Elmer Keith and PP!!

[RMulhern]

Instead of many trying to 'reinvent the wheel'.....it may pay some to pay attention to this!!


This is from Elmer Keith's Keith's Rifles for Large Game written in 1946.

Page 284 "The paper-patch slugs of the old Sharps Creedmoor and buffalo rifles were the most accurate long range projectiles of that era. Even today, those Sharps rifles will make a modern metal-patch smokeless rifle hump itself for accuracy; but temper and diameter of the bullet, thickness and hardness of the patch paper and weight of powder charge must each be correct to balance the load against the chambering, throating and twist of the barrel. In attaining maximum velocity, it was found that far less bullet-stripping occurred on the rifling if two layers of patch paper were applied wet to the bullet and allowed to dry......Most of the paper-patched Sharps bullets were bore-diameter and could often be pushed through the bore with a wooden cleaning rod. They depended upon the heavy powder charge to upset them to fill the grooves of the barrel. "


Page 373-374 "Good Sharps rifles were very closely chambered. The fired cases expanded practically not at all at the mouth and would take the next patch bullet friction tight. Low pressures and correct chambering made case-resizing, as we know it today, unnecessary and the case could be reloaded many times....."

"Sharps bullets should be under groove diameter, but must also be a very tight fit in the mouth of the fired case. In a properly chambered Sharps having shallow grooves, the bullet is often small enough to be shoved through the rifle bore entirely by hand, the lands marking only the paper patch. Even with a deep-groove rifle, the bullet can be seated in the lands, to allow daylight in the botom of each groove. The best patch rifles were throated for the patch bullet and, when properly loaded, will equal almost any modern rifle in accuracy."

"Sharps rifles which were made for use with grooved lead bullets were chambered larger in the neck and the cast grooved lubricated bullets were larger than the paper patched variety. When a rifle of this kind is encountered, one should use grooved lubricated bullets; otherwise, he will have to neck the cases down to properly hold the paper patch bullet, or use a thicker grade of hard bond paper for the patches."

"I consider the old Model 74 Sharps side hammer set trigger rifle the longest ranged and most accurate of all our early long range rifles. It is still the best killer, within its effective range, of any American-made rifle and load, and it is a lot of fun to play with, even today."

[pdawg_shooter]

All true...for black powder. For smokeless powder a few different techniques are required!

[yondering]

Yup, there's a big difference between a modern bolt action shooting smokeless loads at 2500+ fps and a big bore single shot black powder rifle.

RMulhern, who is your "reinventing the wheel" comment directed to? If it's blackpowder shooters, this might be in the wrong forum. If it's those of us paper patching for modern rifles, then see my first comment.

Not to mention, the "modern bolt actions" that Elmer was using for comparison when the article was written did not generally achieve the same level of accuracy that we expect today from an off-the-shelf rifle. Not detracting from Elmer's article, just something to consider.

[Digital Dan]

Glued patches, teflon, tin foil...hats? Thinking this is where it was directed. The particulars of successful paper patch were worked out over a century ago, not much point in reinventing the wheel from where I sit.

[yondering]

Well, that's pretty rude and uncalled for. :shock:

No need to get all worked up; it just isn't clear from your first post who your comments are directed to? We still don't know.

[bcp477]

Alright, alright. Yes, BOTH BP and smokeless paper-patchers frequesnt this forum. Nobody is disputing that.....nor is anybody saying that this is not in order. Neither group has any right to believe that this is exclusively THEIR forum - we share it. No need to get mad about it - all that was said was that there is a difference in PP technique for smokeless, as opposed to BP. That is certainly a true statement.

I think I understand the intent of the OP.....and the frustration of those who see the subject of PP being "perverted" (if I may be so bold as to use that term)...... with all manner of weird variations. It is indeed true that the best technique for patching.....previously and now.....is to use PAPER......and TWO wraps. After some consideration of alternate methods and materials, in the past.....I have come to agree with that sentiment.

