Round Ball Tumbling With Graphite

[Pro Libertate]

I saw them on the pictures of your tumbled balls.

What? No… you must be mistaken. There’s no seams on my tumbled round balls. I’ve gone back and studied the picture closely, and I’m not sure where you’re getting that notion. You are aware that the first two photos in my initial post were “before” tumbling, right?

 

[Pro Libertate]

I don't know for sure since they never wrote about it but my ancestors must have had a special box with some graphite in it to perfect their cast balls in the back of their wagon when they bounced their way over the Oregon trail in 1845. Otherwise, them Indians would have got 'em.

There’s always got to be a wise guy. Some folks are so close-minded, it’s pathetic.

 

[The Crisco Kid]

Tell me, where did you gain all your knowledge?
Your initial post shows some of the most wrinkled balls I've seen in awhile. If they were mine they'd be back in the pot.

 

[Pro Libertate]

Tell me, where did you gain all your knowledge?
Your initial post shows some of the most wrinkled balls I've seen in awhile. If they were mine they'd be back in the pot.

I’m not going to engage with you, you boastful and conceited old man. Move along, please.

These balls were my first attempt with my Lyman electric bottom pour furnace and .735 mold. They’re going to be shot from a smooth bore (Pedersoli Brown Bess), and -after tumbling- they appear perfectly uniform to the eye, consistently measure between .734 and .735, and vary no more than a gram by weight. Why, then, would I recast?

 

[The Crisco Kid]

.

 

[cynthialee]

If the graphite helps with keeping down oxidation then it is a good idea, otherwise the graphite is a waste of time.

I run mine through an old rock polisher/shaker. I can put a few hundred roundballs in it at a go.
Makes them sprues go away and puts micro dimples all over the ball like a golf ball. Which from what I have read really only makes a difference in a smoothbore. Well tumbled balls seems to not make a difference in rifled arms. But making the sprues go away is enough for me.

 

[waksupi]

What? No… you must be mistaken. There’s no seams on my tumbled round balls. I’ve gone back and studied the picture closely, and I’m not sure where you’re getting that notion. You are aware that the first two photos in my initial post were “before” tumbling, right?

Thought I was seeing some left, at 9 o'clock of center, just below the bright spot.
Sorry I'm sounding so picky, I don't mean to be an ***. I've been casting bullets for 50 years, and am pretty picky on perfection.

 

[Urban Coyote]

Am I getting this correct? Tumbling with graphite removes the sprue, wrinkling voids, eliminates any weight variations along with lead oxide on the surface of the balls. Where does the oxide go? Does it just disappear? Does it return? Do you have any weigh data before and after tumbling?

Sounds like graphite could be a magic muzzleloader fairy dust. Lol

 

[Frontstuffer070]

All I know is my Lee Molds and Pot cast a better looking round ball than my Lyman Mold. I know I'll receive hate for that statement but its true. There's not really a sprue per say just a flat spot. That's probably why my wooden rolley box works so well. Which in the end it isn't necessary I just like that way they look when they come out of the box. They look like a swaged ball. Do they shoot any better? Nope. Heck I've dug a ball out of my back stop and re shot it. And it printed in the same group as the rest of the once fired balls. Me thinks we are going to the bottom of the ocean with this stuff. Melt the lead, make a ball, and shoot the dang thing.

 

[Pro Libertate]

Sounds like graphite could be a magic muzzleloader fairy dust. Lol

It’s because of inane comments like this that I’m putting this blasted forum behind me. I’m tired of folks putting words in my mouth. Have I at any point made outlandish claims about the capabilities of graphite? The only assertions I’ve made are that it amalgamates/binds with the lead dust and helps it to settle. I’ve merely postulated that it could give a slight velocity increase and ease in loading due to the ball’s apparent slickness. If nothing else, it results in a beautiful obsidian ball that’s aesthetically pleasing to the eye.

Anecdotal evidence abounds of tumbled round balls providing improved accuracy (on this forum and many others), so instead of being so quick to dismiss them, I’d encourage you -along with any other skeptic- to actually disprove these claims instead of resorting to mockery.

I really find the bullying that takes place on this forum to be absolutely shameful; far too many folks hijack a thread with snide remarks and offer nothing constructive to the conversation. I’ve found The Muzzleloading Forum’s environment isn't conducive to constructive learning due to frequent belittlement and a focus on showcasing individual knowledge rather than fostering a supportive community for growth and collaboration. I’m of the opinion this forum’s “Classifieds” are quickly becoming its only redeeming quality.

 

[Urban Coyote]

It’s because of inane comments like this that I’m putting this blasted forum behind me. I’m tired of folks putting words in my mouth. Have I at any point made outlandish claims about the capabilities of graphite? The only assertions I’ve made are that it amalgamates/binds with the lead dust and helps it to settle. I’ve merely postulated that it could give a slight velocity increase and ease in loading due to the ball’s apparent slickness. If nothing else, it results in a beautiful obsidian ball that’s aesthetically pleasing to the eye.

Anecdotal evidence abounds of tumbled round balls providing improved accuracy (on this forum and many others), so instead of being so quick to dismiss them, I’d encourage you -along with any other skeptic- to actually disprove these claims instead of resorting to mockery.

I really find the bullying that takes place on this forum to be absolutely shameful; far too many folks hijack a thread with snide remarks and offer nothing constructive to the conversation. I’ve found The Muzzleloading Forum’s environment isn't conducive to constructive learning due to frequent belittlement and a focus on showcasing individual knowledge rather than fostering a supportive community for growth and collaboration.

Is it just me, or is this what one might call an overreaction? Need some "safe space"?

 

[Pro Libertate]

Is it just me, or is this what one might call an overreaction?

