weight of roundballs?

[pepperbelly]

Does anyone have a chart showing the average weight of the different calibers of lead roundballs?
I would especially like to know how much a .50, a .54 and a .69 caliber roundball weigh. It would be interesting to see how much they all weigh too.

Jim

 

[jtmattison]

It's in our resources section.

Ball chart

HD

 

[Zonie]

In our ARTICLES-CHARTS- LINKS forum you will find the weights of some of the more popular sizes of lead roundballs.

You could also follow this link to the same place.
ROUNDBALL WEIGHTS

 

[jtmattison]

Beat you to it!

:blah:

HD

 

[pepperbelly]

Gasp! Argh! Thanks.
My .69 caliber ball weighs 469gr. That has a little thump, doesn't it?
I had forgot the .50 ball only weighed 177gr. The 231gr .54 caliber ball seems like a big improvement.

Jim

 

[paulvallandigham]

Jim: Divide 7000 grains by 16 to find out what an ounce of anything weighs( 437.5grs). There are 7000 grains to the pound.

 

[pennsyltucky]

a better way to find exact weight of pure lead balls:

1502.6 x dia x dia x dia = weight in grains

1502.6 x .610 x .610 x .610 = 341

 

[paulvallandigham]

Pennsyltucky: The guys that don't know how much " thump " their ball has rarely have a micrometer or caliper handy to figure out either their bore diameter, or the diameter of their lead balls. You often see newbies here talk about shooting a " .45 " ball, or a .54 ball. We know they may be .433, .440, 445, and even .451, or .457, but unless they have a micrometer, they don't know. I agree that the formula for determining the exact weight of a PURE lead round ball of a given diameter is the most accurate, short of my brother's electronic scale! :thumbsup:

 

[D Sanders]

Hear is a formula for that, it might be wise to use a calculator:
Take the the ball diameter to the third power, multiply by .5236, then take that answer and multiply that by 2867.2 and that will give you the ball weight. If you want to take that even further, you take 7000 devided by the ball weight and that will give you a gauge#. The chart would be a lot easier, but if you don't have one and you want to impress your friends, use this formula.

 

[pennsyltucky]

hawken hunter, you just made the simple formula i posted much harder and turned it around. :wink: 2867.2 x .5236 is 1501.something. 1502.6 is more acurate for pure lead, and its much easier to remember.
1502 will work fine also if you dont want to remember the .6 :v

 

[longcruise]

Last week I was doing some of these calculations just for fun (I'm sure y'all question my idea of "fun" :haha: ) and came up with this chart. Not sure how it will format, but it lists actual ball diameter first, then the ballistic coefficient for use in a ballistics program using the G1 table, next is the weight and last the gauge.

Round ball BC's and weights for use in G1 table

.720 = .083 wt = 561 ga = 12.46
.710 = .082 wt = 538 ga = 13
.700 = .081 wt = 516 ga = 13.5
.690 = .080 wt = 494 ga = 14.16
.680 = .078 wt = 473 ga = 14.8
.620 = .071 wt = 358 ga = 19.52
.610 = .070 wt = 341 ga = 20.5
.600 = .069 wt = 325 ga = 21.54
.575 = .066 wt = 286 ga = 24.47
.570 = .066 wt = 278 ga = 25.12
.535 = .062 wt = 230 ga = 30.38
.530 = .061 wt = 224 ga = 31.25
.495 = .057 wt = 182 ga = 38.36
.490 = .056 wt = 177 ga = 39.55
.480 = .055 wt = 166 ga = 42.07
.445 = .051 wt = 132 ga = 52.80
.440 = .050 wt = 128 ga = 54.62
.395 = .045 wt = 93 ga = 75.49
.390 = .044 wt = 89 ga = 78.43
.385 = .043 wt = 86 ga = 81.53
.380 = .043 wt = 83 ga = 84.79
.355 = .041 wt = 67 ga = 103.99
.350 = .040 wt = 64 ga = 108.51
.315 = .036 wt = 47 ga = 148.15
.310 = .035 wt = 45 ga = 156.17
.270 = .031 wt = 30 ga = 236.37
.240 = .028 wt = 21 ga = 336.55

 

[paulvallandigham]

When you use "ga" after the number for weight, is this meant to be an abreviation for Grains? Or is it something else? And, what does the last number mean? Or, what is it, to be exact?

