SWAGED VS CAST ROUNDBALLS

[Sharpsman]

I've been casting since 1948 and that's enough!

Hornady swages for me now!

[yulzari]

In the earlyish 19th century the British Ordnance invested large sums for the day in machine swaged ball making machinery as they eliminated the inevitable void in the cast ball below the sprue. As a guide it made the ball about 6% or so heavier for the same diameter. and made them so much faster that the savings in labour over time paid for the investment as well as getting better balls.

[Daryl]

In the earlyish 19th century the British Ordnance invested large sums for the day in machine swaged ball making machinery as they eliminated the inevitable void in the cast ball below the sprue. As a guide it made the ball about 6% or so heavier for the same diameter. and made them so much faster that the savings in labour over time paid for the investment as well as getting better balls.

By the 1820's I think it was, the switch was made to swaged balls in the States and the ball's size was increased from .64" to .65" for the .69" muskets.
This lead to doubling the hits expected at 100 yards, on the target the military used, turkey targets. They went from 1 hit in 5 shots, to 2 hits in 5 shots,
just by increasing the ball size by .010". These were for their issue paper ctg.'s of course.
I suspect most of the guys here have the same results as I do, and any ball that had a void, would be returned to the pot. Balls I have cast and sectioned,
had no void under the sprue. They are also a LOT more consistent than the commercial swaged balls available today.
Later on, in the ctg. era, large ammunition companies like Sharps and Winchester also went to swaged bullets for paper patching. They hired women to patch
the conical balls.
Grooved bullets for outside lubrication, of course, were still cast.

[Lzymtlsmth]

What you make per hour is immaterial when it comes to spending and hour or two in the evening at home casting balls.  At least you're getting some value when casting balls, as opposed to rotting your brain watching TV. 

 I have done the weighing thing for swaged vs. cast on a number of occasions. In every case my cast balls were way more consistent in weight when compared to out of the box swaged.

If I' going to come back and spend another "hour or two" in my shop in the evening I'd just as soon get paid for it.
 And, with the cost of the pot and the mold you're going to have to cast a lot of ball to justify the initial investment. Molds are expensive these days. I do have all the casting equipment and do cast on occasion for a 32-40 schuetzen rifle. It's the only way I can get projectiles for that gun. I even have to buy the lead alloy for that one....certainly not a cheap gun to shoot, but  you can cover a 10 shot group with a half dollar at 100 yards,.
 AND most importantly, casting ball is incredibly BORING.

Around my neck of the woods 100 rd. balls with tax costs about $20. A Lee 2 cavity mold is about $21
(No sprue with lee molds) lee pot about $70 I got the lead free.
 A 1 hr. Casting session gives me a couple hundred rd. ball = approx. $40. I figure a couple more casting sessions & the product is basically free. I cast handgun boolits too. They run about $60 per 500 or a bit more.
Bored when sitting next to molten lead,Nope, focoused on the job at hand. I’m retired Mike, I’ve built rifles since ‘80’s , for me it was a way to starve slowly as I had a 60hr.week job. Not in the same league as you  hobby gunstocker would fit. So for me, casting makes sense, for others maybe not.
Watch yer back trail,
Kent

[OldMtnMan]

What caliber is $20?

[Lzymtlsmth]

Store bought just about all of them.

[OldMtnMan]

That's really high. I pay $12 for .54.

[recurve]

Hornady® Swaged Black Powder Rifle Round Balls- Cabelas 50 & 54 20.99
 
Gander outdoors(formally, mountain)-Traditions Firearms Rifle Lead Round Ball Bulk Pack swaged, .50 19.99
Dixons muzzle loader shop cast 12.99

[OldMtnMan]

I guess you don't believe me, so here.

https://www.muzzle-loaders.com/bullets/hornady-muzzleloader-round-balls.html



These are what I use.
http://www.octobercountry.com/cast-round-balls-45-to-8-bore/

[Lzymtlsmth]

Yep, I referring to places available to most folks . $12.99 at Dixon’s is a pretty fair price. I was quoting prices in my area. I think I inherited my fathers depression era thrift. I can afford to buy swayed, I like to shoot my cast.

[Lzymtlsmth]

I guess you don't believe me, so here.

https://www.muzzle-loaders.com/bullets/hornady-muzzleloader-round-balls.html



These are what I use.
http://www.octobercountry.com/cast-round-balls-45-to-8-bore/

Didn’t see any posts about not believing you, however you pay shipping on top of the $12 for the balls. That figures in . I don’t disrespect anyone for their choice of ammo.
Kent

[OldMtnMan]

How could I show you a price at my local gunshop? I showed you what I could but buying local is the same price. What you have to pay has really been overpriced.

