How to swage round balls with texture?

[Naphtali]

I'm getting the cart ahead of the horse. I am having made Ferguson flintlock rifles -- again. The rifles shoot round balls that must be as close to perfect as I can make them.

Results I want are round ball with no tactile sprue or part line -- and having uniform texture sufficient to hold thick lubricant for black powder shooting.

I  think I want to cast with sprue on, then swage the casting to size. During the swage I want to incorporate any of the following:

1. "Golf ball" dimpling
2. Equivalent of knurling
3. Any kind of severe, uniform bead/sand blasting

Who manufactures swaging dies that yield results I want?

If anyone has a better method of getting my intended result, please let me know.

[Lead pot]

Naphtali:
You might try Richard at RCE CO.I read once mentioning the golf ball dimples on round balls on his web site,you might give him a call.
Is there a reason you dont want to patch the ball?Lp.

[Naphtali]

Lead Pot:

Thanks for the reference.

As to why not patched, that's easy. Fergusons are breech-loading flintlocks. You drop RB into the loading port, tilt rifle muzzle down, then pour in powder, and close screw breech.

You cannot load with sprue in a specific spot. It's luck of the roll. That's the reason for needing defect-free RBs.

[Lead pot]

TNX. I didnt know that. I do that in my 63 Sharps with pure lead balls with good results with no lube.Lp.

[Naphtali]

The quirk about RBs is one of many nuances of Ferguson's breech, nearly all of which are unavailable in published literature.

During the Battle of Gettysburg a unit using Sharps rifles ran out of ammunition. They used, I believe, .58-caliber Springfield ammunition with no problem. I found no reference to what happened to accuracy, though.

What is the swage-down of your Sharps bullets -- that is, OD bullet vs ID bore? What are powder charge, rifling depth, number of lands & grooves?

Have you tried shooting harder cast bullets?

This is my third go-around with Fergusons since 1977. Each time my rifles move closer to perfection for the mechanism. A 400-page manuscript about the inventor, the patent, and the technology sits in my archives. University presses will publish, but commercial houses conclude the topic is too limited for profitable sales. And I'm greedy. Such is life.

[Lead pot]

I dont know anything about the Ferguson. The 1851-1863 used linen and paper cartridge.The linen or nitrate  paper was glued or tied to the base of the bullet with a silk thread and charged with powder cant that be done with the Ferguson?or drop a conical lubed ball in the chamber and drop the powder?I had very good results doing that.
The groove in my rifle was .538 dont know how many Lands and grooves it had I want to say 6 but I'm not sure,the rifle was sold about 5 or 6 weeks ago.I was going to convert it to a cartridge rifle,but a friend wanted it like it was so I sold it.
I shot a 520 gr and a 465 gr with a 40-1 lead tin mix lubed with crisco.The bullet had a .546-.525 with a base recess of .475 to tie off the paper.The groove was .150 wide and .075 deep.The bullet was 1.010 long
The the chamber held 80gr of 2f the throat and lands I think had a 3% pitch.I just dont know for sure Naphtali,but it shot good.I didnt care to shoot it anymore because the gas seal plate was worn to the point were  the gas would come out and burn my forearm.Lp.

[Leftoverdj]

I got what might be an idiotic suggestion. I'd try eliminating the roll factor. Way I would do this would be to make wads of lube to stick to the ball, making it temporarily a ball length RN cylinder with the sprue on top. The breech screw should be big enough to allow this.

The simple way to try the idea would just be to bore one or more ball diameter holes through an aluminun 3/8" plate. Cut some disks from SoftCheks with an appropriate size punch. Put the plate on a cookie sheet and put maybe three, maybe four discs in the bottom of each hole. Place a slightly hot ball in each hole with the sprue positioned. Wait until it cools and push out.

Might not work, but it would sure Lord be cheap and easy to try. I'm all about cheap and easy.

[Leftoverdj]

I got another suggestion.

If I wanted dimples on my round balls, I would dump them into my bullet tumbler with a few pounds of steel BBs.

[Naphtali]

Leftoverdj:

Thanks for the suggestions.

I'd try eliminating the roll factor. Way I would do this would be to make wads of lube to stick to the ball, making it temporarily a ball length RN cylinder with the sprue on top. The breech screw should be big enough to allow this.

Dropping/placing the projectile is not the problem. Moving it to the front of the chamber -- THAT'S the problem. Loading port is about 7/8-inch ID. To successfuly use cylindrical projectiles, you need some sort of flexible push stick. This is a lousy way to do business.

The simple way to try the idea would just be to bore one or more ball diameter holes through an aluminun 3/8" plate.

Worth considering. I suspect this is more difficult than either of us believes. Probably rolling balls between glass plates does the same job. And my experience is THIS method is much more difficult to do well than I prefer.

dump them into my bullet tumbler with a few pounds of steel BBs

What bullet tumbler?

[Leftoverdj]

Naphtali,

Inverting rifle and slapping smartly on the butt would not drop a ball with lube wad into place?

You know better than I since I have only seen these rifles through class, but it was my understanding that the original chambers were so much larger than the balls that powder sifting past the ball on the march was a major problem.

Anyway, you made me put my thinking cap on. Had I your problem, I would order one of Dixie Gunworks cheap moulds in the size I wanted. Using balls cast from either that mold or a better one, I would place a ball with the sprue up in one half of the mould, close the mould, lay it on an anvil, and hit it a mighty lick with a three pound deadblow hammer.

That's swaging poor boy style.

[Naphtali]

Leftoverdj:

Inverting rifle and slapping smartly on the butt would not drop a ball with lube wad into place?

Lube wad? This would work in Ferguson chamber as well as doing the same activity into muzzle of ML pistol or rifle.

