BACK TO THE CIVIL WAR SITE NEED ID

[Petrie502]

Ok fellas CC, HUTESITE, and last but not least CAnnonballGUy!! I need you guys on this! I found several things this trip, including different types of bullets! So here they are every item I'm posting I need info on,!!!

The first three pics are bullets from the creek, now none of them have hollow ends the one on the far right is fatter than the other 3 and only has 2 rings! The one on the far left has 4 rings and is longer than the other 3!! I'm stumped? The 4th pic is the 2 ringer that's solid close up!!

Pics 5,6,7 and 8I'm STUMPED? Again pic 8 is a comparison pic with it laying next to what I would call a common minie!!

Pics 9 thru 15 STUMPED? Lol these are shaped like the heads of crayons 3 are the same size 1 is larger with a deeper and larger cavity as well as being larger in size see pics 13,14 and 15 for comparison! WHAT ARE THESE?

I'm gonna start another thread for the other items! Thanks everyone

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[TheCannonballGuy]

Please believe me that I get no pleasure at all from having to tell bad news to a relic digger. Unfortunately, all of your bullets from the creek are post-civil-war, and some are from the latter half of the 20th-Century. The only "possible" exception is the short 2-groove bullet in photo #4.

First, since precise size-measurement is absolutely crucial for correctly identifying bullets, please spend $15 for a Digital Caliper at Home Depot or Harbor Freight Tools, or on Ebay.

Photos 1 through 4:
Those are the post-civil-war ones. Bullet on the left in photo #1 appears to be a .50-70 Springfield. Need precise measurement of the others for certainty of ID.

Photos 5 through 10 show modern-made cast lead bullets for shooting in Blackpowder rifles (mostly reproductions of original 1860s-&-earlier muzzleloader rifles). The form of yours is called wadcutter and semi-wadcutter, which is specifically made for target shootng, not game-hunting.

To see examples of modern-made cast lead bullets for Blackpowder shooting, go here:
.460 Diameter & Up Cast Bullets | Shop .460 Diameter & Up Cast Bullets at Buffalo Arms
and especially, here, to see the large-caliber ones near the end of the catalog. In particular, note "wadcutter" bullet #575494. Also, bullet #509133 may be your bullet which I said looks like a post-civil-war .50-70 bullet.
Ol' Buffalo Bullet Mold Tables

Again, I'm sorry to have to give disappointing information.

I have to mention that in view of the quantity of modern Blackpowder minies you are finding, it is "possible" that all of the bullets in the first four photos are modern-made.

The single exception, which I mentioned above, might be a civil war Williams Type 3 bullet whose base-disc has been carved off.

You'll need to carefully clean the grit out of the bullets' body-grooves and re-photo them for certainty in identifying their specific types.

 

[Tnmountains]

In picture # 8 bottom one do you think that may be a classic 3 ringer?

 

[Petrie502]

Ok now I was in a new field where a creek ran thru, I was wondering if these could have been from a re renactment

 

[Ramitt]

Ok now I was in a new field where a creek ran thru, I was wondering if these could have been from a re renactment

I would hopr reenactors are nostly shooting blanks. I would guess hunters or target practice.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

When I was typing my first reply in this discussion very late last night (2:30AM), I made an awful typing-error in the first sentence. I intended to write "I get no pleasure at all" -- but somehow left out the two-letter word "no." As a friend of mine says, sometimes the brain gets too far ahead of the typing fingers.

Thank you, CC Hunter, for PM-ing me a friendly heads-up about that error.

 

[Petrie502]

When I was typing my first reply in this discussion very late last night (2:30AM), I made an awful typing-error in the first sentence. I intended to write "I get no pleasure at all" -- but somehow left out the word "no." As a friend of mine says, sometimes the brain gets too far ahead of the typing fingers.

Haha! I read it and was like dag CANNONBALLGUY must have been in a **** mood!! Haha na I'm kiddin I figured it was a typo

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

Tnmountains wrote:
> In picture # 8 bottom one do you think that may be a classic 3 ringer?

Apparently you overlooked the part of Petrie502's post where he says he included a common civil war Minie-ball in photo #8 for the purpose of comparison with the other bullet. ;-)

 

[Petrie502]

Tnmountains wrote:
> In picture # 8 bottom one do you think that may be a classic 3 ringer?

Apparently you overlooked the part of Petrie502's post where he says he included a common civil war Minie-ball in photo #8 for the purpose of comparison with the other bullet. ;-)

I just wasn't gonna say it! Lol

 

[Petrie502]

So you don't think the ones with solid bases could be from starr carbines those have been found at my site by others, I have calipers scales and micrometers, I'm a gunsmith/machinist so I can't get weight and measurements!! Let me know! Cannon check your PM

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

All of the bullets in your photos have body-grooves, and Starr Carbine bullets have no body-grooves, so none of your bullets is a Starr. See photo below.

Please pardon me if you already know all (or most) of the following information. I'm posting it for any readers here who do not aready know it.

Using a Digital Caliper to tell a bullet's EXACT diameter measurement is important because even as little as .02-inch can make a difference in bullet ID. For example, there are .50, .52, and .54-caliber bullets. Putting them next to a coin in a photo is somewhat helpful, but that's not enough for 100%-certain ID. We need to know the bullet's EXACT diameter, in hundredths-of-an-inch. A ruler/tape-measure won't work for that. A Digital Caliper is required. One of the photos I'll attach below shows how to use it for accurately measuring a bullet's diameter.

In a previous reply, I mentioned the need to (gently) clean the dirt/grit out of the body-grooves on bullets, in order to correctly ID them. The body-grooves come in several shapes, which are very imortant for correctly identifying the bullet... such as:
square-bottomed
U-shaped
V-shaped
"check-mark" shaped -- looks similar to l/

For anybody here who doesn't already know:
There is another form of bullet body-groove, which has multiple tiny parallel ridges (or indentions) inside the groove. That form is called a "reeded groove" or the more technical term "knurled cannelure." It did not exist until approximately 1880... so bullets which have a "reeded groove" cannot be from earlier than that date. (To see one, view another photo, below.)

So, the dirt/grit needs to be removed from the body-grooves so we can see their exact shape (U, V, square, etc), and whether or not the groove is "reeded."

Although many diggers say the common civil war yankee Minie-ball is a "3-ringer," it actually has grooves in it, not "rings." In actuality, rings are raised, and grooves are indented. For example, a civil war .52 Sharps Carbine bullet has rings, and a .58 Williams "Cleaner" bullet has grooves (the Williams bullet's grooves are square-bottomed).

 

[CC Hunter]

When I was typing my first reply in this discussion very late last night (2:30AM), I made an awful typing-error in the first sentence. I intended to write "I get no pleasure at all" -- but somehow left out the two-letter word "no." As a friend of mine says, sometimes the brain gets too far ahead of the typing fingers.

Thank you, CC Hunter, for PM-ing me a friendly heads-up about that error.

You are most welcome Professor Cannonball Guy.


Understandably a brilliant mind focused more on important points, can sometimes overlook minor details.

CC Hunter



P.S.
RE: Edited Reason; is "Coorected" a correction made while having a cold Coors?