a mould for each gun?

[Rifleman1776]

What we don't have documentation for and what we THINK gunsmiths did when asked to make a gun to "so many balls to the pound," was either select a mold cherry he already had or make a mold cherry about the size the customer wanted. Then the gunsmith would show a ball that mold cherry cut to the customer for his agreement or the customer might ask for something smaller or larger. The gunsmith then cut the mold first and THEN reamed the barrel bore to the size of ball that the mold cast.

That is logical thinking and makes sense. Therefore, it cannot be correct. :slap: :wink:

 

[Gene L]

I think the customer would make his choice from tried and true and tested examples. I doubt there were micrometers widely available, so the "balls per pound" would make more sense than ".50". Just a different way of looking at it.

Probably, the buyer had a general idea of what rifle he wanted and approached the smith with what he wanted and the smith told him what he could do. I think colonial gunsmiths probably had a limited number of boring drills which limited your choice.

Since round lead balls the same weight per same diameter, there wasn't as much choice is there is now. When you buy a gun today, a ".30 caliber" can mean anything from a .300 Blackout to a .300 Win Mag, with a whole lot of difference. Not so much with a BP round ball gun.

 

[tenngun]

I have suspected, and can not prove, that there was a little stanndaredzation in gun sizes. 72 is twice the wt of a .58, twice the wt of a .44 twice the wt of a .36. .54 was two to an ounce, ect. The .69 of French and American guns threw a ball 1/20 of a French pound, about 1.1 English pounds. The twenty gage was two dozen to a French pound. Many .47/8 cal rifles are seen we think of them as a little less then .50, but it was fourty to a pound. Dozens,1/10, even number of ball to pound or ounce just seems on the face of it as an easy way to stanndaredize . Even the bess at .75 may have been hit in as a dozen to the pound or ten to the pound, even though we would think of it as a 11 gage today.

 

[Obi-Wan Cannoli]

Probably, the buyer had a general idea of what rifle he wanted and approached the smith with what he wanted and the smith told him what he could do.

I was always under the impression that 99% of the sales were "you bought what you could get" from whatever inventory the gunsmith had? I don't think there was much of a sit down atmosphere with the gunsmith unless you were a particularly high end customer? Even more high end than the 2/3 of a year's salary that the average rifle cost.

This I believe is mainly due to the amount of time required to make a rifle versus how quickly you needed to start harvesting game?

 

[Coot]

Today, we look at hundreds or thousands of images in books, parts catalogs and online & we can order whatever we like and can specify every little detail on a custom gun. In earlier times I believe that the gun makers knew a great deal more about guns than their customers and that you bought what the local gunsmith chose to make (which would be something suited to the local conditions for usage and to however the gunsmith had been trained to do things) with only minor changes if any. There are references to well to do people who could afford most anything placing orders with their London factors for items described as simply "in the latest style" or "of best quality".
I think that too often we think of "custom made" in modern terms of being very specific re details rather than made when one customer placed an order for a "new rifle gun" i.e. - I made it for you, not that you designed it.

 

[Gene L]

Probably, the buyer had a general idea of what rifle he wanted and approached the smith with what he wanted and the smith told him what he could do.

I was always under the impression that 99% of the sales were "you bought what you could get" from whatever inventory the gunsmith had? I don't think there was much of a sit down atmosphere with the gunsmith unless you were a particularly high end customer? Even more high end than the 2/3 of a year's salary that the average rifle cost.

This I believe is mainly due to the amount of time required to make a rifle versus how quickly you needed to start harvesting game?

Likely, this happened a lot. However, I don't think many gunsmiths couldn't afford to build a whole lot of rifles on speculation. Standardization had its advantages, pre Eli Whitney.

I imagine a lot of these rifles were handed down, and eventually had to have the bores freshened. It would be then when a new mold was required, or maybe just a thicker patch if the freshening wasn't that severe.

In this information age, we now regret more records weren't kept back then. It's the small things no one at that time would have considered important enough to record, I guess, that we miss nowadays.

 

[George]

LD, I don't think the need for a proper ball/bore fit was unimportant for the smoothbore, although the tolerances might be greater. For example, this from the early Philadelphia Associators.

