Musket Ball marks / ID Question

[mangum]

Hello All. I found this musket ball over the weekend. I'm curious about the marks, are they from the rifling of the barrel (I assume)? There are14 marks around the perimeter. There is a sprue visible (not in this pic), I can upload more/better pics tonight if need be. Also- any ideas on the age of this? It was found in a field where I was looking for Native American artifacts. Any help or insight is always appreciated! Thanks & HH!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Scotdixon]

My guess, according to age suggest makers tool, crimp held after smelt in field.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[skeeterd]

Nearihunter, can you post a pic of some of your fired muzzle loader balls?

 

[Digs68]

I thought maybe someone used it to "slug" a barrel. But if it's older, it's probably not the case.. If it was fired, it would show the rifling. But would it be deformed from striking a target? Maybe not if fired into loose soil or through flesh only. The pistol theory is an interesting one...

 

[Digs68]

Great thread by the way! Much to learn!

 

[nearihunter]

Yes i can but rite now im in florida for 10 days.and mine are all flat. I shoot at metal swinging targets. I have only one.. that i dug out of the banking. The ground is frozen in mass so unless we get a warm day i wont have the detector on the banking looking for more to dig out. And after typing all this i realized i do have a picture on my phone of the flat round ball.

 

[nearihunter]

I'm trying to understand why you folks think it has to have been from a breech loaded rifle? There were tons of muzzle-loaded 58 caliber rifles around. I know they most commonly fired conical bullets, but I'm sure the round ball was used. Also, is there a chance this bullet isn't that old and its from a target or hunting muzzle-loading rifle? Just wondering if we're making this a lot harder than necessary?

There ya gooo buudyyyy!!!!

 

[NOLA_Ken]

I do shoot black powder. The rifle in this pic is a .50 that I built a while back from a Dixie Gun Works kit. My point is that while it's certainly easy to run a patched ball down the bore it would be a real pain running an oversized ball with it catching on the rifling. I shoot a .485 round ball and with a patch it fits pretty snug,

 

[BosnMate]

Rifling marks i mean. They are not from being rammed down the bore. Its when its fired and the round expands is when the rifling marks are made

I'm sorry, but I've also shot muzzleloaders. My hunting rifle is .62 caliber, I shoot a .610 ball with a 13/1000 pillow ticking patch, lubed with liquid soap and water, in front of 110 grains of FFg. The rifling's are cut, one turn in 66 inches, which stabilizes a round ball. I don't remember the depth of the grooves, but they are probably 8 or 9/1000's. Button rifling on modern guns is many times no more than 3/1000's. There are no rifling marks on any ball I shoot. The under size ball is loaded with a greased or spit patch, and the rifling marks are taken up by the patch. Many times the ball shows the marks of the cloth, but no rifling marks. I've recovered a number of lead balls from killed deer, and have also recovered balls and patches when working up loads, no rifling marks. To have rifling marks as deep as the ones on this ball, it would have to been pounded down the barrel, and there wouldn't be mere ramrod marks, the ball would be flattened and marked up way more than this one. I haven't built a muzzleloading rifle for a long time, years, but I don't remember any barrels from any company with 14 lands and grooves, the most common being 6 or 7 lands and grooves. So even without the patina, there are no modern rifles that would have fired that ball. So modern is ruled out, and loading from the muzzle is also ruled out. I know of no pistol with 14 deep lands and grooves. Back during the time we are researching, the British made very large bore double rifles, that shot a herk'n load of powder for killing Cape Buffalo and Elephants. I know very little about British rifles, but that's another place to research. The ball size and rifling numbers are doing away with the easy stuff.

