|
what i always found interesting was the numbers of different types . Not all are Ture Minie designs
Take the one that Hawg has und his “interesting one photo “
I could be wrong but from what I can see the center one showing the hole in the hollow base , maybe a Williams round that’s missing the small metal expander that would have fit into the hole .
A scraper bullet , which as I understand it , was also a Williams design , had a zinc base .
I have also seem Wilkins bullets , which have a solid base .
The other thing about expanders is that not only was wood used , but also clay plugs
The other thing that I once saw were round balls . The odd thing about these were that they had what appeared to be distortion around them . Best way I could describe it would be if a person took a 58 cal ball and tried to load it in a 54 cal rifle and then realized what had happened and tossed the ball .
I later found out what those marks were possibly from , was a type of wood sabot designed by Delvigne-Potshard . I found to be rather interesting when I found that those dated back to the early 1830’s and used by the French military during that time .
But anyway back on topic .
The thing again is that the rifles that shot these round , had very slow rates of twist and yet were very effective at long range with the conicals they were designed to shoot .
This is why when this subject comes up , I try and suggest to folks that its not really the rate of twist that can be causing accuracy issues as much as bullet design used in a slow twist barrel .
I think all to often anymore people just grab a conical off the shelf and then become un happy when it doesn’t perform as they expect. Inevitably the reasoning is that their twist rate is to slow to stabilize a conical . Frankly Imo that’s a half truth as history has shown it not to be the case . But we continue to perpetuate the idea vs. asking ourselves what is actually needed and what we have to do to produce the results we are after
|