and what's up with paper patched bullets?

[Lumpy Grits]

We tried, to lead the 'horse' to 'water'--It didn't want to drink.
So be it.......
Gary

[Marathonman]

We tried, to lead the 'horse' to 'water'--It didn't want to drink.
So be it.......
Gary

I'll drink to that!

Also, there's nothing wrong with what bobw said. I understand every word he's posted over the years!

[Ray Newman]

Rdnck, bryany, & Don McDowell are spot on.

And lord yes, over the years the Shiloh board has seen more than a few posters, trolls, etc., who just post questions looking for answers to confirm their preconceived notions or see themselves “in print” on the internet….

In particular, I recall one poster who was going to buy a Shiloh – Sharps and asked very question about caliber, barrel length, barrel contour, barrel weight wood, wood finish, sights, single vs. double triggers, checkering, engraving, dies, bullet mould composition, casting, lead furnaces, fluxing, bullet design, top punches, paper patching, brass, brass cleaning, brass trimmers and trimming, presses, powder measures, bullet sizers, etc. This went on for about a month. Numerous posters freely posted numerous and lengthy responses to his queries and provided links for more information. Then all of a sudden, he never posted again and did not responded to PM’s.

Another never to be forgotten poster claimed that he just took possession of a Shiloh.45- 2.1” (.45-70 for those-not-in-the-Know). Of course, it shot less than one inch at 100 yards with his first Black Powder and lead bullet load. Then he started to ask all sorts of questions. But he made a blunder, after about 2 weeks, he asked who had an accurate 100 yard load for a .45-2.1”. When someone here -- who shall forever remain anonymous -- posted he had already posted a 100 yard “record book load” and provided a link to his post, he quit posting.

[Oldmac]

Oh man, this has gotten so out of hand...

I said in my apology that that was my last post in this forum, but I feel have to come in for this one. Please allow me to explain a few things...

First off, this paper patching nonsense. mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa...I did not understand paper patching, and despite the several helpful answers, my own reading, quite frankly I still don't. I kept hoping some one would post some miracle word or phrase that would trigger instant understanding but it never happened. You know, trigger a 'Ah, now I get it' moment. I should have said that up front I know...To stealand modify Lumpy Grits' post, the horse would have drunk had he known he was standing in water..

Yes I have been a reenactor for over 30 years, and am a member and poster on three black powder forums, so yes I should have a thicker skin but I don't. I, quite honestly, have thin skin and a hair trigger on certain things, its a personal issue, I very briefly touch on it in my apogoly post on this forum and won't go into it further, here.

"Over 30 posts and over half of them questions." Yup. Guilty as charged. As I said in my very first post, I have a lot of questions. Introduing myself before charging in...I totally agree...had I found the spot to introduce myself I would have...

I was more than a little perturbed with Bob's first post to me in this thread. Yes I thought it was rude. Things settled down a bit after that...I have no issues with Bob or anyone else.

Yes I have a lot of questions. But I am hoping to gather the answers here. I truely don't think attacking each other is the answer to any of them. I know, as the new guy, I may be annoying to some of you...but please bear with me and don't shut me out...I do want to learn!

[losttrail]

My mistake.

Please forgive my transgression.

I will mind my own business and stick to just reading what is posted.

[Don McDowell]

Oldmac you held yourself out as a historical reenactor.. If that's the case then you are falling short in your self declared classification.. Paper patch is the historically correct path to take in a sharps or a rolling block for that matter, it's just a matter of a simple bit of research. Might want to go to Cornell Publishing, and buy a couple of their reprinted copies of the Sharps catalogs. Lots of information to be gleaned from there. Get a copy of Ned Roberts Schuetzen rifle book from Abby as well. Tons of info to answer many of the questions you have.
Then maybe you'll be better prepared to take advantage of the experienced answers folks freely gave to your questions asked here.

[Oldmac]

Don I shoot flintlock...cloth patches over a round ball...I've never paper patched a thing...I know some of the Civil War guys use paper wrapped cartridges...but my period was early Colonial....even rifles are rare then...

[Don McDowell]

Well still, google up Cornell Publishing, get your pay pal acct warmed up and get some good reading material. It will go a long ways to helping you make a decision about what you want a Sharps rifle to do and how to get it to do it...

