Makes absolutely no difference unless you are trying to shoot black powder. With black, the microgroove will probably foul out with residue but I have not tried it myself. Myths surrounding microgroove rifling came from people who did not know how to reload with cast bullets if they knew how to reload at all.

 

+1 except that in my experience, black powder in MG works just fine.:biggrin:

w30wcf

 

There's a lot of noise from people who really like the *Idea* of Ballard rifling and somehow think it's better.... The reality is that if you look at the fancy pants custom rifle barrels - they are made with rifling that you might think of as "Microgroove" - they just don't have so many grooves... For example - a standard Shilen uses 8 lands/grooves and the lands are quite narrow.... Nobody ever complained that their barrels don't shoot....

Then - with a properly mounted scope and good bench technique - there are plenty of folks who shoot better than 3/4 Moa out of their microgroove barrels....
and millions of rounds of cast bullets have been shot through Microgroove barrels with no complaints....

In my mind - the larger issue comes from barrel restrictions/tight spots and muzzle condition....

Thanks

 

The old time hunting club has a open house in the spring and you can go shoot black powder only deep cut ballard rifling is a must or you are cleaning more then shooting !! :biggrin:

 

The basic bore diameter of Microgroove barrels is larger, so a bore riding design bullet which fits a conventional 6-groove will not be guided by the lands in a Microgroove.

Similarly, a bullet which has a large enough forepart that it will be guided by the tops of the lands in a Microgrooved barrel, will chamber in a conventional 6-groove only with forced resistance.

As a general rule, Microgrooves like long bodied, short-nosed bullets which fit them, and in general bullets must be a bit larger in diameter, and velocities held a bit lower for best grouping.

With standard pressure loads in the .44-40, using SOFT bullets which "fit" my Microgroove barrel Marlin 1894S is as accurate as almost any rifle in that caliber.

 

ECM rifling is better... :flute:

 

From what I've learned, mostly on this forum of course; if the bullet diameter fits the bore properly they will both shoot properly. However, in some calibers, such as 444, a Microgroove barrel will have one twist rate and the Ballard will have another twist rate. In this case bullets in the mid weight range should both shoot well in either rifle. However, really heavy for the caliber bullets will shoot better in the faster twist barrel which happens to be Ballard, but being Ballard is not what makes them shoot better............. it is the faster twist.
Confused yet?

 

what about 5r? i got a buddy has a venture in 308 and swears by it

 

.

OK, what is 5r and what about it?

.

 

5r is a sorta new type of rifling,It consists of five lands/grooves and sorta rounded corners on the lands.The groove and land are directly across from each other and by some reports seem to be a bit more accurate and do not require "break in" to achieve their accuracy.This type of barrel demands a premium price.Is it worth it???? some say yes others say it makes no difference.I shoot a couple of RICE round bottem rifled barrels in my flint locks (construction is similar to 5r) and the only thing I can say about them is that they are easier to clean.The jury is still out on the accuracy of the 5r versus the standard..... the arguments go on.I've shot premium barrels with 5r (Pac-Nor,Krieger etc) and can't tell much difference in them versus their standards except my wallet was lighter with the 5r:biggrin:

 

Based on my many years of hand loading and shooting Marlin rifles it is my humble opinion that the Micro Grove is better suited for jacketed bullets and the Ballard is better for cast bullets. Doesn't mean that you can't shoot either in either barrel.

I have loaded 1000's of rounds of both jacketed and cast bullets fired them through both barrels over the years and feel I have a pretty good record to justify my opinion.

But of course that is just my opinion.

 

Ballard rifling is better for black powder.

"5R" rifling is not new, but is a modified Metford type, which was originally intended to reduce fouling with black powder.

Interest in a rifling form in which the top of the land was only 55% as wide as its base chord was stimulated in the early 1980s by the work of Boots Obermeyer, who replicated the form of the Soviet 5.45x39mm AK74 rifle to fabricate industrial test barrels used by the government to evaluate the first samples of captured AK74 ammunition brought back from Afghanistan by Galen Geer of Soldier of Fortune Magazine, who turned their captured materials over to the government so that they could be evaluated for any intelligence or scientific value at the U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Ground and the U.S. Army Letterman Institute.

The AK74 barrel had four lands and grooves. Boots Obermeyer coined the term "5R" and was the first US barrel maker to adapt the Soviet rifling form to a 5-groove 7.62mm, and cal. .50 barrels being tested in Army and Marine Corps sniper rifle programs. Others have since jumped in on the band wagon, but I provided the Russian drawings to Boots and ordered the 5.45x39 test barrels which were used by Dr. Robert L. McCoy at BRL and by Col. Martin Fackler at Letterman.

 

Yep - along with that... At least what Boots had written about 5R... It was intended to extend the barrel life in full auto applications... The lack of sharp corners was supposed to reduce stripping and fire cracking....

You will notice that basically none of the benchrest or F-class long range shooting records have been set with 5R - and it's not for lack of competitors trying.... Plenty of them, though, have set records with conventional rifled barrels that have what you could call "Micro-land" rifling Just small rifling lands which deform the bullets less.... "Rachet rifling" is kinda the next step in that evolution....

