Paper patch bullets

[abunaitoo]

Can someone tell me what the advantages/disadvantages are to paper patch bullets???

[JDL]

High speeds with soft lead makes them particularly good for hunting deer. Cool look factor! Only disadvantage I know of is learning to patch them right. All in all, I tend to agree with Paul Matthews when he suggests the paper patched bullet was/is the finest hunting projectile to come down the pike. -JDL

[jhalcott]

You get to play with your bullets a lot longer, you get finger therapy while playing and you can use softer alloys in your bullets. You dont need gas checks.
It CAN be a very rewarding experience,or a frustrating night mare. You will have to buy rag paper as most type writer papers don't work.I haven't done it for a few years and things change . There may/must be things around now that I never tried when paper patching.

[kodiak1]

If done right no leading and one h**l of a shiney barrel.
Ken

[KCSO]

I just finished a week of working loads for an original Sharps in 45-80 PP and like it so much I am throating my Sharps for 45-75 PP. The only down side I see is that I have yet to get more than 6 shots without wiping. Accuracy is as good or etter than naked lead and everybody at the range goes,"wow, thats neat". Paper patching is kind of slow for stiff old hands and compared to naked lead bullets you will probably wear out your barrell in 20 thousand rounds or so.

[Dale53]

KCSO;
If you reserve paper patched bullets for hunting and sighting in, they will have NO effect on your barrel life.

FWIW
Dale53

[Buckshot]

http://www.fototime.com/0FDEA25C2215222/standard.jpg

Sixty rounds of 577-450 with patched Lee 458-405F's. In this case they're patched up to .472" in order to fit the throat and leade of a MkIV Martini-Henry.

http://www.fototime.com/EC358FE0A59E106/standard.jpg

The above are slugs I've used in a Whitworth and Rigby long range match rifles (muzzle loaders). Those skewed 6 sided ones only work in the Whitworth :-)

http://www.fototime.com/F5B2831828DBFE3/standard.jpg

Some more long range muzzle loader slugs. No difference in these and cartridge rifle types except for the diameter over the patch.

I work 12 hour unsupervised shifts and I don't do anything except tell drivers I can't help them and to call corporate, and hand out toilet paper and bags of coffee. I have no responsibilities except to show up :-) I suppose if the building caught fire I'd be responsible for calling the FD. At least I think so. I'll have to check that out.

Anyway, I can do lots of paper patching and get paid while doing it. Besides being able to drive dead soft lead slugs to full jacketed velocities in many cartridges it has other uses too. As I mentioned patching up the Lee 405grs slugs to .472" for the Martini. Not having a correct mould, patching up 'as cast' 45 cal rifle slugs is a way to get boolits.

Ross Seyfried's first published article was on paper patching and he'd patched up some Hornady 500 gr jacketed slugs to use in a 470 Nitro double rifle. I've patched up 45 cal cast pistol boolits to shoot from a 45-70 over mild charges of fast powder and also some 30 cal slugs to try and get a $39 M91/30 Mosin-Nagant to shoot, and it did too. But I'm danged if I'm going to patch up 30 cal slugs to plink with! BTW, the slugs were Lyman 311284's patched to .316" and they did exceedingly well.

Paper patching is a very flexible means to get slugs for oddballs or to get heavier or lighter then normal slugs, like patching those 200 pistol slugs for the 45-70.

Do a search here on the board for "Paper Patch" and you'll get several hits.

.................Buckshot

[Nazgul]

I bought an RCBS mold for a 500 gr PP bullet to use in a 45-70 Browning BPCR. Never did get it to work with black powder. Have cast and shot hundreds of them from my 458 WM. Like jhalcot says ,you get to play with your bullets more before shooting them. I like the raised eyebrows from my shooting buddies when they see them.

I would question the claim that they wear the barrel more than lead or copper bullets. Paper is fiberous but still much softer than copper. The barrel is nice and clean after shooting them.

[Four Fingers of Death]

If you run them through the lubesizer they should be good to go, I'm thinking. Mick.

[9.3X62AL]

Lotta dittoes to the above info from this quarter.

Paper patching has been a mixed experience for me. An attempt to get an undersized Lee 500 grainer to work in the Ruger #1 x 45-70, the abrupt throat leade angle (probably) stripped the jacket and allowed the soft lead slug to plate, coat, and bush down the bore to about 37 caliber. After reading Paul Matthews' "The Paper Jacket" from Wolfe Publishing, there are "fixes" for those conditions that might get the system humming along. Since plain boolits of the proper size shoot very well from the rifle, there's not much vigor in pursuing paper patching further with that rifle. If I were to really want to shoot the paper patched slugs in the Ruger, a throating job would be a good plan--but since it does well with regular old unpatched boolits, I'm leaving well enough alone.

The CZ-550 in 9.3 x 62 did VERY well with pure lead Lyman #358430 RN slugs patched up to about .368", then dipped in LLA. I am tempted to get a PB mold of about .359" casting a 270 grain pure lead boolit ginned up for PP work in this caliber, but again--the MM 270 grain conventional boolit does so well, I've enjoyed its work enough to not be motivated to roll up PP's.

There is a time investment involved in paper patching that argues against extensive use of the practice for everyday shooting, in my view. For limited use venues--big game load development comes to mind here--it makes sense to me. But at some point you have to ask yourself if the time invested is worth the gain received. The practice is a damn sight cheaper than gas checks if you're trying to extend velocity, but the back edge of that sword is the time required to prepare the slugs.

I would respectfully suggest the Matthews book for a very in-depth but quite readable plain language guidebook to paper patching.

[montana_charlie]

I hope to be forgiven for going a bit off topic, here.

Buckshot, a question about those 'hex' bullets...
I understand they are shaped that way to comform to the 'rifling method' in the Whitworth and Rigby barrels.
But (as in starting a bolt into a tapped hole), do you need to 'screw' the cartridge into the chamber as you load so the hex bullet gets lined up and 'threaded' into the hex bore?

This is just idle curiosity on my part, but others may have more than a passing interest in your answer.
CM

[KCSO]

Barrel Life/20,000 rounds
I should care if my grandkids will need to rebarrel my Sharps.

Having just finished patching and firing a goodly number of P/P in two different guns and having finished "THE SCHUTZEN RIFLE" by Ned Roberts I will offer a couple of observations.

I think the major problem we have today with P/P is the rifling in the barrels and our choices of powder. Although Ned mentions wiping ever shot for target shooting he also sys that he expected his hunting load to go 10 shots without wiping. In an original Sharps I was able to get 5 shots without wiping pretty easy and with the moden gun I am still working with lubes trying to get off of three. Ned also made a point of saying that each rifle had a lube preference and what worked in one might not work in another. Having shot a goodly number of black powders over the years i think that Swiss is the best we are likey to get anymore. The quality of the powder is directly related to the quality of the charcoal and the millling time and milling is the dangerous part and so is skimped on now days.

Even with these limitation I think that with a proper leade and good lube 5 to 6 shots without wiping are attainable. I am planning to do a lot of P/P work this summer with both the 45-70 and the 38-55 and I am making up a throating reamer so I can by degrees try and match the old Sharps leade. My expiriments so far have got me convinced that I will shoot my next Buffalo with a paper patched bullet.

Now for the bad news..

Quoting Ned Roberts...
"By the 1890's we had determined that the naked lead slug surpassed the paper patch slug when breech seated." This was from the best target guns of the day and were in rifles capable of minute of angle shooting. Paper patch does have some advantage for hunting, but the naked slug was superior in accuracy and that is why the P/P went out of fashion.

[Buckshot]

I hope to be forgiven for going a bit off topic, here.

Buckshot, a question about those 'hex' bullets...
I understand they are shaped that way to comform to the 'rifling method' in the Whitworth and Rigby barrels.
But (as in starting a bolt into a tapped hole), do you need to 'screw' the cartridge into the chamber as you load so the hex bullet gets lined up and 'threaded' into the hex bore?

This is just idle curiosity on my part, but others may have more than a passing interest in your answer.
CM

...........The Whitworth is a muzzle loader, so no cartridge involved. Yup, you do screw them in at the muzzle, so to speak :-). The Rigby's didn't have Whitworth's skewed bore. The closest cartridge gun having a Whitworth type bore form is the Henry. Basicly the Whitworth but with small lands at the intersections of the flats.

BTW, more conicals were fired out of Whitworths, even in their heyday of the 1860's, as they provided accuracy just as fine and conicals were much cheaper. The patched hexagonal one on the left was produced in a multi-piece swage die. It's design and operation unknown to me. They were about a buck apiece.

..................Buckshot

[RMulhern]

:killingpc:groner:[smilie=b:[smilie=p:[smilie=w:[smilie=w::violin:

[yondering]

Can someone tell me what the advantages/disadvantages are to paper patch bullets???

Are you thinking of paper patching for blackpowder or smokeless? There are some big differences between the two.

For smokeless, the only disadvantage, if you can call it that, is having to learn a new skill, of paper wrapping bullets.
Lots of advantages, especially compared to grease groove bullets. A paper patch bullet will do anything a grease groove bullet can do, and then some. Velocities can be easily pushed over 3000 fps, and often you can get higher velocity with a paper patched bullet than you can with jacketed bullets.

I won't comment on blackpowder use, other than to say I've read enough to know that the methods and requirements are very different.

[montana_charlie]

This thread was active in June of 2006.
Additions may be of interest to some, but I doubt that the author is still reading.
CM

[yondering]

D'oh! My apologies. I saw the last post before mine was recent, and didn't look at the others.:killingpc

[303Guy]

This thread was active in June of 2006.
Additions may be of interest to some, but I doubt that the author is still reading.It's of interst to me. Well, it's fun!

A comment by KCSO.

Barrel Life/20,000 rounds ....Ummmm .... that's before one needs to change the boolit profile a bit for the next 20,000 rounds!:mrgreen:

[Patricklaw]

I'd really like to hear a little more, from those with actual experience, on the issue of barrel life. It seems that most white paper has a lot of clay in it. Is the bore nice and shiny because the paper is taking off metal? I cast about 1k bullets this weekend and I'm curious to know before I invest a lot of time into this method.

[Don McDowell]

I'd really like to hear a little more, from those with actual experience, on the issue of barrel life. It seems that most white paper has a lot of clay in it. Is the bore nice and shiny because the paper is taking off metal? I cast about 1k bullets this weekend and I'm curious to know before I invest a lot of time into this method.

The chances of you wearing out a rifle barrel in your lifetime with paper patched bullets is pretty slim. Wrap em load em and go have fun.

[montana_charlie]

It seems that most white paper has a lot of clay in it.
There is a 'sticky' at the top of this forum section titled, "Paper 101".
Spend some time reading that and you may decide to change that assertion of yours which I quoted.

CM

[Patricklaw]

There is a 'sticky' at the top of this forum section titled, "Paper 101".
Spend some time reading that and you may decide to change that assertion of yours which I quoted.

CM


The chances of you wearing out a rifle barrel in your lifetime with paper patched bullets is pretty slim. Wrap em load em and go have fun.

Thanks to both Don and MTCharlie for their help on this. Catboat writes an excellent article in "Paper 101". Monday night I finished three pages on an Iphone before my eyes got droopy. He does say there is clay in paper, BTW. As I read more, I've learned that I need lead that is slightly over BORE size. Unfortunately, my molds don't match my barrels since I tried to buy molds .001-.002 over GROOVE size and Lee does not make a .301 push through to swage them down. The learning continues.

[Don McDowell]

Well I don't know about the lead being over bore diameter part, under or right at is what I prefer, but I think going over bore diameter with the bullet it's self is not a good route to take. When you do that you end up having to seat deep so the bullet will chamber without messing the leading edge of the patch, that removes powder capacity and as patched bullets have a hard time getting greaser velocity , that's just to much backing up to suit me.

[Westerner]

Howdy!
for my 1874 Quigley Sharps, a Pedersolli, I love the PP bullet. See attached.78054
Triple 7 BP sub. Mag primers and primer flash hole trued to .06" gives 3" groups, on a good day, at 200 yards. I love PP bullets.

[Lead pot]

I'd really like to hear a little more, from those with actual experience, on the issue of barrel life. It seems that most white paper has a lot of clay in it. Is the bore nice and shiny because the paper is taking off metal? I cast about 1k bullets this weekend and I'm curious to know before I invest a lot of time into this method.

If your still following this thread.
I hope a lot of the posters over the years this has been running have picked up a few things :smile: When we had the last primer shortage several years ago I kept the primer bricks marked for the rifle I used them in. In one of my Shiloh's I use the most I was on brick #16 and the biggest percentage; guessing 85-90% were shot with PP using 25-100% cotton, some Velum that has a lot of sizing in it and the bore still has sharp land edges and is as good as it ever was. Yes the reamer marks that were smoothen out when the button was pulled through are gone and it looks like it has been lapped but the bore is still .400 and the grooves are still.0039" deep and this has shot many more bricks of unmarked primer boxes since the last primer shortage.
At my age I will never get this bore shot out in my life time.

Just shoot the PP and enjoy the extra work wrapping them :smile:

LP.

[Westerner]

Howdy LP,
I didn't keep my promise to the Sharps to never use lead to steel but it was just for a short time. She will never see another bare projectile again in my life time. I use a lapped oak plank 4" x 9" x 1" with a 3/16" slot parallel to the bottom so I can line up the paper to the long edge leaving the tail just over the bottom edge with the paper that is only just wet by my own saliva but not awash. The slot aligns the bullet to the nose stop clamped to the side and rolled up the board square so the paper edges are aligned. By rolling it several more times the paper stretches as the moisture is squeezed out to make the two edges meet. Then died thoroughly for 4 days and it is as tight as any jacketed bullet. They are lubed and run through the sizing die twice with a 90 degree rotation for lubing the paper. The result is as low as 1 MOA on a dead calm day and you forget all the work. What a joy!