[Daryl]

$56.50 + shipping (6.87pounds of ball) per 100 - hmm - guess I'm going to do some casting instead.

Interesting links though, Pete- tks.

[OldMtnMan]

I can't get my head around casting. Especially, living in an apartment.

I prefer to tie flies in my spare time.

[Lzymtlsmth]

How could I show you a price at my local gunshop? I showed you what I could but buying local is the same price. What you have to pay has really been overpriced.

Yeah, overpriced ain’t the word for it. When I started by shooting  caps were a dollar a tin. Balls about $2.50 / 100. Pretty inexpensive compared to shooting centerfire pistol. I bought a conical mold for my 1860 Army. Started out with a Coleman stove, Lyman pot & a dipper, I liked the concept and have continued ever since. When I cast rb I usually cast 4/500 at a time.

[Gun_Nut_73]

Purely my own opinion:  I have shot both, and haven't seen any difference in accuracy.

[OldMtnMan]

Purely my own opinion:  I have shot both, and haven't seen any difference in accuracy.

Use cast balls because it's more traditional if you don't think there's a difference otherwise.

[wirebrush]

For chunk gun shooting where accuracy is paramount, you can weigh the swaged balls into several similar weight groups to address the weight variance, shooting a given group during a match.   

Cast balls may be more consistent in weight but the question I have is whether the sprue on the cast ball causes more of an inconsistency in accuracy over the truer round nature of the swaged ball? I have never tested this difference, has anyone else?

[OldMtnMan]

For chunk gun shooting where accuracy is paramount, you can weigh the swaged balls into several similar weight groups to address the weight variance, shooting a given group during a match.   

Cast balls may be more consistent in weight but the question I have is whether the sprue on the cast ball causes more of an inconsistency in accuracy over the truer round nature of the swaged ball? I have never tested this difference, has anyone else?

I read an article about that testing. The sprue didn't cause any inaccuracy over no sprue. Even when loaded with the sprue loaded on the side instead of straight up.

[Daryl]

I have shot Speer and Hornady swaged balls, in contest against my own cast balls. The cast balls have proven to be more accurate than swaged balls, EVERY time.

Measure some swaged balls some time - they are not as perfectly round as they should be, having many small dents and irregularities.  Perhaps due to those, they

may be more accurate in a smooth-bore.  A (cast) sprue'd ball fired in a SB will likely cause imbalance and promote a spin at some point in it's travel, turning it into a slider, curve,

diver or hook or some combination of those flight characteristics.

If the sprue is centered "up" when loaded in a rifled barrel, it should ALWAYS maintain that attitude, given adequate stabilization.

The greater consistency of form and weight is most likely why the cast ball displays superior accuracy to the swaged ball.

[OldMtnMan]

You should try the sprue in different positions and see if it matters Daryl. I've never tested it and never found putting the sprue up was easy to do. I'm curious if it matters.

[Daryl]

Interesting, as I find centering the sprue straight up, is very easy. You are right, though - it would be another test.

As the sprue is added weight and projection from the 'top' of the ball, I want to keep it centered.  Trying to get it down and centered, would be close to an impossibility.

Having it 'hanging' off to one side of the top surface - for me, is not consistent enough. No, I haven't tried that but perhaps should.(changed my mind)

I've got a number of other tests to do at this point  smoothbore patchless RB loads, as well as test grouping of my .69 at 100 yards using the magnet aperture sight - maybe try

 that with that deep groove .50 Getz. bl. as well. In that one, I can also test swaged vs. cast. I do need to get it on paper - havn'e t done that yet.

[OldMtnMan]

Daryl..........The test would not only be for those of us that use cast balls, but also for those who don't. Some use swaged balls because they think a cast ball with a sprue isn't as accurate. If you can show that it doesn't matter what direction the sprue is facing when loading it will help them decide to use cast balls. I'm guessing they think that the sprue has to be perfectly centered on top or the accuracy will be off. So, they don't want to bother with cast balls.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see the results.

[MuskratMike]

No the spru has nothing to do with whether most of us who use swaged balls do so. It is a simple choice I don't want to screw around with casting. As long as I can still put them in the 10 ring I'll stick with Hornady.

[OldMtnMan]

Mike..........That's fine but you aren't everybody who uses swaged balls.

I don't cast and use cast balls. They're cheaper than what you pay for Hornady. Plus, they're rounder and are more consistent in weight. Enough reasons for me.