The thread “.50 or .54?” got me to thinking about another caliber in the 18th century that seems to have long since almost died out. I’m referring to the .52 Caliber that seems to come up somewhat/rather often when talking about the size of an “average 18th century rifle” either as the caliber or possibly from conversion of the number of balls to the pound (BTTP). ( I realize they were used to using BTTP to describe guns with the familiarity we have using Caliber today.)
To tell the truth, I have a little bit of difficulty figuring out what was the number of BTTP they usually meant when describing the .52 cal. and other calibers. Am I incorrect to assume it was a 32 BTTP rifle from the conversion chart just below, so a .52 caliber ball would go into the bore and have room for patching material? What further confuses me is Gauge to Caliber conversion charts often do not agree on what caliber each Gauge was.
BTTP Caliber in Decimal
30 .533
32 .530 or .526
34 .519
36 .506
The following chart sizes were included relating the caliber of the Brown Bess Musket that was often mentioned as .75 Caliber in original British writing, though in a few cases was called .76 Caliber. There is a quote that “if the musket was not exceeding ill bored, it will shoot to or hit (etc., etc.)” Looking at the difference in chart sizes, I wonder if the people who bored and polished the barrels were doing so on what they normally thought of as “11 Balls to the Pound.” This may possibly explain why original Brown Besses of the 18th century often measure .76 to .78 (and up to .80 in some cases).
BTTP Caliber in Decimal
11 .775 or .760
11/C1/2 .750
12 .748 or .729
The next chart is included with an eye on the fairly standard British “Carbine Bore” of .66 Caliber in the 18th century. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think this would have been normally interpreted as a “16 Bore” for many or most English barrel makers?
BTTP Caliber in Decimal
16 .682 or .663 (some say as low as .661)
17 .665 or .650
The book “Colonial Frontier Guns” by T.M. Hamilton reads about finding original French 18th century “GO” and “NO GO” Gauges for various calibers. It seems he was not able to find an 18th century set of Gauges from the British “Worshipful Company of Gunmakers Proof House.” The book does detail two sets of Gauges found there, but they both seem to have been no earlier than and one was . Also, the conversion table provided in Appendix E on page 169 was in all cases .02” SMALLER than the sizes listed in . It was suggested the difference allowed for “windage” in the later gauge conversions.
Does anyone know of an 18th century or possibly early 19th century conversion table of “Balls to the Pound” that is not readily available today and more accurately describe what caliber British and British Americans actually meant during that time?
Any information would be most welcome.
Gus
What we may be running into with the plug gauges Hamilton found since they were in a proof house the gauge marked on the plug was for the bullet to be used for proofing a barrel the plug fit. This is what we run into when knowledge is lost. I would not be surprised if there is an explanation in some old book someplace in the British Isles but finding it might be a problem. Or they simply used that plug gauge to determine the proof load. Unless there is a written explanation found I don't see how to resolve this. Or they never wrote it down but simple passed it on the apprentices as on of the "secrets" at this date who knows.
A round ball of pure lead can have its weight accurately calculated. So 16 to the pound would be the same weight and so the same diameter anytime it was measured/weighed.
.682 would be a just a little bigger than 15 gauge at 478 gr according to Beartooth Bullets RB weight calculator. Which matches all my actual measurement/weighing tests. But a 682 bore will shoot a ball in the .672-662 range or perhaps smaller if its a smooth bore with "issue" ammunition.
.662 is 437 gr on my scale, so its a "#16" ball. Beartooth agrees.
Usually rifles shoot a ball about one gauge smaller than the bore in 62-69 calibers for a fairly tight fit. Forsythe describes using a #15 ball in his 14 gauge rifle with a substantial patch. Some modern target shooters use a bore sized ball or even slightly larger.
In a 54 I shoot a .535 which is 30.3 to the pound. The bore being 29.5 to the pound according to Beartooth. A 495 in a 50 cal is also one gauge smaller 37.2 and 38.2. I use a heavy patch in both calibers.
