doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com NOT FOR BALL

Does anyone know when this label/warning became a standard stamping on water tables/barrels?

The gist of my query is the safety of shooting lead round balls in BP Percussion shotguns with Damascus, Twist, Stub, etc barrels with BP proof marks, but without this stamping.

I've both seen as well as own guns of this ilk that have continually handled proper, stiff BP charges and shot amounts with aplomb.

Would the pressure variance be so great as to negatively impact the safety of gun and shooter if lead shot was replaced with lead ball?

We are fortunate in that this board/site has many members extensively learned in the sciences applicable to a situation such as this, and I am appealing to you for help. Your considered replies will be most appreciated, as well as highly regarded.

Having said that I must add that ANYONE, regardless of education and/or vocation who has collected empirical evidence on this topic are, indeed, also MOST welcome.

It's an open invitation to bone up on an obscure vintage gun question before leaping into the wild conversational gaggle at The Southern, where every arcane corner of vintage gun knowledge will surely be ousted into the light. A dry run, if you will.

But for me this isn't merely an intellectual exercise; It holds the promise of life-changing action.

Again, I warmly thank you for any and all contributions you can offer. Your obedient servant - Marc

I have seen "not for ball" on very early English breechloaders that were not nitro proved. I've not seen this on a gun made after the very early 1880's. One of my early Paradox Greeners has this on the barrel flats which leads me to believe that it started life as a sporting gun with very thick barrels & was later Paradox rifled.

Best Regards, George

My references say that "not for ball" was used from 1875 to 1887 in English proof.

"Not for Ball" was an early marking for a choked barrel; it did not relate to pressure. Lots of references out there, one decent one is Wirnsberger's "Standard Directory of Proof Marks".

Introduced 1875 and discontinued 1887, when the word 'CHOKE' replaced it.

It was a warning not to use ball ammunition in choked guns. After 1887 ammunition manufacturers loaded ball smaller than a full choke in size so ball could be fired from a choked barrel without damage.

I would check before using ball on the size and make sure that the ammo you intend to use does indeed fit down the entire barrel length, including the choked section before using it live.

I read somewhere recently that choke�s were introduced around 1870 � so there is a gap of 5 years where this was not indicated by proof house stampings. I would suggest it would be prudent to check any early breach loaders which are not marked �not for ball� or �choke� as they might fall into this time frame and it would be a shame to blow the end off one of these venerable pieces.
The question is actually regarding percussion shotguns. I see there has been recent discussion on this forum over muzzle loading and chokes. http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=224471#Post224471
I don�t think you need to worry too much about muzzle loaders � if you can push it down the muzzle it will likely come out the same way.

W W Greener discussed this in his book/s. The consensus was, going along with what Small Bore has said, this marking in no way meant a solid ball could not be fired through the gun "BUT" that it must not be a Bore Size ball. An undersize ball which would pass through the choke was fine. The confusion generated over this mark was in fact what led to the switch of "Choke" being marked on the bbls.

Many Thanks, Gentlemen - Since all my BP Percussion Muzzleloaders have no choke whatsoever, I will assume I can shoot prb's through them. This isn't a stretch, since modern "replica fowlers", both flintlock and caplock, are used for ball as well as shot.

This was my "gut" feeling, I just wanted to run it by to see if I was missing anything. Actually, my only concern was the possiibility of a solid mass generating more pressure than loose shot, but evidently that doesn't hold water.

Thanks again - Marc

Old Farmer brings up an interesting point.Choke boring is first recorded in Europe in the late 18th century. It was 1866 before the first patent related to choke was issued.[To the American gun maker Roper.A screw on muzzle adapter/shot concentrator, suitable for single barrel guns].The Roper concept was utilized by Tonks in America and Pape in the U.K.to bore double guns with choke present. By 1874 W.W.Greener had developed a method for machining choke constrictions in double guns that gave predictable paterns.This lead to a rapid increase in the manufacture of choke bored guns. In this era,the U.K. proof test of barrels utilized a solid ball sized to fit the proof diameter of the barrel under test. As a result,there must have been a rash of catastrophic failures on choke bored barrels at the Proof House.Hence the adoption of the,"Not for Ball," mark in 1875.Simultaneously the rules of proof were changed for choke bored barrel,with shot being substituted for a solid ball.
Over the past 40+years I have measured the bore of many English pre 1875 period guns, thus far I have never encountered any origional barrels that had any degree of choke present. I have found several unmarked barrels that had been back bored to create choke. In most cases these barrels were found to be out of proof 9 inches from the breech.

The Belgian proofhouse had a similar mark, similar time frame: "non pour balle", 1878-1897. Also designated a choke-bored barrel.