Nevertheless, though I too find some of the "unique" proposed PP ideas on this forum a bit silly and frustrating..... it does not make me angry that someone proposes them. Why would it make anyone angry ? That is the natural order of things. Perhaps it is felt, by those who do get angry, that all of the "alternate" ideas constitute wasting time and effort.....taking away from real progress. Or, perhaps they feel frustrated that, so it would seem, their efforts to steer people in the right direction are wasted..... when these odd ideas are proposed. Or maybe they are simply purists.....with a control problem....and they can't stand for anyone to deviate from accepted practice. I don't know....and I don't need to know. What I do know is that is is NOT necessary, nor constructive, to take this whole thing personally.....and let it all get under one's skin.

[405]

Seems like he had a pretty good grasp of PP design and the old BPCR techniques. His quotes almost sound like he was passing info along that he had gleaned from others before him and not necessarily trying to claim original source or discovery.

[Kenny Wasserburger]

Yup that it does,

and it seems like a good many Of Todays BPCR shooters are proving it in Spades.

The Lunger
KW

[Don McDowell]

Yup BPCR shooters are buying more paper patch molds today than ever I'm thinking.
Paper patching started with black powder, muzzle loaders to be exact, then hung on thru today.
We can learn alot from what those that came before had to say.
It also doesn't pay to get stuck in a rut about smokeless and bp. Sometimes a bore sized bullet will shoot better with smokeless than groove, and sometimes a groove or slightly patched bullet will shoot quite well with black powder propellant.

Sometimes thinking out of the box and expanding ones horizons, in both thought and EXPERIENCE can be a refreshing thing to do...

[303Guy]

Well, my take on the OP is - VERY INTERESTING!

I am one of those who likes to play around with alternative ideas just to see what happens and also to gain an understanding of how and why the 'proven' methods work.

Reading the OP was great for several reasons, one being that I understood what was being said. Another is in knowing how good these old techniques worked and another is that folks are still proving it!

A question I have (not a challange - I want to know), is why black powder works so well with paper patched boolits, especially at long range? And because I don't want to go the BP route at the moment, can the same be achieved with smokeless?

P.S. The 'modern rifles' that Elmer Keith speaks of are more modern than what I shoot, so ... :mrgreen:

[montana_charlie]

A question I have (not a challange - I want to know), is why black powder works so well with paper patched boolits, especially at long range?
There is a little more to it than your question asks. Allow me to reword your question a bit...

When the range is greater than 500 yards, and the muzzle velocity is 1300 fps (or less), why does BP work so well with heavy, paper patched bullets?

In my opinion, it's because BP is so 'adjustable'.

The pressure generated by a light BP charge is not hugely different from that created by a heavy charge. What differs most greatly is the volume of the charge.

The case volume is not a variable after bullet seating depth has been established, but the amount of compression used to pack the powder into the available space is the 'adjustable' part of building the load.

Varying the compression changes how consistently/efficiently the powder burns. So, it is possible to manipulate that burn to produce tiny (single digit) Standard Deviation and Extreme Spread figures.

The benefit of this kind of (velocity) consistency is most evident in groups fired at 'extreme' ranges...when the ammunition is the kind that produces the rainbow trajectories common with heavy bullets at low velocities.

In my opinion, that is the main difference between BP and SP at long range...all else being equal.
But the how/when/if of bullet obturation is also a factor in determining how a paper patched bullet functions when fired.

CM

[Bent Ramrod]

Keith had at one time or another something on the order of 40 Sharps rifles go through his hands. He learned how to load them from the retired market hunters he bought or traded them from, and people he corresponded with, like Chauncey Thomas, who was editor of Outdoor Life and also a Sharps enthusiast and western lore aficionado.

So the black powder loading knowledge was certainly passed along to Keith's readers, but he got in plenty of actual practice himself as well. According to his memoirs, he once won a turkey shoot (i.e., every turkey he shot for) with his paper patch .45-100-550 against a bunch of modern rifles. He said he got frequent groups around an inch at 100 yards, so he couldn't have been far off the right track in his loading practice.

