Musket balls...

[Swartzie]

I dug these two balls within feet from each other. The larger one looks pretty modern from what I can tell and the smaller one looks old with the white patina on it. Since they were so close to each other I'm wondering if maybe the larger one is actually older than it looks. Perhaps maybe a buck and ball combination or something like that. The larger one measures about .75 inches and the smaller measures about .5 inches (I do need to get a pair of calipers sometime). Also, the smaller one is completely smooth with no visible sprue tip. Both balls also have no mold lines visible. Any thoughts?

Thanks.
-Swartzie

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[jdsarasin8194]

small one looks kinda like a clay marble to me

 

[Swartzie]

small one looks kinda like a clay marble to me

It is definitely lead.
-Swartzie

 

[duggap]

I would say your larger one is a .69 cal round ball that was field cast, notice the sprue still visible. The smaller one may be pistol, maybe somewhere near a .36 or .44 cal.

 

[Lucas]

.75 is Brit musket size (10 ga./bore). It was cast in a standard mold. Smaller ball is swaged. Those come in by the 1830's IIRC. Both styles and sizes are still made today.

 

[dick99344]

I dug these two balls within feet from each other. The larger one looks pretty modern from what I can tell and the smaller one looks old with the white patina on it. Since they were so close to each other I'm wondering if maybe the larger one is actually older than it looks. Perhaps maybe a buck and ball combination or something like that. The larger one measures about .75 inches and the smaller measures about .5 inches (I do need to get a pair of calipers sometime). Also, the smaller one is completely smooth with no visible sprue tip. Both balls also have no mold lines visible. Any thoughts?

Thanks.
-Swartzie

Below is a cut and paste from one of my earlier posts. Obtain a good set of calipers or a micrometer. Measure the small ball first
. If it measures .490 or very close then it is likely to be .50 caliber. Weigh it and if it comes very close to 178 grains, then it is likely to be .50 caliber. Anything that measures .490 -.500 could be considered .50 caliber and would have a different weight based upon diameter. You must also consider patch thickness in your educated estimate of caliber. A patch thickness of .015 will put that .490 ball at .505 caliber, just right for sealing off the gasses when fired in my rifle. I shoot .50 (.490) caliber swagged balls that have these measurements and weights so you should be able to obtain a good judgement or reasonable approximation of caliber on the small ball. Patch thicknesses can vary from material made of .005 to .018 in inches. The patch thickness will depend on actual bore and ball diameter. Going strictly by weight to determine caliber, in my opinion, is not a good idea as the weights can vary greatly in cast or swagged mould construction and actual lead purity and mould capacity. A fired round ball will likely also lose some weight when it strikes something. Your estimates should be gained by using ball diameter first then weigh it, but first you must have something in a known unfired or dropped ball caliber to compare your measurements to. I have listed unfired measurements and weights of three of the round balls that I shoot below for comparison. Mind you here, round balls from the same lot that I shoot have very very slight differences in diameter and weight even from the same box and manufacturer. I consider these differences negligible for my purposes. My comments and opinions here are based upon the ammunition that I shoot, your mileage or findings may vary.


"Great reply Monty. I will submit the following: My .44 Cal round ball (.454) weighs in, before loading, at 141.6 grains. A small ring of lead is removed from the round when it is loaded. The .50 Cal (.490) at 177.5 grains, and the .54 Cal (.530) at 247 grains. These are swagged round balls made by the Speer Bullet Co. and are considered to be dead soft lead (No additives such as tin or antimony) as recommended for muzzleloading use. The lead available today is different than that of yesteryear as to purity. These were weighed unfired straight out of the box. The .44 Cal is used without a patch so it is reasonable to assume that it will lose a slight amount of weight when fired. The other balls are used with a patch and I would think that they would not lose much in the way of weight, in a significant amount, until they hit something. Cast balls can vary in weight due to the sprue that needs to be cut off. I know that at one time round ball calibers were designated by the pound. A certain caliber would be designated by the number of balls in a pound. This is an old way to do it and is not, to the best of my knowledge, used any more. I believe the best way to determine approximate caliber is by the use of calipers as you have said. A soft lead round ball caliber would be difficult, to say the least, to determine by measurement after it has struck something. Determination by measurement of a dropped unfired round would be easy by comparison as you know. HH"

 

[Lucas]

... keeping in mind that modern shooters are used to much less windage than in the old days, i.e. they didn't load as tight back then. Rifling was also typically much shallower, and the # of lands was always odd, to give support to the hand rifling tools.