[Constable Bill Manning]

Hey Oldmac...

I think part of the your issue here is that you landed in "the church of paper patching" and as with most religions, people that participate take their involvement personal and serious. I also think that the answer to your question can be found by looking at the list of bullets used by ALL the national champions and you will find that other then Brent's admirable score winning the AAA Iron match, most everyone else was using grease groove. And this has been the case for years and years. What you infer from that is what becomes questionable.

Is the reason for this because in spite of the few possible advantages to paper patching (higher ballistic coefficient and possibly less leading are probably the biggest advantages) that there are accuracy advantages to GG bullets over PP or is it that the art of PP inputs one more variable into an already very complicated mix of variables that can make or break you on accuracy. I think historically that the progression was from cloth patches over a round ball to PP in cartridges to GG in cartridges and finally to jacket bullets in cartridges. Did they progress from PP to GG because it was more accurate or because of mass production issues? I would suggest that it was probably the mass production issues. Brent's rifle is plenty accurate so PP is an acceptable practice in the most exacting of shooting BPCR which is shooting competition. But it is considerably more difficult to accomplish and is much more time consuming then either pan lubing or using a lubrisizer. In the same amount of time that it takes to load 300 rounds of ammo for a four day shoot I could have loaded multiple thousands of very accurate smokeless loads in my Dillon progressive reloader. Having never PPed a bullet before, I would think that this would add a considerable amount of time to this already time consuming effort (especially during the learning period). Time probably better spent shooting and competing rather then just sitting at the reloading bench. Maybe I'm wrong about the time and effort requirement having never done it but I don't think I am. I was told by a national champion that he could beat me at silhouettes on most any given day with a rifle that shot double the size of group as mine and it was because he shot a lot, practiced on chickens, Schuetzen, Mid-range, Long-range, silhouettes, Gong matches, etc. Reading the wind and being familiar with your gun and your spotter trumps ultimate accuracy any day. Another national champion that I'm friends with told me that are 32 variables to making a proper repeatable shot. I haven't heard all 32 of the variables yet but I don't think they involve the gun not doing it's part.

PP is more authentic??? Maybe if you want to PP. Muzzle loading is more authentic if going back in time is your measure... Long bows before that. Or maybe paper shells and caps. Pick the vintage of reloading you prefer and perfect it as best you can. I think the problem with PP is the added complexity and effort required. If they were allowed in competition, I would think that those who are involved in silhouettes or BPCR target or similar pursuits would be using jacketed bullets and smokeless powder (maybe they already allow that and call it high power!). I personally love shooting this old iron technology but haven't decided I want to tackle the PP process. I guess the answer to your question is inside of you. Are you doing it to get the ultimate accuracy, then go to high power. Are you doing it to use the 140 year old technology but don't want to spend your days anymore than required in the reloading room, then GG. If you really love the nostalgia of it all (you are involved in reenactments after all), then spend the time to learn to PP. The loaded rounds do look cooler to me then a GG bullet showing a couple of grease groves full of grease. The more you practice, the faster you will get and the better the final product will be.. I did just spend a week at Raton with three many year Master class national/state/local champions helping me and they all use GG bullets. Why would a person question that kind of success unless for the nostalgia of it?

And I also think that you got trashed on for no legitimate reason. No call for that. The sport of BPCR appears to be failing as can be seen at the dwindling numbers of shooters attending local and national matches. In 1999, the Raton match results had somewhere around 435 iron sight shooters and 8 scope shooters. This year there were 102 Scope and 106 Iron. The participants are getting older and are struggling and many are dropping out. There is always someone selling off all their shooting stuff around. And there are not that many younger shooters joining the ranks. Jumping all over a new member because of your perceived ideas about him or her is bad behavior. No matter what the reason. If you don't like a question, then don't answer it. If you don't want to be involved with ALL the members of a forum, go start your own private forum and just invite your buddies. Yeah, maybe OLDmac can spend the next two years buying books and reading and studying the contents and come up with his own ideas. Or, he could come on a public forum and ask a fairly simple question and those of our group with lots of experience and knowledge could spend a bit of their time answering the question honestly. Maybe OLDmac won't come back again if his question is answered to his satisfaction like the fellow Ray Newman mentioned. That's why this is a public forum. Some come to get information, others come for camaraderie, others expound knowledge and experience, others use it as a podium, and others just read it in interest to see if they want to be involved or not. If I had read bobw's post and that was the first one I had read, I wouldn't probably be back. I agree wholeheartedly with losttrail's post. There's lots of other places a fellow can experience road rage. To bad it occasionally happens here....