[Digital Dan]

Dunno who's worked up over what.....not me and that's a fact.

Happy Turkey Day to all by the way!

I have to look at paper patching as a mature technology. In other words, the pitfalls have been examined and discarded in the main. I see some fine information floated here on the forum and see too some fellas that will eventually come to the same conclusions reached back in the 1800's regarding this art. Sort of like a car driver seat facing in the primary direction of travel....it works and is hard to improve on the concept.

Well, thinking the OP was frustrated with the exploration ideas put forth here from time to time. Personally, I get a chuckle out of a lot of that. Wrapping bullets with teflon, tin foil, copper foil...probably works to some degree, but will not achieve the highest potential.

Disinclined to argue points since the information is here, archived or as a sticky. There are do's and don'ts. There are better ways and worse ways. Free country, so take your pick. Some fight valiantly for their beliefs and that's OK too. I only ask that before passing that along, make sure you are correct.

Someone previous commented about the difference between smokeless and BP so far as potential. My view is it's a long list of issues and there are in fact some circumstances where each has a distinct advantage. Accuracy is where and you find it. EX: Harry Pope used both, sometimes at the same time. He built cartridge rifles that used false muzzles and the bullets were seated from the muzzle. One of his rifles set a record in competition that stood for over 50 years. If all else is equal....

- smooth sided PP bullets have ballistic advantage over grease groove bullets for long range work due to reduced drag.
- fast twist barrels may be problematic for PP loading if high velocity is desired.
- large volume cases may be problematic for smokeless powder.
- high chamber pressures may be problematic for PP bullets.
- BP is a low velocity explosive, emphasis on "low". It is not as energetic per weight or volume as smokeless powder, therefore, minor aberrations in load quality do not manifest so greatly in the form of velocity deviations as they do with smokeless powder.
- you can't roller skate in a buffalo herd.

I would very much like to know what it takes to make a picket rifle run that has grooves .018" deep. With a conical (picket) bullet that's cloth patched.....so help me....if you can.

So, lighten up and have a nice evening. Exploration is OK with me, so long as someone else is doing it, at least so far as paper patching bullets goes.

Dan with a picket puzzle

[Lead pot]

All true...for black powder. For smokeless powder a few different techniques are required!

Can you tell me what the different techniques are???

[docone31]

It might be sizeing.
For my .303 British, and .30s, I size .001 over factory jacketed size.
I use a cigarette roller, this makes an hard dried patch. This I then size to the desired size.
Yes, it does grow .001 after sizeing. That extra might be helpful.
I leave a tail, which I snip short and crush into the base on sizeing.
I am not sure about BP, I have never patched for it.
I know, I found my sweet spot, I have never looked back. I have not found any fired boolitts, however, I have found jacketeds.
Black powder seems to bump up the projectile where my smokeless does not. Again, I have never found any fired boolitts. They do go deeper than jacketeds in the berm.

[montana_charlie]

- smooth sided PP bullets have ballistic advantage over grease groove bullets for long range work due to reduced drag.
I made a similar statement (here) once. Drew some surprisingly heated argument...
CM

[docone31]

Yeah, I remember.
I did not argure with it. If I had a smooth sided mold, I would wrap that.
I use Lee Molds, and Lee does not make one.
I can see, especially on long range shots, where the slightest divergence could throw the shot a long way off.
You long range BP shooters. My hat is off, and I listen!
I keep putting those rifles on my screen saver.
Eye Candy.

[303Guy]

Allow me to reword your question a bit...
CMYour answer explains it very well! Thanks. (Considering the rainbow trajectory, the long range accuracy is amazing!)

My objective is to find a powder that fills the case and produces the right pressure for a patched boolit that fits the neck and throat and has the right velocity for the twist of my rifle and with an alloy suitable for game hunting. A tall order with unadjustable powders. My hornet fits the bill just fine with heavy boolits and compressed Lil'Gun charges but those leetle boolits are so tiny to handle! I'm a 'manual labourer' so my fingers are not the most delicate and sensitive in the world!:roll:


You long range BP shooters. My hat is off, and I listen!Me too!

