Lead Shuttlecocks vs. Gimmicks that Miss the Point.
I am often asked about modern muzzleloaders by shooters who are experiencing problems with accuracy or ignition, or both. Here are a few thoughts regarding components and methodology that I consider significant when weighing the effectiveness of muzzleloader performance.
New vs. Old
When it comes to in-lines, I have performed dozens of tests in which I have compared the modern commercial ammunition to the plain, old-fashioned, solid lead conical. My impression of the “modern” ammunition is, the vast majority of it is junk! The lead conical, on the other hand, is usually an all-lead projectile; with a blunt nose. The best designs have a slightly longer profile (front to back) and a skirted base. Again, lead is a good projectile, especially for muzzleloaders.
So, why would I write about modern in-line firearms, ammunition and powder in a blog aimed at gleaning the lessons of history? The answer is, a good amount of historical knowledge can be gleaned from those who took the time to record their use of muzzleloaders in the 1840’s through the 1870’s. That knowledge, which is based upon actual experience, gives us an awareness of the capabilities of the firearms used by government testers, soldiers and civilians. As they say in forensics: follow the evidence to find the truth.
Even though I am a die-hard flintlock shooter, I endeavor to help other shooters with their questions about muzzleloaders. Most of my questions to the shooter, have to do with the performance of modern in-line rifles. The conversation usually begins, on my end, with the question of the components used, starting with the bullet and then delving into the type of barrel and the rate of twist, followed by the type of powder used. Lastly, I ask about ignition with the cap or 209 shotshell primer.
Those who know me are aware that I hunt almost exclusively with a flintlock rifle or smoothbore and have been doing so for over thirty years. On occasion I hunt with a percussion style ignition. To those who are wondering, I shoot a .58 caliber rifle (or smooth bore fowler) using a .570 round ball and 75-90 grains of FFg black powder. The most common range of size for 18th century hunters in middle ground (South of the Ohio River and north of the southern Tennessee border) and around the great lakes was .54 to .62 with .58 caliber – plus or minus .005 – being the most common and accounting for almost three quarters of the calibers – of long guns – in that range. All of these shot round ball.
Round balls have been used as ammunition for hundreds of years. Used for targets, hunting, fighting and sniping and they are as accurate now as they were 250 years ago. I have taken more deer with round balls (.440, .530 and .570), than any other ammunition. Do not let anyone tell you that they have no penetration, or are, somehow, deficient; they are not. They are quite effective. For purposes of comparison, the mass of the .530 round ball, for a .54 caliber firearm,
is 223 grains by weight; a .570 for .58 caliber firearm is 278.4 grains by weight; a .600 ball is 325 grains by weight, and a .610 for .62 firearm, is 341.5 grains by weight. I believe that 280 grains of lead is a good median or mid-point for choice of mass. In general terms, projectiles which are + or – 20% of that median can be an effective facet of the load. Suffice it to say, there is plenty of mass within the range just quoted to create the foot pounds necessary for a good wound channel and a killing shot on big game.
By comparison, the conical bullets used in the in-line rifles are generally in a much more-narrow range of 245 grains by weight to 295 grains by weight, with a median of 270. The median is similar to the 280-grain median quoted above and that is a good thing. With a few exceptions, most are .50 caliber. Thompson Center (T/C) has an all-lead bullet, in .50 caliber, the Maxi-Hunter, which is 350 grains of pure lead. T/C has offered the Maxi-Hunter in various calibers for over 40 years and it remains one of the most effective conical bullets on the market for a good many reasons in addition to its mass.
Another important piece of the equation regarding the effectiveness of the firearm is the length of the barrel. My rifle sports a 44-inch barrel, and my fowling piece sports a 46-inch barrel. The length of the barrel allows for a longer sight plane but just as importantly, upon ignition, it provides an elongated chamber for acceleration of the projectile. The longer barrel can easily make the difference in 75 to 100 feet per second more than a flintlock barrel of only; 26 or 28 inches using the same powder charge. That being said, the velocity at the muzzle (.58 caliber) is going average around + or -1460 feet per second (fps).
