>>64280336
>what makes you think that paper can resist a black powder charge to that point, but somehow an iron ball cannot?
>what makes you think that somehow inverting the order of the cartridge so that the paper comes after the ball would somehow change the outcome?
>so you've answered your own question, right?
Are you answering the right person?
I didn't have a question, I participated with knowledge about the musket wad practical purpose as holding the ball in.
So long as that requirement is met, I don't care whether flimsy paper stick in front or behind, trap a bit of gas, or the manga author drawing something more primitive than the era
>there would still be some effect
No disagreement, I'll also agree that when your manufacturing capability can't guarantee exact fit paper as gas trap is better than nothing, but the same reasons explain the point of the wad to keep the bullet in.
>Royal Navy manual of arms. 1760s edition.
Not going to buy a book, no matter how interesting it's likely to be, to confirm if anon is posturing. It's a topic simple enough to be answered with logic or digital-book called website.
>>64278579
You sure don't sound like someone with 15years of experience, Mr.anonymous.
>Shotgun (+ >>64278357)
Shotgun are shrapnel projectiles that can't trap gas, their wads need to be solid to act as such.
Same name, different design, different function.
>Yes, and?
Go ahead and provide proof. Surely, an "expert" can provide any source explicitly mentioning "ram squashing the ball (deforming it so it hold in place)".
The paper filling already compensated for manufacturing flaws without "deformable ball" that risk getting stuck in the barrel, not talking about dumdum bullet.
>>64278595
>youtube retards
As opposed to 4chan retard? I would trust a YT channel to have "15yrs of experience" more.
I just wanted to illustrate the sense didn't matter.