 

[jtmattison]

Diameter.720 BC= .083 wt = 561 ga = 12.46

It's Diameter, BC, Weight, and Gauge.

I think.

HD

 

[paulvallandigham]

Okay: I show in my charts that a 12 gauge is .729" in diameter, so his gauge figure is probably technically correct. I show a 72 caliber barrel weighing 550 grains, .715" in diameter, with a B/C of .084, and a Sectional Density of .153. There are obviously, slight differences in weight, and diameter, reflected in a small difference in the Ballistics Coefficient he got( .83 vs. .84).

Fort those who don't sit around working with a computer figuring out these kinds of numbers, using either BC is going to give you as close a look to actual trajectories over 100-150 yards as any computer model can do. In real environment, you will be dealing with not only trajectory, but relative humidity, and winds. A tail wind, coming in from behind you, will cause the ball to fly a bit flatter. A head win will cause the ball to drop faster. Any kind of cross wind will move the ball further to the right or left than the drop of the ball over these distances.

So, while computing drop of given powder charges in various caliber guns is a fun exercise to do on a rainy day, in the field its the least of your problems to diagnose in order to take a good shot at a deer, or any other game animal.

 

[D Sanders]

2867.2 is the exact weight of one cubic inch of pure lead. .5236 the exact volume of a 1.000 diameter sphere. I do not claim to know a lot about mathamatics but we are not talking about a large error, and yes, your way is easier to remember.

 

[Rat Trapper]

Rather than play with all that math, that no "real" mountain man would enjoy, I'll just use my reloading scale!

:haha: :wink:

 

[TANSTAAFL]

a better way to find exact weight of pure lead balls:

1502.6 x dia x dia x dia = weight in grains

1502.6 x .610 x .610 x .610 = 341

That will work, BOTOH, when in doubt, I just use the reloading scale.
:grin:

 

[longcruise]

When you use "ga" after the number for weight, is this meant to be an abreviation for Grains? Or is it something else? And, what does the last number mean? Or, what is it, to be exact?

The "ga = xxx is a calculation of the gauge of the ball in reference to balls per pound. I expect that the balls per pound used in any of the old rifles was not neccessarily a clear cut calculation. two guys each shooting a "36" may have had slightly different calibers with the actual gauge of their balls determined by their loading preferences.

 

[longcruise]

Okay: I show in my charts that a 12 gauge is .729" in diameter, so his gauge figure is probably technically correct. I show a 72 caliber barrel weighing 550 grains, .715" in diameter, with a B/C of .084, and a Sectional Density of .153. There are obviously, slight differences in weight, and diameter, reflected in a small difference in the Ballistics Coefficient he got( .83 vs. .84).

I actually ran these BC figures out to more than three decimal places and too the liberty of rounding them! :redface: Like you said, running them through a Ballistic program is not goin to show much diff. In fact you can run a ball a .082 and .086 and will see very little difference if the same weight and diameter are used.

I don't recommend any decisions be made regarding hunting loads simply based on ballistic program figures. Like you so accurately said, there are many things in the field be it the range or the hunting ground that will render all that "figgerin" useless. It's just figgerin for the fun of figgerin. :haha:

Don't anybody get the idea that I spent hour upon hour poring over pencil, paper and calculator to get these figures. Many years ago I put together a spread sheet that calculates these along with some other equally "useful" data as well as some data that truly is useful, at least to me.

 

[pepperbelly]

I like a ballistics chart or program to give me an idea of what to expect from a caliber I am not familiar with. For instance, when I first bought my Garand I had no idea what to expect for bullet drop at ranges over 200 yards. I will still have to check the field truth, but it sure helps get on paper if I am expecting a 30" drop. I would have to a lot less guessing and get sighted in a lot faster.
There is also the ability to see 2 or 3 different caliber's performance side by side before deciding on what to get. For instance I read a very interesting article showing the differenc in ballistics between the 7mm Rem Mag and the old Win. .279. From that article, and reading Jim O'Conner many many years ago I decided that there was not much the 7mm could do that the .270 couldn't do as well, and cheaper with less recoil.
That, and I am a curious old fart.

Jim