It is noted that also, in the US, the military ctgs- 50-70 and then the 45-70 were loaded with gg bullets, unlike Brit's 577-450 which was indeed paper patched
beltfed/arnie

Though paper patching bullets is tedious and time consuming, in my experience and reading, there are advantages to using paper patched bullets.

As has already been said, properly patched, the lead never touches the barrel, hence no leading.

You can use a much softer alloy at any velocity than would be necessary with a GG cast bullet.  For hunting, this means much more control over the expansion characteristics of your bullet - you can cast it very soft, yet push it to higher velocities for a bullet that expands very well, is not brittle and holds together well, and flies with a flatter trajectory. There is also the modest savings in the cost of tin or other alloying metals, as less needs to be used.  You can push dead-soft lead to 1800-2000 fps accurately with PP.

You can control the diameter of the finished PP bullet by using different weights (thickness) of paper so that you can use the same mold for different rifles having different groove diameters - say very easily accommodate my .321" Marlin 32-40 barrel and my .324" Winchester High Wall barrel.

You can shoot an undersized bullet (within reason) without leading the barrel.  My DOM 2002 Marlin 38-55 Cowboy rifle has a .381" groove diameter.  Using Winchester 38-55 brass, I cannot load an appropriate diameter GG bullet and have it fit in the chamber.  Whilst trying to sort out how to feed the rifle, one thing that I tried was my PP Lyman 366408 bullet patched up to ~ .377" in the rifle and was rewarded with a load that shot a 1 3/8" group (only 3 shots) at 100 yards (globe front, aperture rear) with no leading of the barrel.  The same PP bullet stacked bullets right on top of each other from my Ruger .375 Win No. 3.

With harder alloys, you can push a PP bullet right up to magnum velocities.  In a series of articles in The American Rifleman, Col. E. H. Harrison was able to push PP bullets over 3,000 fps with a 300 Win Mag.

You can even shoot PP slightly undersized jacketed bullets through a soft-steel antique barrel without harming the barrel - say using .308" bullets in my 32-40 High Wall if I so desired (though I have no such desire).

I haven't shot PP bullets in years, but intend to give it another go - having a PP mold that I can use in my 40-65 and my .405 Win.

I've only ever loaded fixed ammunition with PP bullets.

After you have rolled the patch on the bullet (damp) and let it dry it is fairly tough, but by no means indestructible. After lubing the patch it may be just a bit softer, but I never babied my fixed rounds with PP.  When I shot them in the Marlin 38-55 Cowboy, I single-loaded them through the ejection port.

Paul Matthews used PP in 45-70 Marlins and loaded the magazine.  Trying to remember what he did to prevent damage to the patch in the cartridge's trip through the loading port, magazine and action. Certainly with single shot rifles, reasonable care - not much more than you'd give to fixed loaded with a soft allow GG bullet - is all that is needed to protect the patch from damage.

I patched the full bearing surface and enough onto the ogive that I could twist the bullet in the rifling at the muzzle and only the patch would be touched. I loaded my cartridge OAL so that the patch was right up against the rifling or leade.

here are some points in favour of pp with black powder.
my 40/72 has great stability with a 1.550" long pp bullet out to 1000 yds, but is starting to wobble at 500 meters with a 1.530 long bullet.
this has to be drag/stability related.the pp bullets in this guns have as little as 60% wind deflection of greasers going shot for shot on the same day.
patching is quicker than lubing.
in both a 45/2.4 and the 40/72, pp bullets are more accurate.
pp bullets are historically correct for long range. they were shot up until 1912 at seagirt. by then it would have been discovered that greasers were better if in fact they were.
the disadvantage of pp bullets is that it can make your brain hurt learning to use them, hence the lack of popularity in this modern world if instant gratification.
keep safe,
bruce.

MartiniBelgian wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 9:42am:


Hello Gert, I have take exception to your remarks above about the M-H 577/450. A paper patched bullet dropped into barrel will fall down the barrel some 2/3 rds., of its length before the taper in the barrel stops it. Certainly the bullet would bump up when fired. I did a lot of shooting of this calibre rifle in the 1960's and 70's and used both PP and GG Bullets. the PP bullets would always be more accurate than the GG bullets. However, they were only accurate out to about 800 yards and after that they would tumble and go all over the place. I believe that the deep grooves in the M-H were a mistake, but it was only the second British Military Service Rifle to use PP bullets the other being the stopgap weapon the .577 Snider a conversion from the .577 Enfield muzzle loading rifle from the 1850's. I don't think enough, if any, experimentation was done by the British Arsenals on rifling design for the M-H they simply adopted Henry's rifling because he was winning competitions with it. (Using a muzzle loader).

Proper rifling for PP bullets benefits from shallow i.e. 0.002"-4" grooves whereas GG bullets do better with grooves deeper than that. So a person with a deep grooved barrel cannot expect good long range accuracy if they use PP bullets, and vice versa. As for being "Old Hat" I note Brent Danielson is doing very well with them in Long Range rifle Comps and is winning some of these matches against well known and expert LR shooters using GG bullets.

Harry

Harry,

The issue was not so much with the rifling - even though it had its  faults - but rather with the case design, which led to a chamber design, and the ML bullet concept used.
FWIW, There were quite a few match-winning scores shot with Henry-rifled breechloaders, not so much as with Metford's rifling, but still...
I will agree that it is rather prone to fouling, and much deeper than required.  However, the question asked here was not whether is was ideal rifling - but does one absolutely need a shallow-grooved barrel to shoot PP?  I still say no - the 11mm Mauser also had pretty deep rifling, as did the Gras.  
For target work, shallow rifling was undoubtedly better - but it is NOT an absolute requirement for shooting PP bullets.
I still do it all the time - shooting PP bullets in Henry-rifled barrels, and with success too - even when shooting dirty (blowtubing only).  One would be surprised at how much cleaner a PP load is vs. a GG load.  Even with Henry rifling.  Especially with Henry rifling, because it fouled much more/faster with the GG bullets...

bruce moulds wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 7:33pm:

60% wind deflection is significant at 1000 yds especially when you run out of windage on your sight using greasers.      

Sounds like much has been rediscovered in the last few years.

Yellowhouse wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 9:06am:


Yellowhouse,

Yes, that is what I've done.  Starline's long brass (trimmed to 2.120") works with a .382" bullet in my rifle.  

I've got four 38-55s.  The High Wall .375" short chamber gets W-W brass,  .379" Marlin 1893 and Winchester 94 get Starline short brass (2.080"), and the Marlin Cowboy as above.