[Four Fingers of Death]

How about a few photos of your patching set up Westerner?

[Westerner]

Will do Pard. It might take a few as I am in the middle of wiring and lighting my new 950 square foot redwood deck that I built 3 feet above grade a couple years back. Got more difficult when I went into my 70s.

[Four Fingers of Death]

Hang in there. Worth waiting for.

[Westerner]

I have not forgotten my commitment to put more on the subject here but the dear sweet wife was presented with some heart problems that culminated with heart surgery a month ago. All is well but taxing on this old salt. Her too of course.
Paper jackets provide a great deal of satisfaction with the challenge they present in minute details to make them uniform and functional. I will be experimenting with a 450 grain taper sided swaged slug this year for longer range. There is a 1,000 yard facility about 3 hours from the house and they require you show targets at 200, 300 and 600 yards before they will let you onto the 1,000 yard line. Great fun!!!
Wish I could afford the SASS life membership as I love the organization but my money has been going to the NRA and just became a Benefactor. The NRA is being vilified at every breath of the media parroting our current administration. The only semi-automatics I have is an old slab side Colt 1911 and my wife's 1100 Remington 20 ga. All the rest are old design for CAS. Hope I can get back here in the next few months with some pictures of my set-up. Be well my friend. Deadeye, a.k.a. (Larry) Lawrence Ashley Townsend.
p.s. with a name like that you wouldn't think I was Scotch/Irish but proud to be that.

[bigted]

Townsend ... hummm ... that name rings a bell from somewhere in the dreaded past!

[montana_charlie]

I was looking at the picture of your loaded cartridges, Westerner. What is the final bullet diameter when seated in the case?

CM

[Four Fingers of Death]

No problem, in life, family first. I hope things pan out for you. Four Fingers.

[MaxJon]

Im loving the sound of 3000fps! Especially if its pure lead, or 10bhn, i can swage some! Yay!!!!

[rfd]

old thread, but it's about ppb's so it's all good. ;)

only way for me to go, i've totally abandoned greasers. ppb's are too easy to build, no real working of the brass means super long life and no annealing, no barrel leading, makes a virtual .45-90 out of a .45-70 due to the added 10 to 15 grains of black powder with just a single card wad, and the bore riding bullet that's just under bore size means no long OAL issues. ppb's should work fine in most chambers, as well.

besides, ya get to show off some really Big manly man cartridges. :)

http://i.imgur.com/WN0T3xt.jpg

[Four Fingers of Death]

Mighty fine looking ammo rfd, makes me want to dust off my Trapdoor and my BPCR!

[Lead pot]

How about a few photos of your patching set up Westerner?

Maybe the Westener nailed his thumb to the redwood deck he is working on :D so I will post my method patching :D
And I'm still trying to ware out my barrels :D
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2914/33922294460_a460c3d2b3_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/TFACiS)MVI_2950 (https://flic.kr/p/TFACiS) by Kurt (https://www.flickr.com/photos/leadpot/), on Flickr

[rfd]

what i do too, kurt. uber easy. no jenny craig needed, either.

[Lead pot]

rfd it's like sprinkling a little bull durham on a piece of paper and rolling it between your fingers :D
Cast in the morning and watch a good western on the western channel at night and roll a couple hundred by the time the movie is over. :D

[rfd]

kurt, added bonus is watching the boob tube with the wife while rolling the lead - good "together time" points. :)

[Distant Thunder]

Kurt,

That looks pretty much the same way I patch mine. I haven't wetted a patch in years and don't miss the water any. I can sit down anywhere with a bunch of patches and bullets and just wrap them between my fingers, roll the end over the base and they are ready to load. I think they shoot better patched dry.

Jim

[Lead pot]

Jim, I used to wet patch for a undersized bullet to get it slightly over bore diameter, .001 to .0015" and they shot ok but at times I found paper on the plywood backer and found patch remnants down range to far that made me quit all together wet patching.
Sometimes I read that some use milk, egg whites even elmers glue mixed in water to keep the patches from unrolling and they say they get one hole groups all day long doing this makes me wonder :D if that target is on the 25 yard pistol line.

[Distant Thunder]

Kurt,

I just don't see the Elmer's glue guys on the 1000 yard line, they are welcome anytime they choose to join us!

That being said I have read several different methods of patching bullets with the idea of having the patch stay with bullet much like a jacket would and I might maybe see some value in that idea for short range hunting loads with smokeless powder mostly because they could be made to be more weather proof than my 100% cotton patch applied dry.

I had to make a special effort to keep my patches dry at 300 yards Saturday morning in the light but steady rain we had on first relay. Pain in the butt! I don't know that I would like putting wet brass in my chamber much either.

No, I'll stay with my dry patched bullets, they shoot so well I see no reason to change anything.

[Lead pot]

I wrap my hunting bullets with 100% cotton vellum paper. You can get it wet in your pocket and the patch stays good. It will not shred like cotton onion skin but it strips off the bullet well enough.

[StanleyMcGregor]

I can see that PP bullets have some advantages. Paper patching offers a way to increase the effective diameter of a bullet to bore size while still providing good performance. It enables you to get good results with cast bullets Paper patching prevents leading and resulting inaccuracy at high velocity. Paper - though combustible - will not melt.

[BrentD]

Stanley, you are only beginning to touch upon the benefits of The Paper Patch Way.

Most important is that you will look your best standing on the firing line loading paper patches. Never will you look finer or more commanding.

then, you will shoot well. In part because you know you look and feel your best when traveling the Paper Patch Way. Confidence is only part of it. Self esteem, intrinsic worth and value to society, and a host of other things will also improve your scores.

And there is the, "Let's stand apart from the crowd" effect. That cannot be matched by anything other than Paper Patches. Isn't that why we all give up our scoped bolt rifles (if we ever even owned one to begin with)?

That will get superior aerodynamics, simpler loading protocols, and better intrinsic accuracy are only minor benefits compared to all the intangible advantages that The Paper Patch Way provides.

March to your own beat and load the best, shoot the best, and look the best! :)

[rfd]

what brent posted x 10 ... amen to my brothers of the paper patch way.

[RPRNY]

Barrel Life/20,000 rounds
I should care if my grandkids will need to rebarrel my Sharps.

Having just finished patching and firing a goodly number of P/P in two different guns and having finished "THE SCHUTZEN RIFLE" by Ned Roberts I will offer a couple of observations.

I think the major problem we have today with P/P is the rifling in the barrels and our choices of powder. Although Ned mentions wiping ever shot for target shooting he also sys that he expected his hunting load to go 10 shots without wiping. In an original Sharps I was able to get 5 shots without wiping pretty easy and with the moden gun I am still working with lubes trying to get off of three. Ned also made a point of saying that each rifle had a lube preference and what worked in one might not work in another. Having shot a goodly number of black powders over the years i think that Swiss is the best we are likey to get anymore. The quality of the powder is directly related to the quality of the charcoal and the millling time and milling is the dangerous part and so is skimped on now days.

Even with these limitation I think that with a proper leade and good lube 5 to 6 shots without wiping are attainable. I am planning to do a lot of P/P work this summer with both the 45-70 and the 38-55 and I am making up a throating reamer so I can by degrees try and match the old Sharps leade. My expiriments so far have got me convinced that I will shoot my next Buffalo with a paper patched bullet.

Now for the bad news..

Quoting Ned Roberts...
"By the 1890's we had determined that the naked lead slug surpassed the paper patch slug when breech seated." This was from the best target guns of the day and were in rifles capable of minute of angle shooting. Paper patch does have some advantage for hunting, but the naked slug was superior in accuracy and that is why the P/P went out of fashion.

So I agree with a good deal of this. I have been shooting paper patched bullets for about a decade with both smokeless and black powder in calibers from .30 to .50. I have also read Major Roberts' excellent book referenced above and will take issue with "the bad news conclusion" . It was the cupro-nickel patched bullet that did away with paper patching, not lead greasers. Roberts was talking about a very specialized form of shooting - breach seating - in a very specialized shooting discipline, Schuetzen, that had become even more refined in the latter half of the 1890s, embracing much smaller calibers in the 32-40 range. Greasers better addressed fouling and at the low velocities of Schuetzen ran less risk of leading.

The paper jacket was for large caliber, relatively higher velocity rounds in service and hunting rifles. When treated like a jacketed bullet, paper patching is much more rewarding and successful. My experience, which may not include universal truths,has taught me the following:

Accuracy with pp has more to do with powder and developing a set of components for a load that deliver really low, preferably single digit, standard deviation in velocity than it does with the perfection of one's wrap.

Paper patching is most effective/accurate with heavy for caliber bullets

There does not appear, in my experience, to be a solid rule of thumb on wrap diameter to groove depth and it very much matters how the grooves were cut.

In some rifles patching to groove depth is key, in others, patch just .002" over bore is the trick. I can find neither rhyme nor reason and getting pp right is time consuming.

No lube. Other than the very lightest little bit around the base to help it seat in the case, no lube on the paper or boolit is best.

Anyway, my observations, for what free observations from an unknown source are worth...

[MaxJon]

Sounds awesome!

[54bore]

Lookin good rfd!!

[rfd]

while i've only been at this fascinating ppb game since last fall, i think that ppb's might get, or are getting, a bad rap IF they're used in guns with barrel chambers not particularly designed for that style of black powder cartridge.

the black powder pushed ppb will be at, or under, land bore diameter. the lubed bullet will be at, or greater, than land groove diameter. then consider how that bore riding ppb will sit in a larger throat chamber that has a significant leade, while the the ppb is hopefully long enuf to predominantly sit into the rifling. this is not to imply that ppb's couldn't or shouldn't or won't work in greaser chambers, it's just that in the best of worlds, black powder cartridge ppb's are probably best used with ppb chambered rifles ... for whatever one thinks "best" means ... for me, it's about consistent accuracy at 200 yards and lots more ... which is why my ordered shiloh will have a ppb chamber.

[54bore]

while i've only been at this fascinating ppb game since last fall, i think that ppb's might get, or are getting, a bad rap IF they're used in guns with barrel chambers not particularly designed for that style of black powder cartridge.

the black powder pushed ppb will be at, or under, land bore diameter. the lubed bullet will be at, or greater, than land groove diameter. then consider how that bore riding ppb will sit in a larger throat chamber that has a significant leade, while the the ppb is hopefully long enuf to predominantly sit into the rifling. this is not to imply that ppb's couldn't or shouldn't or won't work in greaser chambers, it's just that in the best of worlds, black powder cartridge ppb's are probably best used with ppb chambered rifles ... for whatever one thinks "best" means ... for me, it's about consistent accuracy at 200 yards and lots more ... which is why my ordered shiloh will have a ppb chamber.

I will be anxiously awaiting your work with the new shiloh! When will you get it rfd?

[rfd]

it appears that perhaps it will arrive when hell freezes over - or hopefully this december. ;)

[Don McDowell]

The thinking that to shoot paper patch bullets well you need to have a special chamber is not quite right. Shiloh's and C Sharps standard chambers will both shoot paper patch well, as will CPA's standard chambers.
Probably more good paper patch loads have been missed by poor or incomplete fouling control methods than anything.

[rfd]

yes, almost any type of barrel chamber can be made to shoot ppb's well. HOWEVER, some of us want better than "well", we want "exceptional".

which appears to have been the way it was done somewhere in the later part of the 19th century, but all but near forgotten just how it was done. thanx to a number of well known forensic ppb pioneers, we're getting back in the saddle as to how to load for ppb's and what they prefer in a firearm configuration.

a ppb cartridge that sits inside a chamber meant for land groove sized bullets is always at some measure of disadvantage, most notably since it will need to get resized twice upon ignition - once at the freebore and again as it squeezes down into the rifling. remember that a black powder ppb cartridge will have a bore, or under bore, patched bullet - not a land groove or over land groove lubed bullet.

this means having a chamber ream with no freebore, using cases that are absolutely no longer in length than the chamber will allow (to prevent "chamber crimp"), where all of this allows a patched bore sized (or under bore sized) bullet that sits atop real black powder (and some manner of wad or wads) to reside within the barrel's rifling, are at the advantage over a lube bullet chamber ream.

in essence, a rifle chamber made for a ppb will make for a more consistent and therefore more accurate shooting cartridge and rifle.

[BrentD]

My chambers are a little bit different than what yours will be, but they will accomplish the job fairly similarly. They are also easy to get shooting well. Load development wont take long.

[Don McDowell]

Well by golly having rifles with both "paper patch" chambers and standard chambers I can tell you from hard earned experience, that when you think outside the box and load both rifles to their potential there is no difference in the accuracy that can be achieved.
Bullet diameter, length and alloy , will play a bigger part than chamber type.

[Gunlaker]

When I first started shooting paper patched bullets I used "standard" grease groove chambers. I could get them to shoot pretty well. My rifles with chambers designed for bore diameter bullets are more consistent shooters for me. They are less likely to throw a flyer. However Kenny Wasserburger has shown that master class scores can be shot using PP bullets and the standard Shiloh chamber.

I think the main advantage with PP bullets is that they are aligned very well with the bore and thus are very likely to be balanced when they leave the muzzle. I think the main disadvantage is the little bit of extra time needed to manage the bore between shots. I like them because they are really more "period correct" for target shooting, however I do seem to shoot greasers more often these days.

Chris.

[Lead pot]

Don I'm going to disagree on the chamber. Yes you need to tune the bullets to the twist and also the powder charges. But when it comes to lead bullets naked or patched the chamber plays a large roll. All of my rifles with a "standard" chamber have been changed with a different lead angle and all have improved in accuracy and the way they foul the bore. The rifles I had reamers made for that duplicate the originals with chambers that are tight that keeps the bullets from getting kneaded like putty out perform the large standard chambers.

