OK, that makes logical sense to some extent.  The "smart rap" that BP, and perhaps some of the transitional era propellants, give the bullet base may have upset the projectile enough to get a solid grip on the twist rifling inspite of being chewed up while being muzzle loaded.

However when you read about all of the extreme persnikkity work being don by various top-end shooters and 'smith's for elaborate multiple diameter bullet designs it seems silly to have precision bullets like that chewed up while muzzleloading in a gain twist barrel then blast-hammered back to fill the bore by the powder charge.

Perhaps some one who has access to data could figure out a time line when these bullet designs began and relate that to the powder changes, the general use of gain twist, and the time when breechseating began to replace the muzzle/breech method.
I suspect that a relationship would show up that would help us understand it a lot better.

Todays use of gain twist and its succes or failure is probably keyed on a very precise matching of bullet temper and velocity,  Too soft an alloy and/or too much velocity would result in bullet stripping and bore fouling.  In addition the variable twist rate and velocity would have to be matched to precise bullet design to achieve stability at the target.   

Just a comment/question.  Jim Borton says that gain twist don't work,  Brent suggests that Luke, an acknowledged top shooter, uses them.     However Borton is a bench shooter and if I am correct, Luke is pretty much an offhand shooter.  I'm just a very junior and unskilled shooter but I'm wondering if the difference might lie because of the different disciplines?

QuestionableMaynard8130 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2007 at 10:09am:


Actually, when I read that comment, I thought he was merely being facetious. Apparently not. Amazing.
I'm hiding & watching, Joe

JD,  Knowing Jim I think he was pretty serious,  At least in terms of the really extensive ballistic work he and Barry Darr have been doing---and in specific terms of bench rest shooting.  Now if Luke is having success with gain twist and B&D have not, there must be an rational explaination for the apparant contradiction.  Either they work or they don't, unless you are applying different criteria to different situations---IE bench vrs off-hand


Westerner, I'd really like to see a picture of a well-cast well-fitted pope bullet that was pushed muzzle to breech with a genuine pope false-muzzle rig with one of his gain twist barrels--and carefully removed from the chamber at the breech end. And then another of a similar bullet that was pushed through just from breech to muzzle.  All this to just see what "damage" the changing twist does to a bullet.  I'm wondering too about what difference the depth of rifling would have.

Thats why I was curious about the time lines involved,  Was gain twist actually used with the breech/muzzle system, or did it become more prevelant after he went to breech seating. (MP. I guess you answered this part of it,Thank you;  --though it seems to me that the changing rifling rate would create more friction/effort pressing a bullet through a barrel than a straight twist rate would.  but never using one I have no first hand experience to compare them)  How did the transition of propellants enter into it?

Oh! Me!

Troll's dont bother me any. 

DW, a properly fit Pope bullet that is pushed from muzzle to breech should not leave any rifling marks on the bullet. If any , they should be very light.  Now a RKS gain twist barrel is a different story. RKS grooves have a radius at the bottom of the groove's. 

I had the same thought as you did when I read your (buggered) comment. I dont have a Pope to play with but have several RKS gain twist barrels I can slug. After I consume these Johnsonville Brauts that just came off the barbe I'll go do it and post the pictures. 

Pope used the gain twist because it is the best period. His rifling system required the bullet to engage the rifling at firing. (upset) The Pope system is the easiest system to use for muzzle loading because the bullet does not engage the rifling upon loading.  I read many years ago that the Germans invented gain twist rifling. If the Germans did it, it's Good!!

                                                               Joe.

I have a Pope Ballard and I just pushed a bullet from the muzzle down to the breach and there was little marking on the bullet.  When I push the bullet the other way (breach to muzzle) there are markings.

Ed Tilford

Well Joe your pics of bulets look just like mine pushed thru my Hartford Pope 38-55. I have no opinion as to the benefit of Gain Twist Rifling. But I do know that when shooting Black Powder there is an advantage to Muzzle Loading. It cleans the Bore, and leaves a light film of Lube also. And one of the points Pope expressed was that there were no fins dragging off the base of the Bullet. He stated many times that the base of the Bullet was the last thing to be seen by the Rifled bore, and that fins off the base would be detrimental to fine accuracy. As to cleaning the Bore after a 100 shot match muzzle loading with Black Powder there was a considerable pile of chalky Black powder residue on the floor under where I was Muzzle loading. Now I am able to shoot this rifle all day without cleaning while Muzzle Loading. But if I shoot the same load and Breech seat the same bullet I am lucky to get ten shots on a ring target to go to call. I WILL have to clean between relays. Now, if I duplex load I get much better results but will still have to eventually clean, usually after about 6 to 8 relays of ten shots with a few fowlers up front. The reason I cannot make any statement about the quality of Gain Twist is because this would require a serious effort of Bench rest shooting with and without Gain twist barrels of a defined quality fitted up by a gunsmith of known quality. As I do not enjoy Bench rest shooting and do not have all the stuff it would take to setup the experiment and prove out the results I guess I will just have be satisfied with what I have. There has been lots of conjecture about Pope barrels and how good they would do against today's rifles. Don't  have an answer to that. But I do know that Barrels by Schoyen, Zischang, Pope, Peterson have done very well over the years. Suspect that the shooters and their efforts are just as important. A fine Rifle in the hands of a klutz will never shoot well. A poorly made rifle in the best hands will sometimes be made to shoot, but not to match winning results unless reading conditions are a serious factor for the day. Regards, FITZ.

Joe, I ave two original Pope molds. One is a .38 Cal. 285 gr bullet and that mold came with my Hartford Pope. The other is a 32-40 that I have shot with great success in a number of 32-40 Rifles Breach seated. I also at this time have 3 .32 Pope molds and a .33 for repair. Two of the .32s and the .33 are Hartford Molds. They have all at one time been mishandled or misused. The 3 .32 molds cast nearly identical bullets as mine, the variation being the base band seems to vary +- .001. All are very tapered from under Bore size at the front to over groove size at the base. When Muzzle loaded they engrave nearly the full length of the Bands with the engraving disappearing on the last front band. When Muzzle loaded they become a beautiful Bore scraper cleaning the bore bright and shiny and scrubbing all the fouling from the bore. If you start them and then push them too briskly with the Loading rod as supplied by Pope they will end up on the floor as the rod length seats them into what we would call the throat. When that happens I have found I have to waste a shot as either pushing another bullet down the barrel or breech seating will cause to rifle to shoot to a different zero as the conditions have been changed. Pope Rifles are FUSSY!!! Anything done differently in almost any manner with a soft lead bullet will affect the Zero the rifle shoots to. Well enough for now, HTH. Regards, FITZ