Back in the day SB fits were looser since they did not keep the bores very uniform. Today using a ball within 1-2 gauges of the bore requires a thin patch. With the same patch used with a 50 caliber rifle a 50 smooth will load OK with a .480 the 480 is a 41.9 gauge
Rifles came with their own moulds unless military issue like the .
The military musket was a holder for a bayonet as much as a firearm until well into the 19th c.
The French did some experimentation with the musket and in the early 19th increased the ball size to improve accuracy.
But I don't remember the ball sizes and the French were metric anyway.
This is detailed in "Firearms of the American West -" IIRC.
So far as bore sizes go there was little in the way of tight controls of bore sizes until the advent of Smokeless powder breechloaders.
It is not uncommon to find 45-70 rifles from the s-80s or even later with groove sizes in excess of .460. In fact .464 is pretty common. Since Sharps 45 calibers had a "nominal" bore size of .451 when we see most of the rifles over .455 and often much over that we realize that it was not that important. And this applies to the target models as well.
Given this we can understand how the bore sizes varied in the 100+ years before in the late 18th c. For this reason chamber dimensions and large bore sizes make it impossible to shoot accurately with smokeless powder or even difficult with BP unless the shooter understands how to make it all work.
So we have 18th c muskets that were often little more accurate than a wrist rocket, if that good, due to being what Hanger called "ill bored". With the issue loading hitting a man at 100 yards was iffy at 200 according the Hanger, one might as well fire at the moon. I would dig up the exact quote but its not worth it.
Dan
What we may be running into with the plug gauges Hamilton found since they were in a proof house the gauge marked on the plug was for the bullet to be used for proofing a barrel the plug fit. This is what we run into when knowledge is lost. I would not be surprised if there is an explanation in some old book someplace in the British Isles but finding it might be a problem. Or they simply used that plug gauge to determine the proof load. Unless there is a written explanation found I don't see how to resolve this. Or they never wrote it down but simple passed it on the apprentices as on of the "secrets" at this date who knows.
A round ball of pure lead can have its weight accurately calculated. So 16 to the pound would be the same weight and so the same diameter anytime it was measured/weighed.
.682 would be a just a little bigger than 15 gauge at 478 gr according to Beartooth Bullets RB weight calculator. Which matches all my actual measurement/weighing tests. But a 682 bore will shoot a ball in the .672-662 range or perhaps smaller if its a smooth bore with "issue" ammunition.
.662 is 437 gr on my scale, so its a "#16" ball. Beartooth agrees.
Usually rifles shoot a ball about one gauge smaller than the bore in 62-69 calibers for a fairly tight fit. Forsythe describes using a #15 ball in his 14 gauge rifle with a substantial patch. Some modern target shooters use a bore sized ball or even slightly larger.
In a 54 I shoot a .535 which is 30.3 to the pound. The bore being 29.5 to the pound according to Beartooth. A 495 in a 50 cal is also one gauge smaller 37.2 and 38.2. I use a heavy patch in both calibers.
Back in the day SB fits were looser since they did not keep the bores very uniform. Today using a ball within 1-2 gauges of the bore requires a thin patch. With the same patch used with a 50 caliber rifle a 50 smooth will load OK with a .480 the 480 is a 41.9 gauge
Rifles came with their own moulds unless military issue like the .
The military musket was a holder for a bayonet as much as a firearm until well into the 19th c.
The French did some experimentation with the musket and in the early 19th increased the ball size to improve accuracy.
But I don't remember the ball sizes and the French were metric anyway.
This is detailed in "Firearms of the American West -" IIRC.
So far as bore sizes go there was little in the way of tight controls of bore sizes until the advent of Smokeless powder breechloaders.
It is not uncommon to find 45-70 rifles from the s-80s or even later with groove sizes in excess of .460. In fact .464 is pretty common. Since Sharps 45 calibers had a "nominal" bore size of .451 when we see most of the rifles over .455 and often much over that we realize that it was not that important. And this applies to the target models as well.
