• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades
  • Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

Round Balls With Dimples

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
"Muzzle Blasts" the magazine of the NMLRA had an article on this a few years ago. According to the article the dimpled ball flew straighter- just like a golf ball.
ALAS they simply aren't "just like a golf ball"....,

Golf Balls spin when in flight on an axis perpendicular to the flight path (and the dimples are symmetric) . Smooth bore balls do not spin. It's not a function of the air on the surface of the ball, but I hear the "golf ball" explanation all the time.

Mike in the video is well known to me. He has had the same results as most folks that I've asked to critique this idea. No advantage, with the exception of one fellow. He uses round balls very close to his bore, AND when he rasps his... they must then be swaged to fit the bore when loaded... tiny bits of raised lead must be pushed down for the ball to fit... sorta similar to a Lee REAL bullet into a rifled barrel. He claims good accuracy because his rasped ball are the best possible fit each and every time.

I think I will go to the range with some rasped .610's and maybe .615's and see if they work..

LD
 
Looked into it some years back. I don't recall the numbers, but velocity is the issue. Golf balls are slow, bullets are fast.
 
Heard that the chewed round balls were a result of the solider chewing on the balls to handle thirst. The cold metal would feel cooling to the mouth and promote salivating to mositen a dry thirsty throat.
Chewed on balls were put back in the bag and shot or chewed again as they grabbed for more.
 
I have been shooting N-SSA competition smoothbore for over 5 years now. I was taught to rough up my balls by rolling between two files. I made a little fixture to hold one file in a wooden trough, where I could put in the ball and then apply the other file on top. This works, but was tedious and made my hands hurt. It was also very time consuming.

I then made a machine to do it:
http://forth-armoury.com/vortex-ball-roller.html
This is the device that duelist1954 reviews.

What rolling the balls between files does is increase the diameter of the ball. It also obliterates the sprue. But mostly, what it does is increase the diameter of the ball while still being able to be loaded.

I shoot an RCBS .678 round ball in my .69 caliber Armisport M1842 smoothbore. When I rough up the bullet, it increases in diameter by about .010"

This video demonstrates this growth in size:



My balls were dropping about .680. By roughing them up, they grow to just under .690.

So why not just use a bigger ball? Well if you use a bigger ball, it might not load at all, especially after the barrel gets fouled. But by roughing up the ball, you end up with "whiskers" all over the ball that effectively increase its diameter, eating up windage in the barrel, but those whiskers are deformable and so will give way during loading if necessary.

You can think of it like this: If you squeeze a ball of playdough in your hands, it will ooze out between your fingers. The total mass of playdough has not changed, but the effective diameter has gotten larger.

In addition to roughing up the balls, I coat them after roughening with Alox. This is not lubricant. Rather, it becomes another coating of "windage eater" on the outside of the ball that will scrape/wipe away on loading if needed.

I tried only dipping the as-cast balls in Alox, hoping to avoid roughening all together. Unfortunately the Alox tends to flake off the smooth surface of the round ball. It sticks tenacioiusly to a roughed-up ball.

Unfortunately I don't think Duelist1954 gave my device a fair shake. Just roughening up the balls by itself won't help with accuracy. If you still have a loose fit in your bore after roughening, then you probably won't see any difference in accuracy.

Roughening up the balls simply eats up windage in the barrel. It's like using a patch. If your bullets don't fit tightly after roughening, then you won't gain any benefit from the roughening.

My balls fit my bore so tightly that I often get an "air piston" effect on loading and have to be careful when I let go of the ramrod after a stroke because the compressed air can launch the ball+ramrod right out of the muzzle if you are not careful when you let go of the ramrod for the next stroke.

Again, this is for competition shooting.

Steve
 
View attachment 127047

.648 tumbled round balls shot with out a patch.from my smoothbore prior too reconfiguring the barrel..
Benched , front sight only & tang screw slot.

The shot low and left is where the gun shot at 25 yards with my point of aim on the bullseye… prior too flexing the barrel.
The other 4 are using Kentucky windage for adjustment.
My bore measured.653. A .642 ball shot ok too..👍

I have since found a patched .626 ball works well , so I no longer shoot bare ball..

But it seems the closer the ball is too bore size the better it shoots, shooting bare ball.

One other thing too mention is the bore fouls quickly without a patched ball being seated.

