Bullet Measurements

[Miker91]

How consistent and accurate are bullet measurements ? The source of the info I am using is the Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges by Dean and Jim Thomas.
My example is a .44 Colt Army bullet. The bullet has very little dirt or nicks. The Thomas book says the length is .67 and weight of 196 gr and caliber of .455. The bullet I was using is .67 in which is the same as the handbook. The weight on my digital scale is 207. I posed a similar question a year or so ago but didn't like the answer so I'm trying again (kidding). There are multiple issues at play I realize. Such as the accuracy of my scale, issues with a 165 year old piece of lead etc.

But my real point seems to be how valuable a tool for identification purposes is weight. I think very little. Is this a big Duh ?

Pictures to follow immediately.

 

[Old Soldier]

The weight will vary because of production limitations. It this often revolves around the material you are using for your bullet. Was the original government specification on pure 100% Lead (Pb), an impure sample (<99% Pb) or a deliberate alloy. Research tells me that one of the current alloys for casting bullets is linotype metal, which is 4% tin, 11% antimony and 85% lead which is harder and makes more accurate bullets. Another consists of 2% tin, 6% antimony and 92% lead - known as "hardball" bullet casting alloy. All these added 'impurities' change the weight of an identically shaped item from the same mold, usually making them slightly lighter, since lead has a high Specific Gravity and is the real 'weight' of the bullet.

Yes, your weighing device MAY be at fault, but in Civil War days, only the occasional bullets were checked for dimensions and weight - usually using a balance and a 'pattern' bullet as a counterweight. There may be differences in production tolerance (relatively high in those days) and apparently there were several different types of mold for the same bullet! Pistols, especially those bought privately, came with their own bullet mold, mainly to ensure consistency in shooting. Many required the casting sprue to be removed too, which could also affect the weight. The Enfield .557" and the government .58" calibers would use the same ammunition since the bullets were expanding base and made slightly under-bore. All smooth bore balls were made under-bore to ensure a fast reload.

 

[UCVRelics]

But my real point seems to be how valuable a tool for identification purposes is weight. I think very little. Is this a big Duh ?

Yep, Its a BIG Duh. I have dug thousands of bullets and have NEVER used weight to ID one. The size, shape, grooves and base are the 3 biggies.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Yep, Its a BIG Duh. I have dug thousands of bullets and have NEVER used weight to ID one. The size, shape, grooves and base are the 3 biggies.

Would concur with these comments.

I have never put too much weight (forgive the pun) on the heaviness of the bullet, when acquiring civil war whitworth bullets for my collection.

What's important to me, is the overall design, length, base (shape and diameter) and patina of the item.

I prefer collecting fired ones. But sometimes bullet dimensions and shapes are distorted by the firing process or impacts.

 

[Old Soldier]

Yep, Its a BIG Duh. I have dug thousands of bullets and have NEVER used weight to ID one. The size, shape, grooves and base are the 3 biggies.

But this question was about pistol bullets which do not have these ID features. Many were just balls and the 'bullet' shaped ones were without any grooves in percussion days. Just to upset folk a little more, the rounds for British Beaumont-Adams revolver - used by both sides - were actually oversized and you stripped a thin layer off the outside of the parallel sides as you rammed it home in the cylinder! Did Colt and the Starr revolvers do the same?

 

[ConfederateCanuck]

But this question was about pistol bullets which do not have these ID features. Many were just balls and the 'bullet' shaped ones were without any grooves in percussion days. Just to upset folk a little more, the rounds for British Beaumont-Adams revolver - used by both sides - were actually oversized and you stripped a thin layer off the outside of the parallel sides as you rammed it home in the cylinder! Did Colt and the Starr revolvers do the same?

Pistol balls are made oversize so that they seal the chamber. A bit of lead is shaved off by the cylinder as the ball is rammed. This was the case for all the common revolvers like Colt, Remington, Whitney, etc. I can't speak to single shot pistols that used a rimmed cartridge or muzzle-loading pistols.

 

[Don Dixon]

On 31 January 1863, almost two years into the war, Captain Mallet issued a circular from the Confederate Central Laboratory at Macon, GA, pointing out that complaints had been received from the field that some cartridges contained bullets which were too large for the weapons in which they were intended to be used. He attributed this to the fact that the Confederate cartridge production laboratories did not have "standard measures of length" and gauges for bullets which agreed accurately among themselves. Since the Ordnance Bureau was supplying the arsenals and laboratories with their bullet moulds, gauges, and measuring devices, this was a significant logistical failure on the part of the Confederate ordnance establishment. The Confederate arsenals did not have a set of standard weights and measures until mid-1863, when Mallet discovered that the State of Alabama had a U.S. standard set in Montgomery. He directed the fabrication of a dozen brass rules, each 14X1¼X¼ inches. They were to be cast slightly oversize, hammered for hardness, and machined to size. He would mark the graduation himself based upon Alabama's standard set.

Mallet also directed the fabrication of a dozen one-pound [.4536 kg] weights, and a dozen one-ounce [28.35 gram] weights. They were cast in the standard laboratory shape, cylindrical with a knob on top, and turned down. Using weights borrowed from a druggist, the one-pound weights were finished within 10-15 grams of the druggist's weights, and the ounce weight within three or four grams. A one inch by one-quarter inch hole was drilled in the one-pound weight, and a one quarter by one-eighth inch hole in the one-ounce weight. The holes were threaded and fitted with flush screw plugs. Mallet then made the final adjustment of the weights himself using Alabama's U.S. standard weights and a delicate laboratory balance. In a 3 July 1863 letter, he observed that "the want of standard weights and measures at the Laboratories [is] quite pressing."

How could "competent" ordnance officers have run an ordnance establishment for two years with no standard set of weights and measures? One may expect weight and size variations in Confederate ammunition far beyond variations in the composition of the lead used in manufacture.

Regards,
Don Dixon

 

[Miker91]

How consistent and accurate are bullet measurements ? The source of the info I am using is the Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges by Dean and Jim Thomas.
My example is a .44 Colt Army bullet. The bullet has very little dirt or nicks. The Thomas book says the length is .67 and weight of 196 gr and caliber of .455. The bullet I was using is .67 in which is the same as the handbook. The weight on my digital scale is 207. I posed a similar question a year or so ago but didn't like the answer so I'm trying again (kidding). There are multiple issues at play I realize. Such as the accuracy of my scale, issues with a 165 year old piece of lead etc.

But my real point seems to be how valuable a tool for identification purposes is weight. I think very little. Is this a big Duh ?

Pictures to follow immediately.

 

[Miker91]

Many thanks to all of you that replied with great detailed information. I appreciate it. Anyone want my digital scale ?

 

[C. Cash]

How consistent and accurate are bullet measurements ? The source of the info I am using is the Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges by Dean and Jim Thomas.
My example is a .44 Colt Army bullet. The bullet has very little dirt or nicks. The Thomas book says the length is .67 and weight of 196 gr and caliber of .455. The bullet I was using is .67 in which is the same as the handbook. The weight on my digital scale is 207. I posed a similar question a year or so ago but didn't like the answer so I'm trying again (kidding). There are multiple issues at play I realize. Such as the accuracy of my scale, issues with a 165 year old piece of lead etc.

But my real point seems to be how valuable a tool for identification purposes is weight. I think very little. Is this a big Duh ?

Pictures to follow immediately.

44 percussion black powder revolvers are 45 caliber. Smokeless 44's are 43 caliber. Very few true 44 caliber anything except Remington Rolling block in 43 Spanish. Go figure!