Buffalo Arms 9lb Onion Skin Too Thin

I picked up a nice Pedersoli .45-70 Silhouette earlier this year and thought I'd try PP. That's probably as close to Quigley's rifle that I'll ever own. I already owned an 1871 H&R Buffalo Classic but a pound cast of the chamber looks like the leade is too sharp for PP so I'll likely stick to GG boolits for it. I also have a couple of Trapdoor rifles but their abrupt transition from throat to rifling looks like they may not be good PP candidates either.

I'll probably size a couple of different GG boolits that I've cast down to the size I need for the Sharps (.4505") even though I'll have to run them through a couple of progressively smaller sizer dies. I know, it's not the best method as far as accuracy but I have the boolits and sizer dies already. I'm in the process of ordering a mould/s for slicks to patch but this will allow me to get started while waiting for moulds to be made and shipped to me.

The question I have regards the paper. I ordered a roll of Seth Cole 55W 8lb tracing paper which measures .0015" as I expected. My math told me that I'd need a bit thicker so I ordered 100 sheets of 9lb Onion Skin from Buffalo Arms. When the Onion Skin arrived I measured it with a calibrated Starret 0-1" micrometer. The Onion Skin only measures .0015" just like the 8lb 55W. I went back and checked the Buffalo Arms website and it does indeed advertise the 9lb Onion Skin as .0020" thick. I measured other sheets to be sure the one sheet was not a one-off but it was not. The 9lb Onion Skin is .0015" thick. Has anyone ran up against this?

What other paper could I use that is just a bit thicker than the 8lb .0015" 55W? I may not need a full .0020" thickness but I do need more than .0015" thick if I am going to only use two wraps.

https://www.buffaloarms.com/9-pound-...h-pppaper.html


Attachment 323293 Attachment 323294

Rather than trying to measure the paper itself I have found it more useful to wrap a bullet and see how much it adds. Then you'll know for sure what size bullet you need to make the combination work. And it is somewhat different from measuring the sheets since you get some stretch when it's wrapped.

I wrap to bore dia not groove my brooks paper patch mold is .442 when wrapped with the cole its right around .450 +- a few tenths. It is an adjustable mould and currently is set for 525 grns. works great in the 45-90, and my 45-70s. A pedersolis long range, rolling block with badger barrel and a brochardts. all are 1-18 twist. My paper patch loads are only seated in the case .100-.125 to get the bullet in the bore as far as possible. The short throats leades are an advantage with bore riders.

Are you patching to bore diameter or groove diameter? Are you planning to use smokeless or black powder?

The SethCole I use measures 0.0015" as does yours but my BACO 9# paper I bought several years ago measures 0.002" as advertised. There are other paper brands out there between these two. I would recommend asking this question on the Shiloh and ASSRA forums.

Another trick is take your micrometers to Micheals, wallmart, office max and measure the tracing papers and others in pads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nobade

Rather than trying to measure the paper itself I have found it more useful to wrap a bullet and see how much it adds. Then you'll know for sure what size bullet you need to make the combination work.

---

I understood from Matthews book, "The Paper Jacket" that the bullet size was determined by bore and groove diameters and the paper thickness was the variable. He says for smokeless to size the bullet to bore diameter minus .0005" and patch to groove diameter. For black he says to size the bullet to bore minus .004"-.006" and patch to bore diameter. Are you saying that the bullet diameters can vary from the sizes he says to use without adverse consequence?

Quote:

---

And it is somewhat different from measuring the sheets since you get some stretch when it's wrapped.

---

I understood that from what I have read and that is quite logical since the paper is slightly stretched while wet. That's why I figured I'd need more than .0015" x 4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff Michel

Are you patching to bore diameter or groove diameter? Are you planning to use smokeless or black powder?

---

I will be trying both black and smokeless (as well as duplex loads). I will be patching to groove for smokeless and to bore for black.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pilgrim1

The SethCole I use measures 0.0015" as does yours but my BACO 9# paper I bought several years ago measures 0.002" as advertised. There are other paper brands out there between these two. I would recommend asking this question on the Shiloh and ASSRA forums.

---

I probably need to ask Buffalo Arms first. I was just curious if anyone else here had encountered the same problem with Buff Arms 9lb Onion Skin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by country gent

Another trick is take your micrometers to Micheals, wallmart, office max and measure the tracing papers and others in pads.