 

[mangum]

Hello everyone, I recently found this on the web, thought it was interesting, about Girandoni air rifles and Girandoni style air guns. This is an example of a recently fired one made for a museum. From reading this, the caliber seems off but this is close. Google Image Result for http://www.beemans.net/images/BGR-balls-9k.jpg

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

BosnMate is absolutely correct. I've been doing micro-examination studies of rifling marks on excavated fired 19th-century projectiles for over 35 years. As I said in my first reply (which is marked #8 in this discussion) muzzleloader roundballs don't "take the rifling" like that ball did, because a muzzleloader ball's diameter is smaller than the firearm's bore diameter. Conversely, breechloader projectiles are typically larger than the firearm's bore-diameter, because that is how a breechloader projectile "takes" the rifling grooves. Mangum's ball with very deep rifling-marks has to have been fired from a breechloader.

Also, the thick lead-oxide patina on Mangum's rifling-marked fired ball proves beyond doubt that it is definitely not a modern-era lead ball. Unlike the oxidation of iron (rust), lead-oxide forms very slowly, taking several decades to form even a thin layer of oxidation. That is how we civil war relic diggers tell the difference when we dig an actual civil war era Minie-ball or a modern repro Minie-ball. (It is also why we oldtimers urge new diggers not to clean the greyish-white oxide off of their dug civil war bullets -- you'll make them look like the reproductions sold in battlefield tourist-shops.)

 

[skeeterd]

Hello everyone, I recently found this on the web, thought it was interesting, about Girandoni air rifles and Girandoni style air guns. This is an example of a recently fired one made for a museum. From reading this, the caliber seems off but this is close. Google Image Result for http://www.beemans.net/images/BGR-balls-9k.jpg

<img src="http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=746993"/>

That is an interesting gun!! I would love to have a reproduction!

 

[NOLA_Ken]

Sorry to have cut my last post short. I was on my way to work. Having looked into it a bit more, I can find no period pistol with the matching rifling to account for the marks on this ball. That idea was based solely on the fact that it would be near impossible to ram a ball home in a long rifle barrel with it engaging the rifling to that kind of depth. Anyone who has ever tried to seat a ball in a dirty bore can tell you it can be quite a pain to do, and that's just dealing with build up, not actualy shaving part of the ball off in the process. Try running a .45 cal ball down a .44 cal barrel......Also, unlike a Minne ball, round balls do not expand to the bore upon firing. The only time I use over sized round ball is in the .44 in my photo, where you WANT to shave a sliver off the ball when you ram it into the cylinder. Those ball do have defined rifling marks when they re fired, and as soon as I can find one I've fired I'll post a pic. The rifling grooves are nowhere near as deep as the ball in question though.....

As cannonballguy said, roundballs do not engage the rifling in the barrel in a way that would leave those VERY pronounced marks. The ONLY projectiles I've ever seen with grooves that deep are modern shotgun slugs, which I'm fairly certain we can rule out since I'm aware of no modern shotgun shell loaded with a round ball, and the patina rules that out anyway. My thought is that someone loaded an oversize ball into a rifled gun, if we can detremine a gun with matching rifling we may be able to narrow it down.


just got home from work... I'll edit this to make better sense when I wake up.....

 

[nearihunter]

Now that ive thought about it more i was wrong and i admit it. My only guess would be a breech loader. I dont see how youd get a oversized ball down the bore. My .36 navy shaves of part of the ball and its tough. Wouldnt be able to do it with out practically a mallet. Im honest and i was wrong. Lets hope we conclude this one. HH

 

[NOLA_Ken]

Scroll down to the bottom of this page : Carbines, Hall This looks like a very good candidate......

 

[BosnMate]

Scroll down to the bottom of this page : Carbines, Hall This looks like a very good candidate......

On that page it says every one of the guns are smoothbore. I don't know how you can have a smooth bore rifle, but that's what they say. And I don't know how you can have a rifled shotgun. If it's a smooth bore it aint a rifle, and if it has rifling then it's not a shotgun, it's a rifle. A smooth bore can be both a shotgun and a musket, and in the Civil War they had rifled muskets that started out life as a musket, and they cut three lands and grooves in the barrel. Also, I don't think Hall Rifles had 14 lands for rifling. That's a big number and not common.

