Golf balls size steel balls-now available

[1Southpaw]

Would also work to move heavy flat bottomed gun safe . Just make a trail of balls where you want to roll the safe   

Girls won game in an over time . So its Back tomarrow for another fast action Class C Girls Basket Ball  Game

Beware DD , Fox balls headed your way to grace your collection of Heads  .

 When some one asks what the pile of balls in the corners are , your ready to raise eye brows !   FOX BALLS !!!!!!    

[Double D]

I guess I better get busy and build another golf ball mortar.

[PaulB]

Just ordered 50 today. I really want more but my toy account is running low, I didn't want to miss out on this great deal. I guesstimated the shipping weight at 40lbs which should put the shipping to MI at a little over $26. Thanks for putting this deal together guys!

[Double D]

To answer your question, George, yes they are soft enough to mark...barely

[1Southpaw]

The 50 ball order weighs 36 lbs.   Or at least mine did .

[PaulB]

The 50 ball order weighs 36 lbs.   Or at least mine did .

Thanks, thats better still.

[GGaskill]

To answer your question, George, yes they are soft enough to mark...barely

Thanks, I didn't want to damage my stamps.  Maybe a smaller stamp would make a deeper mark.

[1Southpaw]

to mark the BB's  , The steel golf  balls will be ok . I forgot to try my $8 set of stamps on the new balls . I made a nice holder to hold while stamping but got busy and forgot to try.  

[jeeper1]

The 100 balls I ordered arrived today. They look great and of course are covered in oil. I tested one in my mortar, it rolled in nice and rolled out just as nice. Too bad it's supposed to start raining tonight and last the rest of the week.

[GGaskill]

Picked up my order from the mail room this morning.  They look good.

They didn't want to deliver it.  I can see why, even though they have carts, etc.   

[seacoastartillery]

      Although we are waiting until the initial flurry of ordering is finished before placing our order, because we won't really need any until the spring of next year when the larger, 300 lb. flank howitzer will be done, we are a bit curious as to whether the importer's claim of one millimeter sphericity is even close.  Frankly we would be extremely pleased with .002" or less.

     GeorgeG,  if you have a few free minutes could you go around the 3 equators at 90 deg. 135 deg and 180 deg and measure the dia. of the bisector plane in 3 places on each of those 3 planes.  Nine readings on each of just 3 balls, selected at random, should give us a pretty good idea if any attempt at meeting the spec. took place during manufacture.  I'm betting they are acceptable.  There is no need to use Hadell's formula or any fancy V-Anvil micrometer.  A standard 50 millionths or even a one-tenth mic. should give us a good indication of sphericity.  Thanks. 

     Trust and verify.  Trust and verify.  Making a tubular, roll-through gage about 3 calibers long is still necessary, especially if you have a tight and maybe competitive, bore.  A NO-GO gage at the low limit should also be made if competition is contemplated.  A ring gage is fine for the NO-GO and a lot easier to make.

Mike and Tracy

[1Southpaw]

While in the shop today I got out my Ohaus scale , weighed 5 balls . All were consistant @ 11.40 oz.
Or 614.0350877 grains , or 319.2 grams . I had one that read 11.35 first read , 11.40 the next 3 tries . So the 11.40 is close.

[Double D]

      Although we are waiting until the initial flurry of ordering is finished before placing our order, because we won't really need any until the spring of next year when the larger, 300 lb. flank howitzer will be done, we are a bit curious as to whether the importer's claim of one millimeter sphericity is even close.  

 

Mike and Tracy

Here we go again.

Fox never claimed 1mm  sphericity.   They claimed a dimensional tolerance of .001mm

Sphericity is  not a linear measurement.  It is a ratio to geometric form (shape)  what percentage of a form resembles a sphere a statistical value . Fox claimed with in 1% sphericity

[seacoastartillery]

     Double D, all I wanted to do was find out if a reasonable attempt was made to get them to the specified size, 42.8mm +/- .001mm diameter  (1.685") and hence to a reasonable spherical condition and if you would actually take a little time to read it, you will see clearly that was my intent.  See blue highlighted sections below:

 

     Although we are waiting until the initial flurry of ordering is finished before placing our order, because we won't really need any until the spring of next year when the larger, 300 lb. flank howitzer will be done, we are a bit curious as to whether the importer's claim of one millimeter sphericity is even close. Frankly we would be extremely pleased with .002" or less.

