Lots of discussion on caliber, load. But almost none on barrel length, twist rate

[Sixgun Symphony]

I been visiting various muzzle loading forums and there is alot of discussion about caliber and loads for big game. But almost no mention of barrel length and twist rate on performance.

If you are using a typical factory "Hawken" rifle with the usual 28" length barrel with 1/48" twist rate then one should be using the conicals like the T/C Maxi-Hunter as that barrel is really too short and too fast of a twist to get optimum performance with patched ball.

A factory "Hawken" rifle of the usual type produced by CVA, Investarms, and T/C really should have a .54 caliber, 33" length barrel with 1/72" twist rifling rather than the usual 28" length, 1/48" twist barrel. I would be much pleased if Investarms were to reintroduce their Model 120A rifle with the longer 33" barrel with 1/72" twist rifling. Make .54 caliber standard and don't bother with the smaller .45 and .50 calibers. Call this rifle "Big Elk Medicine".

[Edward]

I been visiting various muzzle loading forums and there is alot of discussion about caliber and loads for big game. But almost no mention of barrel length and twist rate on performance.

If you are using a typical factory "Hawken" rifle with the usual 28" length barrel with 1/48" twist rate then one should be using the conicals like the T/C Maxi-Hunter as that barrel is really too short and too fast of a twist to get optimum performance with patched ball.

A factory "Hawken" rifle of the usual type produced by CVA, Investarms, and T/C really should have a .54 caliber, 33" length barrel with 1/72" twist rifling rather than the usual 28" length, 1/48" twist barrel. I would be much pleased if Investarms were to reintroduce their Model 120A rifle with the longer 33" barrel with 1/72" twist rifling. Make .54 caliber standard and don't bother with the smaller .45 and .50 calibers. Call this rifle "Big Elk Medicine".

And you would be wrong (VERY) wrong ,get the right patch and right ball size and proper charge with proper powder you too could learn something most people know! A guy on youtube does it with a TC renegade al the time with video's to show you how , he"s forgotten more than most will ever know about sidelocks ! With the 1-48 twist he shoots amazing groups at amazing distance and explains it , he has a sticky on modern muzzle loader forums (sidelocks) , you might /will learn about the sidelock !/Ed

[Sixgun Symphony]

The term "sidelocks" seems like a term invented by inline users. Those are the guys who won't use the term rifle for any kind of muzzleloader because for them the word rifle means centerfire cartridge. Most don't realize that the term rifle really means rifled bore until it has been explained to them.

I have seen videos on YouTube by Idaho Lewis and he is using custom rifle barrels, often 32" and fast rifling twist for conicals. He did use a 1/70 twist custom barrel dropped into a T/C Renegade for accuracy tests with PRB.

T/C and other manufacturers advertised that 1/48" rifle twist was for using both conical and ball projectiles. Which really means one size fits no one. It is true that the original Hawken rifles were usually 1/48" twist rifling, I wish that I could have asked Sam and Jake Hawken why they did so.

[John Taylor]

Then a guy named Forsyth came along about the same time cartridge rifle were coming out. He wanted a high velocity round ball in 62 or 72 caliber with 1/4 twist in the length of the barrel ( about 1 in 108" ), very narrow lands and wide grooves. He was using powder charges that may have been close to 200 grains. I made a few of these barrels but one customer couldn't get it to group because after the first shot he developed quite a flinch.

[freakonaleash]

You do realize that most all of the antique KY rifles had a 1-48 twist rate. German Jeagers had 1 twist in the length of the barrel. These slow twists you're hyping are a modern thing.

[Sasquatch-1]

The term "sidelocks" seems like a term invented by inline users. Those are the guys who won't use the term rifle for any kind of muzzleloader because for them the word rifle means centerfire cartridge. Most don't realize that the term rifle really means rifled bore until it has been explained to them.



All the muzzleloader shooters I know use the term "Sidelock" to distinguish traditional firearms from the inlines not the other way around.

Also, I have a Traditions Hawkins from the mid 70's when they were still made in Conn. It is the the most accurate rifle I have including a custom mad rifle with a 1/66 42" Rice barrel. I only shoot patch ball.

