Brass mold results

[Kappe]

Just spent the last few hours casting with my new .36 caliber brass mold.
The first mold had a pretty substantial gap between the halves, and I had a thread about it a while back, but I figured the results of this one deserve its own thread.

Made sure to slick it up with some oil when I got it, smoked the cavities with a couple matches, used a heavy pair of gloves, and went to town.
I'll tell you, I'm normally a slow caster, but fumbling with these tiny, hot brass handles with a heavy pair of gloves makes dexterity basically non-existent, so I was glacially slow today.
I only managed 24 round balls and 30 conicals in a little over an hour of casting.

The mold heated up fast though and retained heat well. I didn't have any problems filling them nicely.



They sure are some pretty boolits



From left to right, Lee 375-130 conical, brass mold conical, brass mold round ball, Hornady swaged round ball.

The conical drops pretty consistently at 140 grains. None were below 139 and none above 141. The Lee 375-130 from my same lead drops at around 123 grains.
The round ball dropped consistently at 86 grains.

The conical fits right into the loading gate on my Uberti Navy, but just barely. I actually had to remove the barrel assembly to retrieve the bullet.

Now if only I could find my micrometer, I'd give you guys the diameter

[saltydog452]

Just think of the fun you would have had in using a single cavity mould about the size of a set of pliers, a bandana to hold the handles, and doing all of this over an open campfire.

Its amazing to me how bullets were cast that would fly true in the big bore 50s.

Thanks for your post.

salty

[Kappe]

@salty Yeah... sounds like alot of fun
The people back in the 1800s who could cast with these things over a campfire were probably the same people who shot buffalo and grizzly bears with .44 Henrys

Anyway, finally found my micrometer and measured them. The conicals on average measure a whopping .384!!
Hopefully that won't be too much to shave off and end up mashing the bullet nose. On the plus side the rammer seems to fit the bullet nose pretty nicely.
The heels measure about .361.

The round balls are more oblong in shape than round, and vary between .378 and .382 perpendicular to the sprue.

Both seem usable to me and I'll try to go out and shoot them this weekend.

[swathdiver]

Does your Uberti like .375s? Most I've seen need or do best with .380s.

Great job on the casting, brass is best material but these little molds are more for show then cranking out lead.

[DD4lifeusmc]

who made the mould? where did you get it?
How about a picture?
Not to hijack the threadm but..................................
I have a couple Aluminum Lee moulds for calibers and styles that people want.
But I much prefer the Steels moulds.
Seem to hold up longer.
The standard lee handles that come with their single and double cavity moulds are just too light weight for me. Plus with time have alignment troubles and the lead sticks to the aluminum easier than with the steel.
I get mostly Lyman moulds.
But I have a Pedersoli for the 1859 -1863 54 sharps
Lyman in the 50 and 54 and in the .454 and .380 rb
Moose Mould for the Smith 50 cal
and two accurate moulds in the 45-190 and 45-195.
BTW I do sell cast bullets pure lead in all the sizes I cast.
Going to add 58 minie next month I think.
Then will be Lymans 50 and 54 cal conicals
PM me if interested.

[maillemaker]

I agree that steel molds seem to hold up better, especially in terms of galling where parts rub against each other, but I have had good success with my Lee .454 round ball mold. It cuts a very flush sprue.

Steve

[Kappe]

@swathdiver My chambers mike exactly .375. I can and have used .375 diameter round balls for a long time, but they don't shave off a perfect ring of lead. More like a sliver.

.380s would probably work best, but I don't have a .380 mold. And Hornady and Speer don't make them.

@DD4lifeusmc The mold is made by Pedersoli. I got it from Dixie Gun Works.
You can see it open in the background of the bullet pics, but here's a standalone pic.

[swathdiver]

A .375 ball in a .375 chamber could get you some creep with large loads.

You can buy .380 rb from Track of the Wolf, good stuff, I shoot them in my ASM Pocket Police which has .374 chambers.

A .380 round ball mold I'll get someday but I do have and shoot .380 Kaido conicals; they're great!

[DD4lifeusmc]

the picture of the mould in the back ground was all blurry that's why I asked.
I cast .380 RB.
Nice looking mould, But I'm sure the handles get hot as you said.
When casting I normally cast 30 to 50 at a time then set the mould down for a few minutes to cool a little. I still only get about 60 or so per hour.

[enyaw]

If a person were to straighten the handles of the mould a bit and drill some pieces of broom stick to tap onto the handles the handles woud be longer and not get real hot.