The Pennsylvania Gazette
December 3, 1747
FORM of the ASSOCIATION into which Numbers are daily entering, for the Defence of this City and Province. ----- With Remarks on each Paragraph.

REMARKS in ARTICLE I.

[clip]

"As use is in our Case more to be regarded than Uniformity, and it would be difficult so suddenly to procure such a Number of Arms, exactly of the same Kind, the general Word Firelock is used (rather than Musket, which is the Name of a particular kind or Gun) most People having a Firelock of some kind or other already in their Hands.....
They add, that the nicest Care ought to be taken in casting Bullets so much less than the Bore, that they may slip down with Ease, when rolled in Cartridges, even into a foul Gun, otherwise there is great Loss of Time and Fire in an Engagement, to the no small Advantage of the Enemy."

How else are you going to maintain that proper and consistent windage without having the proper mould? It's important. In my original post, when they measure the bores and mark the breech pin, how did the quartermaster know what size mould to use to make balls for that gun? How much windage, and how did he figure that? He faced the same problem the private individual would if he had no mould and set out to buy one. What was he looking for? How did he decide? Measure to certain tolerances, or just eyeball it?

Spence

 

[Cruzatte]

Since standardization of calibers/gauges was not much in evidence, it seems logical that a proper size mould would be included with each gun, whether custom or off the shelf. What could they do to solve the problem If it wasn’t included, was lost, etc.? I guess they were sometimes left with the choice, buy balls to fit, or a mould to fit and make your own. Some people weren’t impressed with the moulds available to buy, though.

Couldn't a guy take a well made ball to a gunsmith or blacksmith and tell him how he'd lost the original mold and how much would the smith charge for a new mold to cast a ball this size as he hands him the ball? Were there no calipers in the 18th century? :idunno:

 

[Gene L]

I guess the rifleman could, but I'm not sure where he'd obtain a well-made ball, or if he'd know one when he saw one.

The vernier caliper wasn't made until well into the 19th century. About 1850 or so. (according to my research.) Which probably accounts for the "# balls per pound" of the earlier measurements instead of the diameter. Maybe because of lax or non-existent standards is why the used to furnish a mold with a rifle.

I guess they had "dividers" and of course they had cherries. How they arrived at the diameter is a mystery for me. Maybe they eyeballed it.

 

[Artificer]

Would it help if I give the actual measured sizes of excavated balls that Hamilton mentions in Colonial Frontier Guns?

Thanks, but that's not what I'm looking for. I'm interested in how the people of the day went about matching the size of the bore to a proper ball. Sort of, not what it actually measured in today's units, but how did they measure it... if that makes sense.

Sure it makes sense.

Did anyone ever wonder how much windage was allowed between the size of the bore and the size of that mould provided with the gun?

Absolutely. As I'm sure you are aware, William Cleator wrote about ensuring there was not too much windage between the ball and the bore, BUT he did not explain how much was too much. (Sometimes I just want to scream at the information they leave out of original documentation. :haha: )

How did that system of 'balls per pound' work for them? Could they look at the muzzle of a gun and say "that'll take 100 to the pound", the way we say "looks like a .36, to me"?

To a degree, yes I'm sure they could. However, there also was a tool that I know goes back to at least the early 17th century, having personally seen a very elaborate example dated to that period. It is called a bore gauge and though I could not find that 17th century French example on the internet, here is an exceedingly plainer 19th century version. (Such gauges would normally only have been used by gunsmiths, though.) These gauges work off the principal of the diameter of a circle to read "the balls per pound" and even fractional sizes in more modern gauges like this. What I don’t know for certain is how was the length of each diameter for each size of “balls per pound” was settled on, though it no doubt came from the London Gunmaker’s Guild in England and the Arsenal System in France during the 18th century. Hamilton has information on “GO” and “NO GO” Gauges for bore diameters for different calibers/gauges in both countries during the 18th century and these came from those sources and those gauges made for and stored by those entities.
http://www.tennants.co.uk/Catalogue/Lots/247308.aspx

Today, if we need a mould, we mike the bore and order a one so many thousandths of an inch smaller. Did they go to the store and handle some balls, find one with an acceptable fit with their muzzle and buy a mould which fit that ball? Or what?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Spence