You’re one of three to ridicule me in this way— on my own thread! I’d highly suggest that, in the future -in the interest of promoting a place where ideas are respectfully shared and cultivated- you refrain from such derision.

 

[Urban Coyote]

You’re one of three to ridicule me in this way— on my own thread! I’d highly suggest that, in the future -in the interest of promoting a place where ideas are respectfully shared and cultivated- you refrain from such derision.

Oh my!

 

[The Crisco Kid]

Bye Bye!

 

[Pro Libertate]

Bye Bye!

Good riddance!

 

[SDSmlf]

It’s because of inane comments like this that I’m putting this blasted forum behind me.

Ok, if you haven’t left us yet, I do have a few questions for you, unless I have reached the level of the 3. I’ve been looking for something simple to coat roundballs with that will hold off oxidation. I’m currently looking at 45-45-10 and it shows some promise. From a single run of roundballs from a Lee mold I tumbled, one as cast, the other with a 45-45-10 coating, I found no measurable difference in accuracy out of a GM roundball twist barrel. ‘Blind’ test, as I had two groups of unlabeled balls preloaded in two separate loading blocks. Shot a round from one, then the other, at two separate targets, until all 10 shots were fired, and saw no real difference in group size. 5 and 5, repeated on another day for a total of 10 shots for each group.

Your tumbling with graphite caught my attention, primarily as a possible oxidation inhibitor, so I gave it a go. Basically a repeat of the above test, but substituting the graphite tumbled roundballs for the 45-45-10 ones. Exact same result over two range trips. No difference in accuracy. Would be interesting to hear about your test methodology. So now I am still curious, have you noticed any oxidation protection from the graphite?

And just for reference, this is the graphite I used.

We’ll now you’re just being silly!

The patch doesn’t stay with the ball the whole length of the barrel during firing, so I should think there’s plenty of opportunity for the ball’s lubricity to affect velocity.

Interesting statement. The high speed photography I have seen shows the patch staying with the ball until exiting the bore. Could you possibly site your source for the patch not staying with the ball for the whole length of barrel during firing? Below photograph from Larry Pletcher’s website showing patch and ball after exiting the bore.

 

[Pro Libertate]

What “test methodology” are you referring to? Let me be as clear as I possibly can here: at no point did I make any claim whatsoever regarding graphite yielding an increase in accuracy. None whatsoever! I do, however, firmly believe that tumbled round balls are more accurate than their untumbled counterparts. This belief stems from my own experience as well as countless other member reports.

Graphene is used as a corrosion inhibitor in many applications, so I see no reason why it shouldn’t offer protection against the oxidation of lead round balls; however, I don’t claim to be an expert, and I never professed to invent the process of tumbling round balls in graphite. As I’ve only been doing it for a couple weeks now, how could I possibly make any assertions about its long term viability in that regard?

I’ve already rescinded my statement insofar as patch and ball is concerned in a former post. I was misled.

 

[SDSmlf]

What “test methodology” are you referring to? Let me be as clear as I possibly can here: at no point did I make any claim whatsoever regarding graphite yielding an increase in accuracy. None whatsoever! I do, however, firmly believe that tumbled round balls are more accurate than their untumbled counterparts. This belief stems from my own experience as well as countless other member reports.

Graphene is used as a corrosion inhibitor in many applications, so I see no reason why it shouldn’t offer protection against the oxidation of lead round balls; however, I don’t claim to be an expert, and I never professed to invent the process of tumbling round balls in graphite. As I’ve only been doing it for a couple weeks now, how could I possibly make any assertions about its long term viability in that regard?

I’ve already rescinded my statement insofar as patch and ball is concerned in a former post. I was misled.

My mistake. I simply stated that I saw no improvement with accuracy with tumbled balls when graphite was added. You just seemed to have shared some observations as ‘fact’ then claim only a couple of weeks experience. Maybe get the chip off your shoulder and don’t get so upset when you parrot misleading internet lore with no real world experience and get called on it. Or would it better to agree and encourage someone stating ‘stuff’ to avoid hurting feelings. No bullying intended by me. Believe it or not, most, if not all here, have cruised around the internet and have read the information from the endless collection of keyboard jockeys… sometimes learning the hard way. Actual personal experience accompanied with data will carry the day. Don’t ask folks to actually disprove claims that you yourself won’t take the time to test out. Kind of like making the claim that moon is made of gases or that climate change caused the eclipse the other day, then getting upset when challenged. Have a nice day.

Anecdotal evidence abounds of tumbled round balls providing improved accuracy (on this forum and many others), so instead of being so quick to dismiss them, I’d encourage you -along with any other skeptic- to actually disprove these claims instead of resorting to mockery.

 

[Togo]

If the graphite helps with keeping down oxidation then it is a good idea, otherwise the graphite is a waste of time.

I run mine through an old rock polisher/shaker. I can put a few hundred roundballs in it at a go.
Makes them sprues go away and puts micro dimples all over the ball like a golf ball. Which from what I have read really only makes a difference in a smoothbore. Well tumbled balls seems to not make a difference in rifled arms. But making the sprues go away is enough for me.

I'm curious as to why it makes a difference in smoothbores.

 

[Pro Libertate]

What observations did I claim as fact? Stop misrepresenting me, and stop acting like a horse’s arse. I’d urge you to go back to my initial post and make careful note of just what exactly I did and did not declare.

“During the casting process, some of my bullets ended up less than perfect, with small divots, casting and sprue marks left by the Lyman mold. This method resulted in balls that were perfectly round, with a shiny, hammered finish appearance. Give it a try— I think you’ll be most pleased with the results!”

You, sir, are the fool that experimented to see if graphite alone would improve your accuracy.

I made no such claim, and it’s high time you put an end to these fabrications.