'd have to deal with if I did. Nope, I'll stick with my paper patch bullets and not just because they are so COOL looking compared to the other option...…….., well there is that! Nope, I'll stick with them because they are superior to the others. I have no doubt of that.

[rfd]

yes, match environmental conditions can vary a bunch, but so can allowed guns 'n' gear. my local club match rules only require a rifle cartridge that fits the buffalo runner's 19th century firearm period, iron sights, and the use of alloy bullets. since i'm the only shooter nuts enuf to load and compete with PPB BP cartridges, it's a real treat when i can top the white devil dust greaser boys. 8-)

[Gellot Wilde]

that statement is far too broad - what kind of consistent accuracy were they looking for, at what distances, and with what cartridges, guns and aiming systems? that's a lotta ground to cover ...



"shooting well" is when you win a match. :)

once you have the PPB Way sorted out well enuf, and good consistent cartridges are built, the rest is up to the shooter's eye and trigger finger.

for me, and my poor to fair shooting skills, a consistent 2moa at 200 to 800 yards with iron sights of a PPB .45-70 would be wonderful. ;)

ymmv.


Sorry if it was a bit of a broad question, I took it as a given we were talking black powder 19th Century rifles with iron sights as in tang sights & globe front sights.

So 2MOA @ 200yds

The chaps I was discussing them with are extremely competent one of them is a regular competitor at Bisley 1000yds matches and isn't the type to talk rubbish just for the sake of it.

I'm only shooting short range these days and to get an angle on the level of skill of the gents I was chatting with the winner that day shot 97@100M, 97@200M and 88@300M the latter in pouring rain so I guess that had some bearing on him not breaking 90.

I've always been of the opinion that all these old smokers of the match quality type with match sights will shoot 3MOA consistently and better if the shooter pulls his finger out.

So you are saying with the right bullets PP in assembled ammo will match if not better GG bullets without the need for breech seating?



it's a real treat when i can top the white devil dust greaser boys. 8-)

And that's just it, that would be the goal as I already have a greaser load that's a real tack driver but I like the original aspect of the PP bullet but don't really want to mess about with breech seating. If you are saying it's worth pursuing then I'd be very keen to see some targets/groups you have achieved with them.

[Gellot Wilde]

They will shoot as well as breech seated bullets when done properly. Basically, they ARE breech seated bullets. More than likely, they were not assembling their ammo correctly for best accuracy. Most breech seating, benchrest shooters load paper patches like they were grease grooves and then complain that paper patches won't shoot.

Believe me Brent, these guys are no slouches and it would be nice for me to be able to simply dismiss their advice as they aren't doing it right.

I also set out with the wrong size bullet as I had it, but so far the wrong way is out doing the 'right' way in accuracy.

I use PP in my M/L match rifle (Don Brown) with very good success indeed and it would be nice to get the same sort of accuracy with the cartridge rifle without the fuss of breech seating as we only have 30minutes for 13 shots.

[rfd]

... So you are saying with the right bullets PP in assembles ammo will match if not better GG bullets without the need for breech seating?

absolutely.


And that's just it, that would be the goal as I already have a greaser load that's a real tack driver but I like the original aspect of the PP bullet but don't really want to mess about with breech seating. If you are saying it's worth pursuing then I'd be very keen to see some targets/groups you have achieved with them.

messing around with PPBs under real BP is all about "doing it the olde tyme way", The Paper Patch Way. for the most part, expecting such loads to work perfectly out of the gate just ain't gonna happen. there is much to understand and apply, there are unique instances to traverse, and typically there will be some dues to pay. and ... don't trust all the stuff you read in PPB media, either. it's a kind of puzzle, this PPB thing for supreme accuracy, and what works for each of us will depend on the pieces we're playing with and trying to make fit. IME with PPBs over the last 6 years or so, out of the gate, 6moa at 200 yards is no big deal and with a bit of tweaking it'll drop to 4moa. going tighter will require time and effort, and maybe even some more pesos spent. all of this is almost always about personal goals, interests, and ... perseverance. it can be done.

