I do not believe we are in disagreement at all. Most of my shooting is with
a patch and ball of the size that does not allow the lead to contact the
bore. I too have checked as you have with simmilar results with a tight ball
but using a ball .010 smaller than the bore and a .015 lubed virgin flannel
patch the patch doesn't tear at the lands. If competition shooting one needs
all the edge one can get: soft, pure lead is best.
Ron


>From: hazmat_tech@...
>Reply-To: Muzzleloaders@yahoogroups.com
>To: Muzzleloaders@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Muzzleloaders] Re: Lead
>Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 09:34:30 -0700
>
>I hate to disagree regarding the use of used (hard?) and/or wheel
>weight lead in a muzzleloader, and of course it is all relative to
>what works in each gun, but the use of SOFT virgin lead in a patched
>round ball does indeed engrave when seated with the proper sized patch.
>
>I tested this theory after reading some documentation several years
>ago by shooting into water to see what the different lead rounds
>looked like after patching. The rounds formed with soft virgin lead
>had the patching material texture engraved into their surface where
>the ball met the land, and the harder lead rounds did not.
>Additionally, the patches from soft lead were intact, uncut and had
>no burn-out/blow-out spots and shot more consistent groups at all
>ranges, with my .54 caliber Bill Large barrel. Best 5 shot groups
>(offhand and unrested) were one ragged hole at 25 yards, 2" at 50
>yards, and 6" at 100 yards (I threw 2 wide at this range, probably me
>and not the gun...).
>
>Granted, this is one of the finest barrels available (or at least
>used to be available, Mr. Large has passed on to that firing line in
>the sky...), and I patch VERY tight (I recommend this practice for
>the best consistency in shooting) with .020 teflon treated pillow
>ticking, dampened with water, around a .535 cast and weighed (for
>1/10 grain consistency) round ball, and a single cleaning swab
>between each shot with a cleaning patch and water.
>
> My test with hard lead went so poorly I discontinued it after the
>25 yard attempt (2" groups!!!). I did attempt this test a second
>time with a thinner patch material (.015) with the same results, so I
>guess my test was flawed somewhat as I didn't go any thinner with the
>material than that.
>
>So, that's my 2 cents worth following my VERY unscientific test. I
>submit to everyone interested that may not get the consistency in
>their shot strings that they think they should be getting, to look at
>your fired patching material to determine where (or if) you are
>getting cuts and burn-through, and then reevaluate your ball hardness
>and patching thickness for fit in the bore. Soft lead tends to be a
>little more forgiving where it applies to this condition, making
>consistency more achievable.
>
>John
>Camp Verde, AZ