How true to round were they?

[Long Ears]

I have a question that was asked me by a friend during a conversation on round ball molds. Have any of you taken the time to Mic. the round balls that came from period molds the gunmaker may have supplied with the new rifle? Were they very close to being true round? How did the build the cherries for these molds with such accuracy? Thanks, Bob

[KNeilson]

Hi Bob, Ive made a few cherries and molds now. One with forge and file and a couple that I used a drill press to speed up the process. All are withing .003-.005 of round. The best being no more than .003 .  These were measured across the axis of the bore where the patch would seal. I seem to have more trouble top to bottom as the cherry will walk a bit if you are not carefull and I had to re-cut one when this happened. Also I cast them with a sprue on and use a special pair of  flushcutting sidecutters to trim off the sprue. Here I seem to err more ( +.005 to - .010). The process is here ....  Kerry
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=13995.15

[northmn]

Some of the modern molds are not pefect either.  I ahve a Lee 600 mold that is .002 out of round and had another about .004.

DP

[Daryl]

Of all my modern moulds, only 3 or 4 cast round balls. Of the others most are inside .003", but a couple are .004" and one is .006", our of round.  They are not warped, but cast that way right from day one.  Without calipers or a micrometer, a person is only guessing at what he's shooting. For some people, that all they need.
Note that of my Lee moulds, single cavity and DCavities, only 2 cast round balls of the correct size (one perfectly round both cavities, and  both only .001" oversize. The others all cast .002" to .004" oversize and oblong.  That tungsten ball advertisment, is marketing ploy. It (if they actually use one) no more makes a perfectly round hole than Lyman or anyone else's cherries. in my honest opinion

[JoeG]

I have an old .32 cal mold that casts a sort of flat round ball
makes good buck shot

[James Wilson Everett]

Guys,

The question was about period molds, not about modern precision molds. 

1.  I have cast balls from original molds and the results were significantly out of round.  However, this does not of necessity mean that the mold when new, 200 years ago, cast poor balls.  I guess to give a better answer would require having a 200 year old mold that is in pristine condition.  Probably the only ones that come to mind are the molds included in those very nice cased pistol sets that essentially are 200 years old, but unused.

2.  The mold cherries in my collection are similarly out of round, but again they are 200 years old.

3.  My opinion is that the ball molds we get today are far more true than those available 200 years ago.

Jim

[Hungry Horse]

 The part of this subject that always get kicked under the bed, is the fact that the ball deforms to fill the bore on ignition ( if the ball is pure lead). So, having a ball that is tight enough to do that, and still be easily loaded, without the patch being destroyed on firing, is the right answer to this way too often discussed subject. Once again, it is much more important to develop a patch ball combination, that works well in your gun.  Getting a rocket scientist, to conger you up a "SUPER" bullet mold is a silly waste of time.

                            Hungry Horse   

[Daryl]

You're right, Jim.  I'm sure the odd original mould cast round balls, but how perfectly round? With today's more exacting machinery, the molds are still not perfectly round and thus do not cast perfectly round balls.  Original sissor-type moulds without locator pins did not have much of a chance of good casting, and even those later ones with pins do not cast perfect balls. The later block moulds had a better chance, but all the bullet moulds I've used from the 19th century, while OK for shooting close up, were not perfect, either, even when they are in really good condition.

[D.W. Hall]

Jim - Question - how would being 200 years old make a mold out of round?

    And thanks for the info on original molds, I think that answered the question.

I believe it came down to the patching material. As has been stated, the soft lead will expand upon ignition anyways. I think the challenge was finding the right patching material "year after year"

[Daryl]

D.W. - I'm pretty sure the jury is out on whether or not small round balls obturate at all. A test I made a few years back, using that DC .400" mould was quite dramatic on the loss of accuracy with oblong balls. The bad cavity cast .394" X .400" balls - .006" out.  the other cavity cast .400" X .400". 

 

[D.W. Hall]

Daryl
    It would stand to reason that any given projectile will not obturate if the charge is light enough.
    But it also stands to reason that any charge, medium to heavy, has more than suffecient pressure (5,000 to 12,000 psi) to 'upset' a pure lead projectile.

    If it's hardened lead it all changes.

   

[KNeilson]

When I made my post, my intent was thinking that by copying period methods and tools, a fellow should be able to somewhat duplicate results. Of  course this is only a guess, as no-one can know for sure as they just plain werent there. I would guess that a mold made then by an experienced, professional tradesman of top caliber, would equal the accuracy in a mold available today. He sure wouldnt be able to produce the amount that a modern facility would. For example, why is a Lee mold only 25 $ or so...because they can make several hun or thou or so a day. I also would guess that the average mold would be fairly close to round across the ball. This because even if the cherry is slightly out of round it will find a center and make a round cavity. Like a bad drill will make a round hole, just to big usually. Top to bottom seems to be the hardest for me to produce a "round" cherry as you have the spigot that becomes the sprue to contend with as you are scraping the tool round. Here you would produce a "football" shape to the ball. I could imagine they had this problem also, I wonder how they would approach this then. I have been lapping mine and it seems to help a lot.
In some of my tests, I didnt notice a lot of variance in shot accuracy with a ball within a few thou where the patch sealed, but I tried loading them sprue to the side and there was a noticable loss of accuracy and a few more patch problems. This would follow the thinking already stated that the combination of patch/ball fit is more important than the ball being absolutely round. All imoho of course...
Has anybody here ever tried to "catch" a ball unharmed to see what it looks like. Like shooting into a pool or barrel of water like the CSI folks do?...  Ive seen old photos of found projectiles at battlefields and some of them dont look too bad.....        Kerry

[D.W. Hall]

Kerry - excellent - makes perfect since about side to side rounding out and top to bottom being off.