i shot this target face at 200 yards a month or so ago, testing out two different slicks - a 403 grain Accurate Molds stubby from Tom, and that classic 523 grain BACO Jim443530E elliptical. the rifle is a much worked-on pedersoli that started out as a .40-65 and several gunsmiths blew it out to a .45-70 with a special PPB chamber. lee shaver really did the best work on it, with a new barrel and chamber liner. it also sports his super grade vernier and spirit level globe. this was it's first baptism, with the first shots taken and recorded with a caldwell target camera. nothing at all spectacular or to write home about, but aside from my fair shooting that session, the gun and load have potential - i took second place with it at my club's fall buff rifle 200 yard match earlier this month, where the winner was shooting a .40-70ss and greasers with smokeless 4198 powder. my load was the BACO 523 over a .060 LDPE wad barely compressed 1/32" over 78.5 grains of swiss 1-1/2f, federal match primers. the PPB sits 1/10" into the case mouth. the top target holes were from the 403's, the lower holes from the 523's, never adjusted the sights, cold but clear day, with the usual swirling winds at our mountain top range. notice the fly that moves around the face during the 523 hits. :)

https://i.imgur.com/FEuqWrM.gif

https://i.imgur.com/pXFMYeE.jpg

[BrentD]

Believe me Brent, these guys are no slouches and it would be nice for me to be able to simply dismiss their advice as they aren't doing it right.

I also set out with the wrong size bullet as I had it, but so far the wrong way is out doing the 'right' way in accuracy.

I use PP in my M/L match rifle (Don Brown) with very good success indeed and it would be nice to get the same sort of accuracy with the cartridge rifle without the fuss of breech seating as we only have 30minutes for 13 shots.

I am sure they do know THEIR stuff. But they don't know all the OTHER stuff. I started my shooting of these rifles with benchrest schuetzen breech seaters. They were extremely good, and they dabbled in paper patching and uniformly did not like it. They all wrapped their bullets to groove diameter and when they shot them fixed, they, of course, had to load them deep into the case and when they breech seated, it was just a hassle and wasn't worth the effort. They also didn't even bother to try properly loaded paper-patched bullets because they had never seen it done and knew it couldn't work. Until it did.

What they did not do was wrap them to LAND diameter, not groove diameter, and then load them not more than 0.1" into the case. Such a cartridge, with the rifle bullet shape and powder charge has no gap, but is effectively a breech seated bullet. It works extremely well.

I too have a Don Brown rifle. Albeit, mine has a few deviations from his standard rifle. It uses exactly the same bullet and powder charge as my cartridge rifles and will shoot just accurately (~ 1 MOA). Why shouldn't it? So far as the bullet knows, there really is no difference in the two types of rifles. I have shot 100-5x @200 with it in competition as well as 99-?x @300 and in the low 90s at 1000 with it.

Properly loaded, your paper patched bullets can shoot with the breech seaters pretty handily. With some work and planning for fouling control, you can easily shoot 13/30 minutes. We regularly shoot 15 with unlimited sighters in breech loader matches.

[Distant Thunder]

Again, I don't really shoot groups once my initial load development is done. So this first picture is of a score card from an 800 yard target I shot last year at a Lodi, Wisconsin long range match shot at 800, 900 & 1000 yards. Brent was spotting for me and he did OK I guess. :kidding:

250509

This was shot with my .45-70 Hepburn with a Danielson paper patch chamber. The load was follows:

530 grain ppb
.060 LDPE wad
83.0 grains Swiss 1 1/2
Star Line brass
Remington 2 1/2 pistol primers
The .444 diameter bullet is wrapped with .002" 9# 100% cotton onionskin paper and is seated .080" in the case mouth. I wipe between shot with 10% mixture of water soluble oil and distilled water using bore pigs and one dry patch that I push thru in one pass of my wiping stick. This rifle has a globe front sight and a good quality vernier tang sight.

I have shot scores in the upper 90 several times with this rifle and load at all three distances including the 98-4X I shot two years ago at 1000 yards with no coaching, reading the conditions on my own as were required in that particular match, the American Creedmoor Cup.

I used this same setup to win the American Creedmoor Cup and the Wisconsin State Championship in back to back matches in May of this year when we had some really tough conditions for both matches.

No, I don't shoot for groups much anymore, but I think the results shooting paper patch bullets that I and others like Brent have had in actual matches speaks of a HIGH level of accuracy that such loads can achieve. Brent's load is very similar to mine and our loading procedures are nearly identical.

My avatar shows just some of the hardware that paper patch bullets have won for me in recent years. Yeah, I'd say they work!

This is a picture of my Hepburn and a load cartridge along with some other stuff, including a silver medal I won with this setup.

250510

As for competing against smokeless powder shooters, when you stretch the distance out you'll find that smokeless can not compete with real gun powder. It just isn't capable of the consistency shot to shot that black powder is.