Given this we can understand how the bore sizes varied in the 100+ years before in the late 18th c. For this reason chamber dimensions and large bore sizes make it impossible to shoot accurately with smokeless powder or even difficult with BP unless the shooter understands how to make it all work.
So we have 18th c muskets that were often little more accurate than a wrist rocket, if that good, due to being what Hanger called "ill bored". With the issue loading hitting a man at 100 yards was iffy at 200 according the Hanger, one might as well fire at the moon. I would dig up the exact quote but its not worth it.
Dan
Dan,
Thank you for your thoughts and the time it took to type that out.
When you talk about a ball size for a rifle being One or Two Calibers less than bore size, do you mean .01" or .02" smaller than the stated bore size or do you mean .005" and .010" less than bore size? I apologize as I did not quite follow what you meant.
18th century British and French Military Muskets were loaded with paper cartridges and the paper was turned into wadding as I'm sure you know. For those who may not know, the tail of the paper cartridge was bitten off and a little powder poured into the pan. Then the rest of the cartridge was rammed down the bore. However, what we sometimes forget was the ball was also wrapped in the paper, so in effect it was an early use of a “paper patched ball.”
I am not sure if there was (and don’t think so) a standard thickness of the linen paper they used to wrap the cartridges and especially the ball. Linen Paper thickness probably ran .005” to .007” or more. The size of the patterns of paper used to make the cartridges, that have come down to us, suggest that each ball would have had about two thicknesses of paper all the way around the ball diameter. This means an added .010” to .014” of paper on each side of the ball or a total thickness of .020” to .028” that the “windage” or diameter of the bore was reduced. IOW, if the bore size was an actual .750”, then the paper around the ball reduced the bore size for the ball to .730” down to .722” or so. From the Archeological record, original British Musket balls run from a bare minimum of .670” to .690” with more of them tending towards the larger size. If we take the larger size of .690” and wrapped it in the paper as mentioned, the size of the paper patched ball ran .710” to .718” in a minimum .750” bore. (If the linen paper was thicker than these minimum sizes, it would even more “fill up” the space of the bore for the paper patched ball.) That .040” to .032” extra space was left so the Soldier could easily load the paper cartridges even after the bore became fouled with powder residue from firing many shots. It’s possible the Muskets shot more accurately as the powder fouling built up from firing more catridges and reduced the open space (or windage) around the paper patched ball.
There is more “windage” or open bore size around the paper patched balls when the bores run .760” to .780” as they seem to have been generally made. That leaves anywhere from .032” open space to as much as .060” open space in the larger bore size with the thinner size paper. I’m not sure a .780” bore size was considered “ill bored,” but I at least suspect those that ran .780” to .800” were considered “ill bored” and would have been far less accurate with the “Issued” cartridge paper wrapped ball.
If the balls used in Brown Besses actually better fit the bore size and a proper sized greased patch is used, they shoot one heck of a lot more accurately than what was capable with the original .69 caliber ball and paper wrapping. The bore size on my old reproduction Brown Bess Carbine was .753” and with a .735” ball and .020” greased patch, it would split the ball on the axe all day long at 25 yards IF I did my part in the Offhand. It would also take out a 1 Gallon Plastic Milk jug at least 9 out of 10 times, as long as I did my part at 100 yards from the Offhand. That’s well within the torso of a human being at that range. (I was in much better shape then in my 20’s and my eyeballs had not turned way off yet. Grin.) So Military Muskets then probably would have been significantly more accurate in the 18th century had the paper patched ball better fit the bore size. Good thing for we Americans that they did not. Grin.
Gus
I doubt that there would have been any allowance for a patch, the idea, as I understand it was that a lead ball of the specified part of a pound would just pass through the bore. Personally I doubt it was ever actually tried. Think about it - to make the ball you would have to calculate its diameter, but as that would be the nominal size needed, wouldn't you just make the barrel instead of mucking about with a lead stop / go guage?