To my knowledge, there is no documentation on how rifle gunsmiths sized the cherry cutters for the molds they made to the bore size in the 17th and 18th centuries. They may have done so by wrapping pieces of paper around the cutters or the actual balls cast from molds and used that to see how much more a bore had to be reamed to fit the patched ball. This is logical because we know they added paper shims to the reamers they used when enlarging the bore size during finish reaming. They also probably tried wrapping linen material around the ball and pushed it through the bore, to ensure the bore diameter was not too tight and finish reamed the bore a little larger if it was. Then when they found the patched ball would fit, they rifled the bore. Since there is almost no documentation of the use of “Short Starters” for rifles in the 18th century, we can infer from that the fit of the patched ball to the bore was somewhat looser than we often use today.

A really astute customer may have done the same thing with a ball cast from and remaining in a ball mold sold by merchants, though it is likely many just tried the ball to see if it fit in their smooth bore gun. This is probably how they did it, because there is virtually no 18th century documentation for wrapping a patch around a ball for civilian smooth bore barrels.

We also have only limited documentation on how many sizes of square “rough” bore reamers a Gunsmith would have made and had on hand. Of course it would have depended partly on how many sizes of rifle and smooth bore barrels he made or serviced and how long he worked the trade in his lifetime. Probate inventories of gunsmith’s tools can also be maddeningly short of information, because most people who did the inventories were not in the trade and could not describe some to many of the tools the gunsmith had when he passed. However, a very limited number of those probate inventories documented some gunsmiths had over a dozen such reamers to at least one gunsmith in the early 19th century who had over three dozen. BUT the number of such square reamers alone does not tell us a whole lot, because the square reamers were only used for rough boring. Paper shims added to period finish reamers gave a wide latitude of options for bore diameters. Of course some gunsmiths purchased smooth bore and even rifled barrels imported from Europe and that would have required less square “rough” reamers the more he used such barrels. OH, most probate inventories that actually contained information on Mold Cherry cutters, described more cherries than square rough reamers, btw.

Admittedly, there is a lot of speculation in the above information, but it is speculation from actual tools and gauges that were known to have been used by gunsmiths in the 17th and 18th centuries and sometimes a glimpse of documentation on how they used them.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

No one can accurately say exactly how a customer and gunsmith got together on determining how a rifle was ordered/made as "bespoke work" in 18th century America, because there is so little documentation on it and different Gunsmiths no doubt had slightly different methods. However, there are tantalizing bits of information here and there that suggest how it was generally done.

Once the customer had saved sufficient funds, he went to the Rifle Smith to discuss how the rifle would be made. The more experience the customer had and/or how much experience he could draw on from others, the more input he had for the gunsmith. The gunsmith took that input along with his own experience to make a rifle that best fit what the customer asked for and the way he would use the rifle.

An experienced Gunsmith would use a "Try Stock" and the customer's actual physical features to determine length of pull, drop, cant, etc. of the stock. Of course the more experienced the Gunsmith, the better the stock fit would be. We have documentation on that.

What we don't have documentation on is when the rear sight was fitted to the barrel. We imagine it was done after the barrel was inlet and the stock was shaped and the rifle was put into the customer's hands. Then the gunsmith could move the rear sight back and forth to find what was best for the customer, while the customer sighted down the barrel. Of course there is some evidence they placed the rear sight near the balance point and then filed the rear sight notch to their or their customer's choice.

Depending on how much money the customer had to spend and the talent of the gunsmith, would determine how much carving, engraving and embellishments on the stock and furniture.

When we look at original 18th century Riflesmith's ledger books (and there are not many left to be sure), we realize they did not make huge numbers of such rifles, though. Most of their "bread and butter income" came from the repair or restocking of guns and other odd jobs they did and some not directly related to gunsmithing at all. I get a kick out of some entries for mending pots and pans, for example.

Until the American Revolution, there were very few large gunsmithing shops in America. There was no need for them because the large shops/enterprises in England, Germany and "Dutch" countries supplied barrels, locks, complete guns and even some rifles cheaper than what could be made by gunsmiths here. Of course during the AWI, many gunsmithing businesses were expanded to meet the needs and orders for American Arms.