[Don McDowell]

Kurt that's what makes a horse race, but when you look at what Kenny, Eddie, and a few others are able to do with a standard Shiloh chamber... I'm also really impressed with what Carol's CSA 40-65 is showing with patched bullets. My CSA Hepburn 40-70 will shoot patched better than greasers, when the triggers work properly. The Raton gun and it's "standard" chamber will shoot patched bullets right along with greasers, just need to make the elevation adjustment difference between the naked and the patched bullet..

[rfd]

it all don't much matter - greasers are just a passing fancy, like smokeless powders. ;)

[BrentD]

Tight paper-patch chambers definitely have an edge over regular chambers - but you have to be able shoot well enough to be able to detect the difference even with very favorable conditions. The difference is not huge.

Among those chamber designs that are called paper-patch chambers, some are better than others. Those that displace the least amount of metal are the best, but the differences are, again, small and, thus, hard to detect w/o a lot of quality shooting.

Someone ought to experiment really hard with bore-diameter, grease-groove, bullets loaded as if they were paper patches. This has been tried by at least one person, but I don't think it was a major effort. It might be the ultimate design. But I will leave that for someone else to pioneer.

[RPRNY]

Well by golly having rifles with both "paper patch" chambers and standard chambers I can tell you from hard earned experience, that when you think outside the box and load both rifles to their potential there is no difference in the accuracy that can be achieved.
Bullet diameter, length and alloy , will play a bigger part than chamber type.

Don, I find myself quite in agreement with you. First, I don't necessarily hold with the view that there were "paper patch" and "greaser" chambers per se in the original Sharps and Remington big bore rifles. There were differences in chambers but I am not convinced that those differences were necessarily of a purpose.

Next, while an overly capacious throat is not desirable for either greaser or ppb, it is fair to say that such a throat is more easily dealt with by greaser than by ppb. However, the school of thought that holds religiously with Mathews' view that ppb must be bore rather than groove diameter is being overly orthodox. My own experience, and that of others, is that there is very little rhyme or reason to bullet diameter effectiveness. There is a bullet diameter that works well with PPB in a rifle, and others rarely do. Whereas, with greasers, one can rarely go wrong with "fill the throat, fill the groove", there is no "patch to bore" rule in ppb. It depends. It depends on the rifle. It depends on the groove cut. It depends on velocity. The one part of chamber design that I think does play an important role is leade taper. I do think that a shallow leade taper is important and easier to get a bullet into the rifling without having damaged the paper patch.

But the bore diameter patch purists have got it wrong. A patch is a jacket. I have not had much luck patching beyond groove diameter except one rifle in 40-65 that finally found its groove with bullets patched to .001 over groove depth, but it was fairly shout out and had shallow, dull rifling. But never, ever have I found best accuracy at, or under, bore diameter. I almost always start .002 over bore diameter with a new load and while it occasionally wants more and sometimes less, I never get the best from bore and under.

Nevertheless, as we are wont to do in this bizarre little subculture, I am parsing hairs. A shallow leade and a tight chamber are to be preferred to a steep leade and a sloppy throat with ppb, that we know. Having said that, I am of the view that this is true in a general sense when accuracy is the goal and that it is not unique to ppb. I do not believe there is a solid rule on ppb diameter to bore and groove. Each rifle, and bullet, and alloy, wants it's own approach.

[BrentD]

RPRNY,
If you have read Matthews even casually, you should know that he does not advocate subscribe to "the school of thought that holds religiously with Mathews' view that ppb must be bore rather than groove diameter". Indeed most of his writing was about using groove diameter and even smokeless charges.

Personally, I don't think leade angle is all that critical. Lots of angles will work from 3-7 degrees easily and probably an even wider range.

Meanwhile, patching to bore works. It was and is the most common, but not only, way to shoot paper patches, and it certainly is easy and effective. I don't think we have anything wrong at all. So far, bore diameter rules the firing lines and the scoreboards. You are always welcome to put up better results, but so far, bore diameter wins and for good reason.

[RPRNY]

RPRNY,
If you have read Matthews even casually, you should know that he does not advocate subscribe to "the school of thought that holds religiously with Mathews' view that ppb must be bore rather than groove diameter". Indeed most of his writing was about using groove diameter and even smokeless charges.

Personally, I don't think leade angle is all that critical. Lots of angles will work from 3-7 degrees easily and probably an even wider range.

Meanwhile, patching to bore works. It was and is the most common, but not only, way to shoot paper patches, and it certainly is easy and effective. I don't think we have anything wrong at all. So far, bore diameter rules the firing lines and the scoreboards. You are always welcome to put up better results, but so far, bore diameter wins and for good reason.


Sooooo touchy. Usually a sign of insecurity. You apparently have an experience. Mine differs.

[Don McDowell]

RPNY most of us have "differing experiences". A person can take a sloppy chamber such as on the pedersoli's and other imported and some USA built guns and get good accuracy with patched but it's going to be with a bore diameter plus bullet. But many times those bullets need be seated quite deep.
Bore diameter final wrapped bullets can be seated shallow to somewhat deep and shoot well.
The whole thing boils down to working with what you have, not what you wish you had, and the best results might not jive with some of the common internet wisdom and it may not line up well with what some folks published in books earlier.

[Lead pot]

Bore diameter GG are nothing new Brent. They where around in the 1800rds. They had a deep hollow base and fairly thick skirt. Sharps made moulds for different rifle company's and they also sold naked 2 channelures used for express loads. I had some 43 Spanish for the roller when I could still buy factory loads at the local lumber yard :)

[Gunlaker]

Brent didn't you try bore diameter GG bullets once? I thought I remember a post by you maybe 5+ years ago.

Much of F.W. Mann's testing for his book was done with soft bore diameter bullets. I have a version of his book with Pope's annotations ( which are nearly impossible to decipher. He could have been a pharmacist :-) ). From what I remember, Pope took issue with Mann's use of pure lead bore diameter GG bullets.

I've often wondered about bore diameter GG bullets but I am unlikely to buy a mold and spend the time testing. Brent, do any of the long range muzzleloader shooters use bore diameter GG bullets or are paper patched bullets the only ones in use?

Chris.

[kokomokid]

What is Lee Shaver shooting in his muzzleloader ?

[Chill Wills]

I've often wondered about bore diameter GG bullets but I am unlikely to buy a mold and spend the time testing. Brent, do any of the long range muzzleloader shooters use bore diameter GG bullets or are paper patched bullets the only ones in use?

Chris.
Chris, Lots of long range ml shooters use GG bullets. I used to supply Joe Hepsworth GG bullets to his mail order business. When he passed I got a lot of his customers.

I once owned a matched pair of GG and PP bullet molds, or as close as you can get. I could not see any difference at the long lines. I sold the GG ML bullet to Rick Webber. I still have the PP twin.

[Chill Wills]

What is Lee Shaver shooting in his muzzleloader ?

Most currently, I don't know. I have not talked to him in a while. But I know he has shot both a lot over the years.

[Gunlaker]

Thanks for that information.

Chris.

[beltfed]

Gunlaker,
I believe Franklin Mann concluded best performing bullets with bore diameter
body and groove dia base band.
beltfed/arnie

[Lead pot]

Arnie who made the mould for that bullet you gave me at Rapids ?

[BrentD]

RPRNY, you can speculate on my insecurities all you want. I'm sure you are right. Meanwhile, it doesn't fix your claims. If you want us to believe you, when you can't even reference Paul Matthews correctly, then you will need to provide something in the way of data. Scores in recognized competitions using standard chambers and groove diameter bullets, or at least comparable targets. Martinibelgian has credibility when it comes to groove diameter bullets. You not so much - not yet anyway. Feel free to prove us wrong. Heck, come to a match and I'll buy you dinner if you can beat me with groove diameter paper patches and a standard chamber. I'd love to see you do it. You can diagnose my insecurities up close and personal then too.

Chris, I have not tried bore diameter grease grooves at all. I know Rick Moritz did, but how extensively and exactly what he did, I don't know. I just know he didn't like the results. As for muzzleloaders, I know some did, but the ones I know personally have all gone to paper. I'm sure there are others out doing it, but they are not in the winner's circle at Oak Ridge. Beyond that, I don't really know much about the muzzleloading crowd. I'm learning however...

Lead pot, I don't doubt that many folks have tried bore diameter grease groove bullets in the times of yore. But there is not much information on them, and very few people have done it in modern times where everything has to be reinvented. I think it must be workable. Maybe not worthwhile, but workable.

kokomokid, as of Late March of 2016, Shaver was shooting paper patched bullets, bore diameter, of course, in his muzzleloader. He did not come to Oak Ridge this year, so I don't know if that's changed. I would bet probably not.

[Lead pot]

Brent they didn't shoot to well for me either, but 64 years ago I didn't know enough to control the fouling either :D

[BrentD]

yeah, and 64 yrs ago was before they even had gunpowder :)

I know what you mean about maybe needing to revisit some early experiments

[Lead pot]

No I don't think I will ever send a naked bullet down my rifle again.

[BrentD]

There is time for nakedness, but it ain't in my rifle's barrel.

[Gunlaker]

Gunlaker,
I believe Franklin Mann concluded best performing bullets with bore diameter
body and groove dia base band.
beltfed/arnie

Arnie it's possible that was his ultimate conclusion, but I just had a look in my "Pope annotated" edition on p 122 and he states ( and I'm paraphrasing here ) that nothing beat pure lead bore diameter bullets with black powder in seven .32 caliber barrels.

Pope has a bunch of mostly illegible comments in the margin that seem to state that Mann is wrong :-).

Interestingly in the notes section at the very beginning of the book he pretty much says the opposite, saying that he does not intend to state that these bore diameter bullets are superior to the Pope system. Interestingly I have another copy of the book in a PDF document which seems to be a scan of an original copy. This version doesn't contain the section where he mentions the Pope system.

It is a funny sort of book, he often doesn't present his conclusions for his various experiments. I'll have to read it again one of these days. I was hoping that when I bought the annotated version I'd find some interesting stuff in Pope's comments, but I honestly cannot read his handwriting in most cases.

Chris.

[BrentD]

I know it is heresy, but I think Mann was wrong at least as much as he was right.

[Don McDowell]

The American Creedmoor Cup match followed by the regional bptr long range match at Lodi Ws. in two weeks would be a very good chance for folks to find out just how good their loads are. Shooting at 1000 yds, in that cup match no spotter, will test your loads and your own spotting ability.

[Lead pot]

:D Lodi matches is where most of us on this side of the big muddy do our load developments :D The average ranges in these parts are 100 to 200 yards.
Are you coming to do your best?

[Don McDowell]

Not this year. Cliff got the dates solidified about a week after I had sent in our entry to the 22 regional. I knew if I told my bride sorry we're dropping the 22 match and going to Lodi, my widow would probably have most of my rifles sold by now.. Altho Zack said he was pretty sure he could talk her into giving him a couple of them..
It is on the list for next year.
Last year at Byers, in the High Plains Challenge match I ended up in 5th, and was tied with Bryan for the high score of 83 in the second target. That type of match is an awful lot of fun.

[BrentD]

Lodi is where some of us on the other side of the Big Muddy go for load development too.

[Distant Thunder]

The following is about paper patched bullets loaded with black powder for target matches of either paper or steel gongs only.

I did very well shooting bore diameter PPB out of my Shiloh.45-90 with a standard grease groove chamber, winning the Mother's Day match at Lodi in 2010 and 2011. That rifle shot well with grease grooved bullets, but it really shines with paper patched bullets. My 2010 final score was 753-2 (I know, the X-ring eluded me and others), which was 59 points ahead of 2nd place. So I know and can back up the fact that standard grease groove chambers can shoot bore diameter paper patched bullets very well.

Having said that, there is no doubt in my mind that my .45-70 Hepburn with a Danielson paper patched chamber is the more accurate of the two rifles. I haven't won as many matches with my Hepburn (yet) as with my Shiloh but I have placed 2nd and 3rd many times with it and I can see the results on the target. I just need to shoot better.

I have had very good results with groove diameter paper patched bullets in my CSA 1874 .50-70 with a grease groove chamber. I am working now with a CSA 1875 in .40-65 and a 2-diameter paper patched bullet that is shooting very well also. That is not only a grease groove chamber but it also has a freebore that is .375" long. The forward part of the bullet shank is patched to bore diameter and the back part of the shank is patched to the freebore diameter which is groove diameter plus .001".

I believe almost every chamber configuration can be made to shoot paper patched bullets with match winning accuracy. I have one grease groove chambered rifle that refuses to play nice with paper patched bullets, but I'm still working with it. However if one is building a rifle or having a rifle built and wants to have success with paper patched bullets I would strongly suggest a chamber designed for bore diameter paper patched bullets. I believe match winning results will be easier to achieve with such a chamber.

If you have a rifle with a grease groove chamber and want to shoot paper patched bullets I believe it is very likely it can be made to shoot as well or almost as well with a little patience and experimenting. I also believe bullet fit and proper loading of the correct components is absolutely important no matter what chamber you're working with.

Just throwing whatever together and hoping for the best might work, if you're lucky. I've no doubt that there are those who have had a degree of success following different methods, but I think if you looked at the loads and bullets of those who are winning matches, especially long range matches, you'd see many things in common.

If you want to just plink at 100 or 200 yards with PPBs I suppose almost anything could work. If you want to win matches shooting PPBs listen to those who are winning matches or placing near the top consistently.

I find paper patched bullets to be superior to grease grooved bullets in performance and much easier to load in my opinion. I still shoot a few grease grooved bullets over black powder but not for serious target work.

Just my thoughts after 10 or so year of competing in long range and mid range matches with paper patched bullets in several different rifles.