 

[NOLA_Ken]

read the description above the photo where it says converted to rifled.....I'll paste it here....

Breech loading smoothbore percussion carbine, Model 1843 Hall - North, 1850, converted to rifled, .58 cal.
The Hall series represented the earliest military effort to develop a breechloader, these shorter carbines, although made in smoothbore, were percussion primed from the beginning, this was the last in the series, manufactured by Simeon North, Middletown Connecticut, 1843 to 1853. A thumb lever on the right was used to pivot the entire breech above the barrel for loading, with a gas release hole below the breech to vent on firing. Carbine was originally configured as a single shot .52 cal smoothbore breechloader, iron buttplate with flat shoulder, iron trigger guard, thumb lever opens the breechblock, fixed iron sight, one flat band held by pins, iron nose cap serves as second band, saddle bar with riding ring, ramrod with button head and threads is used for cleaning. During August 1861, a number of these carbines, now obsolete as a smoothbore, were converted to .58 caliber rifled, this was done under contract for General Fremont, the contract became the subject of a major scandal due to excessive profiteering by the contractor, referred to as the "Hall Carbine Affair" at the time. Mark on top of frame: "U.S. / S. NORTH / MIDLTN / CONN / 1850". Top of barrel is marked "STEEL" Additional inspector mark "JCB" on barrel. Barrel length 21in.
Ref: Flayderman 9A-278.

 

[skeeterd]

On that page it says every one of the guns are smoothbore. I don't know how you can have a smooth bore rifle, but that's what they say. And I don't know how you can have a rifled shotgun. If it's a smooth bore it aint a rifle, and if it has rifling then it's not a shotgun, it's a rifle. A smooth bore can be both a shotgun and a musket, and in the Civil War they had rifled muskets that started out life as a musket, and they cut three lands and grooves in the barrel. Also, I don't think Hall Rifles had 14 lands for rifling. That's a big number and not common.

BosnMate, I agree with you that a smooth bore shouldn't be called a rifle. The rifleing is what makes it a rifle. But I think a shotgun is primarily used to fire shot and that isn't determined by whether or not the barrel has rifleing. I have been shooting rifles for a long time but I know very little about shotguns, so I could very well be wrong!

 

[NOLA_Ken]

Here's one, rifled in .58 cal. Priced in Auctions : S. North Hall Model 1843 Breechloading ''Side Lever'' Percussion Carbine* - HLEBOOKS.com & Collectorebooks.com


More info.... from the Wiki page again "The original flintlock model had a 32.5 inch barrel rifled with 16 "clockwise" (right-hand) grooves making a turn in 96 inches." I cant find the info on the number of grooves in the 58, but if the earlier model had 16, I have to think it's possible the later model could have had 14.....

 

[BosnMate]

BosnMate, I agree with you that a smooth bore shouldn't be called a rifle. The rifleing is what makes it a rifle. But I think a shotgun is primarily used to fire shot and that isn't determined by whether or not the barrel has rifleing. I have been shooting rifles for a long time but I know very little about shotguns, so I could very well be wrong!

Bird shot fired out of a rifled barrel is not accurate. It really scatters the shot out very rapidly. I have .22 long rifle bird shot and .38 caliber bird shot, and both work great on snakes at close range, very ineffective at any rang at all.

 

[BosnMate]

Here's one, rifled in .58 cal. Priced in Auctions : S. North Hall Model 1843 Breechloading ''Side Lever'' Percussion Carbine* - HLEBOOKS.com & Collectorebooks.com


More info.... from the Wiki page again "The original flintlock model had a 32.5 inch barrel rifled with 16 "clockwise" (right-hand) grooves making a turn in 96 inches." I cant find the info on the number of grooves in the 58, but if the earlier model had 16, I have to think it's possible the later model could have had 14.....

Sounds like you are getting close to the answer. Close enough for me to stop looking anyhow. Thanks.