With all this talk of velocities, do not misunderstand me. The large piece of lead does not need to be traveling at hyper-sonic speeds in order to do its job. Speeds of 1350 to 1550 fps are just fine. The .570 round ball is a “big, dumb, slow-moving chunk of lead” that retains its foot pounds of energy and hits like a sledge hammer. It creates a wound channel without a lot of “slap” or shock. It is big in that 280 grains of lead is a decent amount of mass. In terms of ammunition used in a muzzleloader, however, it is in the “middle of the pack.” It is dumb in that it has not been overly engineered like so many modern bullets. It is a lead sphere, the same commonly used to take millions of big game animals such as deer, bear, buffalo, moose, elk and caribou from the 17th century through the mid-19th century (and into the 21st century), in North America. Compared to modern cartridges it is slow-moving, having a velocity that is below 2,000 fps, and yet it does a nice job of taking down big game.
As I have said many times. I can eat right up to the bullet hole as the lead round ball holds together, unlike modern bullets which are composites of hardened lead covered by copper and, in the last twenty years, possess a plastic tip. Soft lead, however, especially in round ball form, has, what I refer to as, “elastic tension” that resists breaking apart. Soft lead will obdurate, which means – deform, spread, flatten and wrap around objects instead of breaking up or shattering. However, because it is a metal, some sticklers would rather use the term, tensile strength, for instance when referring to the ductility of silver. Ductility is the ability to draw out to great distances. An ounce of silver can apparently be stretched into wire over 8,000 feet long.
Lead is nowhere near as ductile as silver, but it does have malleability (the ability to spread out) and because it is malleable, soft lead resists breaking apart. Therefore, the “trails” of blood-shock in the meat around the wound channel (of a deer) are usually (i.e. 95+% of the time) made up of bone instead of lead. Most often the lead round ball (the whole ball) will pass through the deer and will not end up in the guts. Just for clarity’s sake, I will restate that again. Round balls tend to pass through the deer without losing mass, which means there is zero (0) lead in the gut pile.
On those occasions when I have found the lead in-between the skin and meat it often weighs the same or more because of the fat, meat and bone has become stuck to it. I am not alone in this phenomenon, a friend, Chris Cheney, has experienced the same thing. Contrary to the “politically correct” narrative, soft lead remains a good projectile, especially for muzzleloaders. The slower velocities, especially permit lead to remain in-tact.
Conical bullets.
Shooters should also realize that the modern in-line is NOT the be-all-end-all rifle and bullet combination. It is not the apex; far from it. The real apex of muzzleloading rifles shooting conical bullets occurred in the early 1850’s through the 1860’s.
The conical bullet has been employed as a regular projectile since the early 1850’s by the British and U.S. military. The shape of the traditional all-lead conical bullets used in the 1853 Enfield, as well as the several iterations of the U.S. 1861-Springfield are blunt, round-nosed bullets; with a hollow skirt at the base. The whole bullet is made of soft lead. See below-left a .58 caliber conical.
This style of bullet is heavier at the front (due to the solid nose), than in the tail (due to the hollow skirt). This design is significant because it follows the “shuttlecock principal;” as in the game of badminton. The shuttlecock has a heavy, blunt nose and a feather-light hollow skirt at the tail. No matter which team on either side of the net strikes the shuttlecock, it always turns around with the heavy nose facing frontwards and leading in its flight. The properties of a bullet are similarly identical to those of a shuttlecock, in that, the shooter wants the front of the bullet to remain in the front…leading.
By adding spin, the bullet is given angular momentum which keeps the bullet from veering off its path, no different than a well-thrown spiral using an American football; as opposed to a knuckle-ball. Spin alone, however, will not fix or correct the deficiencies of a poorly designed bullet.
What makes a bullet poor in its design? Several factors such as having the majority of the mass in the rear or base of the flat-backed bullet, with a light-weight nose or worse yet, a so-called ballistic tip made of plastic. I have seen and tested/used numerous poorly designed bullets which have their mass in the base and a plastic tip at the front end. The results are generally the same; poor accuracy, or none at all.
These modern bullets do not have to be loaded from the muzzle, of course, they are loaded into a vertical magazine and unloaded without any pushing or hammering on the tip of the bullet. But that is just the point.
A muzzleloader utilizes a ram rod to push at the point of the NOSE or TIP of the bullet, and in the loading process, it deforms any “perfect” shape of the tip. One more thing; a conical does NOT have to have a sharp nose! More to the point, is that 99 percent of the ML shooters are not going to shoot any target or game past 125 yards. In fact, most of the ML hunters are going to be shooting at game within 80 yards.
Therefore, a plastic tip is not essential and not even moderately desirable. Rather, all too often the plastic tip lightens the mass at the front end of the ML bullet which is a recipe for “corkscrewing” or “key-holing” of the bullet.