Jim Kluskens

[RPRNY]

RPRNY, you can speculate on my insecurities all you want. I'm sure you are right. Meanwhile, it doesn't fix your claims. If you want us to believe you, when you can't even reference Paul Matthews correctly, then you will need to provide something in the way of data. Scores in recognized competitions using standard chambers and groove diameter bullets, or at least comparable targets. Martinibelgian has credibility when it comes to groove diameter bullets. You not so much - not yet anyway. Feel free to prove us wrong. Heck, come to a match and I'll buy you dinner if you can beat me with groove diameter paper patches and a standard chamber. I'd love to see you do it. You can diagnose my insecurities up close and personal then too.

Chris, I have not tried bore diameter grease grooves at all. I know Rick Moritz did, but how extensively and exactly what he did, I don't know. I just know he didn't like the results. As for muzzleloaders, I know some did, but the ones I know personally have all gone to paper. I'm sure there are others out doing it, but they are not in the winner's circle at Oak Ridge. Beyond that, I don't really know much about the muzzleloading crowd. I'm learning however...

Lead pot, I don't doubt that many folks have tried bore diameter grease groove bullets in the times of yore. But there is not much information on them, and very few people have done it in modern times where everything has to be reinvented. I think it must be workable. Maybe not worthwhile, but workable.

kokomokid, as of Late March of 2016, Shaver was shooting paper patched bullets, bore diameter, of course, in his muzzleloader. He did not come to Oak Ridge this year, so I don't know if that's changed. I would bet probably not.

You clearly have a real issue. Chippy. I did not address or refute any remarks you made. I explained what I have learned and it contradicts your belief. Tough. Move on. I don't know who you imagine you are or why you think you're the forum bully-boy but I know what I have experienced and what has worked over the years. Your insistence on patching to bore diameter moves me not one bit. That has not been my experience, nor is it the experience of many I have shot with and admired. You hold whatever belief you like, but don't challenge me on mine, sunshine. We know you're a pedant, but whether you're a shooter or just another internet hero is another matter. I'm done with you now.

[BRUCE MOULDS]

I have tried bore diameter greasers in a cartridge gun.
they were used in original sharps tight chambers for hunting, and are now used in some long range muzzle loaders.
I have long been of the opinion that a bullet bumps up suddenly enough to form an instant seal in the barrel.
shooting bore diameter pp bullets suggested this to be true, as they will seal with even a paper wad.
this was not the case with the greaser and 0.030 or 0.060 wads, both veg and ldpe.
much leading occurred.
my most successful pp bullets are dual diameter, as I have greaser chambers, and I can fill the case diameter with bullet, as well as get a nice sliding fit in the bore with the majority of the bullet.
with the failure of the bore diameter greaser, a mould was made with the 2 bottom bands filling the case neck and all the other bands a sliding fit in the bore.
I had been getting good success with 12:1 alloy pp bullets so started there with the greaser.
leading again.
they grouped about 5" at 200 yds which is insufficient.
the obvious next step is to try something really soft like 20:1, but time has not permitted.
it would seem that more bumping up happens to the grooves of the bullet, robbing the bands of a serious bumpup seal. (conjecture)
and yet I have yet to recover a so called bore riding nosed bullet without rifling marks in the bore ride section.
where there are no grooves in the bullet, bumpup happens well.
this can be a leading problem in any barrel.
recent observances of long range muzzle loader shooting, bore diameter pp and gg bullets, reveals that they put great store in the wad/wads sealing the bore.
I have watched their vert improve as they add wads, mostly mixtures of oiled felt and card.
it would appear that the wad seal is more important than I thought.
using 0.4" wads in a muzzle loader is not a problem, as the whole barrel length is available for wad stacks.
the old sharps greasers were loaded with a fairly thick grease wad which also would have sealed.
many Winchester greasers were undersize, like 0.406 in a 0.408+ groove diameter.
they were 20:1, and worked in repeaters.
to use serious wad stacks in cartridge guns requires serious cartridges.
for long range use, the shorter case are not suited to this.
I will pursue the mostly bore diameter greaser as time permits.
probably with lubed felt and or a grease wad to act as a seal.
but in the meantime the dual diameter pp will be the workhorse.
it is just so honest.
keep safe,
bruce.

[rfd]

You clearly have a real issue. Chippy. I did not address or refute any remarks you made. I explained what I have learned and it contradicts your belief. Tough. Move on. I don't know who you imagine you are or why you think you're the forum bully-boy but I know what I have experienced and what has worked over the years. Your insistence on patching to bore diameter moves me not one bit. That has not been my experience, nor is it the experience of many I have shot with and admired. You hold whatever belief you like, but don't challenge me on mine, sunshine. We know you're a pedant, but whether you're a shooter or just another internet hero is another matter. I'm done with you now.

clearly, sir, you have no clue about BrentD.

[Distant Thunder]

RPRNY,

When you are patching at bore plus .002" are you seating those deep into the case or are you able to seat them shallow and some how push them into the bore? I'm just trying to understand how the bullet is aligned with the bore when chambered.

At bore plus .002" and if seated deep the bullet would be loose in any grease groove chamber/case. I had a very difficult time chambering my paper patched bullets when seated shallow even at bore plus .001". The result in matches was not good because I often had rounds that would not chamber completely and I couldn't close the action. I'd have to get up and knock the bullet out with my cleaning rod, get back in position, chamber another round hoping I could close the action. All the up and down and commotion took time and got me out of position which didn't result in good scores. Now I'm back to bullets that give a slight resistance when the rounds are chambered and excellent accuracy as result. Again, I talking about excellent accuracy from 500 to 1000 yards which is where I do most of my match shooting. I have found 100 yard shooting to be next to worthless as an indication of down range accuracy and 200 yards to be a little better. The real test is at 900 and 1000 yards under match conditions.

For me it works best when the bullets are patched to a snug fit in the bore and seated only .060 to .100" into the case so the bullet to bore alignment is as good as it can get and excellent accuracy results. I'm talking about chambers with very little to no freebore be they tight paper patched chambers or grease groove chambers. Once you have any amount of freebore I think the whole idea of bullet fit and alignment changes the required patched diameter.

Again these are target loads, hunting/plinking loads are a different animal.

JK1

[BrentD]

I'm done with you now.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

PS... I'm a shooter :)

[toallmy]

I am constantly amazed with the knowledge shared so freely here , I am still trying to decide on gas check or plain base .

[rfd]

don't rule out paper.

[toallmy]

don't rule out paper.

No Sr I'm wide open to try everything , I just wish I had started 30 years ago .

[rfd]

No Sr I'm wide open to try everything , I just wish I had started 30 years ago .

oh man, me too! i'm so late to the ppb game. but better late than never, sez i.

[Lead pot]

Having said that, there is no doubt in my mind that my .45-70 Hepburn with a Danielson paper patched chamber is the more accurate of the two rifles. I haven't won as many matches with my Hepburn (yet) as with my Shiloh but I have placed 2nd and 3rd many times with it and I can see the results on the target. I just need to shoot better.

Jim Kluskens

Jim I think most of us fail a good rifle with the space between the ears or a well developed load during a match.
My ambition is to win the Quigley that has a shooters list 600 plus of some of the best around from all States and over seas. I made it in the top 20's several times and as close as 11th only because the space between the ears failed me from not changing the sights from 600 to 800 yards and loosing two shots. I know the rifles or the spotters get the blame mostly but I think if we are honest with our thoughts that it mostly falls on us the shooter..........Kurt

By the way Jim, if you ever want to chamber a .44-75 Ballard, .44-100 rem St, .45-2.4 or .40-64 along with a special reamer for the sizing die. I have good patch only reamers your welcome to use.

[RPRNY]

RPRNY,

When you are patching at bore plus .002" are you seating those deep into the case or are you able to seat them shallow and some how push them into the bore? I'm just trying to understand how the bullet is aligned with the bore when chambered.

At bore plus .002" and if seated deep the bullet would be loose in any grease groove chamber/case. I had a very difficult time chambering my paper patched bullets when seated shallow even at bore plus .001". The result in matches was not good because I often had rounds that would not chamber completely and I couldn't close the action. I'd have to get up and knock the bullet out with my cleaning rod, get back in position, chamber another round hoping I could close the action. All the up and down and commotion took time and got me out of position which didn't result in good scores. Now I'm back to bullets that give a slight resistance when the rounds are chambered and excellent accuracy as result. Again, I talking about excellent accuracy from 500 to 1000 yards which is where I do most of my match shooting. I have found 100 yard shooting to be next to worthless as an indication of down range accuracy and 200 yards to be a little better. The real test is at 900 and 1000 yards under match conditions.

For me it works best when the bullets are patched to a snug fit in the bore and seated only .060 to .100" into the case so the bullet to bore alignment is as good as it can get and excellent accuracy results. I'm talking about chambers with very little to no freebore be they tight paper patched chambers or grease groove chambers. Once you have any amount of freebore I think the whole idea of bullet fit and alignment changes the required patched diameter.

Again these are target loads, hunting/plinking loads are a different animal.

JK1

So, there may be some terminology issues here. There are tighter and looser chambers. I don't believe they are necessarily "paper patched chambers" and grease groove chambers", just different sized chambers. Seating depth of course depends on bullet length. In a big, sloppy chamber, it will be hard to get anything to shoot well, but a soft alloy greaser sized to throat might be the best bet. Otherwise, in a reasonably sized chamber, I seat to get the bullet just the smallest bit off the lands or touching, but not pushed into them, to avoid what you describe, the problem of unintentional breach seating. Again, provided the leade is reasonably shallow, my experience is that accuracy is best achieved when patched slightly into the groove, but what "slightly" means varies. That said, I don't think there's an accurate rule of thumb on this. It depends on the bullet, alloy, overall load, and the nature of the rifling and one has to work out each with whichever rifle one is shooting to get the best from that combination.

[Distant Thunder]

Kurt,

Placing in the top at a match like the Q is no small accomplishment and I congratulate you on doing so well and even more so for doing it over a period of time.

I know what you mean about the space between our ears often defeating us before the match is over. I shot at the Lodi long matches for about 5 years before I finally managed a 2nd place finish. That was in many ways a win for me because it made me realize that I was not a participant, but that I had at least a change of winning the match. In those early days Lodi drew a much bigger crowd and from much farther away. There were many excellent shooters that won or placed and getting to that number one spot continued to stay just out of my reach. Once I even managed a 3rd place finish and I was just 7 points behind first place! It was some tough competition, but I worked hard at it and talked to a lot of shooters who were winning matches all over the country and even the world. One thing that I greatly appreciated and the reason I love this BPTR competition over all the others I tried is that everyone of those champions answered my questions freely and some spent considerable time walking me through what they had learned.

The greatest obstacle I had to overcome was my own errors, mostly mental ones. That finally happened in 2009. Before that match I had decided that in spite of all my efforts winning just wasn't in the cards for me. I planned to go to the match that May and just enjoy shooting with my friends and enjoy the weekend, to relax a little. Like many matches before that one I was in the running after the first day. My down fall usually came the second day at 1000 yards. I'd end up shooting like it was my first match ever. That Sunday morning I was relaxed and thinking clearly and I shot a good score at 1000. Then again at 900 and again at 800! When my name was called as the high aggregate I didn't believe it. After 12 years going to every match at Lodi it had happened, I had won! I just needed two days back to back when I didn't take myself out of the running with some stupid brain fart of a miss.

Now to be honest, my spotters, Glenn & Tony, were two of the best. They worked hard at getting me there, they were limited only by me. My rifle was capable of winning, my loads were capable of winning, I just needed to do my part and not screw it up. It wasn't easy.

Even today, if I don't win or at least place in the top 3, it's on me and I know that. I don't just have shoot better than the other shooter, I have to shoot better than the guy behind my own rifle usually does. I just need to watch him very closely so that he doesn't let my spotters and rifle down.

After that first win it has been easier because I believe I can win before I even leave home, but I really keep a close eye on my biggest enemy, myself.

That first time was with my .45-90 Shiloh and a grease grooved bullet, but I used that opportunity to make the jump to PPBs and with Brent's help and the success I've had with PPBs I've never even thought of going back to greasers for long range competition.

The superiority of the bore diameter PPB is so evident on the target range that I am forever a believer. Anyone who looks that the match results from Lodi over the past 7 or 8 years will see that PPBs continue to make a good showing for themselves, winning the majority of the matches and putting many shooters in the top 10 on a regular basis. There is no better projectile for long range BPTR matches, though there are greasers that come close.

And, the ladies appreciate a man who is well dress and not all greasy! For me every little bit helps! Paper patched bullets and appreciative women, what's not to like?!

JK1

[Distant Thunder]

RPRNY,

I'm seeing what you are saying and I don't disagree as much as it might sound. One thing you are entirely wrong about is this, there is such a thing a chamber designed for bore diameter paper patched bullets, how could you think otherwise. I have such a chamber in my Hepburn. It is not possible to seat a bullet more than .452" in diameter in the fired unsized cases. If you did some how get a .458 or bigger bullet in the case it would never chamber, not even close!

I don't know about original rifles of the 1800s, but some here do and they say there were chambers back then that were designed to take a bore diameter paper patched bullet only. I believe them.

My Hepburn is a modern built rifle and it is what I know. There are many other rifles being built today or rebarreled today that have similar chambers design for the same purpose, bore diameter paper patched bullets.

Just thinking here, but if bore diameter paper patched bullets were the projectile of choice in the 1870s and there would have been the same obstacles to overcome if they used those bore diameter bullets in a greaser chamber, don't you think they would designed their chambers for those bullets? Just like we are doing today. So I don't think you are correct about the paper patched chambers.

Now, if one is going to load bore diameter paper patched bullets in a grease groove chamber, you are right a tight chamber is better. It is also better if it doesn't have any "freebore", but that at least can be dealt with.

