Author Topic: New ball mould... (Read 1432 times)

Victor3 · « **on:** May 21, 2009, 01:20:21 AM »

Just today got this from JT Bullet Moulds. Nice guy to deal with...

It will be for the 40mm rifled bbl I got from cannonmn. I could have made one myself, but for the very reasonable price JT charged I thought it was more cost (and time) effective to get it from him. Got here from the UK a week after I sent payment, and I didn't have to sweep up any aluminum chips.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #1 on:** May 21, 2009, 07:31:49 AM »

Why did you decide on round shot instead of a bolt for a rifled tube?
If you're going to answer "because I can," please don't bother with a reply, it would just be causing unnecessary wear to your fingerprints.

Victor3 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 21, 2009, 10:53:34 PM »

Boom,

The rifling in the 40mm bore should do well with a ball. It's deep, has skinny lands/fat grooves, and the twist isn't too fast. A ball will be relatively light, requiring less powder. Easy to roll a ball into the chamber past a 2" long threaded breech section too

I'll eventually make a slug mould for it, but I've promissed to make a couple of moulds for friends first. I'm already late on getting those done

cannonmn · « **Reply #3 on:** May 22, 2009, 12:31:57 AM »

I'm not very smart about antique small arms but didn't many of the early rifled flintlock and percussion pistols, and long guns for that matter, use round balls? I kind of had the impression that rifled small arms came into use before anyone had really thoght of an elongated bullet, so round lead balls were used and got greatly increased accuracy. For example, what projectile did the famed Kentucky and Penna. rifles use during the Rev War? I thought it was round ball with a greased patch. Anyone?

Victor3 · « **Reply #4 on:** May 22, 2009, 12:37:53 AM »

Never heard of it. Must have fallen quickly into obscurity.

Probably just a flash in the pan

Cannoneer · « **Reply #5 on:** May 22, 2009, 09:20:28 AM »

Quote from: cannonmn on May 22, 2009, 12:31:57 AM

I'm not very smart about antique small arms but didn't many of the early rifled flintlock and percussion pistols, and long guns for that matter, use round balls? I kind of had the impression that rifled small arms came into use before anyone had really thoght of an elongated bullet, so round lead balls were used and got greatly increased accuracy. For example, what projectile did the famed Kentucky and Penna. rifles use during the Rev War? I thought it was round ball with a greased patch. Anyone?

Cannonmn, thank's so much for stimulating my memory concerning my involvement with shooting reproduction American longrifles, and even a flintlock pistol or two.

It was many moons in the past, but I can still recall the hours of enjoyment my father and I spent shooting those muzzleloaders.

Now, I didn't really need my memory massaged to help me to bring to mind the practical experience that I've had with modern inline muzzleloaders, those memories being drawn from more recent history (BTW-no more patcth nor bore butter needed, they've been replaced by a plastic sabot, and even the BP can be substituted for with a solid pellet of "rocket fuel," but these inlines are terrific for lengthening ones hunting season).

I'm not very smart about antique small arms but didn't many of the early rifled flintlock and percussion pistols, and long guns for that matter, use round balls?
They most undeniably did, as a matter of fact, as far as I know there wasn't even much of an option until the mid-ninteenth century, with the discovery of the "mini-ball."

I kind of had the impression that rifled small arms came into use before anyone had really thoght of an elongated bullet, so round lead balls were used and got greatly increased accuracy.
I think you're more smart than you're letting on; once again, as far as my knowledge of this subject goes, your statement represents facts that are basically irrefutable.

For example, what projectile did the famed Kentucky and Penna. rifles use during the Rev War? I thought it was round ball with a greased patch. Anyone?
I can only repeat myself, but from what I understand, taking into account my limited education on the subject of muzzleloading American longrifles; you are, on this your last observation, (in my humble opinion) again correct.

This has been great fun, and also very enlightening, but as I look up at the header of our board I notice that we're probably AOK on the black powder aspect of this discussion, it's that MORTAR and CANNON part that gives me pause. While it would be a delight to continue, and it doesn't in the least bother me speaking from a strictly personal point of view, perhaps it would be more appropriate to do so on a PM, or better yet, the GBO forum that was designed specifically for the topic. After all, why tempt a rebuke?

wvdad · « **Reply #6 on:** May 23, 2009, 01:01:13 AM »

I made a 1 inch ball mould for my 1.070 mortar but I used regular steel. I was told by a buddy that the aluminum is harder to use because of the heat transfer. I am new to using lead so I dont know.

