a mould for each gun?

[Grenadier1758]

I have several of the ball molds marked in the balls per pound category. The mold for my Bess is marked at 12 balls per pound. Unfortunately time has not been good to the mold and balls measure from 0.690 to 0.720 depending where on the ball the measurement is taken. Still it supports your theory that the ball size is marked on the mold for use in a bore of that size.

Similar measurements of the 21 marked mold for my 20 gauge fowler are similarly egg shaped and generally close to 0.590. Its good enough to carry on woods walks, but I like to use my modern molds for casting ball to use.

 

[George]

Thanks, that's good info.

I only have that one old mould marked in balls per pound. The other one is unmarked.

Spence

 

[Gene L]

Another thought...there were basically two kinds of rifles back in the day. Squirrel rifles and bigger game rifles. (Well, I guess there were target rifles.) No varmint calibers, so I think the choices would be pretty well standardized by usage. I also suspect each gunsmith had his own bore, I would think based on what was favored. So a .50 caliber might be actually a .48 or .49 caliber.

You can get a sort of bore gauge for shotguns today, it's a triangular shaped brass plate you place in the bore and it will tell you the choke. I can imagine such a thing being used for measuring rifle bore. I seriously doubt gunsmiths of that era had the equipment to measure in thousands of an inch. Or even hundreds of an inch.

So probably each gunsmith built "a deer rifle"* or a "squirrel rifle." To his own pretty-well-standard set of tools he had and made a mold for it.

I don't know when rifle calibers became standardized, probably pretty early in the 19th century.

*Back in my grandfather's time, these heavier rifles were known as "hog rifles," since there were no deer in N GA.

 

[smoothshooter]

I can see how much of the demand for replacement bullet molds would have been caused by theft, house fires ( which would have been fairly common ), accelerated wear and tear caused by rough handling of the relatively soft iron they were made of, loss, etc.
Also the need for an increase in size after freshening out a barrel.

 

[Artificer]

You can get a sort of bore gauge for shotguns today, it's a triangular shaped brass plate you place in the bore and it will tell you the choke. I can imagine such a thing being used for measuring rifle bore. I seriously doubt gunsmiths of that era had the equipment to measure in thousands of an inch. Or even hundreds of an inch.

Gene,

I wrote about such gauges in an earlier post in this thread a couple days ago and linked a 19th century example.

"To a degree, yes I'm sure they could. However, there also was a tool that I know goes back to at least the early 17th century, having personally seen a very elaborate example dated to that period. It is called a bore gauge and though I could not find that 17th century French example on the internet, here is an exceedingly plainer 19th century version. (Such gauges would normally only have been used by gunsmiths, though.) These gauges work off the principal of the diameter of a circle to read "the balls per pound" and even fractional sizes in more modern gauges like this. What I don’t know for certain is how was the length of each diameter for each size of “balls per pound” was settled on, though it no doubt came from the London Gunmaker’s Guild in England and the Arsenal System in France during the 18th century.
http://www.tennants.co.uk/Catalogue/Lots/247308.aspx

The triangular brass bore gauge you, Spence, I and most likely many others have originally came from such gunsmith's gages.

Gus

 

[George]

The triangular brass bore gauge you, Spence, I and most likely many others have originally came from such gunsmith's gages.

This one measures gauge on one side, caliber on the other. Of course, gauge is the same as balls per pound, so this one could have been used in the day. Measuring the actual diameter of the triangle at the various marks shows this one is not overly accurate.



Spence

 

[smoothshooter]

There would have had to have been a lot of eyeballin' goin' on to try and match compatible bullets with an individual gun's bore.

 

[smoothshooter]

I don't see that it's that much of a mystery.

A lot of the molds were subject to rough use, and, being made of relatively soft iron ( this being in the days before actual steel was in common use ), the useful life of a mold may only been around four or five years, sometimes much less. Rust from neglect, loosening hinge points, and just plain getting misplaced and lost would be a few of the reasons replacements were in demand.
I wonder if the softer iron in use at the time for things like bullet molds was subject to cracking from the temperature changes caused by heating and cooling repeatedly?
Since the early mold designs had handles that were prone to burn the manure out of the user's hands, even with some sort of crude wrapping of material for protection, I'll bet it was common for users to dip them in water for a quick cool-down, whick might have caused cracking at times, even though they should have known better.
Using the sprue cutter, if the mold has one, is probably the most stressful use of a bag-style mold.