The main reason I choose to shoot paper patched bullets that are bore diameter is for the accuracy they provide. I also like the no leading aspect. That accuracy is a result of the bullet being nearly completely in on the lands of the rifle before the trigger is pulled. If done the way I do it, there is only .060-.100" of the bullet in the case, a little is over the chamber transition from cases to lead and the lead itself, but the rest of the bullet is in as prefect an alignment as is possible sitting snug in on the lands.

Booooom!!!! The powder ignites and before the bullets nose moves very much if at all the laws of inertia come into play and the base end is pushed forward while the nose resists the forward movement. That results in the diameter of the bullet "bumping up" to engage the rifling imparting spin as the bullet begins to move down the barrel and out the muzzle eventually passing through the 10-ring before impacting the good earth on the other side of the target. No where in that sequence of events does that bullet have to bump up and then be reduced in diameter by any portion of the chamber or bore. Except the very last part of the base, a necessary evil of the fixed cartridge. Breech seating would get away from some, but all, of that up and down sizing.

The bullet becomes fatter and shorter but in a very controlled and contained environment, the rifle's bore. It doesn't get anymore accurate than that. It is an absolute wonder to me that the other systems work at all, much more so that they work as well as they do. Speaking of any bullets that start out somewhere outside of the actual bore and most "find" their way to it by undergoing a series of transitions through various diameter all while being push really, really hard by the dark forces of black powder. I boggles my mind how it works, but it does.

I will also agree that there is more than one way to paper patch a lead bullet, many of them can work! For me the best accuracy has been with a cast bullet of sufficient hardness to withstand the forces of black powder enough to maintain the high BC but just soft enough to take the rifling well as it bumps up while wrapped in as thin of paper as I can find that is made of 100% cotton and fits into the bore of my rifle snug with a comfortable thumb pressure seated as shallow as possible but so the loaded cartridge pushing it in to the bore as far as possible does not lose the bullet in the process.

This works for me, always. There are details of the load that I feel are solid and repeatable, powder, primers, cases, and wads, but this discussion is focused on the paper patched bullet at the moment so I'll stay with that. It is important to understand that NO rule is always true, but I believe the way I have learned has a high likelihood of success in many instances.

I've done nothing but take the things that I have learned from others and maybe fine tuned them to suit my rifle and some other things that have held true through my journey in paper patching.

If I don't win the match I'm damn sure going to make sure the guy who does earns it! The funny things is, the guys I chase so hard are the guys who have help me to learn enough to be hard on their heels. Thank you, Brent.

Damn this stuff is fun! JK1

[Lead pot]

RPRNY
This is what Jim is talking about when you have a chamber tight the bullet will not upset to the standard wide chamber where it will upset more in the case and then it has to swage back down to a lesser diameter bore/groove. When A bullet leaves the muzzle looking like this one undamaged from getting kneaded like putty back down to fit the throat then the error of that bullet not hitting center is yours.

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/th_44ec8b2a-6e9a-483b-8b98-de1cc6d96ece_zps5uj9e5qo.jpg (http://s704.photobucket.com/user/Kurtalt/media/44ec8b2a-6e9a-483b-8b98-de1cc6d96ece_zps5uj9e5qo.jpg.html)

[Distant Thunder]

Kurt,

Thank you. I know you have a very impressive library of recovered bullets that show so clearly what a bullet looks like when things go wrong and what they look like when things go right. I've learned a lot from your post and looking at your bullets. So much more than my words along can describe. Minimum distortion of the bullet as it's put into flight is the goal and that yields excellent accuracy.

JK1

[RPRNY]

RPRNY
This is what Jim is talking about when you have a chamber tight the bullet will not upset to the standard wide chamber where it will upset more in the case and then it has to swage back down to a lesser diameter bore/groove. When A bullet leaves the muzzle looking like this one undamaged from getting kneaded like putty back down to fit the throat then the error of that bullet not hitting center is yours.

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/th_44ec8b2a-6e9a-483b-8b98-de1cc6d96ece_zps5uj9e5qo.jpg (http://s704.photobucket.com/user/Kurtalt/media/44ec8b2a-6e9a-483b-8b98-de1cc6d96ece_zps5uj9e5qo.jpg.html)


Thanks for the very cool photo. I am aware of what is under discussion with regard to chamber size and I have not taken issue with the position that a tighter chamber is preferable to looser chamber, nor have I expressed views that would suggest an unfamiliarity with obturation and how it works. I have taken issue with the idea that the only way to achieve accuracy with ppb is to patch the bullet out to bore diameter or less. I am certain that there are rifles in which that practice may be successful but it is not a rule which my experience or that of others with whom I have shot has born out. I do not believe that there is a "rule", and that, rather, a number of factors dictate what will, and will not, work. A tight chamber in which a very shallow leade takes a bullet from just off or touching the lands into the rifling with minimal, but sufficient, engagement of the rifling (as would very much appear to have been the case in your pictured bullet) is the ideal. But in my experience, particularly with original big bore rifles, but also with many modern repros that can be made to shoot well, the ideal is infrequent. Other people may have different views and experiences. With somewhat looser chambers, patching out to better fill the chamber, and thereby getting into the grooves at as much as .454", can substantially improve the performance of that rifle by mitigating the disruption to which you refer. I have one Pedersoli RB for example, that wants bullets patched out to .455" and with such bullets is a good gun out to maybe 500 yards but with lesser diameter ppbs shoots shotgun patterns at 100 yards. In any event, even with a tight chamber, shallow leade etc., I do not find that patching to sub-bore diameter or to a light fit works best.

[Gunlaker]

...

The greatest obstacle I had to overcome was my own errors, mostly mental ones. That finally happened in 2009. Before that match I had decided that in spite of all my efforts winning just wasn't in the cards for me. I planned to go to the match that May and just enjoy shooting with my friends and enjoy the weekend, to relax a little. Like many matches before that one I was in the running after the first day. My down fall usually came the second day at 1000 yards. I'd end up shooting like it was my first match ever.

...

JK1

Jim I think you've pretty much nailed the most difficult thing there is in this BPTR shooting. Developing the mental discipline to break perfect shots with no errors. Your experience pretty much mirrors my own in the last while. I just came back from the Wyoming state mid-range match, and for the first time I was in a position where it was possible for me to win a BPTR match, but I lost it big time on the last target. After the first day of 4 targets at 200&300 I was tied with Rick Moritz for points but he had me by x count. On the second day at 600 I had a significant advantage as I shot early in the day and he had the later relays. First target was a 90 which kept me in the running, and then the wheels fell off catastrophically and I shot a 60-something on the last target :-) :-). That didn't feel so good, and made the job tough for my spotter. I had a similar catastrophic finish at the Phoenix 1000 yard match this spring. I had a great match and set a few personal bests including an 89, but died spectacularly on the last target, shooting in the 60's.

I've been playing a little with 0.002" thick Eesleek paper rather than the 8lb Seth Cole stuff I've used for the last several years. I size the bullets down 0.001" and they patch up a little bigger. Enough that they take a significant effort to chamber. I think this paper squishes a bit more than the Seth Cole so a tight bullet can be chambered more reliably. With the Seth Cole 8lb if the bullet is just a little too big I'm likely to have the patch get pushed back on the bullet when chambering it seems. Accuracy with the Eesleeck paper seems very good. I have not tested it at LR yet, but at 300 it's done very well.

Chris.

[BrentD]

Minimum distortion of the bullet as it's put into flight is the goal and that yields excellent accuracy.

JK1

Therein lies the secret to the effect of the chambering and whether it will be just okay, good, or excellent.

[BrentD]

Jim I think you've pretty much nailed the most difficult thing there is in this BPTR shooting. Developing the mental discipline to break perfect shots with no errors. Your experience pretty much mirrors my own in the last while.

That is certainly the name of the game in competitions, but hidden in Jim's essays is the second issue, and that's not giving up when you DO make a mistake. I watched Ray Hanson, years ago, come back from a very bad (for him) first day, to win the overall. I've seen Dave Gullo, at least once, come to the line with the wrong cartridges for the gun he had (.45-90s instead of .45-100s) and still win. So, knowing that I probably gave the match away when I walked my rifle off the paper because I turned the knobs the wrong way, I still stuck with it and (with some unbelievable spotting), pulled out a win the other day. Never give up, even when you know it is a lost cause.

[Lead pot]

Chris.
The chamber is important, but in my search for the gold cup is that the alloy has a larger key in this mix. If you don't have the right temper that will hold a bullets profile when the bullet get that hard kick in the hinder if they don't hold the nose from getting flattened out of shape and the lands don't hold the rotation from having alloys to hard or soft. The wads have an effect on the amount the bullet obdurate. A soft wad like felt or cork might work in a .45-2.4/6/8 will not get the proper expansion to fill the grooves with that bore diameter bullet in a .45-70 with lets uses 1/16 alloy in all rounds. It all is in the mix for hit and miss.
Kurt

[Gunlaker]

That is certainly the name of the game in competitions, but hidden in Jim's essays is the second issue, and that's not giving up when you DO make a mistake. I watched Ray Hanson, years ago, come back from a very bad (for him) first day, to win the overall. I've seen Dave Gullo, at least once, come to the line with the wrong cartridges for the gun he had (.45-90s instead of .45-100s) and still win. So, knowing that I probably gave the match away when I walked my rifle off the paper because I turned the knobs the wrong way, I still stuck with it and (with some unbelievable spotting), pulled out a win the other day. Never give up, even when you know it is a lost cause.

Yeah I agree with that. I've come back a couple of times from mistakes and got back on track. When practicing, I've shot beside people who got so worked when something unexpected happened that they were never able to recover :-).

Chris.

[BrentD]

If I don't win the match I'm damn sure going to make sure the guy who does earns it! The funny things is, the guys I chase so hard are the guys who have help me to learn enough to be hard on their heels. Thank you, Brent.

Damn this stuff is fun! JK1

There was a long time I was chasing you. And still do sometimes. You and Glenn schooled me the first time I shot long range but it was a hell of a fun lesson.

[kokomokid]

Jim, What paper are you finding at 100% cotton thin enough to use? THANKS LB

[Distant Thunder]

I have never advocated the use of bullets that are under bore, quire the opposite as I believe one of the key factors in achieving the excellent accuracy that paper patched bullets are capable of delivering is as tight a fit into the bore as is possible for you to chamber reliably. For me that is about .0005" over bore, but my thumb has suffered greatly from pushing hard on grease grooved bullets that didn't want to go into the lands without considerable force. I don't miss those days much these many years later. What a joy to chamber a paper patched bullet that resists ever so slightly! My thumb thanks me.

Care does need to be taken that the patch itself isn't damaged from chambering a bore plus bullet too. Anything that gets the shooter off his game needs to be avoided as much as possible. I have seen a some good shooters lose it when half the ammo in their box won't chamber and the clock is running.

Early on I struggled putting a bad shot behind me, whether it was my own error, a bad bullet, or the most common error, just plain old spotter error. I eventually learned that the most important shot is the next one. Now I can drop a complete miss like it was going on someone else's score and come right back and put the next one in the middle. It gets harder to do that after the third miss on one relay!!! I'm working on it though. I think I need that special tool that Brent has, the one that extracts your head from you posterior, yea that one.

Kurt is absolutely right that alloy plays a key role in accuracy with paper patched bullets. I just feel that there are several things, all of which are important and no one of which is the only key. I know that once I switched from my old grease groove alloy of 20-1 to an alloy that is at a 16-1 hardness or just a bit harder my groups shrank and my scores went up. Kurt's .8-15.2-18.0 alloy is working very well for me this year. (.8 oz. antimony - 15.2 oz. tin - 18.0 lbs. lead)

Chris, it sounds like you did well and you can build on that and take the next step forward. Stay with it and winning will come, you're close enough now to see that. That was the tallest hill to for me to climb, realizing that I could win. The next hill was getting out of my own way and allowing it to happen. Relax, breathe, and stay focused. That can be easier said than done.

The paper I use is no longer made, The Paper Mill 9# 100% cotton onion skin, but lucky for me I was able to obtain a lifetime supply.

RPRNY, use what works for you. I think that's the first rule. The others rules depend on a lot of variables. I guess the part I can't seem to understand is how a bullet over bore diameter but under groove diameter shoots accurately when seated at or just off the rifling and is seated down in a case that is too big. Seem like a whole set of bad situations have to come together to make it work. I'm glad it's working for you.

JK1

[Distant Thunder]

Brent,

Yea, Glenn and Tony and I were a hard team to beat. We sure had our day in the sun and it lasted for few years! I miss those days, but I am enjoying these days too, different times, different people, same good stuff. I'm hoping JK2 can pull off a win soon. He came close on Mother's Day, we just gave you a little too much of a lead the first day and he couldn't catch you. He shot very well on Sunday, but it's a two-day match! We'll give it a go again in September. You better be on your game!

[BrentD]

You better come and practice during the matches in June then. Did you see that last email I sent you?

[Lead pot]

There you go Jim giving away my secret alloy mix. At age 77 I'm a short timer at this game to reach the level of you hard holders and now it will be tougher to make gains with others using my secret mix. :D

[RPRNY]

RPRNY, use what works for you. I think that's the first rule. The others rules depend on a lot of variables. I guess the part I can't seem to understand is how a bullet over bore diameter but under groove diameter shoots accurately when seated at or just off the rifling and is seated down in a case that is too big. Seem like a whole set of bad situations have to come together to make it work. I'm glad it's working for you.


Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that the boolit be larger than bore size, only then, when patched, the final diameter should exceed bore diameter. If I hadn't been clear on that or my meaning was misunderstood, my apologies. If I misunderstood that folks were only suggesting the lead bullet itself need be to bore and recognized that final patched diameter need exceed that, my apologies as well. That seemed to be the issue.