     GeorgeG,  if you have a few free minutes could you go around the 3 equators at 90 deg. 135 deg and 180 deg and measure the dia. of the bisector plane in 3 places on each of those 3 planes.  Nine readings on each of just 3 balls, selected at random, should give us a pretty good idea if any attempt at meeting the spec. took place during manufacture.  I'm betting they are acceptable.  
Mike and Tracy

     You are right we have gone all over this before, but apparently you really didn't read that again either, so I will re-post those here for your convenience.  


 
Re: Golf balls size steel balls
« Reply #89 on: November 17, 2009, 08:30:42 AM »   
________________________________________
The offer Fox is making us just came in and here it is:
•   Carbon steel forged balls 42.8 mm (1.685 in.)
Smooth and round – tolerance +/- 0.001 mm
$1.00 each + freight
approx 80 days to produce and have them in stock.

seacoastartillery
GBO Sponsor
Site Sponsor
Trade Count: (0)
Senior Member
 
 Offline

Gender:  
Posts: 1277
 


 

 
 
Re: Golf balls size steel balls
« Reply #97 on: November 17, 2009, 02:45:06 PM »   
________________________________________
     Mike and I are still in for 100, and considering how much shooting we will have to do next spring and early summer to be able to come close to the results you smooth bore cannon shooters out there are getting, probably a 100 pc. re-order will necessary as well.

     Well it looks like our little challenge to the steel ball maker worked out quite well.  Not only did he drop the separate callout for ball form, the roundness callout, which allowed egg shaped balls to the tune of .0167", but he also tightened up the size tolerance by a factor of ten.  Per Double D it is now +/- 0.001mm which translates to 1.685+/- .000039".  Plus or minus 39 millionths puts these ball squarely in the precision category AND dropping the separate callout for roundness means that General Rule #1 per ANSI Y14.5M 1994, 1982, or 1973 takes over and basically says if Size only is controlled, then form, ( a single cylindrical surface, a single spherical surface and an object between two parallel planes) is also controlled within the limits specified for size alone.

     This is very good news for us as shooters, because a more perfect ball flies more truly to the bullseye!  There is absolutely no need to thank us; we were more than happy to challenge DD's stated info from the manufacturer, in a nice way, of course. At this time we think a debt of gratitude is owed DD for the work he has done to develop this new source of target ammo.  Thanks DD!  And thanks to Gary for finding them initially.

    

     Although we are waiting until the initial flurry of ordering is finished before placing our order, because we won't really need any until the spring of next year when the larger, 300 lb. flank howitzer will be done, we are a bit curious as to whether the importer's claim of one millimeter sphericity is even close.  

Mike and Tracy

Here we go again.

Fox never claimed 1mm  sphericity.   They claimed a dimensional tolerance of .001mm

Sphericity is  not a linear measurement. It is a ratio to geometric form (shape)  what percentage of a form resembles a sphere a statistical value . Fox claimed with in 1% sphericity

       Keep in mind that I just want to know if they are close, Double D, not perfect.  As for the maroon highlight above.  Which Tom, Dick or Harry every told you this.  Not us.      If you want, we can measure a full sample of these balls on our CMM and then we will tell you precisely if they met the spec or not; we can find out if they come within +/- .000039" of a perfect 1.685000" sphere.  Bye the way they dropped the 1% sphericity per your Offer From Fox up near the top of all this, which caused General Tolerancing Rule #1 to automatically go into effect, in that the tolerance for size, ALSO controls, Form.  As I explained, also above, once before, the 1% would have allowed an egg shape, because of a huge .01685" sphericity tolerance.  The spec. they committed to was much, much better than that and is way, way at the top of all this.

Honest, DD, we just want to know if they made an attempt to meet the tol. that they communicated to you, that's all.  

