View Full Version : Why isn't a patch a 'sabot'?
01-29-2006, 02:30 PM
Got to thinkin' about patches 'n' things for muzzle loaders, when it occurred to me that when one considers the purpose of a patch (as I understand it), in a rifled muzzle loader, I do not see where its function is different from the function of today's sabots. I'm not lookin' to 'justify' the use of sabots in MLs, rather simply noting what I think is probably over-looked with regard to similarities between "modern" and "traditional".
I'm a neophyte ML shooter, (and even that almost overstates my experience), so it would be easy for me to be wrong here, or ignorant of some function performed by the patch. If there is a purpose/function that the patch performs that is not performed by the sabot, please educate me.
Again, even if there is no difference in function, it is not my purpose to advocate use of one over the other. I'm just curious.
01-29-2006, 02:54 PM
So far as I can tell, they serve the same purposes, taking the rifleing and scraping some of the crud out of the rifleing as well as protecting the projectile from the heat and sealing off blowby.
01-29-2006, 07:24 PM
Seems to me you are right on the function being the same. But then so it is with many things. Leaving all prejudice, esthetics and opinions aside.
Jay Edward (deceased)
01-29-2006, 08:02 PM
If there is a purpose/function that the patch performs that is not performed by the sabot, please educate me. I believe that you have the question just backwards Paul. The sabot represents an incursion into the spirit of muzzle loading that eliminates the whole concept of muzzle loading seasons.
The original idea was to ressurect an aspect of hunting that was lost by the development of the modern rifle, smokeless powders and jacketed bullets. The idea was to hunt with what they had then... not with what we have now and not with "what they would have used if they had had it available".
With a sabot you can circumvent the limitation of original design and original caliber and that was not the intent of bringing back muzzle loading hunting.
From there it was a simple step to redesigning the rifle itself while staying within the legal definition.
I am greatful to those state game department across the nation who have had the courage to rewrite the muzzle loading regulations to forestall the innovations which simply extend the hunting seasons.
01-29-2006, 08:41 PM
All you say is true but I do not think Paul was trying to split legal hairs as much as ask a simple revavance question. I know I had a hard time not ging into traditional versus letter of the law. Besides I talk a lot better with a patch strip in my mouth than sabots and it tastes better too.
Ditto on the states that have tried to keep the new seasons with the intent and not the letter of the laws.
Jay Edward (deceased)
01-29-2006, 10:34 PM
Yes... I know Alboy. And I warrant that using sabots with jacketed bullets is just as much fun for those who opt for that approach. Furthermore, there is no doubt that they can significantly affect the ballistic.
The sabot is designed to replicate the patch using synthetic materials. It is easier to use as there is really no research needed to ensure its optimum performance as a synthetic patch. I do not know from personal experience but I imagine a fella still has to work up the correct load of pellets for his particular rifle... and if the rifle is built to take primers instead of caps, I imagine primer selection comes into play.
Paul's question has to do with the 'mechanics' of the sabot/patch and I answered with a view towards the spirit of muzzleloading. I reckon there has to be someone on each forum site that just won't back up any further. A common bond with outdoorsmen but a diversity of opinion.
01-30-2006, 09:01 AM
Well I was not trying to take you to task. :p
Kinda reminds of a commercial that was popular down here some 15-20 years back. Local piece so you may never have heard it. Can not do the whole thing but the jist was two old cusses sitting around a campfire speculating on things they had heard of. In the city you could get water out of a pipe in the house with no moss or nothing in it, food served on plates by perfumed fluzzies with no dirt or grit, table to eat on and chair to sit in.:rolleyes:
The other one is going really??? through out. Then a short silence and they both chime in with "I couldn't live like that" In a perfect gravelly sigh.:p
I guess I am the eternal optimist. In-liners are only a short step from modern, true most only do it to get more season but not really more hunting. Still it puts them in the proximity of muzzle loaders of more experience and hopefully they will take the next step and so on. Then there will be some around after we leave. I take it as part of my duty to expose them to real fun in the sport which is learning.;)
Ya know I was talking to the fella that got me started last night and we were discussing different projects we had in progress. He made the statement that he was glad I was thinking and getting projects up, would keep my mind young. I agreed as I had heard the same thing but still had not grown any hair back even if I was getting to thinking younger.:cool:
01-30-2006, 11:25 AM
Waalll.... I'm glad this prompted the responses it did. Personally, I think they cover the subject well.