---

That's a good idea. I considered that before I ordered the paper from Buff Arms. I just figured that when I paid for .002" paper that is what I would get instead of .0015", a full 25% thinner. I really wanted a high rag or cotton content paper instead of wood fiber paper (like copier paper) figuring it would be a bit tougher and closer to what would have been originally used.

I guess it's buyer beware. Measure it yourself and don't trust advertisements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broken-mold

I understood from Matthews book, "The Paper Jacket" that the bullet size was determined by bore and groove diameters and the paper thickness was the variable. He says for smokeless to size the bullet to bore diameter minus .0005" and patch to groove diameter. For black he says to size the bullet to bore minus .004"-.006" and patch to bore diameter. Are you saying that the bullet diameters can vary from the sizes he says to use without adverse consequence?




I understood that from what I have read and that is quite logical since the paper is slightly stretched while wet. That's why I figured I'd need more than .0015" x 4.

---

Patching for smokeless and for black are two completely different animals. For black, you want very thin paper and you want the finished projectile to be bore diameter or slightly larger so it sits on top of the lands and will slide through the barrel if you push it with a cleaning rod. Typically I use a .442" bullet and paper that adds .008. I also have some that adds .009 if the barrel is slightly bigger. The bullet is barely in the case, 1/8" or less. essentially you're trying to duplicate what you'd have with a muzzleloader. You want nearly zero throat.
Patching for smokeless is where you get into Paul Matthews books. The bullet needs to be bore diameter plus about .001, so that it will not slide down the hole and will engrave the rifling if you force it. Then you patch it to slightly over groove diameter so when it's fired you have a good gas seal and nothing leaks past. It is seated in the case like a normal bullet, so the patch just starts to touch the rifling when it is chambered. Since smokeless won't bump up bullets like black powder will, they have to already be big enough.
You can certainly load black powder this way. I do that for my Trapdoor rifle and it works fine. But you give up a lot of case capacity, and the ability to have a lubricated bullet so unless there really is a need for it, there's no good reason to do so - just use a normal bullet. In this case, a longer throat is fine since you can seat the bullet out a bit to touch the rifling. But a long throat will play havoc with accuracy if you're patching with black powder, since the bullet will upset to fill the throat then immediately get squeezed back down into the bore. In rifles like that, a two diameter bullet is most beneficial. My Browning 40-65 is like that, it's useless with a parallel sided patched bullet but the custom two diameter one I got from Accurate is a tack driver. That rifle is designed to shoot grease groove bullets.

You can patch to bore with smokeless powder. I've been doing it for quite a few years with a .443 slick patched to .450-.451 in a 45-90 using both WC 872 & 867 and IMR 3031. In a 45-90 you do need to take up excess space with wads or floral foam and seat the bullet .010 into the case and a slight taper crimp to hold the bullet. Works very well. FWIW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 25ring

You can patch to bore with smokeless powder. I've been doing it for quite a few years with a .443 slick patched to .450-.451 in a 45-90 using both WC 872 & 867 and IMR 3031. In a 45-90 you do need to take up excess space with wads or floral foam and seat the bullet .010 into the case and a slight taper crimp to hold the bullet. Works very well. FWIW

---

I've been meaning to try that since you told me about it. I'm super curious to see it work since all my previous attempts to get bullets to bump using smokeless powder have been failures. But I've never tried this exact combination so have some learnin' to do.

A question for you guys... more regarding BP paper patching though. I have read i that the ODG's used "money paper" for patching because it was a high strength paper likey linene rag. Money paper is thick like 0.004"+.

I normally see posts about paper that is typically around 0.002" thick like the Buffalo Arms paper.

Is there any truth to the "money paper" comment?

I have paper patched for smokeless powder withj paper up to 0.0035" thick with good success so thick paper obviously can work. I am sure a lot depends on bullet diameter and groove depth. I started with a smooth mould for .44 mag. and a bullet of 0.421" patched up to 0.433" and that being shot in microgroove rifling. In that case the rifling is so shallow that using a bore diameter +0.001" boolit then patching to groove is a no go so I cut my mould to allow use of the paper I had (kinda backwards approach) but it worked.