Why do things this way? Well I suppose you wouldn't have to think too hard to work out how far a pound of lead would go... Making ball moulds to fit the barrel would be a separate and probably well understood task.
I wouldn't expect to find too close an agreement between tabulated dimensions and those that could be calculated today. At this sort of date, people in different towns were probably still measuring to slightly different standards. When did engine engraved rulers become available? Much would depend on which example /s became recognised as the pattern. If you come across incompatible tables, that is the likely cause.
Let's not forget that it was arms manufacture that established the need for precision
Dave,
Thanks for answering.
In this country, it seems the bore size was reamed to fit the ball from the mold the gunsmith made or had on hand. Then that mold was given along with the rifle when a customer picked up his new gun. Before he passed, Gary Brumfeld commented it was well within the 18th century Gunsmith’s ability to get the bore within about one to a couple thousandths of an inch over ball size. Of course the mold sizes would have varied depending on the “cherries” or cutters the gunsmith had. So it is likely what was called say a 32 BTTP rifle could and did vary greatly and you are correct it did not matter.
However, it may have mattered more to the commercial firms who sold large numbers of civilian or trade guns. Still, it seems a large variety of ball sizes were imported and the customer had to choose what size best fit his gun if he did not have a mold to match the gun. I may be mistaken, but it seems many if not most of these guns were not accompanied by a mold to fit the gun?
Of course trying to get more consistent bore sizes mattered the most for Military Arms, as they were made in far larger quantities and had to ensure the “issued’ ball size fit for at least some accuracy even when the balls were so undersize.
Yes, indeed you are correct the whole Institution of The Interchangeable Parts System and Precision Machining came from mass production of Military Small Arms.
Gus
Actually I consider it normal fitment. I have a friend who shoots over bore sized balls from his 45.
I can load a 495 in a 50 or a 535 in a 54 with just the rod using a heavy ticking patch. But lube has a lot to do with this.
Dan
Does he use a leather, rubber or plastic mallet to start the ball?
Gus
This is a classic example of why he does not come here anymore. Soft lead balls are just not THAT hard to start in a barrel with narrow lands like a Green Mountain. If you have lands wider than the grooves its going to load much harder.
Why would he need anything more than a starter especially in a 45? AND this is with a high friction lube. Actually I would have to ask him since I never watch him load his rifle since I am busy loading mine.
I have a video of me loading a 54 Douglas with a 535 and a .018 patch with just the hickory rod. I read of starters when I was a kid and tried them and decided it was just one more thing I did not need. Not the mention that having a brass or bronze tip on the starter can damage the crown.
I shoot a .498 in my 50 match rifle and start it with a small starter with an antler tip and I use a high friction lube. 5-7:1 WS oil that is then air dried to remove the water. But it has .008" deep grooves and narrow lands being a Jim McLemore barrel.
As my friend stated the other day in a conversation. He really wonders how much shooting a lot of the posters here actually do.
The only HUNTING load I actually need a starter for is the 16 bore. A .662 ball is harder to start than a 54 is. Its much harder when shooting WW balls.
What I repeatedly see here is people that have apparently never really learned to load a rifle or do not understand what they are actually doing which is fitting the projectile to the bore. This is done by the propellant in breechloaders. But with MLs its done by hand.
Or the rifle was crowned by someone who did not know know. There are a lot of people doing barrel work that don't know how or don't care... But people buy the stuff anyway.
Are there other "factors" that can cause problems? Sure are. If for example I once used wd-40 to protect the bore it seems to turn Sperm Whale into a non-lube. Its like they bond to each other and will not let the ball start easy. Might do it with Neatsfoot as well. So people need to make sure that what they are using for protectant is removed before loading. High friction lubes start hard. But I do not use them for hunting. I use a small starter on my swivel breech cause I think its easier on the mechanism. If someone has a Bedford with a wrist perhaps smaller than a 50 cent piece or a rifle with a lot or drop etc they might want a starter. Starting without a starter does put more pressure on the rifle.
Dan