BPTR is a great sport, it's just better when shot with black powder and paper patch bullets!

[Gellot Wilde]

absolutely.



messing around with PPBs under real BP is all about "doing it the olde tyme way", The Paper Patch Way. for the most part, expecting such loads to work perfectly out of the gate just ain't gonna happen. there is much to understand and apply, there are unique instances to traverse, and typically there will be some dues to pay. and ... don't trust all the stuff you read in PPB media, either. it's a kind of puzzle, this PPB thing for supreme accuracy, and what works for each of us will depend on the pieces we're playing with and trying to make fit. IME with PPBs over the last 6 years or so, out of the gate, 6moa at 200 yards is no big deal and with a bit of tweaking it'll drop to 4moa. going tighter will require time and effort, and maybe even some more pesos spent. all of this is almost always about personal goals, interests, and ... perseverance. it can be done.

i shot this target face at 200 yards a month or so ago, testing out two different slicks - a 403 grain Accurate Molds stubby from Tom, and that classic 523 grain BACO Jim443530E elliptical. the rifle is a much worked-on pedersoli that started out as a .40-65 and several gunsmiths blew it out to a .45-70 with a special PPB chamber. lee shaver really did the best work on it, with a new barrel and chamber liner. it also sports his super grade vernier and spirit level globe. this was it's first baptism, with the first shots taken and recorded with a caldwell target camera. nothing at all spectacular or to write home about, but aside from my fair shooting that session, the gun and load have potential - i took second place with it at my club's fall buff rifle 200 yard match earlier this month, where the winner was shooting a .40-70ss and greasers with smokeless 4198 powder. my load was the BACO 523 over a .060 LDPE wad barely compressed 1/32" over 78.5 grains of swiss 1-1/2f, federal match primers. the PPB sits 1/10" into the case mouth. the top target holes were from the 403's, the lower holes from the 523's, never adjusted the sights, cold but clear day, with the usual swirling winds at our mountain top range. notice the fly that moves around the face during the 523 hits. :)

https://i.imgur.com/FEuqWrM.gif

https://i.imgur.com/pXFMYeE.jpg

That's some very, very nice shooting indeed RFD8-)

Lee Shaver makes some great sights, have a couple of his front sights already and he's a nice guy to talk with too.

[Gellot Wilde]

Again, I don't really shoot groups once my initial load development is done. So this first picture is of a score card from an 800 yard target I shot last year at a Lodi, Wisconsin long range match shot at 800, 900 & 1000 yards. Brent was spotting for me and he did OK I guess. :kidding:

250509


This was shot with my .45-70 Hepburn with a Danielson paper patch chamber. The load was follows:

530 grain ppb
.060 LDPE wad
83.0 grains Swiss 1 1/2
Star Line brass
Remington 2 1/2 pistol primers
The .444 diameter bullet is wrapped with .002" 9# 100% cotton onionskin paper and is seated .080" in the case mouth. I wipe between shot with 10% mixture of water soluble oil and distilled water using bore pigs and one dry patch that I push thru in one pass of my wiping stick. This rifle has a globe front sight and a good quality vernier tang sight.

I have shot scores in the upper 90 several times with this rifle and load at all three distances including the 98-4X I shot two years ago at 1000 yards with no coaching, reading the conditions on my own as were required in that particular match, the American Creedmoor Cup.

I used this same setup to win the American Creedmoor Cup and the Wisconsin State Championship in back to back matches in May of this year when we had some really tough conditions for both matches.

No, I don't shoot for groups much anymore, but I think the results shooting paper patch bullets that I and others like Brent have had in actual matches speaks of a HIGH level of accuracy that such loads can achieve. Brent's load is very similar to mine and our loading procedures are nearly identical.

My avatar shows just some of the hardware that paper patch bullets have won for me in recent years. Yeah, I'd say they work!

This is a picture of my Hepburn and a load cartridge along with some other stuff, including a silver medal I won with this setup.

250510

As for competing against smokeless powder shooters, when you stretch the distance out you'll find that smokeless can not compete with real gun powder. It just isn't capable of the consistency shot to shot that black powder is.

BPTR is a great sport, it's just better when shot with black powder and paper patch bullets!


That is a stunning looking rifle you have there Jim, a real beauty.

I agree that PPB certainly adds to the whole enjoyment of black powder rifle shooting.

