Bullet book poll.

[cwbullet]

One you narrow you bullet type down to a range of mm/tt numbers, What is the number one thing you use to ID a Bullet?

base type
number of rings
diameter
length
weight
cavity type

I personally narrow the seach by appearance (rings, base type) and then go by cavity type and diameter. If there trouble after that I go on down the list.

There are no right an wrongs. Please answer the poll. We need your help.

Chuck

:grin: :-) :-? 8)

I use the diameter x length x cavity/base first. If there is anything unusual such as 1, 2, 3, 4 grooves or raised rings those are looked at also in the overall length.
Take care.
Tom Stelma

[spector551]

I use the bullet diameter first, then check the cavity type. (if it doesn't have any obvious ring patterns or something of that nature)

[JDC]

From your list of topics, I would have to say caliber first. But what wasn't on your list was a general observation of what the bullet looks like.
Thanks, JDC

[CraigC]

I would have to go with appearance (rings, overall shape) then diameter. Base would be next.

CraigC

[raw-war-digger1]

I personally look at the rings/no rings first, then the base, then check the dia. and cavity type (if any) all the time looking at pictures and descriptions in the MM book.
Thanks, Roger

My experience is very limited, I have only gotten involved in the of id'ing bullets in the last 6 or 8 months. I do as suggested in the M&M book; Base, Rings, Diameter and Length and then weight (for what it is worth). The problem I find is that things usually do not exactly "match" the examples in the books. Very frustrating.....never sure if I have made the right selection.

TerryT

[spector551]

Terry, you are faced with the same thing I go through constantly. I'm not even sure that the one's I've ID'ed are correct, lol. I just go buy the best educated guess I can make. Of course, all of us here do the same thing. I'm just not as educated as these great guys on this board.

[tom stelma]

:-)

Just a reminder on identifying the bullets:

1. Remember the McKee & Mason, Thomas & Thomas, Stelma books as well as Lewis & Phillips show bullets thsy have identified. There are different eyes, hands measuring the bullets so you will not usually get the dimensions I get ot anyone else would.

2. The condition of the bullet, the patina all make the bullet vary from one to the next. Allow for a plus or minus .010 on the diameter & lengths and remember you bullet does not have to be exactly like the book.

3. These books are guide and not one of them have all the correct answers or all the bullets that are in existance right now. New ones come to light all the time. The names are not known because the ones who designed them, made them are gone from us.

4. There are no final answers on every bullet made and used in the civil war. :up

Take care and have fun.
:grin:

Tom Stelma

[emike123]

IMO, one of the greatest contributions that could be made to ID'ing bullets is to have a constructive critique of McKee & Mason, going through it bullet by bullet and discussing what additional variants have been identified, where folks have found them , whether the bullet is really unique or a version of another (e.g., a shot version like #546 is of a previously listed Williams II), a fantasy, etc. I know there are a couple new bullet boks in development, but the primary standard for numbering, etc. is M&M and a separate, competing taxonomy will be confusing. If there are new bullets, they could be added as with the M&M suplement.

We could start this here on this forum. If we went through 15 M&M bullets a week - we'd be done in a year and have all our knowledge (& opinions) catalogued. That would liven up the boards and we may even learn something and move the bullet field forward an inch or two!