How did they make ball moulds in the 18th century?

[Sidney Smith]

The thread asking if someone made their own mould got me thinking. How did the gun makers of old manufacture ball moulds? What did they use to make the half rounds for each mould half.

 

[EC121]

They made a mold cherry cutter and clamped it between two pieces of metal. Then turned the cherry to cut the mold. As it cut they tightened the metal blocks. When the two blocks came together, the ball hole should be round with the cutter shaft forming the sprue hole. Because each barrel's bore varied due to reaming and rifling the bore, each rifle had a mold made for the bore of that rifle. The barrel rolling mills just sold a blank with a hole to be reamed to size(with a homemade reamer) by the builder or rifler.
There is plenty of info on the web. Look for "mold cherry cutters".

 

[Melchi577]

if you can find a copy The gunsmiths manual by Stelle & Harrison printed in i think 1883 ( I have a facsimile edition from 1993 ISBN 1 873088 05 1) has everything and more. admittedly this is 19th century but i can't see the method described having changed much

 

[Sidney Smith]

I see now. Pretty simple really. I wonder how the shaft made the cut for the sprue hole?

 

[hawkeye2]

The same way the cherry cut, it had flutes cut into it.

 

[Eterry]

They also used seasone for mold blocks, at least one example exists. If they didn't have iron, they made do.

 

[omark]

I wonder how much windage was allowed between ball and rifling on original mold gun combinations. Mark

 

[Cowboy]

I wonder how much windage was allowed between ball and rifling on original mold gun combinations. Mark

Very good question??

Excellent topic as well.

Research is of an interested individual seeking that information. The advantage that this forum has to offer is that many already have done that research. Many from a variety of different resources driven by the same interest in a particular thought on the same subject.

Always love reading where someone has a genuine curiosity of just wanting to know how things were done back in the day?

So many other questions stem off the inquiry from the original post. Definitely a well rounded picture and very educational.

Respectfully, Cowboy

 

[Artificer]

I wonder how much windage was allowed between ball and rifling on original mold gun combinations. Mark

Mark,

I hate to say this, but I don't think we will ever be able to document that for the 18th and early 19th centuries, before they invented precision calipers affordable enough for gunsmiths and machinists to use.

There are a number of 17th and 18th century treatises on gunsmithing, but I've never seen anything that describes how much windage they allowed around the ball for rifles. They don't even mention techniques to check ball size to bore size with any real accuracy.

I have absolutely no documentation for this, but my SWAG is they used the period "laid" paper as a guide when they really wanted to make an accurate ball to bore size fit. Original period "Laid" paper of the best sort has been found and measured with modern micrometers showing it was around .004" to .006" in thickness. If they wrapped that around a ball and tried it in a bore before it was rifled, that means they could have come up with a total windage of around .010" to .015".

If they just used a ball cast from a mold and reamed the bore to fit, it could have been tighter than that. Not sure they would have done that on anything but a match rifle though, as the bore would foul so quickly with period powder.

Another problem is we have almost no original rifles with their original molds to check that way. Further, even if we did, they very commonly "freshed" the rifling and Iron barrel bore when the rifle was in use, when the barrel was rusted or just worn down. So if they didn't make a new mold after doing that, the mold would cast a ball with even more windage than when the barrel was first made.

Gus

 

[omark]

Artificer, Thank you for your reply. It was very concise and what I suspected. But I have seen reference to using the worn out finger of a glove for patching. I am assuming that would be a Leather glove. I can't see having as little windage as we do now and still using leather. I have also heard of buckskin patches which would be much thicker. I was hoping that someone knew of at least one original rifle and mold or 1 that had been freshed out with a new mold made to fit it. Thank you again. Mark

 

[Artificer]

Artificer, Thank you for your reply. It was very concise and what I suspected. But I have seen reference to using the worn out finger of a glove for patching. I am assuming that would be a Leather glove. I can't see having as little windage as we do now and still using leather. I have also heard of buckskin patches which would be much thicker. I was hoping that someone knew of at least one original rifle and mold or 1 that had been freshed out with a new mold made to fit it. Thank you again. Mark

Hi Omark,

"Glove Leather" normally meant buckskin in the period and yes, they did use buckskin patches. A few years ago, I brought up the same question on using buckskin patches with rather tight bores.

Our professional leather worker departed member "La Bonte" on this forum aka Chuck Burrows informed me used greased brain tanned buckskin quite readily in bores where the ball size was no more than .010" LESS than the bore size. He said it was possible even to use brain tanned buckskin for one or two shots, before needing to swab the bore, with a ball size that was no more than .005" LESS than bore size. Brain tanned buckskin is fairly rough on both sides AND is similar to a thick cloth. Period correct vegetable tanned buckskin won't work very well on the ball only .005" less than bore size, but it will also work on when there is the difference is .010." Now, Please DON'T try that with modern commercial chrome tanned buckskin, though, as it is not rough on both sides and doesn't have the ability to crush down like brain tan or true vegetable tan buckskin. BTW, Chuck used scraps from near the belly of the hide in his tests and leather from that area on the hide is the "stretchiest" part of the hide.

Now, I don't think they actually held the bore size to just .005" over the ball size on most rifles. They could have done it but I don't believe they did since most period balls were not truly round and I'm not adding in the sprue.

Gus

 

[sussexmuzllodr]

Lets take it back before The Industrial Revolution. Where metallurgy and steam power were widely used. Were the moulds hand made Iron? Cut by hand? Or Wood used until they were worn out? I know that 19th century bottles and those that were made before then were cast in wooden molds and a worker finished the neck and top of the bottle.
Glass, molten was much hotter than lead. Plausible? Perhaps?

Good topic