[Distant Thunder]

Brent,

Saw the emails and I wish things were different, but they just are not.

Kurt,

I'm sorry, I didn't know it was a secret! If there is such a thing in these days of the internet and smartphones. I won't mention it again. ;) But thanks for sharing it with me!

RPRNY,

I think I'll just leave it there rather than clarify what I was saying. That way we can stay on speaking terms and maybe some day revisit the subject. For now I'll let it rest.

JK1

[BrentD]

Here is a photo from James Grant's first book, "The Singleshot Rifle". This photo is worth the price of the book alone. These are original Sharps cartridges.

Imagine inserting all of these in your chamber if the bullets were wrapped to 0.002" or more over land diameter. Your thumb would be sprained by the second shot (been there, done that).
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jessie/PPB/Bullets/Sharps%20bullets%20Grants%20book%20small.jpg

[Distant Thunder]

Moving forward in this discussion, when I wasn't busy posting about paper patched bullets today I was shooting some.

I shot 3 different bullets today all from my .45-70 Hepburn at 200m, all patched to bore diameter and loaded over 83.0 grains of Swiss 1 1/2 with a .060 LDPE wad and Remington 2 1/2 primers. This is my match load in this rifle. All were seated .125" into the case.

The purpose today was two fold, first to adjust my setup to be as well organized as I can be for the up coming American Creedmoor Cup match at Lodi, Wisconsin. The format, if you don't know, calls for a maximum of 3 sighters and 10 shots for record in 20 minutes with no coaching once you cut paper at 800, 900, and 1000 yards. It is a two-day match with each distance being fired once on each day. I was concerned about only 20 minutes for the 13 shots leaving little opportunity to wait on a condition and shooting paper patched bullets needing to wipe twice between shots. There will only be just over 1.5 minutes per shot.

I also wanted to test two bullets sent to me by a good friend of the long range muzzle loader persuasion, Ray Hopkins. Hoppy sent me 20 bullets to test, all identical except 10 were flat base and 10 were cupped base. I have really not had the best results with cupped base bullets, so this was a chance to see if these were any different than other cupped base bullets I had tried.

I shot my usual paper patched bullets first, two sighters (that's all I had loaded) and 10 to see just how much time it took me to look through my spotting scope, get in the rifle, center things up, break a shot, roll back to the scope (in theory to check the conditions and watch for any miss) then wipe with one wet patch & one dry patch, load the next cartridge and repeat.

Right out of the gate I found I had chosen the wrong front aperture, it was too small making the bullseyes very hard for me to see clearly. I knew I wasn't breaking good shots and it showed on the target (MR-52C, 600 yard reduced for 200). The end result was a 9-shot group that was, with the exception of one really bad break to the left, 3" wide and just under 3 3/4" high. I still had 5 minutes on the timer when I finished. I could have easily changed out the aperture and shot a better group.

I then changed my front aperture up one notch. Much better.

Next I shot the flat based version the Hoppy sent. No sighters with only ten cartridges. The first shot was an 8 at 2 o'clock. Allowing for the clean barrel first shot tending to be high I corrected 1 minute left. The next nine shots went into 3" ctc. with 5 10s and 4 Xs. That looked better. I still left 5 minutes on the timer. I'm not worried, I'm sure the 5 minutes will be used up in the actual match trying to read the conditions and make the right adjustments between each shot.

Next up, the cupped base bullets. Again these were the same as the flat based bullets Hoppy sent except for the cup. I expected the first bullet to be 1 1/2 minutes high through the clean barrel and adjusted for that. Wrong! It went 2 1/2 minutes low. That is including my 1 1/2 minute down adjustment. I came up 1 1/2 and the next was an X at 7 o'clock. From there it went bad, and it became clear that there was no accounting for the vertical. I quit turning the elevation knob half way through. The last 9 shots ended up at 3" wide and a bit over 5" high. Nope, don't like those cupped base bullets!

In the end I decided the mechanics of shooting 13 shots in 20 minutes are very doable. Keeping up with condition changes and ahead of any snafus will be the challenge. A miss and all bets go out the window unless you're able to get in the scope and see it through the smoke. Best not to miss!

I really have no idea why the cupped base bullets had more vertical in them, but that would be a real killer at 1000 yards when your vertical struggles to hold the 8-ring at 200. That's a bit scary!

Any experience or thoughts on cupped vs. flat?

JK1

[Distant Thunder]

Brent,

I'm sure the more deeply seated paper patched bullets are either for military use or hunting. The ones seated out would be for the target range. Correct?

JK1

[BrentD]

Brent,

I'm sure the more deeply seated paper patched bullets are either for military use or hunting. The ones seated out would be for the target range. Correct?

JK1

Exactly. I would like to know the diameters of the hunting bullets.

[BrentD]

Any experience or thoughts on cupped vs. flat?

JK1

Back in the day, I had a Corbin Swaging press - actually I had two of them, one from each Corbin - I decided to test for cupped bases. The swaging dies had multiple base punches that would allow me to make flat, cupped, and then a radical rebated boattail.

Using the first two punches, I made clones of the original Sharps Long range bullet and shot them side by side loaded identically. I could not find any difference whatsoever in accuracy. I don't find them worth the trouble. The cup by the way was about 0.050 deep and left a nice strong rim around the outer edge of the base so they were not prone to blowing out.

[Gunlaker]

Jim you are right, the time limits are quite doable as we shoot Eron's Money Match with the same rules except it's only one day and all at 1000 yards. I've shot my paper patched .45-90 a couple of times in that one. You certainly don't have much time to wait on a condition though. It's pretty much do your wiping routine, while trying to watch the flags, a quick look at the mirage and dial something up. Starting with good elevation values sure helps :-).

I find that I eat up a few extra seconds on each shot because I want to watch the bullet impact through the spotting scope. It sure helps if you come off the target to know approximately where you hit the dirt :-).

Chris.

[Gunlaker]

Jim, one more thought. I think these self-spotting, tight time frame matches give a tiny bit of an advantage to a shooter using a scope. In my MVA scope I can read the mirage as long as it's not too subtle, and I can see the shot and score markers.

Chris.

[Distant Thunder]

Chris,

I have been shooting with a scope on my .40-65 this year and I see where it would offer some advantages like you say. I plan to use it for mid range paper, gongs, and silhouette. I don't think I'll be switching to a scope for long range any time soon since I am still seeing paper targets fairly well with the irons. It's those blasted silhouettes that I can't always see that prompted me to buy my scope and the difference is like night and day. I can see the silhouettes, all of them, I can see the mirage. I started with the scope on my C. Sharps .45-70 for silhouette and with that I couldn't see the hits and misses due to recoil. I don't know if the .40 will be any different even though the recoil is much less. I like the scope so well on my .40 I don't think I'll ever go back to iron sights on that rifle unless I have to for some match and have no choice.
My .40-65 is the rifle I am shooting a 2-diameter paper patched bullet in and they are working very well out to 600. Which is as far as that rifle will be called on to shoot.
I hope to shoot it in a gong match out to 500 this Sunday if the weather doesn't follow the forecast with rain all day. We are more than wet enough here in Wisconsin. I was walking through puddles on my way to the target today. Enough already, things need to dry up a little. At least on match day! :)

JK1

[martinibelgian]

Bore or groove diameter PP? I'm lucky in that in my rifle I have the ability to shoot both under the best circumstances - meaning that I have to neckturn my cases for groove diameter bullets, which requires dedicated cases per type of ammunition (well, for me at least). Each type has its pluses and minuses, so here some observations in no particular order:
- Groove diameter shoots cleaner than bore diameter, judging from the amount of fouling in the cases after shooting
- Bore diameter is less delicate as to ammo prepping: Patch a groove-dia. bullet a smidgen too long, and you'll have a sore thumb...
- Bore diameter - obviously - allows you to use more powder for a given case: can be plus or minus, depending or the case used
- Accuracy? little or no difference actually, assuming correct loading techniques for both - but in my rifles equal or better than with GG bullets
- Case prepping for groove dia. bullets is much more involved and time-cpnsuming, obviously - but that's in my specific case.

Bottom line, both work. For reference purposes, here the bullet/paper dimensions I'm using for both types:
Bore dia. PP : .443 naked, patched to .450-1
Groove dia. PP: .450 naked, patched up to .458-9

Just my experience, and I'm quite sure others will have different opinions; I can only say this works for me...

[Distant Thunder]

MB,

Nice summation.

I use paper patched bullets of both types too, just not in the same rifle. I use which ever is most appropriate to the chamber of the rifle I'm dealing with.

I also use a third type that shouldn't be overlooked, the 2-diameter paper patched bullet. This type is most can work very well in a rifle with freebore when you wish to seat the bullet swallow to have the best possible alignment and gain powder capacity hence velocity. This is what I do with my .40-65, which has approximately 3/8" of freebore in front of the chamber. Most of the shank is patched to fit the .409" freebore leaving only .075" in the case. The remaining forward portion of the shank is patched to fit the .400" bore diameter. Doing it that way as opposed to going with straight bore patching means the bullet doesn't have to bump up to fill the freebore, it already fills it, them squeeze down to the .408" groove diameter and the .400" land diameter.

I patch these 2-diameter bullets just as I would bore or groove diameter bullets and it works out just fine though the patch is a bit loose on the .150" long part that is patched to bore diameter. It certainly doesn't seem to hurt the accuracy any.

Right now I'm is the process of making a mold for a friend that will be a 2-diameter type of paper patched bullet. With is one only .100" of the base will be patched to groove diameter the rest of this 1.550" long .40 caliber bullet will be patched to bore diameter. This will be fired in his fast twist .40-72. The thought behind this that it will work in his grease groove chamber but give him a bullet that is essentially a bore diameter paper patched bullet. I'm not sure how well it will work out, but I'm thinking pretty and he has to do all the work with patching and load development so we'll learn something more about this design. I should finish up the mold in the next couple weeks (I'm unbelievably slow in my old age) so he'll have plenty of summer to make this work.

There definitely is more than one way to patch a bullet!

JK1

[54bore]

it appears that perhaps it will arrive when hell freezes over - or hopefully this december. ;)


The waiting thing is a KILLER on me! I'm bad enough over a new bullet mold. I'm sure the wait will be worth it tho

[Lead pot]

Jim I have a Browning BPCR in .40-65 that had one of those bad throats slightly off center like a reamer was run through the second time cutting the extractor notch using a undersized piolet. I had a throating reamer made to clean the throat out and it did a very good job doing this but the chamber had to be deepened to the .40-72 and it shoots pretty good but suffers past midrange with the 16 ROT the Badger barrel it has. I been thinking running the throater in deeper for the .40-82 but I see pro's and con's about the .40-82's.
I think I seen you or Arnie post shooting the .40-82. What is your thought on the 82?

[BRUCE MOULDS]

jim,
I thought I was a pioneer of dual diameter pp bullets until I started posting about their virtues.
personal mails from all directions revealed that numbers of people had also been getting positive results from similar experiments.
many seem too scared to talk about it in public, possibly because it is considered out of the square.
in my case the bullet is set up for a no freebore chamber and the bullet 1/10" in the case.
the transition between the two diameters is the same as that in the chamber, in this case 7 degrees.
the idea was to finger seat the bullet in fired cases, and the rest of the bullet slides into the rifling like a conventional pp bullet.
the other idea was to avoid the massive bumpup that happens to the base of a patched to bore bullet in a greaser chamber upon firing.
it is in effect pre bumped up, thus avoiding one potential area for a problem.
patching the bullets is not a problem with a little practice.
in your case with a freebore chamber, bullet design will fill the case, fill the freebore, and fill the bore, all good things for accuracy.
my next chamber will be a tight pp chamber, but only because I have never tried one.
it will be less versatile, but sometimes you just have to know, and it can be enlarged.
my 13 twist 40/72 will keep a 1.55" long elliptical point on to 1000 yds, but they have a little wobble at about 600/700.
1.5" seems perfect for this twist.
next barrel will be 1:12 for 1.55" bullets.
keep safe,
bruce.

[Distant Thunder]

Kurt,

I just got back from my match today and I'm starting to feel the effects of a long day, it started at 4:00 AM!

Arnie's rifle that he is planning to shoot this 1.550" 2-diameter paper patched bullet in is a .40-72, but I may have misstated it as a .40-82. If I did I'm sorry. Having started my BPCR journey with a .40-90 BN and struggled with that cartridge for 6 or 7 years I am not a big fan of what I would call "over bore capacity" black powder cartridges. Now before the guys with the big shiny cases get upset, I know they can be made to shoot very well and they are very impressive looking and looks are important, but the more modest capacity cases in any caliber are usually much easier to get good results with. For years I resisted the .45-70 because it was too common and not really impressive to look at. When I finally gave in and got my first .45-70. I quickly discovered why that should have been my first BPCR not my second. It was so easy to get that .45-70 to shoot well and it was so much less fussy about bullets and such consistent shooter that I now have 3 .45-70 and all have been very user friendly. I learned so much with that first .45-70 that working with the bigger cases was a lot easier and there enjoyable.

So I kind of feel the same way about the other calibers too, including the.40s, bigger is not always better. Now I know the lure of the big cases is strong, I haven't resisted it completely either. It's just that those small to medium cases will reward you in the end with very good and consistent performance. That's why I'm a big fan of the .40-65, it works!

Arnie's .40-72 looks pretty interesting, but like the .40-82 I have no personal experience with it. With a paper patched bullet he can get 85 grains of powder in that case. That's probably a bit more than is needed in a .40 IMHO, but Arnie says it shoots pretty well with a bore diameter paper patched bullet he has. Now he just wants to see if a two-diameter bullet would work as well or better in the grease groove chamber of his rifle. It would eliminate the need to neck size all together and perhaps save on the brass some. This whole idea came about because of the very good results 4 of us have been having with the two-diameter PPBs in our freebored chambers.

