Traditional Muzzleloading Association

Shooting Traditional Firearms and Weapons => General Interest => Topic started by: mholder on September 30, 2014, 11:24:29 AM

Title: round ball sizing and molds
Post by: mholder on September 30, 2014, 11:24:29 AM
I have a .440 bag mold and have purchase .433 round balls and tried working around with patch thickness.

But I never seen anyone discuss any other ball size other than those "standard" size round balls.  Like .490 and .495, or the .433 and .440.  I would like to know if anybody here has ever seen any indication of the sizing of ball molds that came with original rifles. I would also be interested if anyone here has ever been able to experiment with different ball sizes.  If I can scrounge up $70 I plan on ordering a .438 or .439 mold from bagmolds.com but I am under the impression that way back when, you bought a gun, it had a mold, so how did the ball size compare to the bore size back then.

mholder
saline county mo
Title: Re: round ball sizing and molds
Post by: Loyalist Dave on December 16, 2014, 08:13:07 AM
I'm surprised this thread sat for so long...

It was often the case that the rifle came with a mold for the ball.  The odds of knowing exactly what the difference was for many or most of the rifles made is very low.  Part of the problem was as each rifle barrel was indivually made, the exact precision that we get with today's machining made it more of a necessity to have a mold made to the barrel.  

However, there have been some columnists in black powder magazines that have experimented with a not so tight fitting ball.  Mike Nesbit (iirc), a regular contributor to Muzzleloader  magazine, I think shoots a .520 round ball with a thick patch in his .54 rifle.  It's easier for him to load, and he says accuracy for hunting does not suffer.  So in your case you might try a .435 or even a .420 ball mold, and a thick piece of cloth patch or perhaps a piece of real chamois for the patch.

LD
Title: Re: round ball sizing and molds
Post by: mholder on December 16, 2014, 10:08:51 PM
I have used 433, but do get a tighter group with a 440 and I can get a couple shots wirh ticking that's about .015 I think I'd gave to look. But it is pretty difficult and a don't like loading with the wooden rod.

And thank you for expressing what I wanted to say as those old barrels beat out on a mandrel, I do wonder how the maker determined the bore and made the mold. I would think a maker might have only one or two 'standard' for them size mandrels and so would only make one or two different size molds.

Love shooting the muzzleloaders.

mholder
saline county mo
Title: Re: round ball sizing and molds
Post by: Loyalist Dave on December 17, 2014, 07:36:03 AM
I'ts possible that the reason for what we today think of as "odd" sized barrel calibers... the .52's etc. were made on a specific mandrel, and the barrel maker had the cherry to make the mold for the barrel made on that mandrel, when the barrel was done being rifled.  

LD
Title: Re: round ball sizing and molds
Post by: Roaddog on December 17, 2014, 08:52:39 AM
So you mean they wouldn't slug the bore befor it was breached?
Title: Re: round ball sizing and molds
Post by: mholder on December 17, 2014, 10:04:03 AM
What I am still interested in learning:  is there any original guns with original molds, and better yet any multiples from the same maker, where one could compare the mold to the bore? I would think the maker would make the mandrel and the cherry, and there had to be come common thought at the time if I make the mandrel .52, make the cherry .51? .504?  

I think whatever they used for patching back then would have been pretty variable and I believe for all the ones we hear were such great shots, there were a lot more who couldn't brag about their shooting ability, such as myself.

mholder
saline county mo
Title: Re: round ball sizing and molds
Post by: RobD on December 17, 2014, 09:55:53 PM
i think there were lotsa variables to just about everything to do with firearms 250 years or so ago.  i've never read there were ball starters and my guess is that the fit of ball to patch to bore to groove weren't all that tight as some folks use these dayze.  i doubt that patch material was all that uniform, either.  the barrel metal wasn't as hard or durable as today's, and then there's the corrosive nature of the holy black.  so, barrel refreshing was common place, and on delivery it would, or should, include a new mould.  i'm happy to have flinters with modern steel barrels.  8)
Title: Re: round ball sizing and molds
Post by: Sir Michael on December 25, 2014, 01:43:29 PM
From my research, ball sizes in the old days were based on the number of balls per pound of lead.  For example:  20 = .615 dia, 30 = .537 dia, 31 = .532 dia, 40 = .488, 53 = .445 dia, 54 = .442 dia, 79 = .389 dia, 84 = .381 dia.  the barrels of guns were made to accept these typical sizes and every gun was sold with a mold of the right size for the barrel.  

Today, we make balls in nice even diameters and barrels the same way.  This is result of the influence of cartridge/modern gun and ammunition makers which don't rely on cloth or leather patches to interface between the bullet and the barrel.  If you were to take the +.015 dimension to any of the above a barrel maker today would laugh you out of his shop.  They make .62, .54, .50, .45, .40 cal barrels not the odd diameters of old.  This is very often the typical mistake made by museums when they size old guns.  (using today's criteria not the criteria of old.