Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders pure lead vs wheel weight alloy for patched round balls

just a bit of info, on large bore hawken hunting loads
when I started out with a muzzle loading rifle I
was assured repeatedly by most of the older and supposedly more experienced guys that pure lead balls patched with a properly lubed linen patch were the preferred projectile in my 58 caliber hawken rifle.

but as is my nature I experimented with about every component available, and I tried a dozen different type patches , several dozen lubes and dozens of conical and mini and maxi ball designs in both my 58 and 62 caliber hawken replicas.
what I eventually found is that a bore diam ball cast from wheel weight alloy loaded in a well greased patch of about 1.25" diam, cut from used denim clothe and greased with flax soap paste was the most accurate out to easily 150 yards BUT only if loaded consistently, the same way.
both rifles prefer similar loads of about 90 grains of 2f powder , followed down the bore with a cosmetic cotton ball and a dab of flax soap , then the patched ball seated firmly over the powder charge , the cosmetic cotton ball acts like a seal gasket to prevent the flax soap paste from getting to the powder charge. loaded like that the bore stays fairly clean and powder fouling is minimized.
off a bench rest 2"-2.5" 3 SHOT GROUPS ARE COMMON
SOFTER LEAD BALLS OPEN UP THE GROUP SIZE SLIGHTLY i THINK SOME GET SLIGHTLY DEFORMED DURING THE LOAD PROCESS WHILE THE HARDER WHEEL WEIGHT ALLOY REMAINS FAR MORE RESISTANT TO DEFORMATION.
now Im sure the guys that hunt will point out the round balls from pure lead expand far easier and kill quicker, but in my experience the difference if any is marginal.




having a slight but concentric and consistent bevel on the rifle bore entrance greatly eases loading and reduces torn patches

I always wondered about this. Glad someone tried it out. Thanks for posting this. Are these WW roundballs any harder to seat?

Interesting combination 340mag. Experimenting with patches and lubes is one of the fun things about round ball shooting for me.

I've used balls cast from wheel weights and haven't found a great deal of difference in accuracy between them and pure lead balls. But I did find wheel weight balls were more particular as to patch thickness. I suspect your cotton ball approach makes patch thickness less of an issue.

I really don't think it makes a whit of difference for hunting. I've only recovered two balls from deer (all others were pass throughs). They were both pure lead. Neither one expanded. One looked almost perfect. The other had a 1/8" deep crease where it evidentially hit bone. But it was still round.

I've experimented with many many different patch lubes. Some of the commercial stuff, olive oil, peanut oil, various "moose milk" and "moose snot" recipies, carnauba floor wax, bees wax blended with various oils, Go-Jo hand cleaner, and some I don't even remember. I've now settled on one lube for all of my round ball shooting. Get ready for it.............Liquid Wrench.

Sounds like you have worked up a good combination for your guns

Personally I have not seen any real difference between soft lead an WW, I use both in my 54 and 62�s .
When it comes to lubes I don�t think there is any real wrong answer . As long as it works for you then 2 thumbs up .
Myself I used spit for both hunting and target shooting , nothing less nothing more .
At one time I used wasp nest a lot for a backer to the ball . But I don�t even do that any more since I went away from a oil and wax based lube .

The one question I do have, is how does your cotton ball hold up ?
The reason I ask is that I have seen many a smoking �Lubed cotton patch � through the years . Even to the point of them catching the range on fire during real dry months .
Luckily we have always gotten a quick jump on them and thus things didn�t get out of hand .
It happens enough that most of the BP shooting events around here ban the use of a lubed patch usually around June or July
Its also often real dry in the mountains during hunting season around here , to the point I take a real good look for a smoking patch after shooting

It would seem to me that a cotton ball would ignite even easier

first Id point out that the thumb tip full or dab of lube paste I mentioned that goes in between the cotton ball and lubed patch , tends to pretty much act as a fire retardant and soaks thru about 1/2 way, and unlike the patch directly sitting on the powder the cotton ball basically self destructs in a puff of fuzz as it leaves the muzzle and the patches them selves rarely look even singed because they are soaked in flax soap paste.
yes Ive occasionally seen a tiny bit of smoking debris but its not common, usually its just a patch with dirty grease on it and a bunch of floating fiber exiting the bore, after the ball exits
obviously the amount of soap grease used and the size of the cotton ball might effect your results



the ball diam I use will not drop down the bore but requires very little resistance to almost no resistance to get the ball down the bore without a patch, once you get a thin patch of well soaked denim on the ball a short starter is required to start the ball, but once in the bore its not difficult to seal, as that dab of flax soap under the patch helps lube the rifling as its seated.