Then I made a mould for my .308 that cast at 0.301" per the NRA design .30 cal. boolits and patched to groove and that worked well.

Then I tried using the same boolit with slightly thick paper in my .303 Lee Enfield and got horrible results. So I knurled the boolits up to 0.304" then patched and that worked well.

All of this was done with thicker than "normal" paper mostly through my ignorance but it worked. I won't say I got "Quigley" accuracy but I got what I got what I would consider good accuracy comparable to grease groove bullets.

So, back to the money paper question and if it is true then why do most modern paper patchers use thin paper?

I am curious! Educate me please!

Longbow

I believe I found some 25% cotton tracing paper that measured .0019 thick at office max a few years ago but 4 pads of it.

More important is to find the papers grain and align with your patches when you cut them. This increases patch strength also

Read the first two paragraphs of #11 post and reflect. This is an excellent bit of information and will save you a ton of grief and.......leading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by longbow

So, back to the money paper question and if it is true then why do most modern paper patchers use thin paper?

I am curious! Educate me please!

Longbow

---

Yes, thicker paper will work but thinner paper allows for a bigger bullet to start with, which doesn't have to bump up as much and go through so much distortion so it is more accurate.

I found something called “Neenah Paper UV Ultra II Translucent Papers,” 8.5 M weight (whatever that means) number 01379 from www.neenahpaper.com

It measures ~0.0021” by my micrometer (using the Dutch Schoultze technique) and is translucent. I believe the store I bought it from described it as “tracing vellum” rather than “tracing paper,” which I find is around 0.0015” by measure.

The stuff tends to be a little too thick for my rifles and castings; a good clean (as opposed to the pig-and-patch wipe) between shots is needed for black powder. Otherwise I have to use my cartridge seating lever. In any case, the paper pieces after firing are larger and farther away from the muzzle and accuracy is not as good as with thinner paper. (Wanna trade? :mrgreen:)

The ODGs mentioned using “Bank Note Paper,” but also said they could get it in thin, medium and thick sizes. Just as a guess, I would imagine that the same paper pulp formula used for bank notes (not necessarily US currency; these were issued by the individual banks in the old days) was pressed or rolled to different thicknesses for different end uses. Certainly paper the thickness of a dollar bill would have plenty of toughness but it would patch to well over the rifling depth and I can’t imagine that loading or accuracy would be very easily gotten from such a construction.

Unless the Erasible Bond and Graph Papers I used to use (when I could find them) had some sort of rag content, I’ve always used whatever crinkly, thin, translucent paper (generally called tracing paper) 0.0015” thick, that I’ve found available, and the packages have never mentioned rag content at all. As long as the patched boolit can be pushed down the barrel with a slight hydraulic/pneumatic draggy feeling, shows rifling marks lightly impressed on the paper, and the shreddies come off a couple feet from the muzzle when the cartridge is fired, it all seems to work.

I tried smokeless paper patching once, with a 0.315” grease groove boolit patched with printer paper to groove diameter or a little over for a .32-40. I got one good group out of it and that was all. Tried black powder groove diameter paper patching with a .44-77, using a 0.441” cast slug (for a .45 cal) patched to 0.449” or so and seated deep in the shell. Accuracy was nothing to write home about, and I had a lot of “paper fouling” at the case mouth and in the leade, which pushed out with the wiping patches. Kind of lost my interest in further experimentation after that.

Back in the ODGs time cotton paper was more the standard than wood based it was more consistent and better quality. The wood paper had voids rough finish and small chunks of wood in it. Also cotton rag was popular in the days before ball point pens the quills and fountain pens laid the ink on the surface and it soaked in, ball point pens pressed the ink into the surface of the harder wood papers.
For many years air mail paper was cotton rag as it was lighter weight.

I am thinking the thicker paper for patching to bore diameter for BP would require a smaller boolit to start with but the bump up should be the same as the patched boolit would still be bore diameter. Possibly there would be a little more give in the thicker paper at bump up so maybe a little more bump up but I'd think we are talking 0.001"/0.002" at most.

If patched to groove it really shouldn't make any difference except that if the boolit is much under bore diameter then possibly there could be slippage of the boolit in the patch?