Hell, you can start another war just by asking if it is better to pan lube or lubrisize. You don't need to bring up paper patching! If you decide to GG, read the little blurb on the SPG website about using GG lube. A short read but gets right to the point and Steve Garbe is pretty much the accepted expert on GG lube.

[RK]

Hey Oldmac...

I think part of the your issue here is that you landed in "the church of paper patching" and as with most religions, people that participate take their involvement personal and serious. I also think that the answer to your question can be found by looking at the list of bullets used by ALL the national champions and you will find that other then Brent's admirable score winning the AAA Iron match, most everyone else was using grease groove. And this has been the case for years and years. What you infer from that is what becomes questionable.

Is the reason for this because in spite of the few possible advantages to paper patching (higher ballistic coefficient and possibly less leading are probably the biggest advantages) that there are accuracy advantages to GG bullets over PP or is it that the art of PP inputs one more variable into an already very complicated mix of variables that can make or break you on accuracy. I think historically that the progression was from cloth patches over a round ball to PP in cartridges to GG in cartridges and finally to jacket bullets in cartridges. Did they progress from PP to GG because it was more accurate or because of mass production issues? I would suggest that it was probably the mass production issues. Brent's rifle is plenty accurate so PP is an acceptable practice in the most exacting of shooting BPCR which is shooting competition. But it is considerably more difficult to accomplish and is much more time consuming then either pan lubing or using a lubrisizer. In the same amount of time that it takes to load 300 rounds of ammo for a four day shoot I could have loaded multiple thousands of very accurate smokeless loads in my Dillon progressive reloader. Having never PPed a bullet before, I would think that this would add a considerable amount of time to this already time consuming effort (especially during the learning period). Time probably better spent shooting and competing rather then just sitting at the reloading bench. Maybe I'm wrong about the time and effort requirement having never done it but I don't think I am. I was told by a national champion that he could beat me at silhouettes on most any given day with a rifle that shot double the size of group as mine and it was because he shot a lot, practiced on chickens, Schuetzen, Mid-range, Long-range, silhouettes, Gong matches, etc. Reading the wind and being familiar with your gun and your spotter trumps ultimate accuracy any day. Another national champion that I'm friends with told me that are 32 variables to making a proper repeatable shot. I haven't heard all 32 of the variables yet but I don't think they involve the gun not doing it's part.

PP is more authentic??? Maybe if you want to PP. Muzzle loading is more authentic if going back in time is your measure... Long bows before that. Or maybe paper shells and caps. Pick the vintage of reloading you prefer and perfect it as best you can. I think the problem with PP is the added complexity and effort required. If they were allowed in competition, I would think that those who are involved in silhouettes or BPCR target or similar pursuits would be using jacketed bullets and smokeless powder (maybe they already allow that and call it high power!). I personally love shooting this old iron technology but haven't decided I want to tackle the PP process. I guess the answer to your question is inside of you. Are you doing it to get the ultimate accuracy, then go to high power. Are you doing it to use the 140 year old technology but don't want to spend your days anymore than required in the reloading room, then GG. If you really love the nostalgia of it all (you are involved in reenactments after all), then spend the time to learn to PP. The loaded rounds do look cooler to me then a GG bullet showing a couple of grease groves full of grease. The more you practice, the faster you will get and the better the final product will be.. I did just spend a week at Raton with three many year Master class national/state/local champions helping me and they all use GG bullets. Why would a person question that kind of success unless for the nostalgia of it?