In fact .......

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/webowdown2u.gif BP SHOOTERS

[yondering]

If I had a smooth sided mold, I would wrap that.
I use Lee Molds, and Lee does not make one.

I've been thinking of the same thing. I have a single cavity Lee .30-160gr mold, that I'm considering reaming out to a smooth sided cavity either in .30 or .35 caliber. Probably just grind my own D-reamer and go for it. Lee molds are cheap anyway.

[Digital Dan]

I made a similar statement (here) once. Drew some surprisingly heated argument...
CM

Well, anybody can argue a point, but there is a difference between right and wrong, no? Grease grooves cause drag, doesn't get any simpler than that. Whether or not it's an issue depends a lot on the application in my opinion. For long range work is most assuredly does become a factor.

One small niche of our sport is slug guns of the spirit put forth by the likes of Billinghurst, Warner et al. They used smooth sided projectiles sometimes far more complex than appearances would indicate and provided stunning accuracy at 40 rods and longer. Below is an example:

.510" base(soft alloy), .500" nose(hard) and 800 grains, swagged. ~19" string for 20 shots at 200 yards last June in Cody, Wy. in a quartering 5-15 mph wind.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/muddler/DSCN3458.jpg

However, some folks will argue with a stop sign. Take my ex wife for example...

[RMulhern]

MIGHTY FINE....DigitalDan:drinks::mrgreen:



Well, anybody can argue a point, but there is a difference between right and wrong, no? Grease grooves cause drag, doesn't get any simpler than that. Whether or not it's an issue depends a lot on the application in my opinion. For long range work is most assuredly does become a factor.

One small niche of our sport is slug guns of the spirit put forth by the likes of Billinghurst, Warner et al. They used smooth sided projectiles sometimes far more complex than appearances would indicate and provided stunning accuracy at 40 rods and longer. Below is an example:

.510" base(soft alloy), .500" nose(hard) and 800 grains, swagged. ~19" string for 20 shots at 200 yards last June in Cody, Wy. in a quartering 5-15 mph wind.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/muddler/DSCN3458.jpg

However, some folks will argue with a stop sign. Take my ex wife for example...

[Lead pot]

DD

How are those two different alloys held together?
I have tried swaging hard/soft alloys with the intend of the softer alloy upsetting tighter but I never have been able to hold the two separate alloys from coming loose.

[bcp477]

Well, no desire to argue....or even disagree. Obviously a smooth-sided bullet will be aerodynamically superior, with all that entails. That has never been at question, by anyone here, to my knowledge. It would be foolish to argue with such an obviously true statement - and that is not what happened, if memory serves.

I will say that, as I remember it, when that point was originally made long ago..... it was put in such a way that it deserved to be taken as a put-down toward those who patch grooved bullets...... as in "why bother with grooved bullets for paper-patching - only an idiot would pursue such a dead-end" ..... that sort of thing. Of course, I am NOT quoting.....I am only giving a synopsis of the character of the comment, as I remember it. I was one who took umbrage at the comment, for very good reason. It was both insulting, in a way, and completely dismissive of the results obtained by those of us who do patch grooved bullets, with good effect. It also, as I believe I pointed out at the time, ignored the fact that, for at least some of us, patching grooved bullets (as opposed to smooth ones) was a matter of necessity (in my case, for example, because I don't and can't cast my own.... so I am "at the mercy" of whatever commercial offerings are available, in the diameter and weights that i can use). The comment also completely ignored the fact that, the certain advantages offered by smooth-sided bullets only really come into practical play at long range.....and some of us never shoot at such distances. I, for example, never shoot at 1000 yards, let alone 500 (really, never beyond 200, at this point in time).....so grooved bullets do just fine for me. Smooth-sided ones would be BETTER, no doubt.....but they aren't available to me at this point. It ain't broke, as they say.....so I've (like many of us) got no need to "fix" it.

