[sltm1]

After casting your rb's, take about 50 at a time and put them in a 1lb coffee tin (not plastic), replace the lid and shake'em like an oldtime bartender makin' a martini. Check'em every now and then till you get the dimpling you desire.

[BobOfTheFuture]

educate me, why do you want dimpling?

[sltm1]

The swaging (dimpling), smooths out irregularities, like the spru mark or even a light mold seam line. Also, why is dimpling so important on a gold ball....it creates a more stabilized flight.

[BobOfTheFuture]

Ok. Interesting. Wouldnt think the dimples would matter with a spinning ball...

[sltm1]

Something about the aeronautics that's way beyond my understanding, but I know the golf industry has poured lots of money into the theory.

[husker]

what about the store bought balls?

[arcticap]

Swaging is using a stamp or die to shape the metal while cold so that there are no voids in the metal.
Sometimes cast balls have air pockets so swagged store bought balls are usually more uniform and consistent.
Commercial balls are not intentionally dimpled, but some folks do like to rough up the surface of their balls using various methods.

[sltm1]

OK, now I'm confused. The swaged round balls I've seen, or though I saw, had a lighty dented and tumbled look to them. Never too old to learn or look stupid....that's my motto.

[arcticap]

The Hornady's often look dented and measure to be slightly less round than Speer balls. I'm not sure why, it's either due to their manufacturing method or cheaper packaging.
But the Hornady's also seem a little larger over all and do shoot well.
And the Speer's are very smooth.

[madcratebuilder]

Never too old to learn or look stupid....that's my motto.

Yes, been their, done that.:banghead:

[BCRider]

On a golf ball the dimples help the air to stick to the surface of the ball better so the air tends to curve around farther before it separates from the surface and forms a turbulent wake. A smooth ball leaves a far bigger wake because the air spearates from the smooth surface almost immediately after passing the "waist" of the ball. Smaller wake means less drag and a longer and flatter trajectory. However in the case of golf balls it also means that the dimples make the ball easier to pull to the side if the club puts a side spin on it.

The small dimples you'll get from tumbling your balls in a can (STOP LAUGHING ! ! ! !...... perverts.... ) likely won't do much aerodynamiclly. However if this process evens up the surface then some good may come of it. Hard to say without back to back testing for drop over distance and careful controll over other variables. And a big vise or really rigid benchrest to ensure the gun sits exactly the same for each shot. The ol' Mark 1 eyeball and Mark 0.5 (and falling) shoulder and arm muscles aren't going to cut it for this level of testing.

At last, my 40 some odd years of model airplane designing and building aids my shooting hobby.... :D

[Shotgun Willy]

I think I'll run some of my Lee-mold-cast balls in my ballmill for a while. Maybe I can stop worrying about where the flat spot on the ball is, when loading.

[scrat]

lol hahahhahahahaha

[Hawkeye748]

If you want round balls, go to your hardware store and get 2 twelve inch slate floor tiles. Build a border near the edge high enough to keep the balls on the slate, but smaller than the diameter of the ball. I use nylon rope.

Put 20-40 balls on the slate with the rim. Put the other slate on top of the balls. Rotate the top slate 35 times clockwise and then 35 times counter clockwise. At the end, your balls will be uniformly round with no more than a .001 plus or minus. No sprue marks or mould lines.

I do rough my balls up. I apply the lube directly to my balls. Works well in my Smoothbore. Won a N-SSA Expert class National aggregate and many team medals.

Don't know if it will help you patch round ball shooters and pistol shooters, but it is what works for me.

[4v50 Gary]

Dimpling a round ball is different from swaging it. Within a practical range, I doubt if it makes any difference in the exterior ballistics of the ball.

[RON in PA]

When you put a patched round ball down a barrel it will be engraved with the lands and often in my experience the weave of the fabric. If you are shooting a cap and ball revolver and using a ball of proper diameter it will be swaged into a less than round elongated shape. So what's the point of putting dimples on your projectiles to begin with. Also the aerodynamics of a slow velocity golf ball are different than those of a comparatively speaking high velocity round ball of high density.

[BCRider]

Actually the aerodynamics are a lot closer than you'd think.

Yes, in real terms the speed of the gun's ball is far different from the speed of a golf ball. But there's a term called Reynolds number that is used to compare sizes of objects and airspeed. It's based on the fact that the air behaves differently on objects of different sizes and speeds. Aerodynamicists have used this property for decades to test models of full sized airplanes in windtunnels in a way that the results are directly applicable.

When we look at the Reynolds number of the golf and gun balls they are not all that different. A .45 round ball at 800fps has a Reynolds number of 169.K. At 900fps this rises to 191K A golf ball coming off a driver at 160mph (Tiger Woods has been clocked at 175'ish mph or 256 fps) has a Reynolds number of 185K. In the world of aerodynamics a difference in Reynolds numbers of around 15K at these amounts is so small as to be virtually nothing. So despite the appearances the air actually sees these two balls as amazingly similar. The only real odd factor is the amount of spin and what this does to the airflow.

The results of adding some form of turbulator groove or dimples to the balls would depend on knowing if the airflow around the ball is separating early from the surface and creating a big wake or if the marks from the rifling and patch weave along with the high spin rate are causing some effects. Only some testing at the range or in a wind tunnel would answer that question. And I, for one, think that a day of shooting tests at the range would be far more fun than a day at a wind tunnel in the company of a bunch of stuffy guages and computers.... :D

One day when I have some time to make up a stable platform that allows me to accurately position the barrel for multiple shots I'm going to have to try this out. Both as a test of how consistent my loads are as well as playing with ideas like adding turbulation dents or grooves to the balls.

From reading about the effect of the sprue nubs the general opinion seems to be that where you put the sprue matters. But of course that's more a case of wobbling weight issues than aerodynamics. So forming the balls to make them more spherical sure isn't going to hurt. I like that plate idea.

[Cosmoline]

Don't you have to have some regularity in the dimples? The physics are beyond me, but it seems that random pock marks will only make the RB's unstable. You'd need to have very precise dimples like a golf balls, wouldn't you?

[BCRider]

Nope, the pattern doesn't need to be regular other than a "more or less" thing. The idea is just to create the correct size of "roughness" that the air tends to stick to the surface for a longer time.

Folks that don't know about why the golf balls use dimples often say that airplanes and cars should have the same surface. But the whole surface does not need the pattern. Just the area immediately in front of where the airflow would normally separate and pull away leaving a turbulent wake. Because our rifle and pistol balls are spinning due to the rifling we don't need or want overall dimples. Instead IF (Note the caps) there was something to be gained from adding turbulators to our lead balls we would only need to put some dents or grooves in a ring around the waist of the ball just ahead of the fattest part. Obviously because these rings of dents or grooves would be directional sensitive the ball would need to be placed so they sit right at the muzzle before being pushed home. I think this is one place where my revolver would be better since I can push the balls in and then visually check that they didn't rotate out of alignment. Or the ones that did can be shot over to one side so they don't get included with the results.

The big "IF" is the question of whether or not the airflow around the waist is already being turbulated by the rifling grooves. The simple way to find out is dent and groove a sample of balls and shoot them from a fixed rest out to 100 yards and see how far the drop from POA is. If the airflow around regular smooth balls was suffering from early separation then the turbulated balls will hold their speed longer and drop less over a given distance for the same muzzle velocity. If the regular smooth balls are already enjoying proper turbulation leading to a smaller wake then the regular and test balls will all have the same amount of drop.

We talked about this in another thread a couple of months back but obviously the folks then haven't picked up a supply of "round tuits" any more than I have. One day though.... one day.

[Smokin_Gun]

Good stuff here SLTM1. I'm gonna try a two stage test...Lee Molded basically spruless balls 6 shots the way i normally load them sprueless flat spot forward , then 6 loaded at radom with out a sprue location. See what if any differance there may be at POI.
Part two would be a test of frontal chain fires during the 2nd loading method.
Ya keep me thinkin' and that's a good thing. :O)

[madcratebuilder]

because these rings of dents or grooves would be directional sensitive the ball would need to be placed so they sit right at the muzzle before being pushed home. I think this is one place where my revolver would be better since I can push the balls in and then visually check that they didn't rotate out of alignment.

You could possibly machine a lip in the ram rod part of the loading lever that would form this lip when you ram the ball. Interesting stuff. I may have to try that slate tile trick.

[Acorn Mush]

+1 on the slate tile trick, if you can get perfectly flat tile. If you can't find flat slate, maybe try marble tile.

I (being cheap) use a couple of 12"x12" pieces of old Formica countertop. Using some old pine wood trim, I put a small ball-retaining edge around the perimeter of one piece. Works just like Hawkeye748 says. Smoothes out the sprue nubs on the balls cast from my Lee molds to the point where it is sometimes very difficult for me to even find them.

[alemonkey]

I've always wanted to put balls in a rock tumbler for a few hours to get rid of the sprues, then take them out and shoot them along side some un-tumbled ones to see if there's a difference. One of these days.

[messerist]

I can't remember what publication I saw it in so forgive me but the information in the book was that if you take two 1/2" thick glass plates 12"X12" and place several balls between the plates and perform the same as you would with the tile method mentioned earlier you get nice uniform balls. I think the book may have been in the Foxfire series or a early edition of Sam Fadals' Black Powder Shooting.

[BCRider]

The only advantage to slate or a nice flat ceramic tile with a flat finish is that the grabbier surface would roll the balls where the smoothness of glass may tend to let them skid instead of rolling over the sprue. Of course if they are cut pretty close to begin with this shouldn't be an issue.

[Oyeboten]

I always though the Sprue-nub should be at the rear...

[Smokin_Gun]

It's easier to center it with the sprue cut facing you when you load it. That's about as exact you can get with 6 when you see it placed in the cylinder...

[fyrfyter43]

I've tried tumbling balls cast using both Lee and Lyman moulds in a rock tumbler for up to 4 hours. While it knocks the sprue down somewhat, I can always find where it was. The balls come out with a slight egg shape to them. Tumbling will knock down the sharp edges of the sprue and parting lines, but won't displace the lead enough to give a truly concentric round ball.

I have tried shooting tumbled and non-tumbled balls side by side. Off a rest at 25 yards with a C&B and at longer ranges (out to 100 yards) with a rifle. Groups loaded without regard to the sprue position were significantly bigger every single time. At 100 yards with a rifle, many of the balls didn't even hit the paper. The tumbled balls did give similar groups to the non-tumbled balls as long as I still positioned the sprue to the front. There certainly was no improvement in accuracy using tumbled balls.

In short, I won't bother tumbling balls anymore. The only benefit that I expected (being able to load without regard to the sprue), simply didn't happen.