WinterSoldier
April 24th, 2013, 02:25 PM
Oh, to have all of the money in the world... or, well... not to be GREEDY... just maybe HALF of it. You guys can share the rest!
You see, if you've got money laying around and nothing better to do... bullet moulds are pretty much in the category of "durable goods", no many how many mis-placed words like "antique" or "Confederate" get stuck on them by enterprising marketers they usually aren't all that expensive, and by and large the ones old enough to really be "antique" or "Confederate" aren't necessarily very utilitarian anymore anyway... and I don't know about other folks... but I don't buy 'em just for the sake of lookin' at 'em! Aaaaaand I've got some, but if I had more money I'd have more old moulds.
I've got a little knock-off copy of a popular British design from the mid-19th century, probably made in Belgium, that I paid like $15 for, that makes just the cutest lil' lopsided-as-hell .36 cal. "round" balls for a Navy revolver. I cast up a few a year ago and intended to try them out to see what kind of accuracy or inaccuracy they produced. Surely a poor man back then might have had to use such poor tools... and it would be interesting to see what poor results he got, if I ever get around to it.
But I picked up a mould not quite so old a couple of weeks ago. It was marked .32-40 S.R., with no makers' mark. I believe that the "S.R". stood for Winchester 1892 "Saddle Ring" Carbine, which was made in .32-20 caliber, a Winchester caliber dating back to 1882 (and also called .32 WCF... Winchester Center Fire)... not .32-40 which started out as in 1884 as a design intended for Ballard single shot rifles. The .32-20 was also used by Marlin for rifles/carbines starting in 1886, and Colt also chambered pistols for it. Altogether I'm not particularly interested in any of the guns this caliber was chambered for "back when"... but the main difference between .32-20 and .32-40 was that one held 20 grains of gunpowder (black powder) and the other held 40 grains... which because black powder cases could have no air space, would mean a longer case for the .32-40. There were also some differences in the bullet weights typically used for the two calibers, but interestingly this mould is for a bullet far lighter than any I found reference to so far. I'm confused about what this mold was intended for and can only guess at who made it or when, but I kind of think it was Winchester... and a damn long time ago. It superficially looks like any one-gang mold made today but a closer look reveals that it isn't... because the "mold blocks" and steel parts of the handles are all made as one continuous piece of metal, which must have complicated manufacture considerably. This is not the only mould I have that was manufactured this way, and all of them appear to be very old. I would very roughly date them to maybe 1890-1920, but that's just a vague guess. In any event, whoever bought this mould new could have been my grandpa, or great grandpa, and I'm no spring chicken myself.
So, if I don't have any guns like that, what do I want this mould for? Well... first a word about calibers. "Caliber' means a lot, and next to nothing. It's not really as specific as it appears because it is a number, and numbers are specific. But exactly what was measured to get that number? Practices have always varied worldwide and all things considered it won't do at all to assume anything about a bullet's actual diameter based on it's "caliber" designation. For instance, a .38 or .357 cartridge revolver generally takes the about the same diameter of bullet previously used for .36 cap and ball handguns, most 9mm handguns take bullets maddeningly about 2/100" smaller, their respective sizes being actually .358" and .356"... BUT the 9mm Makarov takes a .365 bullet AND most .32 caliber guns take a .311/.312 diameter bullet... but these .32 Winchester/Ballad/Colt guns are made to shoot .32 bullets, which pretty much the same as what is usually called 8mm, or something like 8mm... such as 7.5mm. The oddball out here is the Martini Cadet, which was chamber for what was called .310 Greener... but it's actual diameter was about .32 and the case was a similar size, so many Martini Cadets that came to the U.S. as surplus have been rechambered to .32-20.
Now that you get the idea that "caliber" is a thoroughly wishy-washy concept that has to be paid considerable attention to because minor differences or even apparent samenesses aren't necessarily so... what I want it for is this... it's an unusual bullet design that appears very useful for making bullets for some of my pistols chambered in 7.5mm or after pushing them through a sizer or lubrisizer and resizing a bit smaller, also 7.62mm, which, since I'm talking about the Russian version of 7.62mm which is .311 instead of the U.S. version that is .308. Bullets from this mould also have a large grease groove which will be useful with antique (black powder) handguns. I cast a few in the cool morning and they came out in .325 diameter at 97 grains in soft lead... and I swear that although this mould was old and in somewhat rough shape... I had to soak in vinegar the better part of a day to get some rust off of the mating surfaces and there was some inside of the cavity, too... and there is a very small bit of light pitted roughness on one side of the "product"... that, after the vinegar soak and burning some matches to get soot back in the cavities... this mould is the ONLY mold I've EVER used from which I did not cast even one single "bad" bullet. I've had moulds that I threw out (recycled) the first hundred bullets and was still making crappy ones after that. I cast 61 bullets, and every single one of them was not if quite perfect, perfectly acceptable to me. Some actually were about as "perfect" as a cast bullet ever gets. They are all going downrange from SOMETHING. I'm thinking 1886 Nagant revolver for sure and maybe 1895 Nagant revolver, Martini Cadet... maybe even SKS. It's not a gas check design but it has a beveled base and the shank is so short I think maybe I can cram gas checks on... we will see.
