On weighing round balls (Lots of them!)

[trentOH]

For Christmas I received a few thousand .395 round ball (hand cast). A visual examination shows some of the balls should have been culled and re-melted. I'm wondering if there is a method of weighing several or many balls at one time instead of weighing one at a time? I guess I could weigh 2 at a time and if it's much less than the weight of 2 balls, there's a problem in one or both RB, but then I still have way more than a thousand weighings to make.

[smylee grouch]

I do one at a time. I put a small leather patch on the bottom of the weigh pan and zero the scale. The leather seems to help keep the balls from rolling around too much. Make sure you wait long enough between balls so the scale can rezero each time.

[SCLoyalist]

One way to speed up weighing is to decide what tolerance you'll accept.   A .395 pure lead round ball should weight 92.5 grains (if I remember correctly).   If you decide you want to keep only RB within 0.5 grain of that ideal, in step 1 you set your scale to 92.0.   Then go through one ball at a time and any time you see a ball that weighs less than 92.0, it goes into the 'cull' pile.    After that pass, you reset the scale to the upper tolerance, 93.0 gr and pass the non-culls through.   Any ball that's more than 93.0 joins the cull pile.   After that pass, the balls remaining are all 92.5  +/- 0.5 gr. Doing that eliminates a lot of fiddling with the slide and dial of a beam scale.

If you suspect the roundball isn't pure lead or there is a pronounced sprue that might be adding weight, then I'd weigh a group of 5 , divide by 5 to get the average weight of a single ball and substitute that weight for the 92.5 gr.

[Natureboy]

  I purchased an inexpensive scale at Harbor Freight.  I use a small plastic medicine dosage cup, zero it out, and then weigh the balls one by one in the cup.  It really doesn't take that much time.  The last time I did it, I tried 20 balls, my usual basic load for the range, and found 2 out of 20 to be off by a small amount.  I rejected those and put 20 equal balls in my bag.
I think the scale cost less than $20.

[Standing Bear]

Same here but I zero w a good ball in the plastic soda cap then keep all that are within .5 gr or 1 gr whatever your tolerance. That way I don't have to remember target wt or do math. Looking for the same thing whether weighing .40, .50 or .54Hmmm. Lots of difference in the 2 guns you mentioned are quite suited for quite different uses. What do you want to do with your first?  Plinking, hunting (what critters) reinacting (what period your choices limit you to CW and rendezvous) match shooting etc. where are you located - might be some one on this forum near by to discuss things with and might be some activities near for you to experience and make an informed decision.

Good luck
 
TC

[WadePatton]

I'd cull all the visual defects, then weigh 10 or 20 to determine the extremes and avgs.  I'd weigh out about 100 divided as you see fit, THEN

Go see what difference it makes on target.

Everyone has his own accuracy "needs".  No point in going overboard. 

You might well find that they shoot fine once the "uglies" are removed.

The visual defects could be shot for plinkers/foulers, if you don't have a pot and moulds.  Or just save them until you do.

[Dphariss]

For Christmas I received a few thousand .395 round ball (hand cast). A visual examination shows some of the balls should have been culled and re-melted. I'm wondering if there is a method of weighing several or many balls at one time instead of weighing one at a time? I guess I could weigh 2 at a time and if it's much less than the weight of 2 balls, there's a problem in one or both RB, but then I still have way more than a thousand weighings to make.

Digital reloading scale. Its fast, can do them almost as fast as you can change them.
Must be weighed one at a time. Anything else is meaningless.
Dan

[Dphariss]

I'd cull all the visual defects, then weigh 10 or 20 to determine the extremes and avgs.  I'd weigh out about 100 divided as you see fit, THEN

Go see what difference it makes on target.

Everyone has his own accuracy "needs".  No point in going overboard. 

You might well find that they shoot fine once the "uglies" are removed.

The visual defects could be shot for plinkers/foulers, if you don't have a pot and moulds.  Or just save them until you do.

While slow twist barrels are more forgiving than fast twist barrels I weigh anything I will be doing serious shooting with and I weigh them to a tight standard.
Accuracy comparisons would require at LEAST two 10 to 20 shot groups to prove anything. All shot carefully from a good rest with a uniformly wiped and dried bore. Easier to just examine and weight them then remelt all the culls.

Dan

[trentOH]

I tried my old (and I mean OLD) reloading scale, a Bonanza model C, but was reminded why it's my backup scale. It isn't magnetically dampened, and takes about a full minute to settle down to a steady reading. But I did learn that the good looking balls are around 93.3 grains, and the culls average about 5 full grains less! We may debate here whether to accept within 0.5 grains or even 1 .0 grains, but 5 grains in 93.3 is certainly not worth seriously flinging down the barrel. Actually I may shoot 5 or 10 culls just to document the result.

By way of measurement, the balls seem to mic at .393", so they are just a smidgen lighter than a .395 or .400s.

[Pete G.]

Cull out the obvious ones and shoot the rest. If you are in a competition you might want to weigh those, but the rest are just fine for general shooting, complete with a built in excuse for the flier.

[Hungry Horse]

  I drink beer, and build guns, and laugh my butt off at people that think they are such wonderful shots, that round ball that is minutely light, or heavy, is going to change the way they shoot. Life is just too darn short, and most of us don't shoot well enough to realize any difference. I went through all this 35 years ago and still feel stupid for all the time I wasted. JMO.

