"Ball-etts"

[Fogg64]

I picked these up at a gun show yesterday. On the box it was marked: 50 cal. "Ball-etts", unsized, unlubed and dated 4-3-1985. The ball dia is .502, Height is .513 and the stems dia. is .460. Anyone have thoughts about them.

[/img]

[/img]

 

[jdkerstetter]

There has to be more to it. As they are they appear to be a very unstable projectile. Enjoy, J.D.

 

[William O.]

Those don't look like the Ball-ets that Buffalo Bullets was making up until a few years ago. Those look more like lead sinkers than bullets.

 

[Zonie]

They look almost like a backwards Buffalo Ball-ets.

The Ball-ets shown in the 1997 Dixie catalog have a cylindrical body that is just slightly larger than the "ball".

The ones in the photo obviously have a cylindrical area that is smaller.

The ones shown in the Dixie catalog are newer so these may be an early attempt to create a Ball-ete?

 

[don hepler]

Never, seen one, but looks like something that had a sabot, or something attached to it.

When you think you've seen it all.

 

[SmokeEater2]

This thread reminded me that I have a box of the Buffalo Ball-ets I bought years ago and never opened.

I just looked at them and they look nothing like those pics. They have a hollow base and look to be the same size all the way to the base. They're also heavily lubed from the factory.

 

[Fogg64]

I read that this may be a "heeled" bullet but for what? Thoughts?

 

[Rifleman1776]

The ones I recall looked like sorta elongated balls. Yep, weird as it sounds. Those look like nothing I have seen. Agreed, probably very unstable.

 

[Sperit de bois]

Look home made to me,mold marks, spur holes around the base,,And they are Nothing like the Ballets I have, for both 45/50 not even almost, something like near,close to.
Good side is,,it wouldn't be to difficult to get it correct if you are loading spur side up,,, :haha: :wink:
Remelt and start over??

 

[dledinger]

They look like split shot without the split.

 

[Matt85]

never seen ball-ets like that before and i dont seem them shooting very well. im not even sure of a way to load em since the cylinder is smaller diameter then the ball.

-matt

 

[mooman76]

Just an educated guess but since they are slightly larger than .500 diameter, I'd wipe some lube on them and load like a conical. Wouldn't hurt since you got them all ready anyway.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

They were made from a modified mold. They were probably cast from a Lee .498 Single Round Ball Mold, and the previous owner opened up the sprue/pour hole to create the item that you have, as an "experiment". The sprue mark is over the elongated area no? Lee molds are inexpensive, so perfect for experimentation. I will bet that they are not "pure" lead, and if made with bullet alloy, that would account for them being .502 instead of .498. Somebody then labeled them as you found them.

Too bad as it would've made an interesting test had they been sized .490, and using a cloth patch if they were loaded rounded portion first, to see if they flew straight.

LD

 

[Fogg64]

They weigh 233 grains. They appear to be pure lead (thumb test). If the mold was modified to gain more weight than shank should closer to the ball diameter. If they were cast to be used as 'heeled' bullet the shank should still be a little larger to fit the brass (whatever caliber that would be). If they were to used with sabots, why the smaller shank.

 

[jdkerstetter]

If some guy was "experimenting" only he know's the answers to all your questions....and who knows what he was thinking?

LD's suggestion makes the most sense to me. Shoot some though, I'll bet they they make some nice key-holes in the target. :wink:

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Billnpatti]

Jeeze Louise!! I've been shooting black powder for a long time and have seen about every kind of projectile that is made but I have never seen anythin that looks like these things. They may be some kind of failed experimental projectiles that were intended to have a disposable sabot that would go on that rear projection of the ball. I have serious doubts about the accuracy of these things. I think they would tumble right out of the muzzle and make a strange roccochet-like sound all the way down range. You might give them a try just for the fun of it but I think you have bought just some lead to be melted down and recast into normal balls.

 

[gsday]

Loyalist Dave,

I tried the very approach you're speaking of. Bought a .490 roundball mold. Drilled down through the sprue hole and made a .490 "ballet". Straight skirted.

I believe it weight about 225 grains.

I shot them with a .018 patch.

The balls showed signs of tumbling at 100yards out of my 50 cal. 1:56 barrel.

Still have the mold.

 

[gsday]

I loaded them "flat end first". Like a bullet.

Greg

 

[larry wv]

Be interesting to try them in a faster twist barrel. Larry

 

[mooman76]

Lee has mad a .500 RB mould also at one time. I didn't think your analogy was correct but after looking at it again, I'd have to agree with you with the information we have at hand anyway. I know some states or at least some did in the past have a minimum grain weight on MLs for hunting. Maybe he was trying to add a little more weight to make the cut. It does look like he did a good job modifying it though. I remember when I hunted UT years ago one caliber was just like 5 or 10 gr. shy(in RB) of the minimum, I believe it was .490 if I remember right and that's one reason why I bought a larger rifle in .58. so I could still hunt with RB.