I can only wonder who, when, where, how many... what for? The previous users of this very same mould... I can almost see them hovering over me, inspecting my work to see that I did it right.
You see, if you've got money laying around and nothing better to do... bullet moulds are pretty much in the category of "durable goods", no many how many mis-placed words like "antique" or "Confederate" get stuck on them by enterprising marketers they usually aren't all that expensive, and by and large the ones old enough to really be "antique" or "Confederate" aren't necessarily very utilitarian anymore anyway... and I don't know about other folks... but I don't buy 'em just for the sake of lookin' at 'em! Aaaaaand I've got some, but if I had more money I'd have more old moulds.
I've got a little knock-off copy of a popular British design from the mid-19th century, probably made in Belgium, that I paid like $15 for, that makes just the cutest lil' lopsided-as-hell .36 cal. "round" balls for a Navy revolver. I cast up a few a year ago and intended to try them out to see what kind of accuracy or inaccuracy they produced. Surely a poor man back then might have had to use such poor tools... and it would be interesting to see what poor results he got, if I ever get around to it.
But I picked up a mould not quite so old a couple of weeks ago. It was marked .32-40 S.R., with no makers' mark. I believe that the "S.R". stood for Winchester 1892 "Saddle Ring" Carbine, which was made in .32-20 caliber, a Winchester caliber dating back to 1882 (and also called .32 WCF... Winchester Center Fire)... not .32-40 which started out as in 1884 as a design intended for Ballard single shot rifles. The .32-20 was also used by Marlin for rifles/carbines starting in 1886, and Colt also chambered pistols for it. Altogether I'm not particularly interested in any of the guns this caliber was chambered for "back when"... but the main difference between .32-20 and .32-40 was that one held 20 grains of gunpowder (black powder) and the other held 40 grains... which because black powder cases could have no air space, would mean a longer case for the .32-40. There were also some differences in the bullet weights typically used for the two calibers, but interestingly this mould is for a bullet far lighter than any I found reference to so far. I'm confused about what this mold was intended for and can only guess at who made it or when, but I kind of think it was Winchester... and a damn long time ago. It superficially looks like any one-gang mold made today but a closer look reveals that it isn't... because the "mold blocks" and steel parts of the handles are all made as one continuous piece of metal, which must have complicated manufacture considerably. This is not the only mould I have that was manufactured this way, and all of them appear to be very old. I would very roughly date them to maybe 1890-1920, but that's just a vague guess. In any event, whoever bought this mould new could have been my grandpa, or great grandpa, and I'm no spring chicken myself.
So, if I don't have any guns like that, what do I want this mould for? Well... first a word about calibers. "Caliber' means a lot, and next to nothing. It's not really as specific as it appears because it is a number, and numbers are specific. But exactly what was measured to get that number? Practices have always varied worldwide and all things considered it won't do at all to assume anything about a bullet's actual diameter based on it's "caliber" designation. For instance, a .38 or .357 cartridge revolver generally takes the about the same diameter of bullet previously used for .36 cap and ball handguns, most 9mm handguns take bullets maddeningly about 2/100" smaller, their respective sizes being actually .358" and .356"... BUT the 9mm Makarov takes a .365 bullet AND most .32 caliber guns take a .311/.312 diameter bullet... but these .32 Winchester/Ballad/Colt guns are made to shoot .32 bullets, which pretty much the same as what is usually called 8mm, or something like 8mm... such as 7.5mm. The oddball out here is the Martini Cadet, which was chamber for what was called .310 Greener... but it's actual diameter was about .32 and the case was a similar size, so many Martini Cadets that came to the U.S. as surplus have been rechambered to .32-20.
Now that you get the idea that "caliber" is a thoroughly wishy-washy concept that has to be paid considerable attention to because minor differences or even apparent samenesses aren't necessarily so... what I want it for is this... it's an unusual bullet design that appears very useful for making bullets for some of my pistols chambered in 7.5mm or after pushing them through a sizer or lubrisizer and resizing a bit smaller, also 7.62mm, which, since I'm talking about the Russian version of 7.62mm which is .311 instead of the U.S. version that is .308. Bullets from this mould also have a large grease groove which will be useful with antique (black powder) handguns. I cast a few in the cool morning and they came out in .325 diameter at 97 grains in soft lead... and I swear that although this mould was old and in somewhat rough shape... I had to soak in vinegar the better part of a day to get some rust off of the mating surfaces and there was some inside of the cavity, too... and there is a very small bit of light pitted roughness on one side of the "product"... that, after the vinegar soak and burning some matches to get soot back in the cavities... this mould is the ONLY mold I've EVER used from which I did not cast even one single "bad" bullet. I've had moulds that I threw out (recycled) the first hundred bullets and was still making crappy ones after that. I cast 61 bullets, and every single one of them was not if quite perfect, perfectly acceptable to me. Some actually were about as "perfect" as a cast bullet ever gets. They are all going downrange from SOMETHING. I'm thinking 1886 Nagant revolver for sure and maybe 1895 Nagant revolver, Martini Cadet... maybe even SKS. It's not a gas check design but it has a beveled base and the shank is so short I think maybe I can cram gas checks on... we will see.
I can only wonder who, when, where, how many... what for? The previous users of this very same mould... I can almost see them hovering over me, inspecting my work to see that I did it right.