Pure lead or Alloy in rifles

[necchi]

I don't own nor would ever use a bullet puller.

Famous last words,, good luck with that. :wink:

 

[Stumpkiller]

I keep one in my patchbox. ;-)

 

[Black Hand]

I don't own nor would ever use a bullet puller.

I'm curious why?

 

[Obi-Wan Cannoli]

I don't own nor would ever use a bullet puller.

I'm curious why?

I remember seeing a small display once at my ML supply shop of cut down barrels with their bores exposed in certain areas to show what mistakes people made that ruined barrels. One of them was of a ball puller that the person managed to mar against the rifling and then drilled through the ball crooked and into the barrel despite the brass collar that was supposed to prevent that! I know, that sounds crazy and even hard to believe as I'm writing this? Maybe the message was don't use the wrong size ball puller or maybe the person put an electric drill on the ramrod to achieve those results and that was what it was warning against or maybe it was just some comedic display piece somebody made for laughs? I'm not really sure because there is a bazillion things to see and buy at my ML supply shop.

Long story short, there are other methods I use.

 

[Bon Sauvage]

Many people in this forum, myself included, and other forums have talked about using pure lead.

Is it really pure lead or is it so soft that, in your opinion, it MUST be pure lead? How do you know what its composition really is?

ASTM B29 spec. for pure lead is 99.94% pb minimum.

ASTM B29 spec. for refined pure lead is 99.97% pb minimum.

I still have about 18 lbs. of the latter out of a 200+ lb. roll.

Except for those ingots and my Linotype I have no idea how pure the rest of my lead is. I use the pencil test method as an approximation.

I'm just rambling I guess. :redface:

 

[Britsmoothy]

If I was that worried a screw could damage a barrel that much that I could no longer sleep I would give up muzzloading all together!

The fault in your example is with the operator, not the tool.

B.

 

[19 16 6]

When a perfectly patched round ball is driven through the barrel, it will show cloth marks around the circumference of the ball. It will be heavily engraved where it bore on the lands and lightly engraved in the groove area.

That says "cloth marks around the circumference of the ball." Cloth marks, get it, the cloth is taking up the rifling and gripping the ball so hard as to leave cloth marks. The ball itself is not engaging the rifling and it says as much in that example.

Tell me how a ball that is undersized to the rifling can possibly engage that rifling ?
.490 in a .50 cal barrel is serious ball deformation to engage the rifling. Same as .535 in a .54.
Be some patch cutting there too I guess if the ball left no room for the patch.
O.

 

[Obi-Wan Cannoli]

The fault in your example is with the operator, not the tool.

I would agree with you there since you find those pullers everywhere (every one ever made at the same ML supply shop from the story) it logically points to that conclusion.

I don't lose sleep over them, I just don't use them. As a general rule I don't put anything in a barrel that's harder than the bore.

My only stance on pullers and hard lead in this topic is that they're not for me.

 

[Britsmoothy]

The fault in your example is with the operator, not the tool.

I would agree with you there since you find those pullers everywhere (every one ever made at the same ML supply shop from the story) it logically points to that conclusion.

I don't lose sleep over them, I just don't use them. As a general rule I don't put anything in a barrel that's harder than the bore.

My only stance on pullers and hard lead in this topic is that they're not for me.

:hatsoff:

B.

 

[Britsmoothy]

When a perfectly patched round ball is driven through the barrel, it will show cloth marks around the circumference of the ball. It will be heavily engraved where it bore on the lands and lightly engraved in the groove area.

That says "cloth marks around the circumference of the ball." Cloth marks, get it, the cloth is taking up the rifling and gripping the ball so hard as to leave cloth marks. The ball itself is not engaging the rifling and it says as much in that example.

Tell me how a ball that is undersized to the rifling can possibly engage that rifling ?
.490 in a .50 cal barrel is serious ball deformation to engage the rifling. Same as .535 in a .54.
Be some patch cutting there too I guess if the ball left no room for the patch.
O.

It is a known fact that a pure lead ball under huge G force from acceleration flattens out some and thus presses on the barrel wall.
The larger the ball the greater the effect.
Bullets too experience this too.

B.

 

[azmntman]

The fault in your example is with the operator, not the tool.

I would agree with you there since you find those pullers everywhere (every one ever made at the same ML supply shop from the story) it logically points to that conclusion.

I don't lose sleep over them, I just don't use them. As a general rule I don't put anything in a barrel that's harder than the bore.

My only stance on pullers and hard lead in this topic is that they're not for me.

I not only keep several I once recently had to make one with a slide hammer type apparatus :redface: (and I was shooting alone when that there "incident" occurred)

 

[necchi]

the cloth is taking up the rifling and gripping the ball so hard as to leave cloth marks.

Well then you get it, nobody in this thread has said different.
The previous comments must have just been a misunderstanding.
A proper patch will "impart" the lands and grooves to the ball. I had a hard time wrapping my head around it too until someone dry-balled and we blew it out with a CO2 discharger,, I ran down and found the ball,, it's surprising how deeply those marks are left in a soft lead ball.

 

[Rifleman1776]

the cloth is taking up the rifling and gripping the ball so hard as to leave cloth marks.

Well then you get it, nobody in this thread has said different.
The previous comments must have just been a misunderstanding.
A proper patch will "impart" the lands and grooves to the ball. I had a hard time wrapping my head around it too until someone dry-balled and we blew it out with a CO2 discharger,, I ran down and found the ball,, it's surprising how deeply those marks are left in a soft lead ball.

My earlier post did not properly explain why a tighter ball, when used with a patch is more accurate. Comes a point where explanations are pointless. Trial with different ball sizes, patch thicknesses, lube and mantras must be done with real shooting, not pecking on a keyboard. Wat works, works. As for pure lead, you are supposed to use it because. Just because. :wink: :surrender:

 

[M. De Land]

Ain't it the truth! :rotf: I make my own ball pullers with a sheet rock screw hard soldered to a centering brass jag that really goes into the ball easily.

 

[smoothshooter]

But the patch has to be able to bite into the rifling to transfer the spin to the ball, and the rifling lands supply the pressure against the patch to cause that to happen.

 

[smoothshooter]

It is impossible to damage the bore if the type of puller that has a near bore diameter disc type bore guide just below the threaded section is used.

 

[smoothshooter]

I am concerned.

Are you having a seizure?

 

[19 16 6]

I am concerned.

Are you having a seizure?

Why do you ask ?
O.

 

[19 16 6]

How else can I put this ?
The patch acts like a sabot ?
O.

 

[Vaino]

Read where one member who evidently no longer posts had some brass RBs made and shot them w/ a patch in a rifle. He said the accuracy was excellent. This kinda goes counter to what is normally practiced....soft lead RB w/ a properly fitted patch that imprints the weave into the RB.

I use soft lead swaged RBs w/ a somewhat tight patch, but the brass ball experiment proved that harder lead can be used w/ accurate results.

Forgot who did the brass ball experiment, but it showed that the normal way of doing things, isn't the only way......Fred