[Distant Thunder]

GW,

Thanks. It shoots as good as it looks too!

[Gellot Wilde]

I am sure they do know THEIR stuff. But they don't know all the OTHER stuff. I started my shooting of these rifles with benchrest schuetzen breech seaters. They were extremely good, and they dabbled in paper patching and uniformly did not like it. They all wrapped their bullets to groove diameter and when they shot them fixed, they, of course, had to load them deep into the case and when they breech seated, it was just a hassle and wasn't worth the effort. They also didn't even bother to try properly loaded paper-patched bullets because they had never seen it done and knew it couldn't work. Until it did.

What they did not do was wrap them to LAND diameter, not groove diameter, and then load them not more than 0.1" into the case. Such a cartridge, with the rifle bullet shape and powder charge has no gap, but is effectively a breech seated bullet. It works extremely well.

I too have a Don Brown rifle. Albeit, mine has a few deviations from his standard rifle. It uses exactly the same bullet and powder charge as my cartridge rifles and will shoot just accurately (~ 1 MOA). Why shouldn't it? So far as the bullet knows, there really is no difference in the two types of rifles. I have shot 100-5x @200 with it in competition as well as 99-?x @300 and in the low 90s at 1000 with it.

Properly loaded, your paper patched bullets can shoot with the breech seaters pretty handily. With some work and planning for fouling control, you can easily shoot 13/30 minutes. We regularly shoot 15 with unlimited sighters in breech loader matches.

I agree, I think it can be done but it needs assembled ammunition that's why I'm interested to know if it will work well without the fuss with breech seating.

Another thing was they told me they were duplexing their loads...but with BP, so Swiss No.2 folled by Swiss 3 or 4?? They seemed to be saying that Swiss 4 (which I swear by in the 45-90) wasn't fast enough??



Reading all these great posts is certainly encouraging me to continue the quest for sure.

[Gellot Wilde]

GW,

Thanks. It shoots as good as it looks too!

I can believe that Jim.

I note you are on pistol primers too which I have always favoured over everything else.

[rfd]

That's some very, very nice shooting indeed RFD8-) ...

actually, no, it's not. matches are won by shooting dynamic groups (knowing when to move the rear sight), not by shooting static groups that miss the 10 ring, let alone the X ring. ;)

[Gellot Wilde]

actually, no, it's not. matches are won by shooting dynamic groups (knowing when to move the rear sight), not by shooting static groups that miss the 10 ring, let alone the X ring. ;)


Fair comment.

I'll change that to 'that's some very, very, nicely grouped shots. 8-)

[Lead pot]

Gellot,

Shooting good groups on paper can be established a lot easier with good conditions while working up loads with a new rifle or powder types. Usually If I want to see what the rifle or load is capable of I pick the conditions that are calm with good light. The light for me is very important because age is creeping up on me making it hard to get a sight picture that is needed.
Below are two targets I shot with new rifles working up loads. The three in one frame, the .44-2.6/.44-100 REM. I'm most proud of was shot with my 25 pound rifle when I got it and worked up the first loads. Those are sub MOA 5 shots past 100 meters and this rifle has also shot sub moa at 200 mts. The other target was shot with my new .40-65 at 200 yards working up loads.
I patch my bullets that are snug to bore, about 1/2 thousands over bore and the bullet is seated in the case 1/8" with a slight taper crimp so they stay in when loading.
By average these groups in these two photo's don't come on demand every time I shoot but these rifles show me that they are capable of doing it and to me this is all I need to know and the rest is up to me to make the rifle shoot to it's capability.
Shooting a 2 MOA group at extended ranges is not out of the normal if a shooter gets out and learns how to properly load and shoot well in the conditions. 2 MOA BLK powder target will be in the 10 ring at 1000 yards and very capable of winning a match.
If a GG bullet would out perform a PP during a match or just busting bowling pins I would sure as heck be using them :)
Kurt

250669250670

[Gellot Wilde]

Those are great Kurt, very inspiring.

I was all ready to get to work on a new bullet after having an existing mold modified by a local guy who after telling him exactly what I wanted decided to make his own calculations based on his purely grease groove experiences I guess.

I now have a mold that I asked for .446" for my wife's Pedersoli dropping a slick that is .451 with the oddest nose profile I have ever seen in my life.

Basically he has ruined a first class mold. Why he decided not to do what I asked is still a total mystery to me.

I now need to buy a new mold, so I'm one happy chappie as you may well imagine.