Corkscrewing – describes the flight of a bullet, in which the bullet rotates around a center of a flight path, sort of like following the outside of a candy cane stripe but not spinning in the middle of the cane. These bullets tend to strike a target around the perimeter of the-point-of-aim.
Key-holing – describes the manner in which the bullet strikes the target in a side-ways fashion, revealing the side profile of the bullet instead of a round hole. Conical bullets that tumble will key-hole, and bullets that have little spin or a corkscrew spin also tend to wobble and will often key-hole.
Signs of and keyholing and also corkscrewing, are tips that are mashed over from one side as well as one side of the bullet being torn away while the other side is in tact. These bullets tend to tumble when hitting the target and as a result resist expanding.
Another design that is often overlooked in the bullets for modern muzzleloaders is the skirt at the base or rear of the bullet. The skirt, whether made of lead, plastic or in one case, copper, will create a longer bullet with a light-weight tail and a heavier nose much like the bullets used in the 1861 Springfield.
There are several ML bullets which have taken advantage of the skirt and have incorporated a skirt into the design of the bullet. It is a great idea. On the other end, however, is a small pointed plastic tip or a wide plastic tip with a long shaft that extends into the core of the frontal mass of the bullet which unnecessarily lightens the front of the bullet. These manufacturers really got the shape correct, but the plastic tip is totally unnecessary. In both cases the plastic tip can be discarded and replaced with lead to keep the front of the bullet heavy. Remember the shuttlecock; as you want the front of the bullet to remain heavy. More on that below.
Powder Charge
Historically, the 1861-Springfield, and later iterations, generally fired a bullet of 500 grains and in some cases 530 grains. The British Enfield generally fired a bullet of 470 grains and in some cases up to 500 grains. In both cases these rifles utilized a 60-grain black powder charge. That’s all! When using a bullet as heavy as 470 – 530 grains the 60-grain charge is a sufficient amount of propellant and gives a moderate amount of recoil. With this seemingly small charge, the soldiers were able to effectively shoot out to 200 yards and hit a 3’x6’ target with regularity. The flip-up rear “leaf” sights also permitted shots out to 300 and 400 yards, with the same charge.
Long Barrels, Bores and Rifling
Most of the barrels on the modern in-line rifles and even the commercial black powder rifles are a mere 28 inches long, or shorter. This, I believe, is a missed opportunity to give the shooter a longer sight plain as well as a bit more velocity with the same or lesser powder charge; and even a little bit of added weight to lessen recoil. There are several manufacturers who are, thankfully, producing something different than the rest of the market, namely longer barrels at 30 – 32 inches long. I have shot several rifles with 30 inch and 32-inch barrels and was able to achieve equal velocities with less powder. In my humble opinion, however, barrel lengths of 36 inches would provide better performance, give a longer sight plane, and add a modicum of mass to lessen recoil. To those who would say this is “wasted barrel” I would point out that the old equation is 110 x the caliber; therefore with all of the .50 caliber rifles that would equal 55 inches. I am not advocating a barrel of 55 inches, only a barrel of 36 inches.
The 1861 Springfield rifles utilized a 40-inch barrel. The mass of the .580 caliber bullet for the Springfield is generally 500 grains. The long barrel allowed for the acceleration of the bullet, and with it, a bit more velocity to allow the bullet to get farther down range.
The British Enfield (three-band) rifle (1853) utilized a 39.5-inch barrel. The hollow skirted bullet is .577 in diameter and generally 470 grains in mass.
Springfield rifle barrels (and a good many Enfield rifles) were cut with three, wide grooves for rifling. Also, the rifling at the breech was slightly deeper in the Springfield – .015 of an inch – and then gradually became shallow, where, at the muzzle, the cut of the grooves were about .005 deep. The lands stayed cylindrical. I will restate that. The barrels were not choked. The bore was cylindrical. The depth of the rifling, however, was cut more deeply at the breech and became more and more shallow as it neared the muzzle. Upon ignition, the lead bullet became obdurate, pressed into the rifling, and as it traveled down the barrel, the bullet become constricted in the rifling. Great idea.
The traditional rate of twist – also referred to as pitch – in many of the old round ball barrels is one turn in sixty-six inches, expressed as 1:66 (.50 caliber up to 58). Some are faster at 1:54 for .45 caliber and smaller) and others are 1:72 for larger calibers (.60 caliber up to .69 caliber). For the rifle shooting a .70 caliber round ball (with a mass of 516 grains by weight), slightly smaller than a 12 gauge, the pitch of rifling is 1:80.