I was actually a bit surprised that my .44 mag. Marlin shot so well with boolits about 0.004" under bore and then patched to groove diameter but it worked well. As noted above, when I used the 0.301" boolit in my .303's with thicker patch I got poor results but knurled up to 0.303"/0.304" then patched to groove worked fine.

Anyway, just curious and maybe Bent Ramrod's point that bank note paper was available in a variety of thickness explains it. I can see bank note paper being cotton or linen rag for durability and that is good for paper patching so if available thinner than what I read for current paper money (now plastic here!) that would explain things.

Longbow

The other route is if your casting your PP bullets you can lap the mould out the couple thousandths you need for your paper. But buy a big batch of paper so it lasts theres no going back

Update;

Part of my original post was concerning Buffalo Arms 9lb Onion Skin paper that was purchased because it was clearly advertised as being .002" thick. The paper I received measured .0015" thick using a calibrated Starret 0-1" micrometer. I contacted Buffalo Arms and got nowhere. The "Customer Service Rep" that I spoke with very clearly was unconcerned and almost offended when I told him my problem. He seemed to know nothing about the paper and had to put me on hold to speak with someone else there (?) whenever I asked him anything.

He eventually told me (after a long hold) that "they" measured the paper they have in stock and it measured .0015" also. After I questioned him as to whether they would send their stock back to their supplier he eventually (after around and around questions) said they would. I wonder if they will try to sell the rest of their stock instead of sending it back (BUYER BEWARE!). He eventually told me that I could send mine back and they would measure it and "if" it measured less than the .002" thickness they would refund my purchase price, blah, blah, blah. I really wanted the correct paper more than I wanted the money or I'd have kept the money and not ordered it to start with. Duh. Just a simple, "Send it back and we'll get the correct paper back to you within a couple of days" would have gone a long ways to fixing this situation that was clearly the fault of Buffalo Arms.

I was VERY disappointed with the service I received from Buffalo Arms. I've bought several dollars of stuff from them but will try to find stuff somewhere else in the future if that is at all possible.

I want to bring the thread back around to part of my original line of questioning although many other good points have been made. A part of the OP pertained to paper thickness and bullet diameter. Several posters have mentioned using smaller diameter bullets and thicker paper or larger diameter bullets and thinner paper. After I read Matthews book, "The Paper Jacket" I was under the impression that the bullet diameters were set diameter by whether one was shooting black or smokeless. Mathews says;
Smokeless- Size boolit to bore plus .0005", patch to groove.
Black- Size boolit to bore minus .004"-.006", patch to bore.

Are these diameters just the opinion of one guy and many other diameters will work? What am I missing here? I thought that if smaller diameters were used that leading could become a problem if the boolit does not bump up adequately.


Also, I think it was Matthews that mentioned in his book that after he patches he runs the patched boolit through a sizer die once more to reach the desired finished size. ie, groove diameter for smokeless and bore diameter for black. I haven't tried that yet but it appears to me that if the paper were very thick, even using the bullets sized as he recommends, the bullet itself would be sized down when ran through the sizer after patching and now one would be back to an undersized projectile with its associated problems. I really like the idea of a post-patching sizing (OK, I'm a bit OCD for uniformity) but it sounds like the patched projectile would have to be REAL close to desired size or the boolit would be sized down. Is that true or am I missing something here as well?

I have a good supply of the old Southworth paper. from 100% cotton to 25% and even pulp. The 9 pount is the weight per ream and the thickness from different reams in the say 9# the sheets will vary in thickness depending on the sizing used for the paper. I have 12# that is .0017" and I have 7.5pound that is .0018".
Since the end of the old typewriters making copies with carbon paper a lot of this onion skin paper has been discontinued.
Shooting PP with lead even the harder alloys of 1/14 the bullet a couple thousands under bore will be groove diameter before moving a couple inches down the bore.
It's best for accuracy to keep them snug to bore or groove diameter.
Order a push through sizing die from Lee for the diameter you feel you need and push that patched bullet through as long as you don't go to big it will be just fine. It also is beneficial for the undersold wrap of the patch. Just don't try sizing more than 2-3 thousands. You can but it's not a good thing because you will change the length of the thank and ogive.

I am certainly no expert but from my experience, yes other diameters work.

