I pulled out an old box of balls that I tried one time when first getting familiar with my rifle. I thought hey, these might shoot fine with some thinner patching and reduced loads. I only ever shot one out of that box because I had to beat it all the way down the barrel. I just passed it off as "too big for my patching" and thought no more of it.
Today I put a micrometer to one of them just to see exactly what size they are, figuring I'd find a proper patching material to go with them and put them into the service of hole punching distant things.
When the first one got to .015" over their "nominal" size and still wouldn't rotate on all axis, I said "funky potato" (or something
similar to myself
) and marked it with pliers and pitched into the re-use lead box. I thought I'd grabbed an obvious fluke. Then I found the next one to be the same, and then also the next one, so I dug down and got one from deeper in the box. ANOTHER pumpkin.
They're all pumpkins!
So that whole box is going into the recycle pile and they're commercially made gear.
Then I checked another box of store-bought swaged balls-they were round enough and only .002-.003" oversized.
And of course my cast balls where the most consistent, and round and closest to specification (+.002"). The do have a bit of a sprue remnant and that bothers me not one bit. NOW it's quite reassuring to see a sprue nub because I know it's a better ball.
The reason I'm sharing here is to illustrate that it's always best to own and use precision measuring tools and use them now and again, even if that wasn't how Joe Frontier did it in his day. Anything manufactured has some degree of tolerances to contend with, that is normal, but sometimes the "QC team" doesn't keep all the pumpkins off the market and out of customers' hands.
There is no way a rifle shooter could have had much luck with those balls. Loaded pumpkin-fat ways they're over bore diameter at least 10 thou. Loaded on pumpkin edge you're sure to get blown patches on the two short sides. And spinning pumpkins have to wobble, don't they? For many years I was satisfied that the "round ball" was a poorest ballistic shape out there, now I think it shines pretty good, next to that box of rejects.
I will not name the company publicly (if they're yet in business). I might contact them to see what they say though. I'm not mad about it-it's been far too long, but they should know.
The point is. Trust, but verify. I had not verified and that's
on me. Looks like I have some casting to do.
