Post by spence on Mar 14, 2020 10:25:57 GMT -7
I’ve often wondered about the relationship of the caliber of early rifles and the molds made for them. Assuming a patch was to be used, space for it would have to be allowed for….would that mean the ball was true size and the barrel larger, or the barrel exact size and the ball smaller? I have a small original bag mold, which is marked 100 for 100 balls to the pound, for instance, and was curious as to what that really meant. The actual caliber of balls 100 to the pound is .36, the weight 70 grains. Would the mold throw balls exactly 100 to the pound, .36 caliber, or would they be smaller, intended to be shot in a barrel which was exactly .36 caliber? I decided to cast some balls and find out. The old mold shows some age, but is basically in good shape, so the balls were not bad.
Average caliber was .333”, average weight 57.8 grains. So, in this one case it seems the allowance was made in the mold, that it was intended to throw balls less than nominal caliber, possibly to allow for the patch.
A ball of .33 caliber equates to 120 balls to the pound, so the label on the mold is apparently telling us balls thrown by it are intended for a .36 caliber rifle, not the actual size the mold drops.
One possibility, of course. Who can know what the old boys were thinking?
Spence
Average caliber was .333”, average weight 57.8 grains. So, in this one case it seems the allowance was made in the mold, that it was intended to throw balls less than nominal caliber, possibly to allow for the patch.
A ball of .33 caliber equates to 120 balls to the pound, so the label on the mold is apparently telling us balls thrown by it are intended for a .36 caliber rifle, not the actual size the mold drops.
One possibility, of course. Who can know what the old boys were thinking?
Spence