[Sixgun Symphony]

All the muzzleloader shooters I know use the term "Sidelock" to distinguish traditional firearms from the inlines not the other way around.

Also, I have a Traditions Hawkins from the mid 70's when they were still made in Conn. It is the the most accurate rifle I have including a custom mad rifle with a 1/66 42" Rice barrel. I only shoot patch ball.

No one called them "sidelocks" until Tony Knight started marketing his modern inline rifles.


You are lucky to get such accuracy with a 1/48" twist rate rifling with PRB.

[Schreck5]

The only way I,very been able to get decent accuracy from a shorter 1-48 bbl using a PRB, was to use a lighter than normal powder charge. But then i,m not a big fan of the 1-48 twist. My opinion is worth every penny you paid for it. :veryconfu

[waksupi]

Then a guy named Forsyth came along about the same time cartridge rifle were coming out. He wanted a high velocity round ball in 62 or 72 caliber with 1/4 twist in the length of the barrel ( about 1 in 108" ), very narrow lands and wide grooves. He was using powder charges that may have been close to 200 grains. I made a few of these barrels but one customer couldn't get it to group because after th end, killled at lib first shot he developed quite a flinch.

I had a barrel cut at 1-120 years ago, using Forsyth's formula. .62 cal, killed at both ends.

[Good Cheer]

Ol' Ugly No.2
Many years ago I'd picked up a .50 Renegade that somebody had put TC scope mounts on it and then destroyed the bore with poor maintenance. The synthetic powder even took some of the factory finish off the mounts. Got the barrel recut for conicals*. The rifling has seven shallowly rounded grooves twice as wide as the lands. One turn in four foot twist. I'm putting it together with a Renegade stock that had the fore end shortened and the typical TC accuracy killing split through the thin wood by the lock bolt, now repaired with epoxy and steel screw pinning.
I'll be trying out the .54 Maxi-Hunter, REAL's and minies, both lubed and also paper patched.
Looking forwards to seeing how well I can group with it.

*That's what a lot of people call heavy blunt nosed boolits.

PS,
Got a .54 Great Plains Hunter barrel but this thing is ugly enough to have some character.

[Edward]

The term "sidelocks" seems like a term invented by inline users. Those are the guys who won't use the term rifle for any kind of muzzleloader because for them the word rifle means centerfire cartridge. Most don't realize that the term rifle really means rifled bore until it has been explained to them.

I have seen videos on YouTube by Idaho Lewis and he is using custom rifle barrels, often 32" and fast rifling twist for conicals. He did use a 1/70 twist custom barrel dropped into a T/C Renegade for accuracy tests with PRB.

T/C and other manufacturers advertised that 1/48" rifle twist was for using both conical and ball projectiles. Which really means one size fits no one. It is true that the original Hawken rifles were usually 1/48" twist rifling, I wish that I could have asked Sam and Jake Hawken why they did so.

And you must have missed the 1-48 in 50 and 54 @ stupid long range he did and he like me call em sidelocks/ just sayin/Ed

[indian joe]

And you would be wrong (VERY) wrong ,get the right patch and right ball size and proper charge with proper powder you too could learn something most people know! A guy on youtube does it with a TC renegade al the time with video's to show you how , he"s forgotten more than most will ever know about sidelocks ! With the 1-48 twist he shoots amazing groups at amazing distance and explains it , he has a sticky on modern muzzle loader forums (sidelocks) , you might /will learn about the sidelock !/Ed

Ed you and your mate are the ones wrong (VERY) wrong - the fact you (and others) have figured how to make a compromise twist perform well does not alter the fact that its a compromise and a 1/48 is a poor choice for a larger roundball (50 cal up) compared to a 1/66 or 1/72 twist - maybe the Hawkens got away with it by making overdeep rifling and running thick tight patches - regardless - you are wrong and sixgun is right on this score

I will say the same to the blokes that swear a 1/72 twist in a military 58 is a "right" choice for shooting minies - baloney! you might be able to make it work but many cant and regardless, its a poor choice, 1/48 twist works way better for most shooters shooting minies.

