doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com The Square Load

In a recent article in SSM Chris Batha wrote this ............



"It is often said that a 16-gauge carries like a 20 and hits like a 12. This balance of lighter-weight guns and solid hitting power is often credited to the fact that the 16 is a �square load�� a term developed by muzzleloaders for a load in which the shot, powder and wad are the same length as the nominal boring.

The modern 16-gauge cartridge does not conform to the muzzleloading axiom in overall length, but the depth of the shot column of a 1-ounce load does still closely match the nominal boring of .662″. (As a quick review: It takes 16 lead balls of .662″ to make one pound, and there are 16 ounces in one pound.) The logic holds that a square load maximizes the shot charge with the least pellet deformation from shot-column depth, thus resulting in an optimally powerful and even pattern for the gauge."



While I have read about the "square load' most of my life I have never seen the reference to it having been used in muzzleloading days to mean the overall length of the entire load of powder, wad and shot. I have always understood it to mean that the shot payload alone was the same depth as width, or, the same distance from top to bottom as the bore diameter.

How in the world could an entire load of powder, wad and shot be the same height as the bore diameter, unless it was a very anemic load? I suspect Batha is wrong about that, but am open to references from you all. What say ye?

SRH

I think he is referring to the shot, powder, and wad individually. Each alone is equal to the bore diameter.

IMHO, this is one of those old wives tales that just won't die. It is completely irrelevant with the advent of choke, and petaled shot cups. Even with cylinder bored muzzleloaders, most shooters find that thinner (i.e. lighter) wads produce better patterns, as opposed to stacking them up just to match the bore diameter.

I suppose it is a good place to start for experimentation though, making adjustments to produce the best results.

If that is what he meant he did not make that clear, for me at least. He should have inserted "each" between "are" and "the".

I really don't think that is what he meant, Flintfan. Look at the first sentence in the second paragraph, where he mentions "overall length" of a shot shell not conforming to "the muzzleloading axiom in overall length". Sounds like he is talking about the length of the entire load to me.

SRH

Stan;
More hogwash than anything has been printed on the Square Load theory. I do think what Batha was citing there though was not that the entire load was equal to the bore diameter but rather that each component of it was. Thus in the 16 gauge the "Black Powder" charge would have occupied a space in the bore of .662". There would then have been .662" of wadding & a shot charge which also occupied a length of .662". Total length of the load would thus have ben .662" x 3 or 1.986" In a shell with a very low base wad this load should fit in a normal early 2 9/16" 16 gauge hull. Fly in the ointment though is that by the definition that a square load is one in which the length of column is equal to its diameter is an ounce of shot in a nominal .662" bore will stack up to around .837" long, well beyond the length for a square lo0ad which would be some where between 3/4oz and 13/16oz.
One "Noted" writer in an article I once read was touting the 28 as being great beyond all comparison to other gauges because of its square load. He then defined a square load as one in which the shot charge weighed the same as the round ball which fit the bore ( Actually a round ball equivelent load not a square one). He correctly stated this could be found by dividing 16 by the gauge number. He then went totally off the wall by saying 16/28 = .57 thus proving that a 3/4oz load made a perfect square load in the 28. Now even an old Tennessee Redneck HillBilly like me knows that .57 & .75 (3/4) AIN't the same.
A true Square Load in the 28 would be around 7/16oz. Personally I pay no attention to whether the load is square or not. Loads of 1 1/8oz in 12, 15/16oz in 16 & 13/16oz in 20 all stack up to approximately the same length. All can shoot great, none are square. Using 1�oz as the base in the 12 gauge a 16 with same length column would carry about a 32nd over an ounce & the 20 about 7/8oz, all still good loads again none of them square.

I don't pay any attention to the idea of square loads, either. I have always used equal volumes of black powder and shot in my m/l doubles, but never tailored them to bore diameter. I was always more concerned with trying to get those cylinder bored muzzles to hold that load of shot tighter. Never was able to help it much, though.

I was really more concerned with what Batha meant with his reference to the entire load.

Thanks, SRH

The 'Oxford comma' rears it's head in a gun rag.

There was a recent legal case that pivoted on that.

Not the stupid 'square load', but the Oxford comma.

I prefer a round load.

I have believed that a square load is shot and powder measured with the same dipper???

bill

That method of loading should be simply referred to as an Equal Volume loading. Then there is the round ball equivalent loading & finally the Square Load. The square load is as stated one in which the length of the shot column in the bore is equal to its diameter. Thus a cross sectional view of the charge taken longitudinal will appear square in a drawing. That's all there is to it. I see no evidence that ammo loaders have ever followed the Square principal. What they followed was a load in which the column was very close to the same in all the gauges which "Fit" the burning rate of available powders. About as close to square as you will get is 1 1/16oz in 12ga & 1�oz in 10.All smaller gauges were normally loaded "Heavier" than square. Stepping up to the 8 gauge a square load would be bit under 1 5/8oz. This gauge was normally heavily built, had long barrels to burn a coarse powder & was often loaded with quite heavy loads.
the square load is for the most part & accidental occurrence & generally will only fall within light loads in the 12 & 10.
Of far more importance is a "Balanced" load which matches shot weight with powder burn rate. Shot loads took a turn upward in the 1920's with the introduction of progressive burning powders. Coarse Black Powder was slow enough burning that heavier shot loads would have been possible but one was limited by case capacity in the "Breech Loaders" . I do recall in W Greener's book The Gun, 1834 he mentioned loading a 5/8" bore muzzleloader with 1� oz shot. 5/8" would of course be a slightly over bored 20 gauge.
Bottom Line is the best way to treat the "Square Load" is to forget it ever existed, it would appear to be primarily the figment of someone's imagination & never truly existed to begin with.

AMEN! Pick the load for the task at hand let someone else worry about Batha and the Foo King Square and another attempt to justify the stupid 16ga

The Cosmos loves the 12ga and there is no practical load that does not excel in it

Dr. Wonk. But how do you really feel about the "cock-eyed load"? Now don't hold back

Bob Nichols, Editor, Arms and Ammunition Dept., Field & Stream, Oct 1, 1940:
As regards the 16-gauge, I think the English loaders for a long time recommended 15/16 of an ounce of shot as being about as much as the 16 could handle with "good grace." I still think the 1 1/8-ounce maximum load in the 16-gauge is a cock-eyed load - because I don't see any sense in having the 16-gauge weigh more than 6 pounds - or 6 1/4 pounds at the most - and believe me, the 1 1/8 ounce load in front of 3 drams equivalent modern smokeless powder is just too heavy in recoil for the 6-pound gun.