 

[smoothshooter]

Instead of an adjustable " try stock ", I can see where it would be more common for most gunsmiths to have 2, or 3, or maybe 5 semi-finished stocks lying around most of the time, and telling a prospective customer " Why don't you try out several of those stocks over there in the corner and tell me which one you like the best, and I'll make you one just like it ? "

Most likely, the farther west you got from the population centers, the less choice a customer had when buying a gun regarding stock architecture and caliber. Then, as now, most buyers would have not been that particular, perhaps even less so.

 

[smoothshooter]

Agreed.

A heart-sized group at 50 yards would have been more than good enough at a time when there were no hunting seasons.
A lot of the shooting would have been done in the warmer months when the leaves were still on, making most hunting a very short-range proposition; shots measured in feet instead of yards at times. Buckshot in smoothbores would have been ideal in this environment.

I'll bet leather was used as patching material a lot more than is commonly recognized. In my experience, it is much more forgiving when it comes to arriving at a reasonably snug ball and patch combination due to it's elasticity. In the old days, when cloth was a relatively valuable commodity with little choice in thickness, leather could be had rather easily anywhere squirrels, groundhogs, deer, elk, foxes, coyotes, etc. could be found. And it also holds lubricant well. Old moccasins would probably work for this too.

 

[Gene L]

I think bullet molds are still made of iron.

Smoothbore muskets had a lot more tolerance for undersized balls. All you needed to do, with military guns, was to send a ball down range at a group of enemy soldiers and undersized would make it easier to load when fouled.

 

[TNGhost]

I think bullet molds are still made of iron.

Yes, most are made of meehinite a fine grained cast iron alloy. Brass/bronze was a popular mold material as well, not so much now. Softer and easier to work, and in existance long before firearms.

Don't think they had aluminium though. :haha:

 

[Artificer]

Instead of an adjustable " try stock ", I can see where it would be more common for most gunsmiths to have 2, or 3, or maybe 5 semi-finished stocks lying around most of the time, and telling a prospective customer " Why don't you try out several of those stocks over there in the corner and tell me which one you like the best, and I'll make you one just like it ? "

Well, that might have been the way some gunsmiths did it, but I think it highly unlikely most did it that way.

I have been trying to find a link for one original late 18th /Early 19th century gun stock blank that has been photographed and put in a few books over the years. I saw one like it many years ago at the Annual Baltimore Antique Gun Show and it may have been that same stock blank. It is not a semi formed stock blank like we are used to seeing. Basically it is cut out from the slab and shows a high spot on the area right behind the barrel breech, IOW it has been cut lower in front on what would be the fore stock. The whole stock, including the area of the wrist and butt were left with the flat slab sides and there appears to be enough wood to accommodate differences in comb and heel height and length of pull. A stock blank like that could have been set aside for a while with little worry on about stock warpage and in fact the original I saw/handled had almost no warpage in it.

We have documentation that gunsmiths often made up thin slat boards for the general shape of the rifles they built. The idea was this was laid on a wood plank and moved it around to get the best grain direction and figure for the stock blank. Then they used chalk or something else to mark the stock blank. It was normally the job of an Apprentice to rough saw it out and work it so the sides were parallel and the cuts were perpendicular to the sides. That was the way it remained until it was going to be used to stock a rifle. There is no evidence they shaped stock blanks like the semi-finished kind we so often see for sale today, until they actually began work on building a rifle, so it would not have done any good for a customer to handle those stock blanks.

Most likely, the farther west you got from the population centers, the less choice a customer had when buying a gun regarding stock architecture and caliber. Then, as now, most buyers would have not been that particular, perhaps even less so.

Well, if you are referring to “ready built” trade rifles like a Leman or Deringer rifles, that is true. You selected from what was available when you walked into a shop or trading post.

However, if you walked into St. Louis (and that was about as far west as guns were made in quantity for the first half of the 19th century) you could order a custom built rifle in the style and caliber you wanted.

I did not go more into detail on this, because we have gotten off topic for this thread.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Every now and then when looking for something else, I blunder onto something that pertains to an ongoing thread.

"11092 - REVOLUTIONARY WAR BULLET MOLD EXCAVATED NEAR YORKTOWN, VA, half of a mold for a pistol ball excavated near Glouster, VA, near Yorktown, VA. Site of a French encampment during the Yorktown Campaign"
http://www.historicalshop.com/sitecontents/colonial/colmilitaria/warbulletmold11092.htm

Looks like it would not take long for this mold to have warmed up to cast balls.

Gus

 

[Rifleman1776]

we have gotten off topic for this thread.

:shocked2: That has never happened here before. :wink:
Wat wuz the original topic?
Enneyhow, gunsmith suppliers may sell try stocks. Moulds too.
For topic, Jeff Tanner moulds are brass or bronze. Can't tell exactly what by looking at mine.