[indian joe]

The term "sidelocks" seems like a term invented by inline users. Those are the guys who won't use the term rifle for any kind of muzzleloader because for them the word rifle means centerfire cartridge. Most don't realize that the term rifle really means rifled bore until it has been explained to them.

I have seen videos on YouTube by Idaho Lewis and he is using custom rifle barrels, often 32" and fast rifling twist for conicals. He did use a 1/70 twist custom barrel dropped into a T/C Renegade for accuracy tests with PRB.

T/C and other manufacturers advertised that 1/48" rifle twist was for using both conical and ball projectiles. Which really means one size fits no one. It is true that the original Hawken rifles were usually 1/48" twist rifling, I wish that I could have asked Sam and Jake Hawken why they did so.

Sixgun you are right on with all of this and I bet the Hawken boys did what they did because they didnt know any better at the time OR maybe all those old guys were skinflints on powder - 48 twist works fine until you start to stoke the fire some. You dont have to read far in the old literature to find talk of the ball "skipping the rifling" from too heavy a charge. Those old guns we are talking about hand forged wrought iron barrels - low pressure loads was probably a smart plan !

[Good Cheer]

What, why you mean aint none of yall know that the correct patch lube and wasp paper from the north side of a bodark tree are the only way to get accuracy with that compromise twist rifling?
:not listening:

[freakonaleash]

One of my most accurate flintlock rifles had a 48" .58 cal swamped barrel with a 1 in 48 twist shooting a .570 RB with a .018 patch and 60 gr of 3fff. Accurate out to 100 yards. Killed alot of deer with that gun. Never shot a conical. The reason I built that gun was all the originals I measured had around a 1 in 48 twist and wanted to figure out why that was. Now I know why. I have had other .58's with 66 and 72" twists that shot well but you really have to shoot alot of powder in them to get them to shoot.
I know of line shooters at Friendship that have won many championships shooting .58's with a 48" twist.

[Sixgun Symphony]

And you must have missed the 1-48 in 50 and 54 @ stupid long range he did and he like me call em sidelocks/ just sayin/Ed

Again, no one used the term "sidelocks" before Tony Knight produced his modern inline rifles. As for the video, if I missed it it was a one off and there is a reason all of Idaho Lewis's other videos have much faster twist rates for conical bullets and slower twist rates for PRB.

[Edward]

Again, no one used the term "sidelocks" before Tony Knight produced his modern inline rifles. As for the video, if I missed it it was a one off and there is a reason all of Idaho Lewis's other videos have much faster twist rates for conical bullets and slower twist rates for PRB.

You did miss it ,2 different cal /1-48 @ yardage , they are posted on modern muzzle loaders on the SIDE LOCK thread/sticky

[brewer12345]

My TC barrels are all 1 in 48. I found an accurate PRB load in one of them, but it took some doing. They all shoot conicals (especially maxi balls) very well. I just have some issues with the recoil from a curved metal buttstock when you are slinging 370 (or more) grains of lead with 100 grains of powder. Since I like just shooting my caplocks for fun, I picked up a green mountain 1 in 60-something barrel and a couple of other rifles with slower twists. They all shoot PRB well without much trying.

[tmanbuckhunter]

Interesting discussion. I've often wondered if the issue with the moderate twist TC rifles is not so much the twist rate itself, but the depth of the grooves. The factory barrel on my TC Renegade does nothing well, only ok, but the grooves are so shallow it's almost hard to see if any rifling is there. Looking at the barrels on my other rifles, fast or slow, there is considerable depth to the grooves, which means plenty of meat on the lands for them to really grab the projectile.

[mooman76]

Minies generally do better in a shallow droved barrel.

[tmanbuckhunter]

Agreed. I should have clarified that I was talking more in terms of patched round ball.

[fixit]

Actually, concerning sidelocks, the term does predate the inline, partly to differentiate from under hammers, and partly from our breech-loading shotgun brothers, who often would refer to double barreled hammer guns as sidelocks. As far as the rigor by which the argument has been maintained, I find it kinda amusing!