The rates of twist in the inline barrels like the CVA Optima is generally 1:28. CVA also has a new (2019) .45 caliber rifle that employs a 1:22 rate of twist, which is apparently made for a particular style of modern, composite, conical bullet.
The rate of twist in the traditional T/C rifles (Hawken and Renegade) is 1:48 with the rifling being cut to about .006. The 1:48 pitch is a midway trade-off for the sake of versatility; being able to use the heavier maxi hunter conical bullets as well as the lighter patched round ball. The twist is a bit too fast for patched round balls of 50 and 54 caliber when using heavier charges. The rifling is also a bit too shallow for the best grip on the patched ball.
As for shooting the conical out of the factory 28-inch barrel, the bullets tend to do well with this rate of twist. But needs slightly more powder by volume in order to stabilize the flight of the bullet out past 80 yards. That also means noticeably more recoil. The .006 deep grooves have plenty of depth to engage the conical bullets but a longer barrel length would tend to improve accuracy at longer ranges without the need to increase the powder charge. Though I personally know of a hand-full of shooters who, using the 28-inch barrel on the .54 caliber T/C Hawken, have 3 to 4-inch groups at 90+ yards utilizing modern conical PowerBelt® bullets (based on the 1860’s design) of 295 grains. I would also point out that those same shooters have tested at least 15+ shots per one style of bullet.
The 1853 Enfield rifle used three rifled grooves with a pitch of 1:78 in a 39.5-inch barrel. The Springfield rifle used three rifled grooves at the rate of 1:72 in a 40-inch barrel.
Loading of the 19th Century Long Arms
The bullets for the Springfield and Enfield rifle can be loaded and pushed into the muzzle with thumb pressure alone and with a semi-clean barrel can even be pushed down into the muzzle with a finger. Now if this seems too loose, remember that the bullets will obdurate upon ignition. The skirt especially will flare out and the bullet will become slightly “more-squatty” and in that process the bullet becomes more fully engaged with the grooves. Also, upon loading the all-lead skirted bullet, the skirt will flare out slightly when pushed against the powder by the ram rod. The ram rod tip has a slight cup which lessens deformation of the nose on the bullet, but the cup has just as much to do with keeping the ram rod centered. The cup fits over the bullet tip, the all-steel ram rod tip remains in the center and therefore less wear-and-tear on the bore of the barrel.
Ignition
Regarding a good ignition of the charge, oil is the same culprit it has always been. One tiny drop of oil like a (Hoppe’s® Number 9® or Rem Oil®), applied to the rose paper of the 209 shotshell primer, will disable it in 23 seconds. It will not fire. It will only go “Pffff.” a bunch of smoke and no ignition. Therefore, before loading the in-line, make sure the oil is out of the flash channel!
Next, the in-line is still a firearm that loads from the muzzle and is still susceptible to moisture and rain. I do not care what the marketers say. These firearms do not have a hermetically sealed cartridge. This means if the gun is cold, then leave it in the vehicle or someplace where it will not be exposed to warmth while it is cold, because moisture will condense on the steel, and seep into the powder. It’s physics! As the steel warms up, the powder will become slightly dampened by condensation and adversely affected. The result is most often a hang-fire (a pop followed by a delay then ignition of the powder) or a POP of the primer and no ignition.
Lastly, if it is raining, the hunter has to protect the muzzle from rain after the first shot. Why, you may ask? The reason is because if you shoot in the rain, and hit a deer, are you going to approach the deer with an unloaded gun? I hope not. Therefore, the old adage “keep your powder dry,” is just as relevant today as it was 250 years ago. One of the reasons I counsel shooters to avoid pellets is because they have to be handled by the hands and fingers. If your fingers are wet from rain or snow then the water will soak into the pellets. When using a measure; however, the fingers are holding the measure and do not touch the powder. The measure most often hangs open-end-down from a tether, thus, the inside will be dry.
Furthermore, when hunting all day in rainy weather, discharge the firearm at the end of the day! Clean the barrel, and get it ready for a fresh charge the next day. Unfortunately, too many in-line users do not follow this rule because they feel the modern iteration of a muzzleloader is somehow immune from the characteristics of the older style muzzleloaders. They also complain of the expense of the ammunition (bullets and pelletized-powder) and all too often choose to leave the gun in the truck. Keeping the gun in the truck where it remains cold is proper if the weather is dry. If the weather is damp or rainy; however, it does nothing to dry out the powder charge; especially if the gun has gotten wet in the drizzle, rain or snow. Rather ask yourself, what is the deer (or other big game animal) worth?