The lead doesn’t seem too scrape away at the fouling like a patched ball..
Therefore be careful that you swab as needed…
Getting a unpatched ball stuck can ruin your day… unless you’re prepared for it.👍
 
Smo, A raised tang screw is that allowed where you’re at ? In the area where I live a raised tang screw would be like a rear sight and would not be allowed.
Doc,
 
"My balls fit my bore so tightly that I often get an "air piston" effect on loading and have to be careful when I let go of the ramrod after a stroke because the compressed air can launch the ball+ramrod right out of the muzzle if you are not careful when you let go of the ramrod for the next stroke."

If you don't have a cap on the nipple that won't happen.
 
Smo, A raised tang screw is that allowed where you’re at ? In the area where I live a raised tang screw would be like a rear sight and would not be allowed.
Doc,

Most places require an inspection of smooth bores and a raised tang screw will be picked up.
 
My theory was that you are shooting knuckle balls, and like a knuckle ball, irregularities on the surface, like laces on a baseball, make it take an unpredictable path, so my tumbling created a surface that was more regular from ball to ball. It didn't have anything to do with golf balls to me. Speed seemed to have an effect as well, as the ball slowed, the more it was affected to surface irregularity. For me, 80 yards was the maximum distance I could maintain a decent and predictable group. Beyond that to 100 yards there would be more fliers and I just didn't trust it. I took my first muzzleloader deer with that gun at between 65-70 yards and it hit exactly where I aimed it.
My conclusions are based on nothing more than my experimentation on the subject and I'm sure would not stand up to the scrutiny of an aeronautical engineer, but then, those fellows proved that it is impossible for a bumblebee to fly.
Good luck in your pursuit.
Robby
 
Robby, I like your conclusions, but not the knuckleball premise since the knuckleball is many times (at least 10) slower than a RB. Moreover, the RB is pretty close to the perfect shape for smoothbore shooting. That being said, I've tried above sized 20ga. RB (Tanner mould), with and without roughing it up between 2 coarse files and got worse results with the rasped, but larger RB than the slightly smaller one (both were weighed beforehand). I posted the results here, but neither version of the bore sized RB could approach the smaller, patched RB for accuracy. Just so we are clear here, the Tanner mould drops a [pure lead] .618" - .619" ball. When rasped, which took me ~40 seconds/ball, the diameter increased to ~.619"; i.e. tight enough to seat it without worrying about it moving off the powder charge. OTOH, the smaller RB is ~.598" diameter from a Lee Precision mould (also weighed) and seated with either a .014" or .018" pillow ticking patch.

One last thing, for 25 yd. shooting, 60 - 75gr. FFg is plenty. For 50 yd. or so 90-, maybe even 100 gr. is better.
 
I was using 80 gr. ff, .595 ball and .020 ticking. I'm not a zealot on the subject Maven, just offering my experience and some thoughts on the subject. Take it or leave it, all good.
Robby
 
Experimented with the dimpled balls in my fowler. After about 50 rounds of dimpled and regular round balls. I saw no visible sign that dimpled balls were significantly more accurate than regular round balls. Tried patched and bare balls both.
 
"My balls fit my bore so tightly that I often get an "air piston" effect on loading and have to be careful when I let go of the ramrod after a stroke because the compressed air can launch the ball+ramrod right out of the muzzle if you are not careful when you let go of the ramrod for the next stroke."

If you don't have a cap on the nipple that won't happen.
At the risk of igniting a firestorm, nobody in the N-SSA removes the cap before loading. We leave the hammer down on a spent cap. No fresh air in, no chance of a cook off.
 
Steve is artificially increasing the caliber of the ball with his machine. Note the starting size of a ball. I use a ball that is .005 under bore. My bore measures .690 and I shoot a .685 ball. So far, I have had no issues with fouling, but I shoot 3f Swiss or Old E exclusively. Both methods work but for different reasons.
 
Experimented with the dimpled balls in my fowler. After about 50 rounds of dimpled and regular round balls. I saw no visible sign that dimpled balls were significantly more accurate than regular round balls. Tried patched and bare balls both.

If the dimpled balls aren't giving you a near-interference fit in your barrel, I don't think dimpling will do much. I think dimpling basically is a way to get the effect of a patched ball without the patch.
 
Honestly folks, there is a simple reality of century's old marketing that is at play within the context of "dimpled ball" and the concept of improved accuracy.

The products of mass manufacture that we have available today on the shelf are from proven products that provide the best profit to any business that provides them for us.
Does anyone think, that somehow,, the "dimpled/chewed ball" being as it is, provides better accuracy, and NOBODY in 200yrs has grasped the advantage to provide them on the market for us to use on a regular basis?
:dunno:
 
the photo of the barrel bending at the instant of ignition is amazing! it is something that I have never seen or even knew about!!
 
Back
Top