Now after the AWI, there were actually TOO many gunsmiths for the lesser needs of peace time. So in the competition for business, guns got a little fancier for the same price because of competition between gunsmiths. This also was time when some American gun shops made "guns for the trade" to be sold to merchants, shops, trading posts and even the Indian Trade. A customer buying one of those rifles paid a lower price for a plainer rifle, but got no input on how the gun was built (much like most modern factory made guns).

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Since standardization of calibers/gauges was not much in evidence, it seems logical that a proper size mould would be included with each gun, whether custom or off the shelf. What could they do to solve the problem If it wasn’t included, was lost, etc.? I guess they were sometimes left with the choice, buy balls to fit, or a mould to fit and make your own. Some people weren’t impressed with the moulds available to buy, though.

Couldn't a guy take a well made ball to a gunsmith or blacksmith and tell him how he'd lost the original mold and how much would the smith charge for a new mold to cast a ball this size as he hands him the ball? Were there no calipers in the 18th century? :idunno:

I doubt most gunsmiths would have done it that way. Instead, they would have wanted or required to see the customer's gun to check the bore size.

There were calipers in the 18th century, but they were not precision measuring calipers. Now, it seems they used standard calipers far better than many do today, though. (For example, my Grandfather was originally trained as a Rough Carpenter in the first years of the 20th century before he got machinist training and he used plain calipers for many things I would only use dial calipers on.)

Once the gunsmith had the customer's gun, he could check to see if he already had a mold cherry cutter that would make a mold that fit the customer's gun. If not and the customer could afford it, he would make a new cherry and mold to fit the gun. If the customer could not afford it, then the customer had to rely on checking imported balls or molds from merchants or other people who had molds that would fit the gun.

Gus

 

[George]

That gauge is interesting. I have a cheap modern brass one which measures gauge, same as balls to the pound.

The method of measurement using balls per pound seems complicated, and I'm not at all sure how it fits into the problem they had of getting the proper size ball/mould for any gun. As an example, I have an 18th-century bag mould marked 100, for 100 balls per pound. Doing the calculations, 100 balls per pound is a .36 caliber ball. So, does my mould throw a .36" ball? Or, does it make balls to fit a .36" bore? They spoke of both, 100 to the pound moulds and 100 to the pound rifles. That can't be right for both. If the bore is .36". then the mould must cast a ball smaller than that. Or, if the mould actually makes a .36" ball, the bore must be bigger.



It seems logical that the shooters of the day knew what the relationship was and were able to work out the proper fit. Not knowing what was customary then, I have trouble understanding their system. I doubt it was standardized, either.

BTW, my original mould throws a ball of .34”, even though it’s marked 100. That’s equivalent to 124 balls to the pound. So, at least in this one small example, the mould throws a ball to fit a bore of the size marked on the mould. Does anyone by chance have an early mould marked in balls per pound which you could check to see if it’s the same, smaller ball than marked?

My smoothbores are 20 gauge, or 20 balls to the pound. That is .615”, but my mould is .600”, or 21.5 balls to the pound. That’s generally the custom, today, make the bore of the designated, standard size, adjust the size of the ball to fit that.

I think another aspect must be considered, at least for the smoothbores. Since there is no documentation for the use of patches in smoothbores, we have to consider the fact that precise fit of the ball to the bore is much less important if you are only using wadding, most any type of wadding.

We still are left with the question, who was buying all those balls and moulds offered for sale over the counter?



Spence

 

[tenngun]

Even today most of us take what we can get. Most mt men had plain rifles made mostly in Pennsylvania. Like derringer or Henery, but no one offers a kit or even parts for henery's 'english' rifle. You have to be able to make guard side plate pipes and butt your self. You can only get Premade parts for a handful of makers. Guns like a ,colonial fowler, or early southern are pretty generic.
Most of us are 'gun nuts' most of them were not. A gun was just a tool. They may have wanted pretty and could take good care of it however I doubt many ol' boys say at the publik house to argue about sperm oil vs bear oil as a lube or fat ball thin patch vs small ball thick patch.

 

[Zonie]

Interesting that your 100 B/Lb mold throws a .340 diameter ball for a .360 bore and your 20 guage mold throws a .600 diameter ball for a .615 bore.