More on New Modern ML Bullets
One more word on using modern conical bullets in the traditional cap-lock guns, is that the pitch of the rifling is too slow. Generally, the traditional ML’s are rifled at a pitch of 1:66 or 1:54 which is too slow for the modern conical bullets. The bullets do not receive enough spin to stabilize them. Furthermore, the rifle grooves in traditional barrels are often cut to a depth of .010 to .012 of-an-inch. This is far too deep for the use of conical bullets. The patch that is used on a round-ball; however, fills in the groove nicely, but the lead, copper, plastic and in some cases Teflon, of a modern conical bullet will not fill the groove sufficiently to reduce blow-by gasses.
I have assisted a number of hunters who were encountering problems while trying to sight-in their rifles before heading out to elk camp. After trying several types of powder and several types of bullets, their determined efforts did not produce accurate shots. I revealed to them that their rifle barrels did not have the proper type of rifle-grooves to produce accurate results using conical bullets. However, when these people used patched round balls in those same barrels, the rifles were “tack-drivers,” with the hits on target being highly accurate. The one hunter using a .54 caliber rifle switched to round balls for the hunt and was pleased with the accuracy. The ones who had the slightly smaller .50 caliber rifles; however, were constrained to use conical bullets by law. These hunters either borrowed another rifle or bought a new one. In one recent instance the hunter requested a refund of the license fee so he could use the intervening year to purchase a different rifle or obtain a different barrel with a 1:28 twist and .005 deep rifling. In several states
the smallest round ball rifle for use in elk hunting is the .54 caliber. I myself, along with a number of other hunters, have taken several elk with the .530 round ball. Yep, round balls still work.
The Sabot Problem
The idea of enveloping a conical bullet with a sabot, I believe, goes back to the paper-patched bullet of the mid-19th century. This use of paper to patch a bullet (2-pieces or strips of paper in a “+” configuration) works astonishing accuracy.
During my tests using modern plastic sabots with bullets, a number of the hits on target with these same sabots tended to corkscrew, though not always. I am not sure of the reason or reasons, but I have seen a correlation with these broken sabots and inaccuracy. I also noticed that when using sabots at temperatures above 40 degrees F, the four petals of the sabots tended to remain in-tact with the base, but below 28 degrees F the petals on the sabots commonly broke away leaving only one or two, petals. I also found a number of the bottom bases in the snow with no petals.
I believe that the sabot begins to crack or break in the barrel as it is being loaded when the temperature is below 28 degrees, or so. Loose petals and those that are cracked at the base, can present a problem because the gasses can enter in at the crack or break which, I believe, allows the gas to get between the sabot and bullet. The cracked sabot, gas or both may alter the friction during acceleration. Another thought is that the blow-by gasses at the muzzle can still affect the flight of the bullet especially when a sabot (or round ball with a patch) is severely torn or misshapen. Perhaps, as the cracked or loose petal separates at the muzzle, the pressure of the blow-by gasses can push unevenly on the bullet as the bullet exits? This presents a real problem because, in most of the deer hunting I have done, I have encountered freezing temperatures which makes these flimsy sabots not just a possible concern, but a constant problem.
It is not the barrel. I know that because I have taken different bullets, loaded them backwards into their sabots, and obtained results of “tack-driving” accuracy; not to mention bullets without sabots and achieved the same “tack-driving” accuracy.
My approach to this problem is based on the loading of a round-ball, wherein, the experienced shooter would rather have a slightly heavier patch that holds together than a thinner one that rips apart. The thinner patch that rips, for instance, is more likely to produce inaccurate shots. I would offer that the better option might be a sabot that remained in one piece until the bullet is fully exited from the barrel. I do not claim to have an answer here, but these are my thoughts and ideas.
The other option is to avoid the sabot altogether, and simply to use a full-sized bullet.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I have made significant strides in understanding the performance of muzzleloaders when I looked to the historical use of them. The conical bullet in a muzzleloader has already been researched and tested during the 19th century, by no less than six countries who poured millions of dollars into testing. The results of that research and subsequent field experience holds answers to basic problems faced by modern shooters/hunters using conical bullets in today’s muzzleloaders. A shuttlecock of lead is not an oxymoron especially when juxtaposed to many bullets with gimmicks that miss the point. The ideas and evidence may seem antiquated but they are still relevant.
I hope my own field experience coupled with my research and historical gleanings will inure to your benefit. For more of the same see, Part II, Bullets and Balls vs. Water n' Jugs.
Comments