What's your go-to round ball?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I made one paper towel sheet tonight. Just one makes a pile of discs. Thanks for re-sharing.

Probably won't get around to it this weekend, hopefully next weekend I may get to try them. Any issue with them contaminating powder when used under ball?

rps20200214_233702.jpg
 
Heres what they look like... ive introduced these to other people and everyone who has tried them has given me positive feedback. Most make it their permanent method.
View attachment 891951
Heres what the lube sheets look like before punching out the discs.
View attachment 891952 View attachment 891953
Yes! These are great! I use them whenever I expect an extended range session. If only hunting or a short plinking session, I might not use lube at all.

@SlowFuse no problems with contamination of the charge. None that I can detect.
 
Mr.woodnbow sir, thank you for giving my method a try and sharing your positive review of them.

Mr.slowfuse, ive never had powder contamination whatsoever...but i also make my disks from a very hard lube with high beeswax content. Although when i put them in my paper cartridges i separate the powder and lube disk with a single disk of wax paper. That thin wax paper layer guarantees no contamination during long term storage even if they are stored in an area that gets higher temps. These thin lube disks are all thats needed to properly lube the arbor and keep the fouling soft and ive noticed that since they are thin they disintegrate easier and faster ensuring that they do their job.
 
What @Old Stumpy said made me think of something. Even if the bottom pour isnt malfunctioning would it make any sense to get a bottom pour and just not use that feature if I wanted to ladel pour? Then I would have the option to do both. Sorry if that's a stupid question, I've never seen one in action to know how they work.

Not a stupid question at all. The trouble with dipping from a bottom-pour pot is that the mechanism gets in way of the ladle, at least on the Lee version that I use.

I have and use both ladle-pour and bottom-pour furnaces. Ladle-pour is more consistent, with big single-shot conicals. I sincerely doubt it makes any difference with revolver balls. Bottom-pour is faster, and that may make a big difference for the high volume revolver shooter. In your shoes, I would buy a Lee bottom-pour furnace and call it done. (I generally dislike Lee products, but my 20 pound capacity bottom-pour furnace has functioned adequately for 35 years so far...)

<Edit> Just in case you decide to go the dipping route, the Rowell bottom-pour ladle is by far the best I have used. It makes for much more consistent pours, reducing my (very nitpicky) rejection rate on 500+ grain rifle conical bullets by more than half.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the input on dipping in a bottom pour.

the Rowell bottom-pour ladle is by far the best I have used. It makes for much more consistent pours, reducing my (very nitpicky) rejection rate on 500+ grain rifle conical bullets by more than half.

I've heard good things about the Rowell ladles. I'm guessing the smallest #1 would suffice for most things?
 
I'm pretty sure that's what I am using. (I bought it a long time ago.) The #2 appears to be standard with most folks but the #1 holds thousands of grains of lead and fits nicely into the pot.
 
I ended up going with a bottom pour.

Lee pro 20lb pot and a Lyman ladle on the way, along with a couple of molds. If the Lyman doesn't fit well for ladle pouring will probably add another standard pot eventually. Thanks for the input.
 
.454 Hornady balls seem to work the best in my Pietta 1858 revolvers.
.457 are just too tight and smaller ones then the .454 are not accurate.
I have my own casting equipment that one of these days I am going to
set up and start making bullets from. First will be my .54 cal
Minie Balls for my flintlock rifle since they are hard to find in stock
at any of the shooting stores here or online.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top