                   Hungry Horse

[trentOH]

Cull out the obvious ones and shoot the rest. If you are in a competition you might want to weigh those, but the rest are just fine for general shooting, complete with a built in excuse for the flier.

I make no excuse for fliers. I merely call them "my shots".

[galamb]

Shoot as many as you can with a carefully measured, uniform powder charge.

The heavier ones will probably hit a little lower than the lighter ones 

I've never felt the need to weigh balls or mic patches etc. Probably because I'm not a good enough shot to worry much about a few grains or a few mils here or there.

If I was in your spot maybe I would weigh out/group enough of the same weight balls to save for hunting (if you hunt) and just shoot the rest of them "when it doesn't matter"...

[Curt Lyles]

trentOH
  Midway USA has a real good digital scale and they work just fine,(DS 750) IS THE # of it made by Franklin Arsenal.I agree with Dan on this ,if you want accurasy  they should be weighed. Curt

[Dphariss]

Cull out the obvious ones and shoot the rest. If you are in a competition you might want to weigh those, but the rest are just fine for general shooting, complete with a built in excuse for the flier.

I make no excuse for fliers. I merely call them "my shots".

If you had a look at the internal flaw(s) in a "perfect" bullet that is only 1 grain under the normal weight you might be surprised and begin to think that maybe all the fliers with unweighed balls are not your fault.
Dan

[Standing Bear]

X2. I thought I couldn't shoot pistol till I got one that would shoot. Thought I was stuck w middling performance shooting a ML till I learned to weigh balls.
TC

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

When I cast balls (or bullets)  I cast until I run out of lead, or time.  I have never weighed balls...and I know I should.  But I do weigh bullets.  The process would be the same for balls:  weigh a ball, and put it into a tuna tin or yoghurt container with a tag indicating the weight of the ball.  Weigh another, and if it's within 1 gr. it goes into the same tin.  If it is more than a grain either way, it goes into it's own separate tin.  When you have weighed every ball, you'll find that you might have three tins, or four.  But most of the balls will be in the middle tin, light balls to the left, and heavy to the right.  When you go out to shoot, take only balls from one tin, or the other, but not both.  It isn't the weight, per se, that is important, but the consistency.  As my bro would say, "Consistency - thou art a jewel".

[Curt Lyles]

Its that little hollow space inside the ball that is the problem and you never know if its there unless you weight them.I shoot for accuraccy only .jmho Curt

[Dphariss]

Bullets that are under 1 gr from nominal (it can change that much just by stopping casting for 10-15 minutes so any break in casting creates another lot of bullets) is not worth shooting in a rapid twist barrel like a BPCR.

This is based on machining thought some bullets from the same lot .010 at a time.
Not only are their serious flaws like relatively large air pockets but there is an area of less dens metal in ALL of them except the ones that are too heavy. I believe this area of less dense metal is the result of the metal cooling and not being able to draw molten metal into the bullet as it cools and shrinks. In the nominal wgt bullet this is uniform and centered in the bullet. I bullets 1 grain under besides likely having voids this draw down less dense area is generally misshapen and often grossly so and off center.
Now while this might not be a big factor in a 72" twist shoo , in a 48" twist and a fast load the rotational velocity can  get near that of a 20-22" twist at 1100-1200. In larger ball sizes voids can he even farther from center.
The only alternative to weighing round balls is to warm the mould well by setting it on the edge of the pot for 45 minutes to an hour then remelting the first 20 balls or so till the mould is up to temp. Then DO NOT STOP for anything until the pot is low enough to make dipping difficult.
Bottom pour casting pot? Gave up on them over 20 years ago. They simply will not create a quality bullet. Very difficult to flux...

Dan

[moleeyes36]

....Bottom pour casting pot? Gave up on them over 20 years ago. They simply will not create a quality bullet. Very difficult to flux...

Dan

Dan,

Exactly my experience.  Using a bottom pour pot is a PITA compared to casting balls by dipping.  I got my first bottom pour pot about a year ago and finally just started to use it to melt the lead while I dip from the top of the pot.  That's faster and makes casting good quality balls easy.  My old method of using a cast iron skillet on a camp stove was much better.

Mole Eyes

[Daryl]

I plugged the bottom pour feature many years ago as well and only dip bullets and balls.

I find my Tanner moulds cast more consistent balls than-do Lyman or Lee. The Lyman seem more consistent than the Lee, perhaps due to the slightly higher sprue or due to more even heat, cast iron rather than aluminum. This seems definitely the case with the Tanner moulds- although made of brass, from which balls will have a shank with a puddle atop for the sprue.  Once trimmed off, they very minutely, 1/10gr. usually is all. They make wonderful balls, but possibly sticky (difficult) to cast in smaller sizes, I'd expect.

The long tall sprue and good high casting temps allow easy lead draw/shrinkage into the mould as the ball hardens - that's the theory.



With bullets having antimony in the matrix, an even frosting gives very consistent bullets.



Round balls are like gems, easy casting.

[WadePatton]

That's the beauty of casting your own, anything that looks less than ideal goes straight back into the pot. It doesn't take long to learn to cast balls that don't need weighing (for non-bench application). As much as I love iron, i've never spent the bucks for an iron mould (they hold value quite well).  I do love the Tanner mould and those big honkin' sprues!  As big D^s notes above, a big fat sprue is functional.  Can't wait to need to order another couple of those brass boys.

started another thread WRT bottom-pour vs. dipsters http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=33809.msg324473#msg324473