Of course in today's shooting we would be using a .350 ball for the .36 caliber and a .610 ball for a .615 bore.
(Ref. a .50 caliber usually is loaded with a .490 ball and a .54 caliber is usually loaded with a .530 ball.)

This seems to support my theory that the old timers loaded loose fitting balls so they could thumb load the patched balls into the bore and easily ram it home with the ramrod.

That would help explain why there never was a reference made to, or an article found of a short starter.

I think we tend to try to get gnat size groups that need very tight fitting balls.
The old timers on the other hand were probably happy with a heart sized group at 50 yards.

You might say, a heart sized group is enough to bring home the bacon (or deer).

 

[Artificer]

LD, I don't think the need for a proper ball/bore fit was unimportant for the smoothbore, although the tolerances might be greater. For example, this from the early Philadelphia Associators.

The Pennsylvania Gazette
December 3, 1747
FORM of the ASSOCIATION into which Numbers are daily entering, for the Defence of this City and Province. ----- With Remarks on each Paragraph.

REMARKS in ARTICLE I.

[clip]

"As use is in our Case more to be regarded than Uniformity, and it would be difficult so suddenly to procure such a Number of Arms, exactly of the same Kind, the general Word Firelock is used (rather than Musket, which is the Name of a particular kind or Gun) most People having a Firelock of some kind or other already in their Hands.....
They add, that the nicest Care ought to be taken in casting Bullets so much less than the Bore, that they may slip down with Ease, when rolled in Cartridges, even into a foul Gun, otherwise there is great Loss of Time and Fire in an Engagement, to the no small Advantage of the Enemy."

How else are you going to maintain that proper and consistent windage without having the proper mould? It's important. In my original post, when they measure the bores and mark the breech pin, how did the quartermaster know what size mould to use to make balls for that gun? How much windage, and how did he figure that? He faced the same problem the private individual would if he had no mould and set out to buy one. What was he looking for? How did he decide? Measure to certain tolerances, or just eyeball it?

Spence

Spence,
The quality of your original documentation is uniformly superb, but I find this one downright brilliant on many levels.

First, here is documentation that though PA generally did not have a militia system in the 18th century prior to the AWI, there were at least some who not only formed a local militia, but obviously did it with a LOT of forethought and wisdom in dealing with common problems. Along with that, this is a quote earlier than the FIW and that is particularly interesting. As one who spent a military career in Ordnance, I can truly appreciate the Logistics Nightmare they faced when trying to ensure military style paper cartridges could/would be available with so many nonstandard size barrel bores. However, as bad as their problems were, it was not as great a problem as the European Military Forces had faced for a century by this time.

Consider the problem faced by European Military forces sent to India (or other exotic places) in the 17th/18th centuries. They were almost literally half a world away from major logistical support and if they “did not bring it with them,” there was little hope of sending back urgent/emergency requests for support that would arrive anywhere close to many months in the future. Further, the need for uniform barrels, ball/mold sizes, cartridge paper, worms, tools, etc. was far greater for the military than for most civilians.

It became very interesting to me that the British Military in the 17th/18th centuries almost never mentioned the caliber of military muskets in “balls to the pound” or “gauge,” though there are some few mentions of “11 Gauge,” but normally not by the military. The British called it “Musket Bore” for most of this time period. Thanks to more modern measuring instruments, we know the caliber of “Musket Bore” was generally .76 caliber, but measurements of original muskets in unworn/undamaged areas actually run from .76 to .78 caliber and some go as high as .80 caliber in some war time produced guns. The latter most likely when the urgent need for serviceable arms at the start of conflicts, caused them to relax standards to quickly get guns in the hands of the troops.

Of course military balls had to be smaller compared to bore size, because unlike most civilian firelocks, they wrapped the balls in a paper to form cartridges and the cartridges were rammed down the bore.
The whole cartridge also had to be small enough to work on follow up shots with the fouling in the bore.

In more modern times, the ball size for use in paper cartridges for “Musket Bore” Muskets has often been stated as “.69 cal,” but there is a problem with that information. Original excavated used and unused British Military Balls found in late 17th and 18th century sites in America show the ball sizes much more often ran .700” and .710,” rather than .69 caliber so often mentioned.

