|
Post by artificer on Dec 9, 2021 8:01:23 GMT -7
Gus, your mention of retail molds marked in balls per pound raises another question I've often wondered on. Does that mold actually drop a ball that weighs that fraction of a pound? If so, what bore diameter was a gun built with when a customer wanted a gun to shoot that many balls per pound? If I order a rifle to shoot 36 balls to the pound and the barrel is bored to .506" it won't shoot a ball .506" in diameter with a patch. Thus, if I have said, ".50 caliber" rifle and buy a mold marked for 36 balls to a pound, they will be too big. We're the rifles overbored to accommodate the patch, or were the molds adjusted to throw a ball reasonably smaller, or, did folks just know to buy a mold for a few more balls per pound? BTW, please don't take this as criticism, but no customer in the 18th century would have used the term ".50 caliber." This because it is a decimal measurement that almost no one, if anyone at all, would have used. They may have said it uses a ball about a half inch or if they knew the balls per pound size, they would have said that. I mention this because it is a good point to make when doing living history that they didn't have the capability to measure in decimals. Gus
|
|
|
Post by spence on Dec 9, 2021 8:44:19 GMT -7
Gus said, "I believe Spence has said he has an early 19th century mold and it is marked in balls per pound. If I remember correctly, he said those balls were undersize for that caliber."
Yes, that's correct. The mold is marked 100, but the balls cast by it are .33. It seems logical that .03" difference is the allowance for patching, but that's just my hunch.
Spence
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 9, 2021 9:42:20 GMT -7
Gus said, "I believe Spence has said he has an early 19th century mold and it is marked in balls per pound. If I remember correctly, he said those balls were undersize for that caliber." Yes, that's correct. The mold is marked 100, but the balls cast by it are .33. It seems logical that .03" difference is the allowance for patching, but that's just my hunch. Spence Spence, Thank you, Not sure how accurate they were then in their balls to pound conversions, but it seems to me like your mold may have been for a smaller caliber than .36? I stole the following from the other forum. 32 caliber: (.310) 048g---approx 146 balls/pound 36 caliber: (.360) 071g----approx 98 balls/pound Gus
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Dec 9, 2021 15:05:57 GMT -7
Gus, your mention of retail molds marked in balls per pound raises another question I've often wondered on. Does that mold actually drop a ball that weighs that fraction of a pound? If so, what bore diameter was a gun built with when a customer wanted a gun to shoot that many balls per pound? If I order a rifle to shoot 36 balls to the pound and the barrel is bored to .506" it won't shoot a ball .506" in diameter with a patch. Thus, if I have said, ".50 caliber" rifle and buy a mold marked for 36 balls to a pound, they will be too big. We're the rifles overbored to accommodate the patch, or were the molds adjusted to throw a ball reasonably smaller, or, did folks just know to buy a mold for a few more balls per pound? BTW, please don't take this as criticism, but no customer in the 18th century would have used the term ".50 caliber." This because it is a decimal measurement that almost no one, if anyone at all, would have used. They may have said it uses a ball about a half inch or if they knew the balls per pound size, they would have said that. I mention this because it is a good point to make when doing living history that they didn't have the capability to measure in decimals. Gus Oh, I totally understand that the customer would not have referred to it as .50 caliber, probably would not have even referred to it as about half an inch I think. I guess I should have said if I have a rifle I ordered as 36 balls per pound, would I buy a mold marked 36 balls per pound, or one marked more like 39 or 40 balls per pound?
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 10, 2021 20:27:15 GMT -7
BTW, please don't take this as criticism, but no customer in the 18th century would have used the term ".50 caliber." This because it is a decimal measurement that almost no one, if anyone at all, would have used. They may have said it uses a ball about a half inch or if they knew the balls per pound size, they would have said that. I mention this because it is a good point to make when doing living history that they didn't have the capability to measure in decimals. Gus Oh, I totally understand that the customer would not have referred to it as .50 caliber, probably would not have even referred to it as about half an inch I think. I guess I should have said if I have a rifle I ordered as 36 balls per pound, would I buy a mold marked 36 balls per pound, or one marked more like 39 or 40 balls per pound? It would have made the best sense for molds to be a bit undersize for the balls per pound designation on them, though I can't document that. Gus
|
|
|
Post by spence on Dec 10, 2021 22:44:42 GMT -7
Gus said, "It would have made the best sense for molds to be a bit undersize for the balls per pound designation on them, though I can't document that."