In any case, it is "water under the bridge" now. I will add my expression of awe and respect at the skills and results obtained by long-range BPCR shooters.... and I definitely enjoy hearing about your efforts and successes, even though this is not really directly analogous to my "mode" of shooting (smokeless PP at much shorter distances and higher velocities). All that I would ask, and have ever asked, is that everyone be respectful of each other's efforts. In other words, I ask that BPCR shooters not dismiss the rest of us as incompetent clowns, just because we pursue matters a bit differently. In turn, we smokeless PP shooters should absolutely respect the "classic style", if I may call it that. In the end, we are ALL just pursuing the SAME goals....... the smallest groups possible, or a clean kill on a game animal, or simply the enjoyment of the sport. How we get there is not really the important issue.

[Digital Dan]

DD

How are those two different alloys held together?
I have tried swaging hard/soft alloys with the intend of the softer alloy upsetting tighter but I never have been able to hold the two separate alloys from coming loose.


It takes a lot of pressure to accomplish that. Ever heard of a pound die? That's 'pound' as in really big mallet, not cake. Such dies generate higher pressures than most hobby presses are capable of. In fact I don't think it can be done with a conventional press, but I'm not certain about that. There be other names too: "hammer die", "!#@%#%$^%@ die". It helps if the difference in alloy hardness is not too great, or so I've heard. What you see in the photo is pure lead on the base and around 1:30 or softer on the nose...as I recall. Bore rider design.

Artillery w/o a carriage used to shoot same:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/muddler/DSCN3175.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/muddler/DSCN3202.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/muddler/DSCN3209.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/muddler/DSCN3185.jpg

[Lead pot]

DD.

I started with the hammer swage and some of the swage presses made in the past but now I have two Corbin presses, one from Dave and one from Richard.

Hey I know that guy in the blue coat [smilie=s:
I just love those under hammers!!!
Can you go into more specifics on barrel and lock? I'm in the process building one again and it will be an under hammer.

[RMulhern]

DigitalDan

"Shades of Ned Roberts!" His book shows some of this stuff and groups fired 'during the day'!! Wouldn't mind if I had one of those rifles at all!!

Lead Pot

Robert's book shows two piece bullets and the way they were held together! Have you got his book?? I do and I'd scan same but I lost my scanner a while back due to a lightening strike so can't show you the photo!!

[Lead pot]

No I don't Rick.

I have swagged a short HP bullet and put a short length of brass weld rod in the cavity and turned the second bullet to cover the brass and swagged a core and reformed the point this worked but I cant keep two halves together with out a central support post.

[HPT]

There was a 3-part article in Muzzleblasts in Sept, Oct & Nov 2001 about Slug Guns by Lester Cox (A champion's note for success). Lester gave instructions on how to make bullet moulds for both bullet parts, swages for both bullet parts, how to choke bore the barrel, how to make a false muzzle, a guide starter & a mechanical bullet starter.

I used his info plus Ned Roberts info to choke bore my muzzleloader barrel and built a mechanical start based on Lester's sketches. So far have not tried conventional P-patching in this gun only my own GLUE ON GROOVE DIA P-patch that has so far shot as well as my GG Sharps.

In spring I will try to P-patch the "right way" to see if there will be any improvement - I doubt I will see any difference less than 200 yds

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z41/VonN_photos/IMG_0751.jpg

[madcaster]

Digital Dan,
That gun needs tracks!
You guys who have seen Ned Roberts book know what I am saying,but the rest of ya'll folks need to look at some of the groups shot with MUZZLELOADERS!:shock:

[Digital Dan]

DD.

I started with the hammer swage and some of the swage presses made in the past but now I have two Corbin presses, one from Dave and one from Richard.

Hey I know that guy in the blue coat [smilie=s:
I just love those under hammers!!!
Can you go into more specifics on barrel and lock? I'm in the process building one again and it will be an under hammer.

If ya know the blue coat you probably know R. Hicks. If not let me know, he's the alchemist I learn a lot from. I can put you in touch and he'll answer all you want and maybe more. He makes his own scopes too............sigh................

Dan