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #7 on:** May 23, 2009, 02:16:38 AM »

Quote from: wvdad on May 23, 2009, 01:01:13 AM

I made a 1 inch ball mould for my 1.070 mortar but I used regular steel. I was told by a buddy that the aluminum is harder to use because of the heat transfer. I am new to using lead so I dont know.

Steel is good - it wears better. Aluminum? It is different, and you may have to preheat it, but it works well too. Have any pix?

Cannoneer · « **Reply #8 on:** May 26, 2009, 08:59:06 PM »

Quote from: Victor3 on May 21, 2009, 10:53:34 PM

The rifling in the 40mm bore should do well with a ball. It's deep, has skinny lands/fat grooves, and the twist isn't too fast. A ball will be relatively light, requiring less powder. Easy to roll a ball into the chamber past a 2" long threaded breech section too

Victor,
I think on your original thread you had finally decided to go with a threaded breech plug, and here you mention that it will be easy to roll the ball over the breech threads into the chamber, so you're not going to use a patch. Did you order a ball size that's going to have close tolerance with the lands of the rifling? I think George G. mentioned that his rifled cannon had a close fit with the slugs he fired, and that he had to clean the barrel after a few firings, but those are slugs with a longer surface in contact with the rifling; will the ball be tight enough in the bore to be engaged sufficiently by the rifling?
Are you going to turn the barrel, and add a band to give it the shape of a Parrott, or leave it straight?

KABAR2 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 27, 2009, 12:41:19 AM »

If his ball is the same size as the major internal dia. it will cut the groove into the ball,

there are examples of late flint and percussion screw barrel pistols that were

rifled and used this principle no patch was needed when the barrel was screwed

home it squeezed the ball slightly to conform to the rifling.

Victor3 · « **Reply #10 on:** May 27, 2009, 01:27:50 AM »

Quote from: Boom J on May 26, 2009, 08:59:06 PM

Quote from: Victor3 on May 21, 2009, 10:53:34 PM
The rifling in the 40mm bore should do well with a ball. It's deep, has skinny lands/fat grooves, and the twist isn't too fast. A ball will be relatively light, requiring less powder. Easy to roll a ball into the chamber past a 2" long threaded breech section too

Victor,
I think on your original thread you had finally decided to go with a threaded breech plug, and here you mention that it will be easy to roll the ball over the breech threads into the chamber, so you're not going to use a patch. Did you order a ball size that's going to have close tolerance with the lands of the rifling? I think George G. mentioned that his rifled cannon had a close fit with the slugs he fired, and that he had to clean the barrel after a few firings, but those are slugs with a longer surface in contact with the rifling; will the ball be tight enough in the bore to be engaged sufficiently by the rifling?
Are you going to turn the barrel, and add a band to give it the shape of a Parrott, or leave it straight?

The groove dia is 1.62", so I ordered the mould 1.62 +.000/-.010. It ended up pretty close to 1.615. Leading shouldn't be a problem since the ball won't be forced tightly into the groove diameter. I'll probably be smearing the ball with a little grease. Also, I'll be using something close to a Lyman #2 alloy, not pure lead. Bore dia being 1.575", it should engrave well.

I haven't decided on the profile yet, but it will be turned down to something or other...

GGaskill · « **Reply #11 on:** May 27, 2009, 12:24:44 PM »

You may have a problem loading this combination since the gun will not weigh much (it will have a tendency to move backwards in response to pushing in the shot) and you will need significant force to seat the shot.

KABAR2 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 27, 2009, 01:32:45 PM »

If he creates a chamber there should be no need to to force seating it,

just roll it in till it hits the rifling and place the foil cartridge of powder

behind it screwing the breech in should compress enough.

Victor3 · « **Reply #13 on:** May 29, 2009, 01:36:24 AM »

Quote from: KABAR2 on May 27, 2009, 01:32:45 PM

If he creates a chamber there should be no need to to force seating it,

just roll it in till it hits the rifling and place the foil cartridge of powder

behind it screwing the breech in should compress enough.

Yes, there will be a chamber slightly larger than the ball diameter and a 60 degree lead into the rifling. It won't be forced into the rifling upon loading, just seated into the throat.

After the ball is initially engraved into the rifling upon firing, it's pretty much smooth sailing down the bore.

GGaskill · « **Reply #14 on:** May 29, 2009, 08:32:45 AM »

So it's going to be a breechloader?

KABAR2 · « **Reply #15 on:** May 29, 2009, 01:44:43 PM »

Victor3 covered that in an earlier thread.....

http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/topic,172857.0.html

Victor3 · « **Reply #16 on:** May 30, 2009, 12:15:08 AM »

Quote from: GGaskill on May 29, 2009, 08:32:45 AM

So it's going to be a breechloader?