I was shooting my .40-65 today and it shot very, very well. I hit 36 out of 40, missing two gongs at 500, 1 due to spotter error (sorry Mike) and one due to smoke. I should have just held off, let the smoke clear and made the shot, but I didn't and I missed. Then I missed 2 of 5 offhand gongs at 200 yards and that a good day for me. This was all in a tailwind that at time had to hit 30 or 40 mph! Really! When I got up off my shooting mat it started blow down range! It rolled up from the foot end and if it hadn't been for my crossed sticks in front of it I'd have been chasing it down range!

Anyway, these two-diameter PPBs are working incredibly well. Most of my hits were within a few inches of center in some very tough conditions. This may prove to be the ultimate PPB setup, but don't tell Brent! ;)

JK1

[Lead pot]

Hitting the road at 4AM the shoot must have been at Rapids. If Arnie would have sent me a note I might have rolled out of the bunk and made the trip. I guess it's best I shoot the 72 first before fooling with the chamber again. I just took a few shots after cleaning up the chamber to see what the case necks look like. I just don't shoot that Browning. I just load some rounds and take it with me to the range incase I get asked "can I shoot one" I mostly get asked by young gals so I take the girly gun with me loaded light. :)
I will head over to Alma next weekend. Carol just had surgery and I will pass the Q this year She is not ready for those long days. I might take the back way home over the bridge. A 1/2 day longer but enjoyable.
Kurt

[Distant Thunder]

Bruce,

I remember reading some posts you did a few years ago on two-diameter bullets. I read that stuff with great interest. I know I dabbled in the idea quiet a few years ago, but I didn't know enough then to follow all the way through with it and succeed. This time around it's working and working well.

It must be about 2 years ago when Arnie came to me asking if I would make a mold for him that would be a two-diameter paper patched mold for his freebored rifle and Bob's Browning, also with a generous freebore. Because I had my .40-65 with a more than generous freebore I agreed to make a mold to test the idea. I made that first mold to a drawing that Arnie made and that bullet has worked well for both Arnie and Bob. So this past fall I started on my own two-diameter PPB. I first altered an existing nose pour adjustable mold that I had in order to find out what would fit my chamber as far as length and diameters. After a couple of efforts I had a pretty good idea what I needed and made the mold I'm shooting now. It appears that I got the sizes perfect and the design of the nose right where I needed it. It is a perfect fit to my chamber making this old rifle shoot amazingly well.

I'm well aware that the two-diameter PPB bullet has been around for a while, probably longer than we think. It certainly makes sense and it works!

I need to go back and reread you posts on this subject, I'm sure there's plenty of information there that I have forgotten.

I should see if I can't get some pictures together to post them here that would show what I have and how it works. That would explain a lot.

I actually shot two different bullets today. The offhand bullet is a patched to groove (actually freebore) diameter and the prone bullet is the two-diameter one. Both shoot well, but the offhand bullet is only 288 grains over 62.0 grains of 1 1/2 Swiss. Very mild shooting load and it would be plenty to knock over chickens.

JK1

[Don McDowell]

Both my 44 77s thrive on a dual diameter bullet, and the 44 90 st likes it. I have one for the 45s and one o0 likes it real well the other not so much. Thinking about getting one built for the herd of 40s gathering up here but haven't decided on the final dimensions yet.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Distant Thunder]

Kurt,

No, the match was at Merrill. I was up at 4 AM because my wife woke me up when heard something gnawing on the garage door. She has very good hearing unlike me. Turned out to be the porcupine that has been chewing up everything around here for week, including my shooting shack. So I had to go outside with a flashlight and convince the little bugger to stop chewing on my buildings. By the time that was taken care of there was little point in crawling back in bed so I made coffee and got ready to head to Merrill. I'm usually awake around 5 anyway.

It was a fun shoot though, come on up next time. It's good practice for the Q for next year!

JK1

[Lead pot]

I have a couple squirrels chewing on my door. They have everything gone above the threshold. When September comes around they will be roasting over a open back yard fire pit. I hope they get sweeten up on chestnuts in time :)

[Don McDowell]

Kurt give Carolyn our best, hope she gets healed up soon.
Will you be able to come out for the Dean Scoggins memorial match?

[Lead pot]

TNX. Don I will tell her.
When and where id the match and what is the format?

[Don McDowell]

It's at Alliance, the weekend of July 29, 3 targets at 1000 yds. both days.
Deadeye and his spotter were at the Smithmoor match this weekend.

[BRUCE MOULDS]

jim,
arnie is ahead of me on the dd bullet thing.
a lot of my writings on them might include some supposition, as I often use posting on forums to clear the thoughts.
however I have found them to be very honest performers, and easy to load sans case sizing when the diameters are worked out correctly.
your chicken load idea is a good one.
I have often wondered about using a shallow seated lighter bullet in the 40/72, and replacing some of the powder space with grease wads and/or greased felt for chickens, in the hope of sometimes shooting dirty. failing that, minimal blowtubing.
kurt put me onto oiled felt, and doing it right by squeezing them before use.
loaded like this with neck tension, the bullet will not press back on them when chambered causing leakage.
possibly massive proportions of oil will soften powder fouling like moist breath will, but not require blowing. just load and shoot.
yet to be tested.
the 40/72 is quite versatile like that.
long range ammo with a suitable bullet shallow seated is a very long cartridge.
arnies load of 85 gns of swiss is about standard depending on powder lots. it just plain works.
the first dd bullet I saw was a picture don McDowell posted, but his bullet was major diameter about the length of the bands on a normal greaser.
it just went from there, with a longer minor diameter to sit out in the rifling as much as a normal bore diameter pp bullet.
all the best with jk2.
if he keeps improving you might have to relegate jk1 to him and adopt jk2 yourself. (just joking)
keep safe,
bruce.

[Don McDowell]

The dual diameter bullets I use, can be short or they can be long, they are nose pour adjustable and can be tailored to specific needs. Loaded properly they can be shot dirty or not.

[martinibelgian]

I guess I'm just lucky with my rifle's chamber - shooting groove-diameter .458 bullets requires lots of neckturning of my cases, but sizing the cases without neckturning after trimming gets them the right size for bore-diameter bullets, these being a prefect friction fit in a case that's not neckturned - which is a trimmed and reformed Federal .470 Nitro Express case. Not by design, mind you - pure luck...

[Don McDowell]

Gert, that is the classic example of figuring out how to work with what you have, and not what you wish you had.. I always enjoy your threads on working with your Martini's.

[Lead pot]

Shooting "dirty" I have worked out pretty well. I have shot over 80 rounds with out using fouling control and held 2MOA @200 yards short of 5 rounds that wandered out to 3MOA. It can be done but I would not try it for a match :) It ls a combination between a proper wad stack that holds a very soft lube wad, very soft, and bullet.

I tried DD bullets Don sent me a couple years ago to try and I did not see the accuracy working them up with ladder loads using the 50 bullets till I ran out of them and they would not chamber in the rifles I use for the matches that have tight chambers with the compound funnel throats will not except a base diameter in the case and get it chambered patched .004" over bore diameter. The way I look at it with my match chambers with the concentric compound throats a bullet patched one thousand over bore diameter when that charge goes off the bullet fills the throat very fast making that bullet like a DD and this helps seal the gas behind the bullet very fast where I get very low mid single digits SD's and I feel this is what keeps my verticals flatlined. I have never looked at a recovered bullet that has any distortions from getting mauled going through the throat. A DD bullet shot in a GG chamber is a plus from what I seen with few recovered patched bullets the DD bullets are a plus looking at the bases.........Kurt

[Don McDowell]

I've yet to find an accurate load with any sort of patched bullet using a "lube" wad. A simple felt wad and maybe a thin card wad is sufficient. I also use thin paper with the dual diameter bullets.

[Distant Thunder]

"I have often wondered about using a shallow seated lighter bullet in the 40/72, and replacing some of the powder space with grease wads and/or greased felt for chickens, in the hope of sometimes shooting dirty. failing that, minimal blowtubing."

Bruce,

I have been working on that idea since early spring this year. So I have a mold that casts a short and light groove diameter bullet that I'm using for offhand. It's almost a semi-wadcutter type of bullet and I cast them from the same 16-1 alloy as my prone bullets. I seat it about .150" the case to help reduce the powder capacity. I also seat two .060 wads ( a card wad & a ldpe wad on top) to reduce it a little more. I also just dump the 62.0 grains through a short funnel to help "fluff" it up some and it has very little compression. The accuracy is super great, but it's not bad at 200m. At 100 yards it will put 5 shots right around an inch, but it is closer to 2 minutes at 200m. It's working well for me but I'm far from a great offhand shot. If it will hit with 2 inches of where I break the shot I can live with that.

I have been looking for a way to make a light bullet work for a long time, I may finally have something.

[Lead pot]

It can be done over 80 shots in that hole shooting at 200 yards.
http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/IMG_1242_zps765223af.jpg (http://s704.photobucket.com/user/Kurtalt/media/IMG_1242_zps765223af.jpg.html)

[Distant Thunder]

One thing I tried with this chicken load was to include a grease cookie with hopes of just being able to run a single dry patch thru between shots for maybe 7 shots. It worked for about 3 shots but the bore had already started to tighten up and accuracy went bad. I didn't have time to fiddle with it any more, it was time to load something for Sundays match.

Best results I had Saturday was with no grease cookie and wiping with just one damp patch. In Sundays match I wiped between shot the same for both bullets, 1 wet and 1 dry. I never had trouble with fouling but it wasn't exactly a dry day either. With my .45-70 I have been able to keep up with the fouling while using 1 wet & 1 dry by varying how wet my patches are. I've been able to run them pretty wet as long as the dry patch takes away any fluid in the chamber and bore. The dry patch becomes a damp patch by the time it gets half way up the bore, cleaning out any fouling remaining in that last 6" of the barrel that seem to be the first place to get crusty. It appears as though my .40-65 will be even easier to get "clean enough" with 1 wet & 1 dry. I will revisit this idea later this summer.

[Distant Thunder]

Bruce,

If JK2 continues to shoot as well as he did on Sunday at Lodi and I get bumped to the JK2 spot and he is JK1 I'll be very proud. He was pretty good about beating me for the first time, he never said a word about it. That may change if he repeats. Either way I don't see him wanting to shot any other than my Hepburn and paper patched bullets. I am already giving though to putting together another rifle chambered the same way so we can each have a rifle to call our own, but I'd have to get my Hepburn back or no deal.

JK1 (At least for now!)

[beltfed]

196535
See attached pic of the Excellent work Jim has done on mold cutting.
beltfed/arnie

[BRUCE MOULDS]

kurt,
thay target raises a good question.
in the real world, how many guys could sit down at a bench and shoot 80 shots straight into a group like that wiping or blowing?
my guess is not a lot could beat it.
an 80 shot string is very tiring.
I would be happy to accept that for shooting offhand, as I can nowhere near shoot that well.
being able to just load and shoot would give more opportunities to NOT shoot when the sights are not quite aligned perfectly.
also, you have to count along the bank of missed chickens to shoot the correct one, and this takes time also.
jk1, jk2 or whatever,
I designed a greaser for dirty shooting, and it worked well until things got hot and dry.
it might be a candidate for oil soaked felt wads but not yet tried.
it uses 70 gns of powder in the 40/72, and the felt wads would reduce that charge even further.
keep safe,
bruce.

[BRUCE MOULDS]

arnie you wiley old dog,
you have probably more experience with d.d. bullets than any of us.
you have been reading this all along and not posted some of your other wonderful pictures of these bullets.
keep safe,
bruce.

[Distant Thunder]

Arnie, those are some sharp looking bullets! The one I'm using ain't near that pretty, but it does shoot well.

JK1

[rfd]

One thing I tried with this chicken load was to include a grease cookie with hopes of just being able to run a single dry patch thru between shots for maybe 7 shots. It worked for about 3 shots but the bore had already started to tighten up and accuracy went bad. I didn't have time to fiddle with it any more, it was time to load something for Sundays match.

Best results I had Saturday was with no grease cookie and wiping with just one damp patch. In Sundays match I wiped between shot the same for both bullets, 1 wet and 1 dry. I never had trouble with fouling but it wasn't exactly a dry day either. With my .45-70 I have been able to keep up with the fouling while using 1 wet & 1 dry by varying how wet my patches are. I've been able to run them pretty wet as long as the dry patch takes away any fluid in the chamber and bore. The dry patch becomes a damp patch by the time it gets half way up the bore, cleaning out any fouling remaining in that last 6" of the barrel that seem to be the first place to get crusty. It appears as though my .40-65 will be even easier to get "clean enough" with 1 wet & 1 dry. I will revisit this idea later this summer.

have you tried the BACO bore wipers/gophers/pigs for fouling control?

[MaxJon]

It can be done over 80 shots in that hole shooting at 200 yards.
http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/IMG_1242_zps765223af.jpg (http://s704.photobucket.com/user/Kurtalt/media/IMG_1242_zps765223af.jpg.html)

Thats awesome! Love that heavy barrel! What rifle is that?

[Lead pot]

BB that is a Shiloh with a .44-100-2.6 caliber. That barrel is 1.3 untampered round 35" long. Comes in close to 25#


Bruce I don't shoot that rifle off hand to often. If I don't get a shot off in 5-6 seconds I put it down :)
The day I shot that hole it was in January and fairly cool. I was fitting new cases for the chamber and all hundred rounds where loaded with 2F KIK and rounds were loaded like for a hunting load for shooting with out fouling control in mind. That 100 round box was full but I shot a few shots at a steel swinger also. It really is a pleasant rifle to shoot.

[Distant Thunder]

have you tried the BACO bore wipers/gophers/pigs for fouling control?