[davem]

I have one I bought years ago in Gettysburg but the halves didn't seem to fit that close together so I've never used it- I thought I would get "angel wings" on the balls.

[Kappe]

Finally got to going out and shooting. Weather hasn't been friendly.



I used 20 grains FFFg for the round ball, 16 for the conical. Where you can see the "2" I wrote is where two conicals went through the same hole.
This is pretty comparable to what I've done with Hornady .375 swaged balls, and better than what my Lee 375-130s do.

The conicals took a generous amount of elbow grease to seat. Look at this beast that came off one of them!

[Rifleman1776]

They sure are some pretty boolits

Sorry. Can't agree. You need more heat.
Actually, those import brass moulds look good on a shelf but are not for serious casting.
My feeling is pretty universal. Steel, like Lyman, are best but very expensive.
Aluminum, like Lee, work just fine and are affordable.

[Kappe]

@Rifleman1776 Any more heat and those handles would be able to burn a hole straight to the center of the earth.

And yes, I know these molds aren't for serious casting. I wanted one because I wanted to cast more authentic conicals.

[Rifleman1776]

kappe, I don't know where you got the notion about "more authentic" for conicals. But that is yer bizness.
FWIW, Lee makes a pistol mould that has both conicals and round balls. I had one but let it go with the gun when I sold my Ruger Old Army.
We all make choices. Is burning yer hands more authentic?

[maillemaker]

kappe, I don't know where you got the notion about "more authentic" for conicals.

I believe he is talking about the authentic heeled style of conical bullet. I don't know any sources for molds to produce this style of bullet.

Steve

[Kappe]

Yes I am. Look up some pictures of original Colt bullet molds. I think you'll find the conical cavities look very much like the bullets dropped from these brass molds.
The Lee 375-130 on the other hand, which I do have and is quite okay, resembles nothing that ever existed in the 19th century, as far as cap & ball revolvers are concerned.

[davem]

Good thread. I think there is an interest in reproducing an original. The originals as far as I have learned could have a heel that either did or did not have a rebated collar around the base. This rebate accomodated a combustible case made of paper or fish gut, or the like. The shape on the original conical was with a long pointy tip. If you have an old Dixie Gun Works catalog- they used to sell historically correct bullets. They aren't in the catalog but there is a good chance the mold is still there and maybe they can cast some for you.
As far as accuracy, the conicals usually used today aren't so pointy and the driving band area is longer which keeps runout under control as the bullet is rammed/seated.
What I find interesting is about historically correct molds. As I said, maybe 10 years ago I was at Gettysburg and there was a 36 caliber mold that had one cavity for a round ball and one for a conical and it was brass with short handles. I bought it because I thought it looked historically accurate and would look good in the bag I carry for my revolver tools, etc. BUT now that it has been brought up- I have no idea what the pistol molds of the day were like. I am TOLD (always dangerous) that certain rifle makers cut off an inch from the barrel when making a rifle and used that to make a same-bore size bullet mold- but whether that is true or how you cast a round ball from such a mold- I have no idea.
So, what were the molds like at the time?
And, check with Dixie Gun Works on pc patterns.
Shaved ring of lead- if the ball is just slightly oversized and swages into the bore with out the ring- seems okay as long as the ball is tight.

[maillemaker]

A great book, perhaps the definitive resource, on period ammunition is the 4-volume series "Round Ball to Rimfire" by Dean S. Thomas.

Volume 3 deals with Federal pistol and revolver ammunition.

Bullets were made by arsenals and private contractors. They were cast and swaged. Swaged bullets generally gave better quality than cast. Machines were invented during the Civil War to automatically produce bullets from lead wire, cutting them and swaging them.

It may well be discovered that "exact" replicas of any particular period ammunition may not shoot well in modern reproduction arms. For example, Colt revolvers had gain-twist rifling that started off slow and sped up as you approached the muzzle. Also the rate of twist may not match today's reproductions. If a reproduction has a twist optimized for round ball it may not shoot authentic conical bullets well.

Early in the war, revolver cartridges were made up like tiny musket cartridges - a paper envelope that contained the powder and the ball, and the cartridge was torn open, the powder poured in the chamber, and the ball forced in on top. This was found to be tedious and difficult to get the powder into the chamber. Later paper combustible cartridges were made where the entire package could be pushed into the chamber.

Steve

[davem]

Thanks Steve- I didn't know that. I thought all the pistol ammunition during the Civil War (at least for the North) was the combustible type.