Yes. I'm thinking about boring a 1" dia x 2.5" long powder chamber into the breech plug so I won't have to push the charge into the breech behind the ball. I may even build a slap-hammer into the cascabel and use a #11 cap nipple (mounted ahead of the ball on the cascabel). An O-ring on a short section of the breech plug ahead of the threads will seal the chamber.

Just an idea; I'm still not decided. At least I've been able to sweet-talk a friend with a huge lathe into letting me use it.

GGaskill · « **Reply #17 on:** May 30, 2009, 02:00:23 PM »

At least I've been able to sweet-talk a friend with a huge lathe into letting me use it.

How huge?

Victor3 · « **Reply #18 on:** May 30, 2009, 03:16:07 PM »

Quote from: GGaskill on May 30, 2009, 02:00:23 PM

At least I've been able to sweet-talk a friend with a huge lathe into letting me use it.

How huge?

Well, not something to turn a ship's prop shaft on, but it does have a hole big enough to get my bbl through the headstock.

It's an older Mori-Seiki. ~24" swing x ~12' bed as I recall.

GGaskill · « **Reply #19 on:** May 30, 2009, 04:15:46 PM »

That qualifies as big to a home shop machinist.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #20 on:** June 03, 2009, 07:10:06 AM »

Quote from: Victor3 on May 30, 2009, 03:16:07 PM

Quote from: GGaskill on May 30, 2009, 02:00:23 PM
At least I've been able to sweet-talk a friend with a huge lathe into letting me use it.

How huge?

Well, not something to turn a ship's prop shaft on, but it does have a hole big enough to get my bbl through the headstock.

It's an older Mori-Seiki. ~24" swing x ~12' bed as I recall.

Victor, I thought I had a drawing of a '3-inch ordnance rifle' with all the specs given, but I can't find it, so I know this question can't really be answered accurately, but what the heck, I'm going to ask it anyway. Just by eyeing the photo, do you think that given the length (with plug) and wall thickness of your tube, that you'd be able to make a reasonable facsimile (that one author I've read, described as "a martial work of art") of this gun?

GGaskill · « **Reply #21 on:** June 03, 2009, 01:50:52 PM »

His rifled tube is only 26.5" long; a full size wrought iron rifle is about 6' long.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #22 on:** June 03, 2009, 03:30:47 PM »

Quote from: GGaskill on June 03, 2009, 01:50:52 PM

His rifled tube is only 26.5" long; a full size wrought iron rifle is about 6' long.

George, I'm asking Victor about machining a scale model, not a full scale reproduction. I assumed Victor would get my intent without me spelling it out. Now George, (beleive it or not

) I do have enough sense of scale to realize that even if he had a 73-inch length of 40mm barrel, that there wouldn't be enough wall thickness to turn the profile of a 3-inch ordnance rifle, unless his end goal was in making Paul Bunyan a firing walking stick.

Victor3 · « **Reply #23 on:** June 03, 2009, 11:38:29 PM »

Boom,

The 3" ordnance rifle is about the only barrel I'd dare describe as 'sexy.' A beautiful shape.

Note the contour of my micro-gonne...

On a larger scale though, I think an ordnance rifle might be time consuming for me to do well without a CNC lathe. On a conventional machine it would be more of a 'wood lathe' type operation; a lot of manual shaping with a hand-held belt sander to get the large radii and smooth transitions. The trunnions would also add quite a bit of welding and grinding time to make look good.

I'm not bad at doing such things, but a slightly clunkier shape that can mainly be cut with tool bits and minimal hand-shaping is more of what I'm looking at.

If I had the time though, it would be really cool to make a little one...

GGaskill · « **Reply #24 on:** June 04, 2009, 12:59:50 PM »

Phoenix Iron complained bitterly about how there wasn't a straight line on the thing. They should have refused to make them that way as they could have been made with straight segments for only a few extra pounds weight penalty and a lesser cost.

The profile can be made manually with a number of steps and filing to remove the steps. But you're right, a CNC would be easier.

Victor3 · « **Reply #25 on:** June 04, 2009, 11:18:26 PM »

Quote from: GGaskill on June 04, 2009, 12:59:50 PM

Phoenix Iron complained bitterly about how there wasn't a straight line on the thing. They should have refused to make them that way as they could have been made with straight segments for only a few extra pounds weight penalty and a lesser cost.

Yeah, but they probably wouldn't have been near as purty.

Around the time of the Civil War seems to be where form started taking more of a back seat to function. Back in time from there, many designs (worldwide, not just US stuff) appeared to have more art in the artillery.

Is there a design from after the 1880's that retained much more style than a Polish tractor?