I will first say I have not done the amount of experimenting that you have so what I am saying is based on what I have observed and understand to be correct. A pure lead ball is said to flatten in the barrel pushing the patch and ball into the rifling that gives a tight seal preventing gases from escaping. The picture you posted of your rifle barrel looks to me to be shallow flat rifling. Those barrels are designed for conical bullets. The WW and pure lead do not need to flatten or expand much to get the needed seal of gases. I would suspect that WW could be better in those I barrels. Traditional flintlock barrels had what is referred to a round ball barrels and those have deep groves that are often rounded lands and groves which required a thick patch and a soft pure lead ball to expand and seal. So, it is a carry over from the Old Days that pure lead is better for sealing gases and improving accuracy.

You can actually shoot a conical and patched ball out of the flat shallow rifled barrels, but you would not have much luck shooting conicals out of a round ball barrel. As you know you can even shoot conicals with no patch, just greased and still get excellent gas seals and superior accuracy. That is why you get good accuracy from WW balls in flat rifled barrels.

Barrel rifling has changed some even in the last 30 years even more so then it has the last 200 years .
Was a pretty big deal when manufactures started making their rifling deeper .
As such its not uncommon to find Douglas or Montana barrels and even early Green mountain barrels with rifling no where near as deep as today�s barrels .
Its not uncommon to find older shooters who hold the opinion that the deeper rifling, reduced the accuracy .

Finding a conical that works in a slow twist deep rifling , is a mater of finding one that will expand to the rifling , while at the same time holding it integrity . Then finding a load that the barrel and conical like .

While soft lead may compress more the WW , they both still compress in the barrel under ignition , IMO .
Yes WW is harder and as such depending on the alloy , the patch my not grip as well un less the ball has been given some texture around its radius . But that IMO is for extreme cases , normally, myself , I don�t see the need .

Also as a note , the bevel at the muzzle is called a crown . The quality of that crown can also effect accuracy just as it does in modern center fire applications .

The crown can also very from manufacture to manufacture . Some have light crowns others deeper . You can also cone a muzzle which in basic form is nothing more then a very deep crown that extends into the bore to some depth

Pure is better with the right patch and lube. Fit! Sure WW metal can be shot but the right fit needs a hammer.
Old guns and all of mine have deep rifling of .010". New guns are not cut, they are broached. NOT as good. The ball must be tight and engrave the patch .005" deep into the ball in the grooves.

Ill have to disagree with the tight fit idea .
As I said I shoot both and I don�t use a hammer to load the WW.
I do use a short starter , but not a hammer .
For some 30 years a lot of barrel manufactures have went to a .010-.012 rifling depth . that�s what most manufactures cut to today .
But back when I first started building muzzle loading guns , it was far more common to find .05-.08.
Which is whats founding a lot of conical based barrels today .
As to if today�s barrels are( button rifled) or not depends on the manufacture . Not all have moved to button rifling .

As to original barrels having deep rifling . Some do and some don�t . depends on the maker .
One of the reasons IMO for those that did do deep rifling was because the barrels were soft and would wear down with the type of shooting they were often subject to .
Today�s barrels are much harder even when made from 12L14 and do not wear as the old Iron barrels did .
Now that being said , My main rifle carries a hand forged Iron barrel with round bottom rifling .
After 40 some years it still measures out at .07 .
Shooting WW with a .015 patch , 80 grains of 3F and spit as a lube , this is what it will do off hand

photo from target to firing line


from firing line to target


hit on target at 225 yards off hand


the barrel is also a 1 in 70 twist and will place a 435 gr , hollow based Bernard Minie on a paper plate at 100 yards shot after shot

and before anyone says BS , here is a photo of my witness who shot the same target at the same distance and also shooting off hand .
if you look closly you will see his hit on the paper tag thats on the chain .
his rifle carries a Rice barrel i believe . but he loads with no short starter , .018 patch . and Only soft lead for his hand cast RB