Belted balls

[Col. Batguano]

I just picked up an original SxS J. Purdey & Sons cap lock double rifle circa 1858. It appears to be about .51 calibre. In the accessories pile was an original mould and about a dozen cast balls. They appear to have a belt that covers about 20% of the diameter, and a forked shaped block that I imagine is a ball holder for the short starter. It appears to orient the belt to be parallel to the bore rather than across it.

Question; were these guns intended to be shot with the bare ball only, and with no patch? It seems they would lead up the grooves pretty pretty good that way. As best I can tell, with a micrometer, the bore appears to be about .52" across the grooves, but I didn't take a long time to fiddle with it. Odd calibre isn't it? The listed load on a card is 2 1/2 drms powder, or about 69 grains. Do any of you have experience with such things?

The balls are certainly those that the only way to get them is to use the supplied mould, though I suspect an ordinary PRB would work too if it was tight enough. It just may not work very WELL.

 

[ResearchPress]

Have a look at the article on the Brunswick rifle on my web site. This military rifle had two-groove rifling and fired a belted ball.

Troops were issued with the bullets tied up within greased calico patches and marked with a black band to show the location of the belt to aid in loading.

David

 

[Wes/Tex]

That's an interesting article, thank you for posting. I'd never seen one of the pre-patched and greased original balls before. Can't help but question it's actual accuracy but not the most unaerodynamic things I've ever seen! :wink: It'd be another decade before Claude Minie had his "Sacre blue, you know what?" moment! :haha:

 

[52Bore]

Congrats on the pickup, you're a fortunate man!
I have a nice original belted-ball cased Trulock & Sons percussion double rifle with the original mold. Your bore sounds familiar to mine - 40 bore (0.488" diameter) with the belt grooves to 0.530"? Belted ball is slightly smaller in diameter - I do not recall as it's been a few years since I've shot it.
Although the ball/belt is orientated parallel - I assume you mean 12/6 o'clock? If so, it's like mine and that is no problem as I'm sure there is a twist to the belted rifling.
I use a patch - but very thin, I use silk as suggested by a good friend, Don Kettlekamp.
Also, I couldn't get the barrels to regulate until I used a 54cal thick (3/8") pure felt wad under the bullet - then it sealed and snake-eyes. I think I was around 90gr 2F - it's been a few years..
Good luck

 

[Col. Batguano]

It was listed as 40 calibre in the auction, but I think they meant to say 40 bore--or about 54 calibre. My hunch is that a larger calibre like a 51-52-54 calibre is a more valuable piece than one which would have been an actual 40 calibre. And J. Purdey & Sons is certainly one of those "names" most people have heard of.

Good tip on the felt over powder wads. I've not done that with shooting my contemporary guns. Worth a try. Experimenting with lubes, loads and patches is more than half the fun of getting a new gun isn't it?

It's actually quite surprising to me how cheaply that vintage guns go for when compared to contemporary builds. $3000 for a vintage piece gets you quite the gun, but in a contemporary built LR, it's just sort of an "average pretty good build" piece.

I think it was a good thing they included the original (or at least it certainly LOOKED vintage) ball mould in the accessories pile. Trying to find commercially made balls that size would have probably been impossible. Don't know the twist yet. The Fed Ex man just dropped it off at noon, and I had to scoot home to retrieve it off the porch before my wife got home! Otherwise, that gun wouldn't have been the ONLY thing at home with belted balls.

 

[necchi]

It appears to orient the belt to be parallel to the bore rather than across it.

Oh come-on,, if you believe that, why did you buy the rifle?
omg, forgive me.
(is there an icon for deep sigh?)

 

[52Bore]

The gun is measured to the bore, not the grooves as a 54cal (0.540") is in the 29-30 bore/gauge range, I believe. Your barrels should be stamp on the bottom along with proofs.
Larger bores are more common than smaller ones, but either way I hope it's still in good condition.
There seems to be some confusion to your reference to the grooves being parallel.??
My uncle always said "you can still buy originals much cheaper than you can make one - of the same quality", it still holds true 30 years later..

 

[RAEDWALD]

Jeff Tanner will make you a belted ball mould to suit any gun. Best to provide a cast of the bore if you can but you are fortunate enough to have one already.

A photograph of the 'forked' thingy would be appreciated.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Although the ball/belt is orientated parallel - I assume you mean 12/6 o'clock? If so, it's like mine and that is no problem as I'm sure there is a twist to the belted rifling.

Yes, historically, there were several variations on belted balls/projectiles that fit into the rifling grooves on rifles. Lynton MacKinzie once showed an African big game rifle in 2 bore size :shocked2: (looked like a sewer pipe from business end) that took a belted ball in it's two grooves. Guess it worked. :wink:

 

[Col. Batguano]

Yes, the belt grooves are at the 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock position, and quite wide.

On the bottom of the barrels are a pair of stamps that read 410, which I presume is 41.0 bore? the smooth part of the barrel measures .488" across, and depth of the rifling .535". The ball mould appears to cast balls .470" across the smooth part, and .520" when measuring the belt. Would it be legal to use to hunt with in states where 50 caliber is minimum? Probably not, but 49 caliber is pretty close to 50, and if you got busted on it I would place the calipers around the belt and say it's >50. Our state is >45 cal, so it isn't an issue, not that I'm going to hunt with it anyway.

Twist appears to be somewhere around 1:70" or so. My guess is that it's slightly faster than that though. Either way it's long and slow.

Barrel steel is damascus, but not the ribbon wrap around a mandrel damascus. It looks like a damascus billet was bored through. Bore interiors are bright and shiny. Nipples are too small for # 11 caps. I'm wondering if # 10's will fit, or if the Brits used something else.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Nipples are too small for # 11 caps. I'm wondering if # 10's will fit,

Or just get new nipples. They are pretty much disposable items anyway.

 

[Col. Batguano]

That was my thought too. Hopefully the pitch and thread size can be matched. Save the originals as the originals (assuming they even are). For an 1850's circa gun, there is an amazing lack of pitting on it, and having shiny smooth bores is nigh-on incredible. I guess having "nice stuff" back then incentivised the owners to make sure it got taken care of just the same as having "nice stuff" today does too.

Even though the barrels are damascus barrels, I don't think they pose the same risk of shooting them the way a ribbon wrapped shotgun barrel does. Obviously keeping the loads at sane amounts is always a wise and prudent thing to do.