Oh, bye the way, I made an error too.  In my earlier posting today, my memory was faulty and I remembered a tol. of 1 mm, actually it's 2/1000 mm total sphericity which, of course, is a very close tol.

Best regards,

Tracy and Mike

[GGaskill]

My 2" micrometer (made in Poland [home of some of my ancestors], by the way) reads to tenths.  I'll measure a few Thursday and report.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the 3 equators at 90° ,135° and 180°"; a drawing would minimize misunderstanding.

[seacoastartillery]

     George, thank you so much for doing this for us.  Your mic is perfect for this job.  The most accurate engineer's precision steel square we have, a bevel edge 4 X 6 inch square is square to .000060" per 4" and .000080" for 6", a damn good one, was made in Poland.  Please use these rubber bands as an indicator of the bisector planes of which I spoke @ 90, 135 and 180 degs.  Please measure the dia. of the sphere at 3 places on each bisector plane intersection with the sphere's surface.  Get the largest reading at each top dead center/ bottom dead center that your mic can reach at each of the 3 roughly equal point sets you chose.  This is a quick and dirty method of checking sphericity.  It is adequate for our purposes.  




     For a much more complete inspection as in an aerospace application, CMMs are almost always used to check this callout by using a statistically significant number of points on the surface, the location of each being compared to a perfect sphere created by the computer, the surface of which is compared to the location of each point measured on the surface of the spherical object being inspected.


Thanks again Double D, Gary and George for all of your efforts to get these nice steel balls to us for much better than GB ammo.

M&T

PS   To the very sharp machinists out there, please remember that the 3, 5 and 7 place lobular errors that you commonly see in cylindrical parts, very, very, very rarely show up in spheres because neither a centered, nor centerless grinding process is used to size these balls.  So, we DO NOT need a 60 deg. anvil micrometer for our inspection via George.  A common, parallel-face, 2", O.D., Mic is perfectly fine for this inspection.

[Victor3]

"...all I wanted to do was find out if a reasonable attempt was made to get them to the specified size, 42.8mm +/- .001mm diameter (1.685") and hence to a reasonable spherical condition..."

 Fox got a decimal point misplaced. It would be near impossible to make a soft steel ball within that tolerance, let alone for a buck each.

[dan610324]

by the look of the surface of the ball that dd marked I would say that  IF  it is in .1 mm tolerance its good

but .1 mm would be more then enough for a cannon ball

.01 mm is almost always need grinding to achive that very fine toleraces
.001 would cost a fortune to make

it will be very interesting to see the actual result from the measuring of a ball
or preferably several balls

I dont know but I guess that the polished balls in a ballbearing are within 1/100 ( 0.01 ) mm in tolerance
5/1000 below and 5/1000 abowe the nominal measurement

so 1/1000 mm is absolutely impossible

[Double D]

Tracy,

Tolerance wise, I don't buy this .001mm either. I agree with Dan, and I think that is really what you are getting at, tolerance not sphericity. 

But you did say sphericity.

I

[Cat Whisperer]

In any case, these WILL do much better than the meadow-muffins SOME of us have shot!

 

[GGaskill]

A CMM would probably cost more than my entire shop full of machines and be of less use, although I would love to have one.  I assume the orientation of your axes has some reason rather than using axes such as 0°-180°, 90° E-90° W, and the equator, using the earth as a sample, which are mutually perpendicular.

I just noticed that this micrometer is not calibrated in tenths; I can estimate tenths or just report thousandths.

[GGaskill]

Using mutually perpendicular axes, the first ball (with estimated tenths) measures:

Point   Diameter(in.)
  1    1.6859   
  2    1.6856
  3    1.6857
  4    1.6857
  5    1.6859
  6    1.6857
  7    1.6858
  8    1.6853
  9    1.6858   

The points are the intersections of the axes and points on each great circle that are equidistant from the intersections.  I'll set up another ball with the axes marked as in your sample.  All measurements were from 1.6850 to 1.6860.