I thought that was the result of my report. The mold is marked 100, presumably balls per pound, which is .36". The balls I cast with it measured .33". I think the difference, .03" would be about right for patching. That would make .015" windage, about what I would choose today for a rifle.
Spence
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Dec 11, 2021 2:18:20 GMT -7
Gus said, "It would have made the best sense for molds to be a bit undersize for the balls per pound designation on them, though I can't document that." I thought that was the result of my report. The mold is marked 100, presumably balls per pound, which is .36". The balls I cast with it measured .33". I think the difference, .03" would be about right for patching. That would make .015" windage, about what I would choose today for a rifle. Spence But, was this always the case? Do we have a rough idea when molds started to be so marked?
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 11, 2021 3:48:22 GMT -7
Gus said, "It would have made the best sense for molds to be a bit undersize for the balls per pound designation on them, though I can't document that." I thought that was the result of my report. The mold is marked 100, presumably balls per pound, which is .36". The balls I cast with it measured .33". I think the difference, .03" would be about right for patching. That would make .015" windage, about what I would choose today for a rifle. Spence Spence, Sorry, when I wrote I believe the marked molds would have been undersize for the caliber, but could not document it, I meant for the 18th century. I imagine that was true in the 18th century, as it makes sense, but I can't document it. Nock, I have no idea when they first began marking molds with the balls per pound number, as most original molds I've seen were not marked with a number. Gus
|
|
|
Post by spence on Dec 12, 2021 18:40:31 GMT -7
Gus said, "Sorry, when I wrote I believe the marked molds would have been undersize for the caliber, but could not document it, I meant for the 18th century. I imagine that was true in the 18th century, as it makes sense, but I can't document it."
I understand, and I take your point. I agree that it seems logical they would have done that in the 18th century.
I have an item from the Pennsylvania Gazette in 1748, describing a way to make bullet molds of much better quality than those imported. In determining the proper size to make the mold, it seems to rely on simply eyeballing it, says nothing about measurements. "....then get some Marbles (such as Boys play with) from the smallest to the Size that fits your Gun." So, try marbles of increasing sizes until you find one with the windage which you think most proper. You could even try the marble with a patch to make certain it fits the way you want. Make your mold cavity of that size.
Spence
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Dec 12, 2021 20:49:40 GMT -7
So that's where my marbles went....
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Dec 13, 2021 7:44:10 GMT -7
My marbles are lost...
Ultimately, easier to adjust patching thickness than mold size. And then there was the period when balls were hammered down the barrel to engage rifling (IIRC).
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 14, 2021 12:36:27 GMT -7
Gus said, "Sorry, when I wrote I believe the marked molds would have been undersize for the caliber, but could not document it, I meant for the 18th century. I imagine that was true in the 18th century, as it makes sense, but I can't document it." I understand, and I take your point. I agree that it seems logical they would have done that in the 18th century. I have an item from the Pennsylvania Gazette in 1748, describing a way to make bullet molds of much better quality than those imported. In determining the proper size to make the mold, it seems to rely on simply eyeballing it, says nothing about measurements. "....then get some Marbles (such as Boys play with) from the smallest to the Size that fits your Gun." So, try marbles of increasing sizes until you find one with the windage which you think most proper. You could even try the marble with a patch to make certain it fits the way you want. Make your mold cavity of that size. Spence Spence, I found that fascinating. Thank you. With the closest size marble and a pair of 18th century adustable calipers, they would not have needed to take an accurate measurement, even to make a cherry for a new mold. Gus
|
|
|
Post by spence on Dec 14, 2021 14:32:41 GMT -7
Yeah, that would certainly work, wouldn't it. In this case, though, the marble is not just a try-ball, it is the sizer for making the mold. The method involved pressing the marble between two lead blocks until it was completely sunk in each, then using that cavity as the mold.