Now I have to sheepishly admit for almost three decades, I never really thought about quality and uniformity of the cartridge paper that must have been required for Military Smoothbore Arms. We just don’t think often about the paper as our paper today can be had in so many uniform sizes and weights, but period linen paper was not generally that uniform. Once it dawned on me they would have had to have special paper for cartridges, I went looking for evidence. Sure enough, I have found quotes as early as 1748 for “Cartridge Paper” that British Ordnance procured and supplied to the Infantry Regiments and Marines/Navy. (They probably supplied the special paper earlier than that, but I have not really researched much before that time, so I don’t have earlier quotes.)

As little as I thought about cartridge paper, I also have to sheepishly admit I thought even less about the size of the wooden cartridge former dowels. These also had to be uniform in size and were also supplied by British Ordnance, to ensure cartridges could be made anywhere in the world and they would properly fit the Muskets.

Considering what the Military went through in the time period to ensure cartridges would fit in Military Muskets, it is easier to see the problems faced by Civilian Militia’s when they attempted to make cartridges for many more nonstandard bore size Firelocks

Gus

 

[Artificer]

I think we tend to try to get gnat size groups that need very tight fitting balls.
The old timers on the other hand were probably happy with a heart sized group at 50 yards.

You might say, a heart sized group is enough to bring home the bacon (or deer).

Jim,

I think you may be correct for smooth bore guns, but the "Dog and Pony Show" shooting exhibitions that early AWI riflemen put on (on their way to join the Continental Army) exhibited much better marksmanship than that. Not having the exact quotes on hand, I will paraphrase that some shooting was done at 150 yards and everyone could hit a 7" slip of paper and another quote where every man could hit a head sized target at 200 yards. Considering this was Offhand shooting, that is still impressive today.

Gus

 

[George]

It's very interesting to think about how they worked up a good load for their guns, civilian or military, and how they managed to put together a well-functioning militia. The Philadelphia Associators, formed in 1775, I believe, were looking not only for people but for guns, not of a specific type or size, but just functional. The item in my original post which mentions "bullets and formers, of all sizes", seems to indicate that supplies for making cartridges were available if you want to make your own, or they would do it for you. They would also buy granddad's old gun, if you weren't going to join up.

The Pennsylvania Gazette
The Pennsylvania Packet
April 15, 1776

"Also WIRES and BRUSHES for firelocks, by the hundred or smaller quantity; muskets and fusees cleaned, stocked and repaired in the best manner; musket and pistol cartridges, bullets and formers, of all sizes; oil gun flints, and a variety of other articles in the military way. - A very neat silver mounted small sword, fusee and pair of pistols for sale.

Any non-associators inclinable to sell their firearms, if fit for the service may meet with a purchaser by applying as above.

Cartridges made up by the hundred at a short notice."

You know they got a real assortment of firelocks of all sizes.

You make a good point about the need for special cartridge paper, not something most of us give much thought.. You might like these:

THE SOUTH-CAROLINA GAZETTE
April 6, 1747
CHARLES-TOWN
....glasses from half a Minute to two Hours, Quadrants, Mops, tinder boxes with flints and steels, thrumbs, corks, cartridge paper, speaking trumpets, spy glasses,

THE SOUTH-CAROLINA GAZETTE
June 29, 1747
CHARLES-TOWN
"... match rope, cartridge paper, gun powder..."

THE VIRGINIA GAZETTE 2
March 30, 1775
At a convention of DELEGATES for the counties and corporations in the colony of Virginia, at the town of Richmond, in the county of Henrico, on Monday the 20th of March, 1775. Present 118 members .

Resolved”¦. That, in order to make a further and more ample provision of ammunition, it be recommended to the committee of the several counties, that they collect from their constituents, in such manner as shall be most agreeable to them, so much money as will be sufficient to purchase half a pound of gunpowder, one pound of lead, necessary flints, and cartridge paper, for every tithable person in their county; that they immediately take effectual measures for the procuring such gunpowder, lead, flints, and cartridge paper, and dispose thereof, when procured, in such place or places of safety as they may think best. And it is earnestly recommended to each individual to pay such proportion of the money, necessary for these purposes, as by the respective committees shall be judged requisite."