[Sixgun Symphony]

2 videos still means hardly any compared to the many others with fast twist rifling for heavy conicals and slow twist for PRB. It still reinforces my point that it is likely for a reason.

As for the mention of underhammer percussion guns, they stood out like the mule ear percussion guns. There was not enough presence of either underhammer or mule ear percussion guns to bring "sidelocks" into common parlance. It really was Tony Knight's modern inline rifle that changed the industry and some of the vocabulary.

Shotguns? Not too many hammerless muzzle loading shotguns though I am sure that someone is going to post a photograph of an experimental prototype and insist that it was a common thing.

[megasupermagnum]

I do have issues with the TC barrels, but the twist rate is pretty low on the list of considerations. The big one for me is the rifling depth. It doesn't have to be super deep, but I don't think anyone would argue a depth about twice what TC uses is the minimum for consistently good performance.

I really have a hard time believing anyone can prove a 1:72 shoots any better than a 1:48 if the rifling depth is .10" deep or so. I've only done research on the matter, and have no desire to put my money where my mouth is, but every time someone tries a 1:48 built for round ball, they shoot as good, if not better than the slower twist. In reality, I think twist rate plays very little part. 1:48 is pretty slow in the grand scheme of things.

P.S. I've got both a New Englander and Renegade, both 54 caliber, to shoot a PRB under 4" groups consistently at 100 yards with open sights. Peep sights on the Renegade. They will shoot conical that well too, but not better. Contrary to the normal wisdom of thin patch, I found a .520" ball and thick canvas patching to be the magic combo.

[fixit]

Once again, we can probably thank the shotgun fraternity for the term sidelock, due to the introduction of the hammerless breech loader. Sidelock is a term that also refers to hammerless, separate lock mechanism doubles, and has been around for a very long time.

[Ithaca Gunner]

This is an entertaining thread if nothing else. I won't profess any new enlightenment on round balls, (I just don't use them) nor ''Maxies'' or ''REALS'' or sabot bullets, or whatever the latest ''wonder'' projectile is in the muzzle-loading world.

With a few exceptions I've shot military rifles and rifle-muskets, (muzzle-loading) since 1973. The slow twist in arms designed for military use stems from as much ease of loading fouled barrels as maintaining decent accuracy, also read into this progressive depth rifling which is also an aid in loading a somewhat fouled weapon, (someone figured this out about 1857). I'm just going to deal with the basic U.S. Burton bullet here, (Lyman 575213 OS) in three different rifled weapons with three different twist barrels of .58/.577.

288328

First an original P-53 Enfield, (Windsor) with a Hoyt lined barrel using a three groove 1:60 twist, 39'' barrel. 55gr. FFFg Goex and the basic 575213 OS lubed with bee's wax and Crisco with original non modified sights. From a solid rest this rifle-musket will pound five bullets into one ragged hole at 100yds.

288330

Second, a modern hand made with some original small parts and quality new parts, second model C.S.A. Fayetteville rifle with a three groove 1:72 twist, 33'' barrel made by Dan Witacre of VA. Same load, same results from a solid rest at 100yds.

288329

Third an Original P-58 Naval rifle, (Tower) unmodified with a five groove 1:48 twist, 33'' barrel (perfect bore). I've only shot this rifle once, with the above load shoots from a solid rest under 2''group. More load development should improve things to the same one ragged hole as the above weapons, this rifle is still new to me, load and rifle may take some fine tuning.

The fact is, these three different rifles with three different twist barrels of the same caliber will all shoot just fine with their own loads out to 300yds I'm sure, (the max range I normally shoot them). I don't concern myself much with twist anymore, 1:48-1:78 is all good for me out to 300yds with a Lyman 575213 OS Burton bullet.