One minor thing (very minor) I might take issue with is (just to be ornery I suppose :) ), those state game department across the nation who have had the courage to rewrite the muzzle loading regulations to forestall the innovations which simply extend the hunting seasons. and Ditto on the states that have tried to keep the new seasons with the intent and not the letter of the laws. You can bet your lives that it was not the state's regulatory agency that made the rule changes, rather it was the traditional hunters. Believe me when I say the regulatory agencies would MUCH rather have the "modern" MLs wandering the woods than the "traditional" ones. AND, extending the season while decreasing efficiency is the wildlife manager's nirvana.
What got me thinking about the sabot issue was that, as you three know, I have dabbled with .30 cal sabots for .22 cal bullets. I have always wanted to get sabots for other calibers, especially 8mm, to take bullets of a variety of calibers. My intent is to broaden the bullet availability for a single chambering. For example, suppose I could get 8mm sabots with .22, .25, 7mm and .30 cal cavities. Think of the versatility of an 8x57-chambered rifle if sabots were available in all those cavity sizes. Move up to .338 caliber sabots and include one with an 8mm cavity and the 'versatility' increases even more. Soon, we're approaching that mythical creature - "The All-Around Rifle". Theoretically anyway. :D
Now, I'm not so naive to think that the availability of such sabots would actually eliminate the pursuit of The All Around Rifle - God forbid! Nor woudl I want it to, but I would find the 'fiddling' a whole lot more interesting. :)
Anyway, I know this isn't exactly BP/ML fodder I'm talking about so far, but it does describe the the mental pathway by which I came to my original question, AND... I was thinking about how plastic sabots require the use of smaller-than-bore-diameter bullets. It then occurred to me, as I wrote ".58-ish caliber RBs" in the ".58 Smoothbore" thread, that cloth patches also cause smaller than bore diameter projectiles to be used, AND that figuring optimum patch thickness seems to be part of the 'art' of working up a ML charge.
Personally, I can't see myself using sabots bullets in a ML simply because if I was after "optimum ballistic performance" I wouldn't be using a ML in the first place. If it wasn't for the "traditional" nature of using MLs, I wouldn't be interested.
02-04-2006, 07:52 AM
Got to thinkin' about patches 'n' things for muzzle loaders, when it occurred to me that when one considers the purpose of a patch (as I understand it), in a rifled muzzle loader, I do not see where its function is different from the function of today's sabots.
Got to reading thru the thread and it seems that the origanal question was not answered. Why the patch funtions differently from a sabot (Say-bo, just in case anyone is interested in the pronounciation:confused: ). The patch is designed to work in a weapon were the projectile is usually a hundredeth of an inch smaller than the bore diameter. Like the sabot, it's purpose is to trap the gases behind the projectile.
The sabot, on the other hand, was designed to allow a significanly smaller, or oddly shaped projectile to be fired from a larger caliber bore.
It was the Army who delveloped the Sabot K.E.P. (Kinetic Energy Penetrator)round as a tank kiiler. I first recall Sabots showing up in shotguns around the mid 80's to improve slug accuracy. After that the muzzleloading suppliers jumped on the band wagon with "yes, you can now fire jacketed rounds through our rifles, and they are much more efficient than those antiquated lead round balls.";)
Oddly enough the word Sabot, comes from the French and was a type of wooden shoe. Legend has it when French workers got upset at their bosses, they would throw they're shows into the machinery to stop it. Thus we get the word sabotage. The rumor I heard was the engineers were calling the sabot a "boot" while it was in development and the Army wanted a sexier name.
03-10-2006, 11:53 PM
sabot is an under sized bullet. if you have a .50 rifle and use a sabot. the bullet is really a .45 and the sabot itself just takes up the space. i shoot both inline and flintlock and i only use a patched round ball in the flintlock. Ive tried sabots in my inline and those suckers just plastic up your barrel big time. i wont use them ever again. For hunting i use a 245 grain powerbelt in my inline.. going hunting this year with my new flinter!! Anyone know where i can buy REAL blackpowder in colorado? email me!! jonRcolorado@aol.com
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.