I made up a set of "bore pigs" several years ago and they worked very well in my Shiloh .45-90. That rifle shot PPBs best with a squeaky clean bore.

In my .45-70 Hepburn they don't work so well because that rifle likes the bore a little dirty so 1 wet & 1 dry works best. I don't know yet if my C. Sharps .40-65 will shoot as well with a squeaky clean bore, but I do know it shoots very well with 1 wet & 1 dry patch. I'm going to explore the idea of one wet patch alone because that seemed to work well in the one limited test I recently did. The fouling seems to be much less or much easier to push out for some reason in my .40.

I did make a set of pigs for my .40-65 with the idea of shooting a silhouette match with it, but in their debut on Sunday I wasn't able to push them through without more effort than I would be capable of in a 40-shot match, or even a 10-shot string. I'll need to figure out what's up with that and correct it. I did test a few when I made them and they worked ok then or so it seemed. I'll tract down the problem soon.

JK1

[BrentD]

There are a lot of ways to deal with fouling. Damp patches followed by dry patches have been a go-to for me in Schuetzen and BPTR for about two decades now. Back when I started, I drew a lot of stares, but now, wiping is the rule by a large margin.

The same is becoming true of silhouette, where abut 99% of the shooters flat out disparaged paper patching and wiping between shots. The former couldn't possibly be accurate and the latter simply wasn't possible. Today, there are still very few paper patchers in silhouette. Some years, I am still the only one at Nationals, but slowly the numbers are growing there as well so there are generally a few others. Meanwhile, wiping has taken a huge turn upwards. Where it was "impossible" it is now being done by at least 1/4-1/3 of the shooters at nationals.

Bore pigs have been around a long time and super effective. I am somewhat surprised to see folks jump on the BACO wipes like they are something new, but whatever it takes... Meanwhile, there seems to be a mystique surrounding wiping fluids that is not unlike the bullet lube secrets that were the topic of great interest a decade ago. Yet, plain ol' dihydrogen monoxide continues to do just fine. Don't sell it short. I have never used anything else.

Time to load chicken bullets. Interesting discussions here about them. I have been working on my own version lately. Just one diameter however.

[martinibelgian]

Actually, a few years ago I experimented with blowtubing with PP bullets, no grease cookie: this did work quite well indeed in the 45-70 I tried it in. It is a mistake to think you need lube to combine with powder fouling to make blowtubing possible. After all, BP fouling is hygroscopic, no reason why it shouldn't work...
Haven't tried it since though, with the no.2 Musket I wipe with bore pigs and VFG felts afterwards, pushed by a patch. But I'm sloooowww.... That might just be me though.

[rfd]

... I am somewhat surprised to see folks jump on the BACO wipes like they are something new, but whatever it takes...

it's good BACO marketing for PPB newbies like me to get sucked in and drop yet another hundred buck$. :)

although i had been curious about those texas bore pigs i'd seen advertised in BPCN for the last few years, but never saw a need for them with greasers and a blow tube. PPB's are just a diff'rent story, at least for me.

[BRUCE MOULDS]

rfd,
they both work well,
bore pigs are easier to push.
keep safe,
bruce.

[Distant Thunder]

My reason for including the grease cookie was an attempt to be able to shoot and when wipe with a dry patch . I was hoping the lube would soften the fouling enough to make any blow tubing or wet patch unnecessary. Just one dry patch pushed through and load and shoot the next round. I was hoping to do that for no more than 7 shots. This would give more time for shooting in timed events and less time used up in wiping with additional patches or huffing and puffing.

It work well enough in my test that I think I can get it to work like I want it to with a change in my lube cookie. I think Kurt could help me with that, but I don't want him to give away any trade secrets. :wink:

When I have time for wiping with one wet and one dry it is not a problem and I've gotten pretty quick at it. I'm looking for something even faster when there is only one minute per shot.

I've got until July to work out the problems with my .40 caliber bore pigs, there's plenty of time to panic later.:shock:

[Distant Thunder]

As to "plain ol' dihydrogen monoxide" I have to say that it seems to work for Brent. I have always mixed my H2-O with Mobil water soluble oil, the same stuff I use in my machines as coolant/lubricant, for a couple reasons. It leaves a thin layer of lubrication in the bore which can't hurt. It is also a very good rust preventative which again can't hurt either. I think it works quite well in the fouling control and accuracy departments also. YMMV

[Don McDowell]

I like the Napa water soluble oil.

[rfd]

why would adding some form of oil to the water of a wiping patch or wiper matter for shot-to-shot fouling control?

black powder residue is readily soluble in plain old water, particularly since that will be addressed within short seconds of firing. why would there be a need for oil as a preservative, rust preventative, or some means of lubing or cooling the bore? after shoot cleanup, absolutely. during the shot process is another story, i'd think.

not saying either process is right or wrong, just looking for reasonable facts for the advantages of a water/oil fouling control over just plain water.

[Lead pot]

I use antifreeze for two reasons and two reasons only. From November to April it gets cold in these parts and my wiping patches freeze with just water. During the hot days the antifreeze keeps the moisture in the patches constant from evaporating when the warm and hot winds blow over them. When th temperature drops down in the teens and colder I use it straight because RV antifreeze 50/50 starts to crystalize and stick together.
I don't like oil/water mix. I get a increase of vertical and I don't think a dry patch removes all the water that beads up on the oil.

[Lead pot]

It work well enough in my test that I think I can get it to work like I want it to with a change in my lube cookie. I think Kurt could help me with that, but I don't want him to give away any trade secrets. :wink:


Yup Jim I developed something that works but it's top secret!! :D

[Don McDowell]

The 1875 Remington Catalog, and Sharps catalogs from the same time period, all explain the "secret" to shooting dirty, and Sharps even gives away the secret recipe for a lube cookie. :-P

[Don McDowell]

Tried the rv antifreeze thing, in the low humidity in this part of the country , it tends to dry out extremely fast, and make for some super hard fouling.

[Lead pot]

Don I don't see that going on. When I can use it at the Q with the winds and dry air blowing there and I can hold my misses by 6 shots or less from the match winner it's not giving me a fouling problems.
I think one of those patch poppers, I think that is what they call them, with just plain water dampened patches would be the best way to go, but I don't have one.

[Don McDowell]

I like the patch poppers for when just pushing a damp patch followed by a dry, the biggest problem is I like a 2 1/2 inch patch for the 45 bores, and those poppers are designed for a 2 inch.
For just gong shooting where a hit in the middle of the target counts the same as one skipped in,a person can get away with a lot of different fouling control routines than silhouette and bptr matches.
And as always in this game what ever a person is comfortable with..

[rfd]

anyone offering those patch poppers for sale or is it still a DIY affair?

[Lead pot]

I was at a local lumber yard getting weed spray and I seen some clear square plastic tubing from 1" to 5" inside diameters and the thought crossed my mind making one.

[BrentD]

poppers are made and sold by Paul Huard. Making one is a bit more tricky than you might think.

I don't leave home without mine!

[BrentD]

Those of you looking for a "shoot dirty" paper patched bullet might try this one

https://www.buffaloarms.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/jim452420.jpg

it is 420 grns and it has a shoulder on it that seems to be able to scrape out, rather than ride over, Lead fouling. in this case it is groove diameter, but it can be sized down to be land diameter too. This iss my new chicken bullet, but I originally had it made to shoot in a Marlin 1895

The shoulder is reminiscent of the shoulder after the first step in a swaged bullet. I used to swage everything so when sold my swaging gear, I had a mould made to imitate it.

[Lead pot]

Give that Man a Barley Pop he is right :D

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b302/940Leadpot/bd596aa4-ed12-4943-9485-8eb4d5f6a6f3_zpstriw49xp.jpg (http://s22.photobucket.com/user/940Leadpot/media/bd596aa4-ed12-4943-9485-8eb4d5f6a6f3_zpstriw49xp.jpg.html)

[BrentD]

Long ago, I used to make bullets like that. Fine for killing stuff, and okay on paper out to 200 yds, but after that, no so much. As a chicken bullet, they shoot okay.

[rfd]

poppers are made and sold by Paul Huard. Making one is a bit more tricky than you might think.

I don't leave home without mine!

i did try making a patch popper last year, wasn't as good as yers. a proper one is not an easy build. where to contact paul?

[Gunlaker]

I think you can send him a pm on the Shiloh board. His user name is Moezingo if I remember correctly.

Chris.

[rfd]

thanx, chris - i already emailed him.

[Distant Thunder]

why would adding some form of oil to the water of a wiping patch or wiper matter for shot-to-shot fouling control?

black powder residue is readily soluble in plain old water, particularly since that will be addressed within short seconds of firing. why would there be a need for oil as a preservative, rust preventative, or some means of lubing or cooling the bore? after shoot cleanup, absolutely. during the shot process is another story, i'd think.

not saying either process is right or wrong, just looking for reasonable facts for the advantages of a water/oil fouling control over just plain water.


Back many years ago when I first went from blow tubing to wiping my then shooter partner was the one pushing me toward wiping. He was winning all the matches then and I had noticed that so then he said "Here's how I'm doing it." I tended to listen. Like many shooters then he was using the water soluble oil that NAPA sold. Having my shop and machines that used a MOBILE oil I used that. I was shooting grease grooved bullets them mostly and I didn't get wiping to work for me the first couple times I tried it. Eventually I had it working and have since lost all my blow tubes.


That is how I came to add water soluble oil to my water. I continue to do so because it has worked for me and I don't tend to chance the things that work. At a long range match I will run a wet and dry patch down the bore before I fire a shot on my first relay. That gets the bore lubed, and I shouldn't have to explain why some lube in the bore is a good thing with PPBs, and as close to the condition it will be in while I'm shooting my record string, minus the high temperature of course.

When I finish the string I run two or three wet patches thru and one dry. I put my rifle in the case and depending on where we are in the match that rifle may be in the case for a couple hours. Like when I go to the pit for three relays and a line change, then come out and spot one relay before I shoot my next relay. It sits in the case for a while. The oil, I feel, gives me some level of protect against rust not only in the bore, but at the muzzle and any place the water might run or drip when I'm wiping. Like down inside the action and breech block to name a few. Maybe it's nothing to worry about. I do clean and oil the bore and the outside surfaces at the end of the day, but I don't pull the block or get inside. I just feel better knowing I have some oil in the works and not just water mixed with black powder residue, a corrosive combination. Most people probably don't think about it or worry about, I don't have to do either. The rifle will get a thorough cleaning when I get home, but that could be a few days sometimes.

If I were just starting wiping today I would probably do what Brent does, he's winning all the matches for now and I'm just a chaser these days! Often first loser!

Do what works for you, rfd, that's probably best, and I'll do what works for me.

JK1

[rfd]

though i started off a few years back with water/oil patches, these dayze i do use plain water with patches and bore wipers for fouling control only. when it's time to case up and leave the line, i spray water/oil into the chamber and run two sloppy water/oil patches down the tube. that should suffice 'til i'm back at the ranch for a proper cleaning, which, thanx to ppb's, only takes 3 patches tops. but who knows whats really "best", maybe it's all good one way or t'other? :)

[Col4570]

I have been Paper Patching and Naked Bullet shooting my original .565 cal Whitworth Match Rifle.At 300 yards the PP bullets shoot 12" Higher than the Naked bullets.The PP Bullets are the Naked bullets Swaged down and Wrapped.I guess there is a better seal with the PP Bullet.Elsewhere on this site I posted details of the Hollow Base Hollow nose Bullet as designed by Mr Whitworth.http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s452/livebattery/003-16.jpg

[Col4570]

http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s452/livebattery/001-40.jpg (http://s1052.photobucket.com/user/livebattery/media/001-40.jpg.html)The Hollow nose has a Wooden Plug as per Whitworths design.I had lots of searching to find details of the Original bullet.The difference with My PPs is that they have Canelures but they do work and hit Nose on.
PS the Large Calibre Whitworth has a Rifling Twist of 1 in 26 as opposed to the Normal .451 Whitworth Rifle that has a 1 in 20 Twist.

[Col4570]

Notice Photobucket has suspended my Photos without notification.They demand a payment to continue.

[rfd]

Notice Photobucket has suspended my Photos without notification.They demand a payment to continue.

it was bad enuf that they made it difficult to post images and proliferated everything with ads and links, and yep, now chumbucket is holding everyone hostage for a $400 annual fee in order to release all yer images on forums, blogs, social media, whatever, that you've been putting up for viewing and sharing for well over a decade. most despicable. there are FAR BETTER and FREE online image archive services to use. glad i dropped chumbucket a decade ago ....

[Gellot Wilde]

Bore or groove diameter PP? I'm lucky in that in my rifle I have the ability to shoot both under the best circumstances - meaning that I have to neckturn my cases for groove diameter bullets, which requires dedicated cases per type of ammunition (well, for me at least). Each type has its pluses and minuses, so here some observations in no particular order:
- Groove diameter shoots cleaner than bore diameter, judging from the amount of fouling in the cases after shooting
- Bore diameter is less delicate as to ammo prepping: Patch a groove-dia. bullet a smidgen too long, and you'll have a sore thumb...
- Bore diameter - obviously - allows you to use more powder for a given case: can be plus or minus, depending or the case used
- Accuracy? little or no difference actually, assuming correct loading techniques for both - but in my rifles equal or better than with GG bullets
- Case prepping for groove dia. bullets is much more involved and time-cpnsuming, obviously - but that's in my specific case.

Bottom line, both work. For reference purposes, here the bullet/paper dimensions I'm using for both types:
Bore dia. PP : .443 naked, patched to .450-1
Groove dia. PP: .450 naked, patched up to .458-9

Just my experience, and I'm quite sure others will have different opinions; I can only say this works for me...



That's what works for me.

My naked bullet for bore dia. is .442 but it's close enough to your .443. :wink: