cast ball ??? .36

Y

yellowlegs

Inactive
ok. i have been getting to the range every monday. im learning as much as i can while resisting the impulse to buy everything i dont need\. i cast some .380 balls weeks ago and although i cant tell a diff in POA . mostly due to playing with too many varibles at once . i do notice that the ring shaved off dosent just fall off like the swagged .375 balls . the ,380 of my own casting seem to stay attached and get pushed in the cyl . i did dig some out but didnt seem to notice a diff
i just got the front site filed down almost half way , it brought poa up to level but still too many fliers . could someone with more exp. te;ll me if the ring forced round the ball is a real concern ..oh 58 rem .36


thanks ,Wally
 
I think the .380 ball is too large for the chamber. The ball is being deformed and the extra material is being molded or pushed towards the front of the ball as it is forced into the chamber. Kind of like the difference between shaving a piece of wood off a stick or taking a deep cut when whittling, if that makes any sense. This may be a concern in that the shape of the ball will be more like a conical, and the displaced lead may make the ball unbalanced.

I suspect you may have a significant mismatch between the chamber diameter and the barrel groove diameter. Ideally the chamber diameter should be 0.001" to 0.002" greater than the groove-to-groove diameter in the barrel. If the chamber diameter is smaller than the groove diameter there will be gas escaping past the ball in the barrel, reducing muzzle velocity and possibly affecting accuracy. I would slug the bore and chambers and check those dimensions.
 
yellowlegs said:
te;ll me if the ring forced round the ball is a real concern
Click to expand...

Is there any lead accumulating around the mouth of the barrel or in the forcing cone?
Is lead interfering with the cylinder turning?
The ball may be too large and noticeably affect accuracy or it may not be. :rolleyes:

What does your load consist of?
If the large balls were seriously affecting the accuracy then you should notice the difference in peformance when you switch balls.

How far away is the target?
Maybe it's too far away and if you bring it in closer then you will notice the difference in the size of the groups and flyers.
Then gradually move the target back to see where the group size for the different diameter balls start to spread apart and get worse.
Then you can get a better understanding of how the different balls perform and you can work on your shooting skills and loads at the same time.

Most folks say that the .36 Remington is a good shooter.
Just because the large balls are getting swagged and deformed doesn't mean that they're a major problem. If they don't shoot as good then maybe you can use those for shooting at closer range, and use the .375's for firing at longer range.
Did you ever measure or weigh any of the cast balls?
Their large size shouldn't matter too much but that's why I suggested to move the target in closer to see if they're really inaccurate or if there's another reason.
Try setting up the target at 5-7 yards. Then gradually move it out to 10, 12, 15 yards etc... to gather more information about their performance.
 
Last edited:
Articap + 1

on the reduced distance to the target.

When I am new to a revolver, I use less than 15 and go out to 25.
 
no the ring is nowhere to be found . i do understand the wood whittle comparison. ive had the same results with both .375 and .380 . at 25 yds i can put 6 in a 4 in pattern 3 hi and 3 low . thjanks youy guys . i read all i can and have learned lots
 
I heard the same advice and bought some large .380 balls and my observation has been that the larger ball made no difference. All it did is make ramming the ball more difficult and make thick lead rings stick to the rammer!
No I do own a 1851 Uberti which has one apparentlly large chamber and even the grease accumulated on the raammer sucks the ball forward as I load it. I think these larger balls might work in that particular chamber as I fear that it allows the ball to creep forward during the firing cycle.
The revolver is now broken-down with a broken hand spring, and when I get it fixed, I am going to try the .380's in this gun and particuarlly that chamber!
I think that the standard .375 balls will work just fine in most .36 revolvers and there is no significant advantage to the miniscule weight gain of the .380 balls.
Remember each ball is sized as you ram the ball home and it dosen't expand to the rifling, like an airgun pellet's base when fired.
I am just being lazy and haven't mic'ed the chambers on my .36's. I think that everyone should as it is the only proper way to know which balls to use. Generally speaking, the manufacturers make the chambers to proper specifications. They try really hard to keep Q/C in order and make proper sized chambers.
I think some of the stories we newcomers read are just old wives tales or maybe "fixes" (Like I need on the Uberti cylinder) and we strive to shoot our guns at optimum levels. I know I do and I think sometimes I go too far trying to make each shot exact. These are production revolvers and maybe we should expect just production preformance from them...
JMHO,
ZVP
 
The .380 is NOT too large for the .36 chamber. It will do just fine.
The .375 inch balls are marginal, often offering little more than a slip fit in the chambers of some revolvers. Years ago, I began using .380 inch balls to simplify my stock and stopped buying .375 balls.
The .380 ball, when rammed into the chamber, creates a wider bearing band than the .375 inch ball. This keeps the ball from moving in the chamber from the recoil of firing the other chambers.
It may also aid accuracy, once again that wider bearing band offering a greater surface area for the rifling to grip.
In any case, the .380 ball does no harm.
As for being harder to seat in the chamber, the difference is negligible. Yeah, you can tell the difference but it doesn't put any appreciably greater strain on the rammer than using a .375 inch ball.
Yes, it does cut a full ring of lead that tends to cling to the rammer but this is a minor inconvenience to ensure that the ball stays put in the chamber and offers greater obturation (sealing) in the bore.
It takes a second to flick off the offending ring of lead with your fingernail or a small screwdriver. If you care to bother with it at all.
For some revolvers, .375 inch works fine. But for others, it's simply too small. My Colt 2nd generation 1851 Navy has chambers of .373 to .374 inch. For it, I use the .380 ball. My other .36s use the .380 with equal aplomb, though some might get by with the .375 inch.
Were I you, I'd stick with the .380 balls if you can. Nothing is harmed by doing so, and there are real benefits to using a slightly larger ball.
 
The .380 is NOT too large for the .36 chamber. It will do just fine.
Click to expand...
With respect, that's not always true. There are exceptions. I don't know if that's the case here or not - as I said, it's just a suspicion. Without knowing the actual dimensions it's difficult to say.

If the .380 ball is not too large, what do you think is causing the situation described by the OP, and what would your answer to the OP's question be?
 
yellowlegs Post #1 said:
i just got the front site filed down almost half way , it brought poa up to level but still too many fliers . could someone with more exp. te;ll me if the ring forced round the ball is a real concern ..oh 58 rem .36
Click to expand...

yellowlegs Post 35 said:
ive had the same results with both .375 and .380 . at 25 yds i can put 6 in a 4 in pattern 3 hi and 3 low
Click to expand...

There doesn't really seem to be a problem, except for some occasional flyers which considering the 25 yard distance could even be due to shooter's error.
 
Last edited:
I know the .380 is a real tight fit in my Piettia Police chambers, the difficulty ramming such a tight fitting ball (With the short rammer) into that cylinder makes them not worth it. The .375's still shave a nice ring when rammed and seem to seal well.
Perhaps the .380 dosen't fit all chambers universally due to minor machieneing variances and it maybe makes sense to have a supply of both?
I know that in my case, I need both sizes which is OK for me. Perhaps when I get my Piettia London fixed, they will work in it better as the chambers of the Uberti seem to be a looser fit.
Heck, Lead Balls are cheap enough to stock both in your shooting box and use the appropriate ones.
A good point was brought up about the hardness of the Lead. Maybe the .380's I have are a harder alloy?
ZVP
 
The Original Poster (OP) wrote: "... i do notice that the ring shaved off dosent just fall off like the swagged .375 balls . the ,380 of my own casting seem to stay attached and get pushed in the cyl ."

I don't understand the problem.
Is he concerned that a larger ring is left by using the .380 ball? How does the larger ring of the .380 ball manage to get pushed into the cylinder?

If anything, the ring left by the .380 ball will cling to the rammer. So, flick it off with a fingernail or small screwdriver blade. This is a common occurrence, even with .375 inch balls.

Sometimes, the cut ring will remain on the top of the cylinder face, and if enough of these rings pile up against the gap between the cylinder and rear of the barrel, as the cylinder is rotated by cycling, it can cause dragging of the cylinder while cocking.

I still don't understand how the ring cut from the .380 inch ball somehow manages to get pushed into the cylinder, when the .375 doesn't.
His description needs clarification.

I just .380 inch balls almost exclusively. Never had a problem with them, and the oversized ball adheres better to the walls of the chambers in my revolvers.
It seems that accuracy is slightly better in some guns too. I first posted this observation about 1999 on the internet, and postulated that the larger ball, when rammed into the chamber, creates a wider bearing band.
This, I suggested, gives more of an area for the rifling to grip, and aids the sealing of the ball in the bore (obturation).
Many have repeated these suggestions as fact. Though I once did too, I've realized that I have no means to prove these suggestions. They sound reasonable enough but I'll stop short of stating them as fact.


An exception to the .380 balls in my inventory is an old ASM 1862 Colt pocket revolver that, because of so little clearance between the frame and rammer, I can't quite get a .380 ball to rotate under the rammer. But a .375 ball will. Barely.
No matter, the .375 ball works okay in the 1862. I don't shoot this revolver much, so it's not a concern.

But for all other .36s, I use the .380 ball. For some, because of their larger chambers, it's required; the .375 ball is nearly a slip fit in some of my revolvers.
To simplify my inventory, I just use .380 inch balls in all but the one revolver.

As for rings of lead clinging to the rammer. That is a common occurence with either .375 or .380 inch balls. I'll continue using .380 balls, for the benefits stated above.
 
Some pistoleros use triple aught (000) buckshot. It is .36 cal. and loads just fine. I know ml rifle shooters who use it. One 25 lb sack will last for a lot of shooting.
 
Rifleman1776 said:
Some pistoleros use triple aught (000) buckshot. It is .36 cal. and loads just fine.
Click to expand...

Would that be in a single shot pistol or a C&B revolver?
I wonder what brand of C&B had such small chambers?
.375's are reportedly too loose for use in most Uberti .36 revolvers, and Pietta's cut a very thin ring with the .375's.
Maybe the buck shot is oversized or the revolver chambers are undersized, tapered or out of spec., and the balls are somehow getting swagged when rammed deeper into the chamber?
Either way it would be a good idea to try the brand of 000 buckshot in the individual C&B before buying such a large bag of them. :rolleyes:

http://www.shotgunworld.com/ammo_s082000.html
 
Last edited:
I still don't understand how the ring cut from the .380 inch ball somehow manages to get pushed into the cylinder, when the .375 doesn't.
His description needs clarification.
Click to expand...
I certainly agree with that. I assumed, from his description, that he wasn't getting a cut ring with the .380. Rather, the ball was deformed, or obdurated, by the excess lead cold flowing to form a sort of 'collar' on the front face of the ball. I've had this happen with significantly oversize soft lead slugs used to measure barrel and chamber dimensions. But that's just guessing. As you noted, it's not really clear what's happening.
 
i havent read replys for a while :mykeal your last post is dead on the ring follows the ball in the chamber and creates a "collar" in front of the ball
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top