On Marlin's Microgroove vs Standard - they made the change for a reason... In production barrels - they are easier to make more accurate because of less deformation of the bullet. As has already been mentioned here if you look at the "Custom" fancy pants EXPENSIVE barrels - all of them are made with very narrow, short rifling - though not so many... Even the Remington 597 model 22 semi-auto - it has 5 "grooves" leading some to call it "5R" - but its conventional rifling - but the rifling is very narrow....

If you look at the old Marlin "Ballard cut" rifling from the 1940's - you will find that the rifling is quite large and deep... Quite a bit deeper than what you see on "New" production rifle barrels...

The fact that Marlin's "Microgroove" 22lr barrels will shoot lead bullets all day long without any issue should be an indication that the whole "Microgroove won't shoot lead" is a wives tale....

Thanks

 

An interesting piece of history on Microgroove barrels. The first application of the original 16-groove shallow rifling was in producing the chamber insert for the Pederson Device for the Mark 1 Springfield. The intent was to impart initial rotation to the bullet, reducing deformation which would otherwise occur from having acquired significant translational velocity before reaching the rifling of the Springfield barrel. LTC William S. Brophy showed me one of the Pederson Devices at the Marlin factory.

 

I recently received from Accurate a mold based on 43-260C, (shown left) reducing thickness of base band by 0.07" to 0.13", thereby decreasing bullet overall length to 0.70", with 0.030" bevel base, so effective width of base band will be 0.10".

Intended as a heavier bullet, about 230 grains, which will be stable in the 38" twist, having adequate lube capacity for black powder.
I plan on trying black in my Microgroove Marlin, Ruger and S&W revolvers and will report. Will also try case capacity, compressed charges of RL7 and 4198 in the rifle. The bevel based, 0.70" overall bullet from the mold I received (center) is designated 43-230-EB.

There is now also a plainbased version 0.73" long, designated 43-245C, (shown right) drawings of these "heavy .44-40s" are attached.

 

I have both a Ballard 1894 Cowboy and a microgroove 1894C and I can't tell the difference with factory lead .38 specials I shoot thru it. If microgroove was no good, why is the .22 Marlin 39 such a good shooter of lead .22's ?

 

Ballard ....... I want the rifling to hold the bullet whether plated or cast ........ micro groove just seems to be weak in holding hence the slower twist ? ......... esp heavier projectiles

 

Button rifling is not good, its cheap.

We dont do cheap

 

I shoot both types in SASS events and no difference.
IF you going to push lead bullets 'hard'. The Ballard is your choice then.
LG

 

.

Do shooters know that Ballard rifling is better because they have made valid test or because someone told them it was better. I have never found any definitive proof, either from my own test or that of others, that one is better than the other. Any differences are more imagined than factual?

 

+1
This is an interesting and informative thread! "translational velocity" ? Now there's a term you don't see every day! LOL

As to the question at hand, I have rifles with both types of rifling plus some old 03-A3 Springfields with two land rifling (which are quite accurate.)

I have found the best rifling is the one I happen to have in my hands when I need it. :biggrin:

T.S.

 

Many cast bullet shooters use the rule of thumb of .001-.02 oversize before they even start out. Also today we have the "hard cast" bullets and gas checks. Ballard rifling was developed in the days when lead was hardened by tin. Paper patching may have been used also as it was the early jacketed bullet. I had a 45-70 that had micro grooved rifling and would not hit a barn with the undersize Lee bullets I had at the time. My Ballard rifled 38-55 will at least pattern with a variety of different sized bullets. I got with several WW cases and it would not chamber anything over 377. I later learned that it hated Lee Liquid Lube with a passion as I tried the whole gamut and even used as cast 380 bullets in it with Starline brass. It now seems to be more tolerant of bullet size and will shoot the 377 bullets with fair accuracy (It's a Marlin CB and I slugged the barrel and it appeared to be a 377 bore) Those that use the MG seem to follow a formula of OS bullets cast harder. Before one claims that the MG is as good I would invite them to use 1-30 Lead to Tin in BP or other combinations as originally used.

DEP

 

I have been doing a study on accuracy and cast bullets. There seem to be a relationship between cast bullet geometry, muzzle velocity and calibre (vs) accuracy. I do not have access to enough barrel types to really comment, but as to the mentioned factors there definitely seems to be something. When I have all my graphs and conclusions done I will post. I think the next step must be to include rifling - could be very interesting and then of course hammered, button broached/formed or cut?

Anybody with such info?
:stupido:

 

Modern Ballard rifling has nothing in common with old Ballard, when we are discussing rifling depth, modern Ballard is very shallow. I do not buy into the theory of MicroGroove rifling letting bullets striping away from the rifling, not in levergun calibers.

 

Blackpowder fouls all types of rifling, given enough shots. Rifling is but one part of the puzzle, twist rate, bullet lead, throat, inside barrel dimensions etc, like any puzzle, when the pieces fit, you know what you have.

 

.

Here we go again.

 

My 444SS with MG bbl will shoot 325gr btb at @ 2300 fps into one ragged hole at 50 yds...and i'm OK with that.