Balls to the pound/Caliber?

[Marko10thivi]

I was reading the Nov.'05 MUZZLE BLASTS, I have a question regarding The article "Full time Hunters:eye-witness accounts from two centuries ago" In the account on P.65 "WITH HIS LONGRIFLE, WHICH SHOT FIFTY BALLS TO A POUND OF LEAD..."
What caliber would that be? I can never remember the method of converting balls/lb. to caliber. Where can I find a chart or something?

 

[roundball]

Well, there's 7000 grains in a pound.
Dividing 7000grns by 50balls = 140grns per ball.
As a reference:
A .45cal / .440 rifle ball weighs 128grns
A .45cal / .457 pistol ball weighs 143grns

I'm sure there's a direct chart somewhere

 

Here's a list with some - Balls to the pound on the left and caliber on the right.........

10- .790
11- .760
12- .748
13- .727
14- .708
15- .695
16- .682
17- .665
18- .647
19- .637
20- .628
21- .618
22- .609
23- .601
24- .588
25- .585
26- .575
27- .572
28- .559
29- .549
30- .533
32- .530
34- .519
36- .506
38- .491
40- .485
44- .474
48- .463
52- .453
56- .442
64- .416
70- .400

 

[robinghewitt]

There's a conversion chart as a sticky in the Pre-Flintlock section. It covers 1-150 bore and I have used it more times than I care to think :thumbsup:

 

[WV_Hillbilly]

Here's a list with some - Balls to the pound on the left and caliber on the right.........

10- .790

I hate to be picky, but I don't want someone to use the wrong numbers either if it can be avoided.

Where did you get this chart? I checked a few of the numbers and they did NOT come out right--the weight vs. caliber didn't match up. Example: a 10 gauge ball should weigh 700gr (1/10 of a pound), but if I use .790 as the caliber and calculate the weight (based on pure lead), I end up with 740gr...

So something must be off somewhere or they have used a different numeric constant or factor for something... Let me know what you find, OK?

Regards,
WV_Hillbilly

PS Some of the numbers aren't off too far though...? I'll run the numbers using the formula that I was taught and see what I come up with. Will get back ASAP and post the list that I came up with.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I don't think you can expect any of these charts to be precise. I've seen several charts, Dixie Gun Works catalog (a wealth of info) shows English and Belgian charts and they don't exactly agree.
Balls per pound was the common measure of caliber for both rifles and smoothbore throughout the ML era untill breechloading took over.
No point in trying to be precise anyway. In a .45 caliber rifle one fellow may load a .433" ball weighing 123 gr., while another may go with .451" at 137 gr. The oldtime gunsmith made a mold to "fit" the rifle and if it was suposed to be 50 balls per pound the owner would probably never know if it was actually 48 or 53 balls per pound. :winking:

 

[Maestro]

Here's a list with some - Balls to the pound on the left and caliber on the right.........

10- .790

Where did you get this chart?

This chart is exactly the same as one I copied down from a book a while ago. They are the micrometer measurements used by George Schalk, of Pottsville, PA, 1824-1892. According to that source (which I don't remember but can look it up over the weekend), "Schalk was one of America's best rifle smiths and a maker of many famous rifles. He was "a most careful man" hence, his gauge may be considered reliable."
Your mileage may vary!

 

[benvenuto]

and don't forget the French (pre 1789) used a different sized pound so their gauge sizes are different from "English" or "Belgian" sizes

 

[Grenadier1758]

The chart you have shown appears to be the diameter of a bore that would take that gauge ball.

According to my calculations:
Diameter = (4.665/Gauge)^(1/3)
A 50 gauge ball would be 0.453" and a 52 gauge ball would be 0.447"

Im my opinion I think a patched 0.447" diameter ball would be a tight fit in a 0.453" bore rifled with 0.015" deep rifling.

 

[mmahlock]

I'm no expert on the subject of ball size vs. caliber but what research I have available indicates that prior to the modern era when the size of weapons was standardized by the diameter of the barel (propably the result of no longer needing patches around the balls for an accurate shot) weapons were identified by the size of the ball they used based not on its diameter but the number of them per pound. Exactly what diameter of barrel goes with what size ball is a bit murky. According to a balistic test done on potential barrels for the new Infantry Rifle to be addopted by the Briish Board of Ordnace, they used the following:

.61 barrel dia - 22/# balls
.63 barrel dia - 19/# balls
.64 barrel dia - 19/# balls
.68 barrel dia - 17/# balls
.74 barrel dia - 13 1/2 /# balls
.76 barrel dia - 11/# balls

As you can see the .63 and .64 barrels both used the same size ball.

Additionally, during the Nopoleonic war the Board of Ordnance issued balls for the Baker Rifle and its derivatives in 22/# and 20/#. The barrel dia is accepted today as .625. The diameter of a 20/# ball is .615.

50/# could I suppose be calculated based on the weight of 1/50 of a pound of lead filling a spherical envelope but that's more than I want to think about right now.

Another item of note regarding balls and weapons is that when the Board of ordnace started purchasing and issuing rifles in 1754 they also issued with each rifle a mould for the ball that would fit it. (My guess is that very early balls were custom fit to the weapon and they were probably not very standard or consistant. Also the user's intention of patching or not may have also affected what size ball was used in a given weapon.)

If not helpful I home this has been interesting.