Lead balls per pound.

Recently found this out, and find is very interesting that the 2 most common pistol calibers, 36, and 45 correspond to 100 and 50 balls respectively. Not sure if that's coincidence, or something that was taken into consideration in the days before elongated projectiles. Sure are a lot of 100ga pistols out there

Was .36 common before the Patterson or .44 prior to Walkers?

36cal/ 100bore was a thing well before the Patterson.

https://www.olympiaauctions.com/sales/arms-armour/as051212/view-lot/305/

Of course that's how we get guage numbers...12 ga is 12 balls/lb
20 ga is 20balls/lb.
Etc

Armored farmer said:

Of course that's how we get guage numbers...12 ga is 12 balls/lb
20 ga is 20balls/lb.
Etc

Click to expand...

Exactly, 12 balls, thats a dozen, makes sense, 16 balls...16 very common, 16, oz in 1 lb, its a highly divisible number, used for centuries in British currency, 20 ga, nice round number, 28 balls per lb.......uh.....idk....must be French

In revolvers, the 31 was probably the most popular caliber. It doesn’t fall in line with the 44/36 idea.

Kevin

bersaguy said:

Recently found this out, and find is very interesting that the 2 most common pistol calibers, 36, and 45 correspond to 100 and 50 balls respectively. Not sure if that's coincidence, or something that was taken into consideration in the days before elongated projectiles. Sure are a lot of 100ga pistols out there

Click to expand...

That doesn’t seem coincidental. It must have simplified logistics enormously to know an approximate weight per number of lead balls. It also accounts for the .36 Navy being more commonly used in union Army service with .44’s reserved mostly for troops facing horses (cavalry, dragoons). Twice as many shots for the same weight carried. If the .36 made the same enemy casualties with half the lead and 3/4 the powder, why waste resources going heavier?

It has also been mentioned that the weight of a conical bullet in the lesser caliber equaled the weight of the larger caliber round ball. Not sure if that has more meaning than gauges of round ball. To me, they are both arbitrary and meaningless.

Kevin

StrawHat said:

It has also been mentioned that the weight of a conical bullet in the lesser caliber equaled the weight of the larger caliber round ball. Not sure if that has more meaning than gauges of round ball. To me, they are both arbitrary and meaningless.

Kevin

Click to expand...

A 140 grain .36 conical over 21 grains of powder (a maximal loading) is nearly the same in terminal impact as a 147 grain .44 roundball over 21 grains of powder (a light loading), so there is a degree of overlap. Similar to the 9 mm vs. .45 acp debate, those who shoot the lighter caliber don’t see a necessity to upgrade for a mere 100 foot pounds extra, and those shooting the heavier caliber see no reason to shed that marginal ballistic advantage.