I size the bullets to just under .001" under bore diameter and use a different charge and loading method that original military ammunition, and you would be right. Original ammunition came in much different cartridges than I use and of a much smaller diameter to facilitate loading under combat conditions without cleaning. Hey, the powder and caps were different too! What I've observed, (with about any rifle-caliber-twist) is that a faster twist will, ''generally'' shoot a shorter lighter bullet better than a slower twist will shoot a heavier longer bullet as accurately in a given caliber. The British Army did much more testing that we did with their military rifled weapons and found the faster twist barrel of the Naval rifle made for better long range accuracy, and these P-58 Naval rifles were prized by Confederate sharp-shooters on the battlefields during the Civil War, (due to the expense and blockade few Whitworth and Kerr rifles even made it to the Confederate Army, and those that did were issued to only the very best shots so, yes the P-58 was the work-horse of Southern sharp-shooters). This was due to the faster twists ability to keep the bullet stable at longer ranges as velocity dropped off. The rear sight on the P-58 Naval rifle goes to 1,100yds. The sight on a P-53 infantry rifle-musket stops at 900yds. These are rather optimistic ranges for sure, but they weren't concerned with hitting an individual soldier at those ranges, simply causing casualties in a mass formation at ranges over about 300yds. I would say the weight forward of the Burton/Minie/Pritchett bullets have something to do with long range stability also.

Is a 1:10 twist .30-06 best for a 150gr. bullet? No, it isn't, but it works VERY well with every weight bullet from 110gr. to 220gr. including the 150gr. bullet.

Like that Jamaican guy says, put on a straw hat, a pair of shades, pour a beverage of choice, relax, and, ''Don't worry-Be happy!''

288331

''Someday'' I might even train the above .54 rock-lock thing to shoot a Burton bullet. The mechanism is okay, I don't know or care what the twist is, but I see no joy in having to beat, slam, and put my weight on a rammer to seat a ball to shoot it. I ain't worried about twist on this one, it's the depth of the grooves that might avoid any true success! They be deep!..REAL DEEP! Ha-ha, but I'm gonna try it!

[Tar Heel]

As a muzzleloading purist, I do not consider the inlines to be true muzzleloading firearms. Their sole purpose was to get an extra week or two hunting in prior to the centerfire season by folks too lazy to learn to use a proper primitive rifle. The belief that modern alternative propellants (777, Atomic Dust, Blue Sticks) and handgun jacketed bullets sleeved in a sabot will outperform a patched round ball is academic. It was with amusement that I watched their acceptance by the hunting nimrods and specific game commissions as "primitive weapons."

My Isaac Haines 50 caliber flinter with a patched round ball drops deer EVERY TIME as if they were hit head on with a Freightliner truck. It fires every time, without fail, even in drizzling rain. I have learned how to prepare it and shoot it.

My 54 caliber Hawken cap-lock rifle does likewise. I used to believe the T/C Maxi Ball bullets would perform better but in actuality a RB drops em deader then heck just like the Maxi Ball did. The RB has better ballistic performance too.

I would not hesitate to hunt elk with the 54 and a patched RB load. It works and works well if you can place your shot accordingly.

Belief that all the modern junk will perform better, last longer, burn cleaner, weigh less, make magical shots at 350 yards, never need cleaning, and the litany of claims, is pure marketing hype.

Who fired that shot?

288333

[Sixgun Symphony]

Tar Heel,

I gotta add that it is not just laziness, there is more. Most hunters are not really into guns. They want a rifle that looks like what they are used to, it is why Remington produced muzzle loading rifles with their Model 700 bolt action. The manufacturers know the buyers are just happy to work a bolt, just like their trusted '06. It keeps them in their comfort zone. The modern inline ML rifle is a panacea.

Most hunters will post pictures of a trophy animal, but they don't give information on the rifle nor the load used. They ain't gun people really.

[Tar Heel]

Tar Heel,

I gotta add that it is not just laziness, there is more. Most hunters are not really into guns. They want a rifle that looks like what they are used to, it is why Remington produced muzzle loading rifles with their Model 700 bolt action. The manufacturers know the buyers are just happy to work a bolt, just like their trusted '06. It keeps them in their comfort zone. The modern inline ML rifle is a panacea.