    I do believe that one of "our" problems is that we all seem to own calipers. We measure molds, barrels, RB and patching material to the thousands... don't think your average gun owner in the 17, 18 and 19th century did that.

    I'm going to guess that the Mold to barrell diameters differed between makers, and thus the patch would vary as well.
 
    Patching to powder charge was the key... in my opinion.
     
       
   

[Hungry Horse]

Just for general information. Lee aluminum molds aren't cherried out, they are pressed around a hardened steel ball.


                           Hungry Horse

[Daryl]

Just for general information. Lee aluminum molds aren't cherried out, they are pressed around a hardened steel ball.


                           Hungry Horse

I'd always thought, according to their adds over the last 30 years, that Lee pressed them after they were cut. The cavities are very smooth, which shows this method is used, however they still cast out-of-round balls.

DW Hall - " I do believe that one of "our" problems is that we all seem to own calipers. We measure molds, barrels, RB and patching material to the thousands... don't think your average gun owner in the 17, 18 and 19th century did that."

You are right DW - they didn't have calipers and were probably happier because they didn't know any better, merely accepting whatever the rifle gave or didn't give.  They also did not achieve the accuracy levels we can today - in many or most instances.  Some did shoot exceptionally well and we know this due to written records of match results, formal and informal, along with rules for matches. This shows some did experiment with combinations - or they were quite simply very lucky. I'd rather believe they did some testing.

[D.W. Hall]

Daryl
    totally agree. The majority were probably 'not' paper target hole punchers, but used their firearms for shooting game...and people.
   

[Dphariss]

"Shooting at marks was a common diversion among the men, when their supply of ammunition would allow it... The present mode of shooting off hand was not then in practice. This mode was not considered as any trial of the value of a gun.... such was their regard to accuracy, in these supportive trials of their rifles, and of their own skill in the use of them, that they often put moss, or some other soft substance, on the log or stump from which they shot for fear of having the bullet thrown from the mark by the spring of the barrel...
Rev. Joseph Doddridge "Notes on the Settlements and Indian Wars of the Western Parts of Virginia and Pennsylvania, 1763-1783"
Interestingly he also states that
"Rifles of former times, were different than those of modern date; few of them carried more than 45 bullets (.47 caliber) to the pound..."

So I would not say that they were not interested in target shooting or best accuracy. They shot for prizes and  I am sure there was betting as well just like in horse racing. In the mid-19th cent it was not uncommon for Gunsmiths to have "grudge matches" with stakes of 500 or 1000 dollars.
Of course here was no way to measure the ball as we would today. They could determine if it was round or not, with in reason and the makers knew how to size the ball to the bore, but there was no vernier caliper or micrometer in the 18th cent. SFAIK.
Also slow twists cause less problems with out of round balls than faster twists will the ranges were relatively short as well. In BPCR a 12" twist will throw wider fliers than an 16 or 18" will.
I have a .500 (actually a .498") 4 cavity Lyman that is more out of round than my 2 cavity .495" Lyman. I think the 500 is about .004 "short" when measured from beside the sprue to the bottom than it is in circumference. It does not seem to shoot as well bit I have not really tested it to that exent. The .495 is within .002 or so. It seems to shoot extremely well and the two cavities are within my tolerance for weight cavity to cavity as well, +- 1 gr.

It is difficult to make a mould that makes a round bullet, none of them really are. The iron invariably warps at its first casting session unless its stress relieved before the final machining and cavity cutting is done even then it may move a little. Steve Brooks used to have me run all his rough blocks though my pottery kiln to 1000 degrees with an overnight cool down. They ALWAYS warped. He would then final machine  them and then cut the cavity. I suspect that most mould makers know this. I think this is why its considered a bad idea to warm an iron mould by dipping it in the lead pot.
How this would relate to the malleable iron the old moulds would have been made from I do not know. It is possible they lapped the moulds after cutting them to bring them to size using a ball cast in the mould then using an abrasive and turning the ball. But this is supposition.

Dan

[D.W. Hall]

Dphariss
     Great post, thnks for sharing the info.

[D.W. Hall]

Does anyone know if there was a 'common' variance between bore dia. and mold dia.? Say a .50 bore w/ a .480 ball mold?
    Looking at an average here, not a specific down to the thousands. 

[Dphariss]

The barrels with very wide lands would load harder with a heavy patch and a .495 ball in a .500 bore.
This is one of those things we will likely never know for sure.
I think that bores like this in a recut to 58 cal 1803 HF.

Due to contact area on the ball,
might load as easy as this

Which looks pretty modern as many St Louis Hawken's do.

and will definitely load a tight fit easier than this.


I suspect this last, from a 1840 Connestoga Rifle Works (Leman) is the worst of the three for a load like I would use, thick patch and a ball .005 under bore size.

I had a 36 cal 7 sided bore rifle when I was a kid but cannot recall how it loaded. But the heptagonal bore has to be harder to seal.

We have accounts of shooters using high thread count linen, I think Audubon mentions Boone using high thread count linen cloth. I think Ned Roberts uncle specified "shirt bosum linen" what ever that means and this was in the last quarter of the 19th c.
Someone with an original barrel in shootable condition might be able to shed some light.

Dan

[KNeilson]

Dan, great posts, thx for the info..I learn more here about this stuff than anywhere else for sure. The rifle I use atm is a .62 with a 104" twist . In my limited experience, using balls of my own manufacture, balls from bore size to slightly under(.005) always do the best.  These shot with a patch of .015-.020. .  Nothing different than Ive read here a million times already..regards    Kerry