Spence

 

[Artificer]

That gauge is interesting. I have a cheap modern brass one which measures gauge, same as balls to the pound.

The method of measurement using balls per pound seems complicated, and I'm not at all sure how it fits into the problem they had of getting the proper size ball/mould for any gun. As an example, I have an 18th-century bag mould marked 100, for 100 balls per pound. Doing the calculations, 100 balls per pound is a .36 caliber ball. So, does my mould throw a .36" ball? Or, does it make balls to fit a .36" bore? They spoke of both, 100 to the pound moulds and 100 to the pound rifles. That can't be right for both. If the bore is .36". then the mould must cast a ball smaller than that. Or, if the mould actually makes a .36" ball, the bore must be bigger.

It seems logical that the shooters of the day knew what the relationship was and were able to work out the proper fit. Not knowing what was customary then, I have trouble understanding their system. I doubt it was standardized, either.

BTW, my original mould throws a ball of .34”, even though it’s marked 100. That’s equivalent to 124 balls to the pound. So, at least in this one small example, the mould throws a ball to fit a bore of the size marked on the mould. Does anyone by chance have an early mould marked in balls per pound which you could check to see if it’s the same, smaller ball than marked?I think another aspect must be considered, at least for the smoothbores.

We still are left with the question, who was buying all those balls and moulds offered for sale over the counter?

Spence

Spence,

First off, THANK YOU, especially for those 1747 quotes on cartridge paper. That puts them inside the War of the Austrian Succession AND in the Colonies. More importantly, this strongly suggests that if it was available in the Colonies then, it must have been available to the British Military then and sooner.

Your 18th century mold is interesting on more than one level. I have not seen a huge number of this type of original mold and far fewer that can be dated to the 18th century like yours, but the only marked ones I have ever seen were very close to or during the WBTS.

Even though the math was available to determine balls per pound in the 18th century, I doubt many people actually knew the formula involved or even cared to know. I would not be surprised at all if a "100 balls to the pound" rifle actually had an original bore size of between .350" and .370" from different rifles and makers. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have the original rifle and in original bore condition that this mold was made for, to see what the original bore diameter was?

This another frustrating part of our questions. I don't know if there is even on original 18th century rifle left that has the original mold with it. AND that we can be sure the bore wasn't "freshed out" to a larger bore size, making that original mold cast a ball looser than originally intended?

Merchants offering molds for sale for full size balls for smoothbores may or probably were for customers who had damaged or lost their molds. Or it could have been the customer did not get a mold when he purchased/traded for/or possibly inherited the gun - though the latter is least likely. It is also possible that the mold the customer had was too close to bore size to wrap with paper to make a cartridge, so the customer may have wanted a smaller mold size for making cartridges for Militia Duty.

Besides some other reasons we have discussed for merchants offering different size balls, we don't usually think of the economic condition of some of the customers. Would some of the poor only been able to afford a few balls at a time and not be able to afford the cost of a mold and bar lead? How about some customers, especially in the towns/cities, who just did not have the time or the desire to cast their own balls? Maybe some folks wanted to try a different size ball to see if it would shoot better before they bought another mold? How about "that guy" who showed up for Militia Duty and he forgot or did not have enough balls/lead to pass Muster Inspection and he urgently needed more so he would not be fined? (Considering how there is original documentation that at least "one guy" who showed up for Militia Inspection in mid 18th century Williamsburg and during inspection they found CORN in his barrel, such things did happen.) :rotf:

Gus

 

[Artificer]

You know, discussions like these seem to call for some experimental archeology, even with modern limitations. We can not ensure that we would have black powder that exactly duplicates 18th century powder. Unless someone used an original iron barrel, our modern steel barrels might throw off the results. Not sure how even modern linen or other types of reproduction cloth or brain tanned buckskin might skew the results as well.

However, it may prove very interesting to take a modern flintlock rifle and test/record the accuracy as ball diameter decreases. The test probably should include different thicknesses of cloth found in the period, as close as we can reproduce them as well. This may give us at least some idea of how small a ball could be in a gun and with various thicknesses of material, to see how the accuracy degrades. I REALLY wish my "repaired eyeballs" were good enough to perform such a test, but I fear they are not.

Gus