I would order one of Dixie Gunworks cheap moulds in the size I wanted. Using balls cast from either that mold or a better one, I would place a ball with the sprue up in one half of the mould, close the mould, lay it on an anvil, and hit it a mighty lick with a three pound deadblow hammer.

Buying molds gets expensive. The idea isn't all that bad -- Corbin makes swaging dies for composite bullets used in ML slug guns that are mallet powered. The problem is the dies need be made to withstand the stress of swaging. And buying a cheap -- translate as imprecise -- mold with which to make the final product on which everything you have been working toward depends?

A friend and I tried Lyman iron dies, a vice standing in for your hammer. It worked because RBs had sprue undercut. But the cut-off sprue caused inacurracy. Vertical point of aim was about five intches. Horizontal dispersion was about thirty inches at fifty yards.

it was my understanding that the original chambers were so much larger than the balls that powder sifting past the ball on the march was a major problem.

I can see where this might become a problem were one to load, then march to a battle. Loading and unloading Fergusons is so easy that the reality is this is no problem. Lose confidence? Reload. The same problem would occur to the same degree with rifled muskets using Miniè balls. Load it and march to a battle with muzzle down. Are we still confident? Or should we ram everything back in place?

Please remember that Fergusons have a chamber analogous to a metallic cartridge case. When you load a Ferguson, you dump in powder, then turn the trigger guard 360 degrees to close breech. EXCESS POWDER can be used to prime pan, or be brushed off the top of the breech. I have not heard of any Ferguson shooter who does not load its chamber completely. This tends to keep things in place.

Loading from the breech, can you really imagine a chamber where the ball would not seal one end with the rifle loaded? These were very expensive rifles to make. And only top-of-the-line gunmakers in the eighteenth century were capable of doing the job. What you describe is unimaginably careless assembly.

[wiley]

I haven't done business with these folks and don't know their process; but you might want to investigate: http://www.warrenmuzzleloading.com/

[Leftoverdj]

A point to remember is that you are not really proposing to swage the balls for your rifle, but to cast the balls and then swage away the minor imperfection of the sprue. This does not require nearly as strong a die as would needed to transform a cylinder into a sphere.

Fifty yard groups of 5" x 30" show a major accuracy problem. I would not so quickly assume that a perfect projectile would cure a problem of that order.

I have fired a good many roughly round balls down a good many chambered barrels and have come to expect to get groups around 3" at 50 yards with a little load tinkering. I most certainly get that level of accuracy from a .735 RB from a Dixie mould in rifled 12 gauge shotguns. I get squirrel killing accuracy with commercial buckshot thumbpressed into fired cases. I have roughly swaged buckshot into pill shaped projectiles using common sizing dies and still gotten accuracy around 2" at 25 yards. In my experience, you can shoot some godawful junk and still get a semblance of accuracy as long as the projectile is over bore sized, well lubed, and not pushed too fast.

That enormous horizonal dispersion suggests flamecutting to me. I understand your objection to the flexible pushstick, but I would be quite interested in knowing what accuracy you get when you know that each ball is firmly seated into the lands.

Would you also please post specs on ball, chamber, bore diameter, and rifling?

[Naphtali]

Leftoverdj:

Would you also please post specs on ball, chamber, bore diameter, and rifling?

Barrel length: 34-1/8 inch (.87 m), round and tapered
Bore ID: .605 inch
Groove ID: .645 inch groove-to-groove
Number of grooves: 7
Rate of twist: Uniform twist 1 turn in 56 inches
Round Ball OD: .640 inch nominal, 410 grains nominal
Powder charge to fill chamber: 135 grains FFg nominal

Fifty yard groups of 5" x 30" show a major accuracy problem. I would not so quickly assume that a perfect projectile would cure a problem of that order.

You got THAT right! Rendering RBs [nearly] perfect altered groups significantly. Vertical dispersion disappeared. Horizontal dispersion was reduced to about two feet.

If you look at the barrel's specifications, the "why" is clear:

1. For using bullet without cloth/leather patch, rifling is too deep.

2. RBs require very slow rifling for accuracy. With MV between 1780 and 1850 ft/sec, RB is overstabilized with 1:56 twist. When vertical dispersion disappeared using "perfect" RBs, it was a bitch slap.

3. Barrel's specifications are the same as original Fergusons -- except for powder charge. What we didn't take into account were that "accuracy" referred to less precision than what we accept today. And a smaller powder charge reduces MV. Less axial rotation on RB translates into better accuracy, in this case.

We installed a barrel with grooves .005 inch, 1:144 inch twist. This twist had been proven in a muzzle loading rifles of .69-caliber and .65-caliber. Both had been used in Africa, using enormous powder charges. Presto! Accurate rifle. Three MOA to 125 yards. This accuracy doesn't last, though.

This brings me back to what I want for making RBs whose accuracy MAY be better, whose accuracy WILL be maintained longer. And the barrel will be easier to clean after the day's shooting.

[Leftoverdj]

I would suggest a different tack, particularly if you are completely disgusted with the 1-56 twist barrel. Were it I, I'd rechamber to about a .660 chamber with a slight taper to bore and the chamber short enough to reduce the charge to somewhere in the 60 grain range. I'd then load with a .650 RB and be willing to try .655 RBs.

My playing around has shown rifles to be pretty tolerant of swaging oversized balls down on firing and completely intolerant of balls smaller than groove diameter. That chamber is going to have to be a bit oversized to accept a ball once the chamber is fouled by a shot or two.

[Naphtali]

I chronograhed a Ferguson EM replica, with same [first] barrel specifications, except 75-grain chamber. Since I intend for it to be satisfactory for elk at 125 yards, doing what you suggest is not acceptable. We're talking of 850-900 ft/sec. Hence, the large chamber.