I think for BP and patching to bore diameter paper thickness is not terribly important since the boolit bumps up and will take the paper with it. Same with rifling depth, which varies some. Since the patched boolit is bumping up does it matter if the rifling is 0.003" deep or 0.005" deep? I thjink not though if rifling is excessively deep then the paper might tear or boolit not upset enough to properly fill the grooves.

For smokeless powder though we are patching to groove and if the boolit is sized to bore diameter + 0.0005" then patched to groove, deep rifling requires thicker paper than shallow rifling and there may be a practical limit.

I mentioned that the first paper patching I did was for my .44 mag. 1894 Marlin and since it has microgroove rifling which is about 0.0025" deep and all I had was 0.003" thick paper I made a boolit mould to cast 0.421" so that the patched boolit would be 0.433" after patching. Groove diameter is 0.4315". That worked just fine even though the boolit was well under bore diameter by about 0.005".

By Paul Matthew's method I should have used a boolit of 0.4255" and 0.0015" paper. I am sure that would work too.

I did not get good results with a 0.301" boolit patched to groove in my .303 where that boolot worked well in my .308 when patched to groove.

Why the difference, I am not sure. The .303 has much deeper rifling than the .44 and a much faster twist of 1:10" vs. 1:38" in the Marlin. Possibly rifling depth and twist ome into it as well. After knurling those 0.301" boolits up to 0.304" then patching to groove in the .303 they shot pretty well. So in that case the undersize boolit and thicker paper did not work well.

I am curous as well and do not have specific answers except that the undersize boolit and thick paper worked in the .44.

I hope I am not off topic too much here and if so I'll keep quiet.

Longbow

Lead Pot gives good advice. Also, you are correct in that Paul Matthews' books are one man's opinion and not necessarily the only way. What he says does work, no doubt about it and many of us got our start with his books. But there are quite a few ways to make this work and that's the fun of the hobby, experimenting to find out what is best for you. I will also add that when I started paper patching for high pressure smokeless rounds there really wasn't anybody else that I was aware of that did that. It took two years of frustration before I finally figured out the tricks to make it work. Compared to that, patching with black powder was a piece of cake. You may run into stumbling blocks along the way, but if you stick to it and pay attention to everything that is happening, you will have success eventually. And if your paper is too thin, use a bigger bullet or even better yet try it anyway and see what happens. If it works, great. If not, change something - you have numerous variables to play with - and try again.

Slightly thicker paper will be better than thinner if the patched bullet is a loose fit in the bore[I patch to bore diameter].One thing I've done is make a custom sizing bushing and final size the patched bullet to fit the bore.Since I dry wrap this puts a nice edge on the patched bullet at the base and it won't unwrap. FWIW Mike.

I would suggest that you spend some time on the Shiloh forum and read everything you can regarding paper patching, ask some well thought out questions and don't mention Paul Matthews.

Im thinking differences in measuring may be part of this also. Buffalo arms may be measuring with a stand and indicator compared to you calibrated Micrometer and feel. the indicator will have less compression of the paper and less Feel involved. Your calibrated mic and feel of the touch could easily read .0003-.0004 small compared to the indicator and stand. Paper mics also have bigger faces to allow for this.

The reasoning I have for thinking this is a granite stand and indicator will allow for easy quick measuring of a sheet at many points to verify consistency or to average, and not risk damaging the paper. 0-1" mics may get in 1/2" from each edge but wont get into the center or inside areas.

A granite based stand with a 1" indicator and appropriate point would be quick easy and self checking. slide the paper under read and continue thru when slid out the indicator will go back to the zero setting of the plate. The other plus to this is measuring pressure remains the constant of the indicators spring tension.

To give an idea the standard Mics use a 40 tpi to measure this can induce pressure even with a light touch on the thimble. Standard Mics are usually a .250 spindle and anvil, paper mics are .500. The indicator has no real leverage but a set spring tension and can use any point from a point to 1/2" flat. The difference may be not so much actual thickness but in how each take measurements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broken-mold

What other paper could I use that is just a bit thicker than the 8lb .0015" 55W? I may not need a full .0020" thickness but I do need more than .0015" thick if I am going to only use two wraps.

---

My batch of strathmore 300 series tracing paper is .0018-.0019