No way to know if the idea ever was put into practice or if the writer was an early Rube Goldberg.
Aw, what the heck, nothing else going on....
The Pennsylvania Gazette January 5, 1748 From the GENERAL MAGAZINE. A New Method of making BULLET MOULDS. THE Badness of the Bullet Moulds brought into America for common Sale, and the Difficulty of meeting with one of them, bad as they are, that will fit one's Gun , will render the following Invention, for making (easily) true and exact Bullet Moulds, agreeable to all Lovers of good Shooting. First provide yourself with two Pieces of Lead about an Inch and Half, or two Inches Square, and half as thick, and smooth their Faces, so that when joined they may make near a Cube; then get some Marbles (such as Boys play with) from the smallest to the Size that fits your Gun, oyl or grease the Marbles and Lead well; and with the Assistance of a Smith's Vyce, with two flat Pieces of Iron in the Chaps of it, press the two Pieces of Lead with the smallest Marble between, till the Marble be quite sank in the Lead; then put in the next greater, always remembering to keep the Lead and Marbles well oyl'd do thus successively, till you have brought it to the Size you want: And, to prevent the Bullets having Edges, smooth the Faces of the Mould, and press in the same Marbles several Times, by which Means you may make Moulds of wonderful Exactness. Then cut a Gate and fit the Corner with Pins, to keep the Pieces in a proper Position for casting. When you use it, smoke it well, and take Care the melted Lead be not so hot as to burn Paper.
Spence
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Dec 14, 2021 15:25:42 GMT -7
So? The melted lead that is to become one's ball, when melted but not hot enough "to burn paper," is not hot enough to melt the lead of the mold?
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 15, 2021 7:00:05 GMT -7
Yeah, that would certainly work, wouldn't it. In this case, though, the marble is not just a try-ball, it is the sizer for making the mold. The method involved pressing the marble between two lead blocks until it was completely sunk in each, then using that cavity as the mold. No way to know if the idea ever was put into practice or if the writer was an early Rube Goldberg. Aw, what the heck, nothing else going on.... The Pennsylvania Gazette January 5, 1748 From the GENERAL MAGAZINE. A New Method of making BULLET MOULDS. THE Badness of the Bullet Moulds brought into America for common Sale, and the Difficulty of meeting with one of them, bad as they are, that will fit one's Gun , will render the following Invention, for making (easily) true and exact Bullet Moulds, agreeable to all Lovers of good Shooting. First provide yourself with two Pieces of Lead about an Inch and Half, or two Inches Square, and half as thick, and smooth their Faces, so that when joined they may make near a Cube; then get some Marbles (such as Boys play with) from the smallest to the Size that fits your Gun, oyl or grease the Marbles and Lead well; and with the Assistance of a Smith's Vyce, with two flat Pieces of Iron in the Chaps of it, press the two Pieces of Lead with the smallest Marble between, till the Marble be quite sank in the Lead; then put in the next greater, always remembering to keep the Lead and Marbles well oyl'd do thus successively, till you have brought it to the Size you want: And, to prevent the Bullets having Edges, smooth the Faces of the Mould, and press in the same Marbles several Times, by which Means you may make Moulds of wonderful Exactness. Then cut a Gate and fit the Corner with Pins, to keep the Pieces in a proper Position for casting. When you use it, smoke it well, and take Care the melted Lead be not so hot as to burn Paper. Spence Spence Well, it might have worked in the winter, if they left the mold outside overnight, but who wants to cast only a few balls a day before it warms up too much? Or maybe melt some lead in the fire while preparing and eating a meal and cast a ball for dessert? Then put the mold back outside until the next meal. That would give one two or three balls a day at least, I guess. Very interesting and thanks for posting the whole thing. Gus
|
|