[dan610324]

WOW
thats much better then I thought it would be
2,5 hundreds of an millimeter
this is really match grade ammo for cannons

cant understand how they can sell them so cheap , must be chinese
doesnt matter , this is high quality ammo

[seacoastartillery]

     One piece is not a full sample, but is is an indicator that points more toward ball bearing mfg. methods rather than rock crushing ball mfg. methods.  This is good.  This one piece is about five times as close to the nominal dimension as we originally thought would be possible at the present cost.  So, as Cat Whisperer so astutely said,  "In any case, these WILL do much better than the meadow-muffins SOME of us have shot!" 

Mike and I both agree!  Although we have never shot any of these from our mortars or cannons, we have shot at them, sometimes with exciting results.  How FASTcan you back up?!!  On fresh ones, watch out for the 'splatter-back effect'.

T&M

[GGaskill]

Do you want me to measure the rest using your axes?  That seems to leave some large areas without coverage.

[seacoastartillery]

     George, the techniques used by Mike and I in aerospace and aircraft and computer hardware companies were specified by mechanical engineers far more familiar with the design elements and the tolerances specified on each length, runnout, roundness, straightness or sphericity callout than we were. The method I mentioned to you was a specific way to do a quick, first look, inspection which, in turn, would indicate whether a further, more complete effort was necessary.  An alternative method which was acceptable was a 56 location check at random locations.  The way you checked that ball was just fine, just as the other two methods are just fine.  Your skill with the mic is far more important than the exact test location.  Enough talking, just do it!  Like Tuco said, after he dispatched the one-armed bad guy from his bubble bath, in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, "If you're going to shot, shot, don't talk!"   

M&T

[GGaskill]

Ball	One	Ball	Two	Ball	Three
Point	Diameter(in.)	Point	Diameter	Point	Diameter
1	1.6859	1	1.6854	1	1.6863
2	1.6856	2	1.6858	2	1.6853
3	1.6857	3	1.6859	3	1.6858
4	1.6857	4	1.6857	4	1.6857
5	1.6859	5	1.6856	5	1.6860
6	1.6857	6	1.6862	6	1.6849
7	1.6858	7	1.6858	7	1.6858
8	1.6853	8	1.6859	8	1.6854
9	1.6858	9	1.6858	9	1.6855
		10	1.6857
		11	1.6856
		12	1.6862
		13	1.6855

The sample is not truly random as I just picked the first three on top; on the other hand, there were no other selection criteria that intentionally swayed the choice.  The nominal diameter is 42.8 mm (1.6850").  They seem more than adequate.  As mentioned above, the tenths are estimated.

[seacoastartillery]

      Thanks, George.  Let's see, we have a total variation of .0006" on ball #1, total variation of .0008" on #2 and total variation of .0014" on #3.  Because I was tasked with running hundreds of statistical process control studies in my previous life, I will make a SWAEG on the total variation we might see if we checked 100 of these balls.  First, the worst case will most likely be approx. .0020" to .0022" variation on size, which is exceptionally good for the money and for our use of these missiles.  The other good thing about Georges results, is the fact that the variations from the nominal size are distributed quite evenly, high and low, from the nominal size.  Although the sample size is very small, which causes a lack of certainty in any prediction based on these results, still, they do indicate that a large scale production process was used in manufacture and that manual sorting was not used.  The left and right edges of the normal distribution bell curve are not chopped off, which would indicate sorting to hide a defective grinding process.

     All in all, we made out like bandits!! 

Tracy and Mike

[carronader]

if this is what it takes to sell you guys a steel ball........I wouldn't like to try and sell you a camel.......one lump...or two.

[RocklockI]

You ,Tom every once in awhile can get off a good one ......That was a good one . I was thinking a five week gage study.....

something about angels dancing on the head of a pin comes to mind.

Tracy has just eliminated one source for his upcoming excuse .   "I got bad balls" ........Nope you measured them every which way but loose. The thing is probably getting out of spherocityroundnes just by measuring the darn thing so much .

concentrec in evey concivable way ....begining at the threoitical point of zero radius outward to 42.8 mm  dia . each evey molecular structure in is place Linearly, radialy and polar to a point where it should fly out of a cannon OK .  Now those crappy old cannons balls I got ....now there is a bucket full of excuses  .

One lump or two ......

ETA how about a tubular air gage ?