Most hunters will post pictures of a trophy animal, but they don't give information on the rifle nor the load used. They ain't gun people really.

Good marketing points. I am sure that plays into it too. I am amazed at the number of hunters that simply put up a modern inline after the season having fired it but not cleaned it - only to discover the bore dissolved due to corrosion. Then they would cry the propellant mfg made false claims that the propellant would not cause corrosion. I can't count the number of times I heard that complaint in a large sporting goods store I used to work in. Oh well, keep your powder dry and watch out for your top-knot friend.

288351

PS: It's an Isacc Haines I built from scratch in 1988/89 from kit parts bought from TOW. She is a 50 caliber LH rock gun. Hunting load is a patched .490 atop 90gr FFG GOEX. Primed with FFFFG GOEX. Primer is changed every day (or more often if raining) if no shot taken.

[freakonaleash]

Flintlocks rule!
288353

[Ithaca Gunner]

And the game commission's, they're in it for the revenue too! Primitive season is after rifle season here, but they have a ''special'' season for in-lines prior. Sell dem dere stamps!

[Good Cheer]

About TC's with their halfway rifling, choose the strength of hunting load you want to shoot and then change the over powder protection, the patch/ball combination and/or the lube as you search for the combination that makes your rifle work with the chosen powder charge.
Same as any other power tool, choose your power.

[megasupermagnum]

@Tar Heel, I'm guessing there were a few states that had muzzleloaders seasons before the 70's, but from what I've seen, modern inline muzzleloaders came first, then special muzzleloader hunting seasons started to get popular. They might continue to sell today for the extra season, but that is not the sole reason they were brought into existence originally.

Until the day anyone dares to ban compound bows from the bow season, I'll never support any kind of regulation on an inline design muzzleloader. As far as I'm concerned, an inline muzzleloader is closer to a traditional firearm, than a compound bow is to a traditional bow.

[Tar Heel]

@Tar Heel, I'm guessing there were a few states that had muzzleloaders seasons before the 70's, but from what I've seen, modern inline muzzleloaders came first, then special muzzleloader hunting seasons started to get popular. They might continue to sell today for the extra season, but that is not the sole reason they were brought into existence originally.

Until the day anyone dares to ban compound bows from the bow season, I'll never support any kind of regulation on an inline design muzzleloader. As far as I'm concerned, an inline muzzleloader is closer to a traditional firearm, than a compound bow is to a traditional bow.

Good point on the different states. In GA, VA, NC at least, the primitive season preceded the normal gun season by a week or two and that started generally in the mid 70's due to requests of archers and muzzleloading shooters. This was of course before the advent of inline rifles. There was an upswell of sales of muzzleloading guns and the marketing folks picked up on this and then we saw the introduction of inline guns onto the scene to address the new demand for guns to hunt this "special" season before normal gun season.

The inline did not appear until 1985 when the Knight rifle was introduced to be a modern replacement of a "primitive" design which could be used in the special preseason since it met the Game Commission definition for a muzzleloading firearm. We then saw attempts by Game Commissions to further identify the "primitive" guns as unscoped and such but these attempts were met with immediate push-back from the inline gun makers and users of the new inline rifles. Attempts to restrict the use of modern tools in the primitive seasons were abandoned.

I remember when I taught Hunter Ed in Virginia when the onslaught of Compound Bows occurred so archers could hunt their new season too. Now of course we see crossbows brought into the mix as well. Those of us who use a longbow to meet our archery needs are cringing about this one too.

It seems to me that the original intent of the primitive season has been corrupted by the use of highly modified "primitive" tools to simply take advantage of the preseason. Those of us who use flintlocks and longbows are now in the mix with laser-sighted crossbows using radar-guided bolts and with scoped synthetic stocked inline rifles firing a sabot sleeved jacketed bullet at a zillion feet per second with wrist mounted instant speedloaders.

It simply perverts the original intent of a "primitive" season where primitive firearms and bows were used by aficionados of the firearms and bows of yesteryear.

Bottom line here: If the gas cap isn't under the rear license plate - it isn't an antique car. :-)