Re-visiting weighing RB

[longcruise]

I've seen lots of 50 modern cartridge bullets in 224 calibers that were less consistent than that and they shot with very good accuracy.

 

[necchi]

weights are difficult to see: 177.3, 177.2, 177.1, 177.0, 176.9, 176.8, 176.7, 176.6, 176.5.

Ok, be careful how you test The best average you have are the 177.0/177.1,,
Now here's the gig, each group of the average, and the heavies, will pattern much the same. (when shot as a group)
The lightest ones will be a wider spread (when shot as one group).

The real test will be to use a couple heavies, an average, and a couple of the lightest for one group,, something that would represent a random pick from the box..
And be sure to keep the bore condition the same within each group while testing.
Isolate the variable your testing for,,

 

[Nameless Hunter]

If you really want to have some fun, shoot five from your lightest group, five from your heaviest group, then compare.

 

[kopelli]

I purchased a box of 100 cast .495 round balls today (a regional brand name which I won't name to be fair to them) and weighed them using the same criteria I used on the Hornaday .490 swaged RB, that is, the largest group of balls falling within a +/- .5 grains, a total of 1 grain spread.

Of the Hornaday RBs, 94 of the Hornaday fell within my test range of +/- .5 grain, while the No Name brand had only 37 of the box of 100 falling within the +/- .5 grain. What to conclude?

1) "IF" consistency of RB weight is important to me (and right now it is) I will weigh the RB's I purchase.
2) and, I will favor swaged RBs,
3) and I will favor a brand name RB

For various reasons I have not yet been able to shoot these weighed RBs to test grouping differences for me. Once I shoot them, perhaps any differences in grouping will me marginal, and I will change my mind.

 

[William Sublette]

You should buy 10 sets of each type rb.

Then sort.


Then shoot ten groups with each weight.


Then throw out the best group, and the worst group.



Then avg the remaining groups. This will give you a base line to judge off of.



Now that you have a control group, do it all again with each weight group to make sure your results are accurate.


Oh yeah, and make sure to weigh each charge to the 1/10th of a grain.

And

Seat each ball with the same pressure, at least to the 1/10th of a pound.


And sift your powder to make sure all the kernel sizes are the same, you don't want a bunch of fines increasing the pressure and making your carefully weighed balls shoot high.


And, as long as your going to be precise get an infrared temp sensor and measure the barrel temp just in front of the breach, letting it cool to the same ignition temp for each shot.


What if you don't get this done all in one day? Make sure to record the wind, atmospheric pressure, sun position, etc, so you can repeat if needed.

If you want to be precise you should probably get some blood testing done too, make sure the concentrations of caffeine, and nicotine are the same for each test session.

Let us know what you discover.

 

[burlesontom]

Here is the distribution of rb from one box of Hornaday. I set aside 4 or five outside 177.3 and 176.5 range. I just plan to Track what I shoot and see if I can tell a difference. Looking forward to getting back to the range. View attachment 165084

My goodness. And I thought I was anal. LOL. Anyway if you have balls that you think aren't worth wasting powder on send me a PM I would be happy to buy them from you and shoot them in blissful ignorance.

I cast all that I shoot and I never weigh anything. And I rarely miss. I do admit I don't spend much time shooting paper. Not with BP rifles or my smokeless guns. I shoot paper enough to sight in and then I'm off to the woods and hills and ready to hunt.

A one or two grain variation in weight is probably far more important in a .32 caliber rifle. But then my experience with 32 caliber guns is that at any range approaching 50 yards they are so wind sensitive that the ball weight difference is meaningless.

Just the way you seat the ball on the powder can have an effect on your accuracy. In the Sam Fadala BP manual he had a special device made that would consistently seat balls to the same exact pressure over the powder. And it made a slight difference. I guess if you are chasing the smallest groups this all makes sense. But I would chase groups with a real bullet, not a round ball.

 

[shorthair]

Without getting too far into the weeds, I'd like to get your ideas on weighing round balls.

The question is not "IF" to weigh round balls, but if you do (or have experimented with) weighing round balls,

1) How did you do it and what tolerances/variables do you use?
and
2) How did you measure the difference in results (consistency in groups or accuracy)?

I've read both Steve Sells and Dutch Schoultz, and several comments on various forums, and have purchased scales and started weighing 50 Cal. round balls. I've become confused, and, would like to hear some specifics from those of you that are into weighing.

For example, on weighing:

1) Do you find the greatest weight of individual ball and discard any that deviate from that weight by some variable?
2) Do you find the average weight and discard any ball that deviates by some factor (say .5 grains or .25 grains)?

For example, on the measurement of increased efficiency/accuracy:

1) Did or does weighing reduce you group size by inches? at yardage? Caliber?

By way of further explanation, I am trying to develop a load for my 50 cal TC 1:48 and I believe to achieve the best (tighest) groups I need to control all the variables I can, one of which is the weight of the RB. But at what cost? Out of a box of 100 Hornady RB's, there are 12 different weight groups of balls (by .1 gram increments) from 177.6 down to 176.5. So where to start testing? Therefore, my question to you, is what method and tolerances do you use to achieve the groups you desire?

If, I can/could reduce my groups from 2" at 50 yards, to cloverleafs at 50 yards, I would no doubt weight. However, If I get from 2" down to 1.5 inches, probably not worth my time. I've seen some excellent videos of near ragged holes and clover leafs at 50 and 60 yards and if weighing gets me closer to that, I'll like to try it!

I weigh 20 samples after culling obvious poor balls then throw out the samples that are not within 2 grains of the average and save them for plinking, the rest are close enough for hunting and target shooting.

 

[Mousegunguy]

Well you could always melt them down and measure them by volume……

 

[ord sgt]

I do not bother to weigh round ball that I cast. Since I make my own, I don' t buy factory made ball.
I don't shoot in competition anymore. When I did, I would weigh the minies. I also weighed the powder charge to get max constituency.
Now, I just shoot for fun and have fewer worries.

 

[1BadDart]

I just poured and weighed 225 .395" balls, there was two large groups. One 92.0 to 92.8 grains and the other 93.0 to 93.8 grains. Four weighed less than 92.0 grains and nine weighed more than 94 grains, those were thrown back in the pot. I'd guess that the 92-92.8 grain group made up 70% of the two groups.

 

[tenngun]

Egyptian had scales that could measure to about a grains weight. Nineteenth century European were even finer.
But I don’t much recollect them fine ones being in trading post and rendezvous goods list.
Mould, lead dippers, lead bars but not fine scales.
Never have weighed a ball