Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum

Author Topic: Questions for my spreadsheet  (Read 2507 times)

AlaninTexas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Questions for my spreadsheet
« on: September 14, 2019, 05:12:12 PM »
My "ultimate" Bullet spreadsheet is moving along well. All the major books have been entered as they read under individual tabs. Now I am combining all for the big list and cross referencing each to the other. I have looked at what each book says about a "same" bullet", then I make a single entry in the "ultimate" list, with the major information we all are looking for. This is massive, but what else does a 65 year old retiree have to do.
 
Here are some questions I have:
1) The Stelma book (page 303) lists calibers with the appropriate range. a) Some numbers fall out between ranges. b) look at TT-23a, the dia is .337. Page 303 shows this then to be a .36 caliber. Yet the TT listing says it is a .31 caliber bullet. What can I assume from instances like this???? Stick with the cal listed, get a new range list, or something else?

2) TT-30 says Bartholow. Is this name attributed to the bullet, the cartridge or the weapon or the manufacturer. Sometimes it can be more than one of these. My focus for the "ultimate" list is bullets and not cartridges. So I want to list the appropriate detail needed so no one has to guess (like me) what the entry means.

3) Same basic question from 2 above, but look at TT-31. It says Hazard. Certainly we are talking about Hazard Powder Co., but is that for the cartridge alone or do collectors call this bullet a "Hazard" bullet. Sorry guys, I just don't know and the internet does not help!!!! Yes, I have the RBtRF books, but that will take me another life-time to read.

Any other ideas or suggestions for this is greatly appreciated. Thanks!!!

AlaninTexas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Questions for my spreadsheet
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2019, 03:29:59 PM »
Okay, I picked up my RBtRF books and researched. So... Bartholow is in vol 3, page 24 thru 27. The Bartholow is in reference to The Bartholow Cartridge Manufacturing Company. I think the entry in my spreadsheet will say: .36 cal Bullet used by the Bartholow Cartridge Manufacturing Co. A variant of TT28 with a punch-hole in the base.

Hazard is in RBtRF vol 3, page 83. Since Hazard is a Powder Co. I assume they made no arms (I looked). So I think the entry for TT31 would be: .36 cal bullet used by the Hazard Powder Co. Similar to TT28.

As for question 1) I would still like some input regarding the range listings for the various calibers. I am aware that not all specimens are pristine (some fired some deformed, etc) and there should be some variance considered, but if a specimens diameter falls between the range given on the chart and I know from research that there are various calibers for particular weapons, then how do I know which caliber I have?

misipirelichtr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
    • Email
Re: Questions for my spreadsheet
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2019, 09:27:53 PM »
Alan, I am really looking forward to your finished product!  Has to be a labor of love for you to tackle this, regardless of age.  So, I'm nowhere near the authority the Thomas brothers or others on this forum are, but I've always found it of interest that generally speaking, it is not unusual for either revolver or carbine bullets to have a larger diameter than the caliber.  This goes back to the McKee and Mason books, where diameters of some of the calibers also show  similar patterns to what you are describing with Tom Stelma's and the T&T references.  In fact, while I am away from my reference library, I'd suggest M&M would say your example is a .31 caliber. 

Some bullets, particularly those field cast, show great variation in measurements.  That has to be kept in mind.  Having said that, as much as you can, I'd suggest RBTRF to be the final arbiter on the subject.  I respectfully disagree with a couple of statements in them, but nowhere else is there as well researched body of work.

Many of the bullet names go back to M&M or for Trans-Mississippi bullets, to those that were first to document the bullets in print with catchy names like "the Arkansas Hog".   Lot more memorable than the "Mangeot" name attached to M&M 608 - yet the bullets are one and the same.

Again, I'm looking forward to your finished product!  I suspect it will generate discussion and provide clarity. 

Jim T

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • Thomas Publications
    • Email
Re: Questions for my spreadsheet
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2019, 08:20:24 PM »
A monumental project indeed.  I started such a project myself many years ago. Luckily, the computer I was using crashed and I didn't have to continue on that quest.

The first point I'd suggest, which will no doubt meet with some ire, is to not waste your time to include Tom Stelma's reference. It is filled with entirely too many errors.

Your other questions center around the use of certain bullets by different makers in their cartridges. Indeed, my T&T reference often names certain bullets based upon the cartridges.  What I call a "Hazard" is indeed actually (or technically) a "new model" Colt pattern used in Hazard's pressed powder collodion cartridge. The same bullet IS used by others.  The same goes for the Bartholow. The distinguishing detail is that Bartholow used machine pressed bullets...hence the dimple in the base.

Carbine and revolver bullets are "breech loaders" and so are solid based and intentionally larger than the bore to engage the rifling. In the same vein, muzzle loading bullets are smaller than the bore and have a cavity to allow expansion into the rifling.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2019, 09:28:27 PM by Jim T »

AlaninTexas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Questions for my spreadsheet
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2019, 01:42:54 PM »
Thanks for the reply. Yes, I have seen the many errors in the Stelma book. I have decided to include the information it lists, only I am verifying as much as I can and correcting everything that I find. The research is time consuming, but the results will be helpful to all I hope.
I am also checking all the cross references that he listed to your two books and making corrections there.
Since I have been working on this now for almost a year, I have grown to greatly appreciate the work that you have put into the Roundball to Rimfire series. For those like me that have a passion for this hobby, THANK YOU!!!

Each time I make a general decision that makes a change from one book to another I make a note of it so that all can deduct the thinking that went into merging all of the data. Example: Your books might say that a specimen has 1 groove. The Stelma book looks at it a different way and says that the specimen has a Tie-ring base and mentions no groove. When merging the two I identify the specimen as Tie-ring based (one groove).
The () indicates a reference and shows that there is a groove but it is a component of the tie-ring base.

The Stelma book also talks a lot about grooves that are rings and rings that are grooves. So I am wading through all of that information and putting all into corrected / logical terminology.

One bit of assistance from all would be if anyone has started a cross-reference from your Roundball series to any of the other books. I have a short list already but if anyone has any crosses please send them my way.    Thank you, Alan