And I also think that you got trashed on for no legitimate reason. No call for that. The sport of BPCR appears to be failing as can be seen at the dwindling numbers of shooters attending local and national matches. In 1999, the Raton match results had somewhere around 435 iron sight shooters and 8 scope shooters. This year there were 102 Scope and 106 Iron. The participants are getting older and are struggling and many are dropping out. There is always someone selling off all their shooting stuff around. And there are not that many younger shooters joining the ranks. Jumping all over a new member because of your perceived ideas about him or her is bad behavior. No matter what the reason. If you don't like a question, then don't answer it. If you don't want to be involved with ALL the members of a forum, go start your own private forum and just invite your buddies. Yeah, maybe OLDmac can spend the next two years buying books and reading and studying the contents and come up with his own ideas. Or, he could come on a public forum and ask a fairly simple question and those of our group with lots of experience and knowledge could spend a bit of their time answering the question honestly. Maybe OLDmac won't come back again if his question is answered to his satisfaction like the fellow Ray Newman mentioned. That's why this is a public forum. Some come to get information, others come for camaraderie, others expound knowledge and experience, others use it as a podium, and others just read it in interest to see if they want to be involved or not. If I had read bobw's post and that was the first one I had read, I wouldn't probably be back. I agree wholeheartedly with losttrail's post. There's lots of other places a fellow can experience road rage. To bad it occasionally happens here....

Hell, you can start another war just by asking if it is better to pan lube or lubrisize. You don't need to bring up paper patching! If you decide to GG, read the little blurb on the SPG website about using GG lube. A short read but gets right to the point and Steve Garbe is pretty much the accepted expert on GG lube.

This is the kind of post that adds to this sport and this forum.

Rudy

[Don McDowell]

Ubecha, someone saying something is harder, takes, longer and doesn't work as good as what he does,(never mind the part about saying "haven't ever done it") is surely the stuff of truth that folks really look for.
Never mind the only grease groove bullets the Sharps company offered in loaded rounds were "express" loading, but that shouldn't stop someone from spewing forth that they really aren't authentic...

[Don McDowell]

And lets don't address the only time anybody has done any good with patched is Brent's triple aaa win at Raton Good lord just because something didn't happen at a sillywet match in Raton doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
The last several years the top finishers at Lodi creedmoor have been shooting patched.
Orville loomer won the Mt 1000 yd a couple years back, and I'll guarantee you he'ld fall over deader than a doorknob If a greaser ever chambered in one of his rifles.
Never mind the world record Kenny Wasserburger set at the 5 at 200 match at Raton, and the other excellent finishes Kenny has pulled off with patched rounds at various matches.
Mike T is another patched shooter to keep an eye on.
There were at least 2 top of the 100 finishers at the Quigley this year shooting patched, last year one of the top 10, did , and they'ld have to have a half dozen Raton "championships" to total up the number of shooters at that match alone.
Bob Watts got one of the coveted straight eight pins at the Q this year,, yup shooting patched..

[Crit6659]

Well said and Well posted Constable

[pete]

So many generalizations about what's authentic and what's not with regard to this paper patch vs. grooved thing The reality is that it would take a good sized article to lay out all the possible choices there were. Some cartridges weren't loaded with grooved and some were. During the Sharps period Winchester also loaded cartridges that could be used in a Sharps which adds further to the possibilities. And not all grooved bullets were express either. A few examples were the 44 cal. with 405 gr., 400 gr. for 45 cal., 425 gr. and 457 gr. for 50 cal. and yes the 50-90 was loaded with the 425 gr. grooved. Depending on what's considered express there are more but I don't feel like typing that much and they'd be ignored anyway.

I appreciate the paper patch thing I really do. I have 15 old paper patch rounds in my collection and I've even shot a little paper but this whole you're not authentic if you don't shoot paper simply isn't true. And it's done in a condescending fashion that's becoming annoying.

Now the argument can and has been made that weight and configuration of the grooved bullets of today weren't available back in the day and that's true but I'll contend that quite a few of the paper bullets in use today weren't available then either. But I guess as long as it's got paper wrapped around it it's fine.

That was a good post Constable. It appears bp cartidge is heading the way of muzzleloading. It was popular for awhile but has faded off quite a bit.

[Marathonman]

but this whole you're not authentic if you don't shoot paper simply isn't true.

Pete, you're the only one who said that in the entire thread...