bullet ID

[jefg231]

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

Your side-view photo shows that soil-acidity has somewhat "eroded" the bullet's surface ...making very-specific (as in, brand name like Colt or Winchester) identification nearly impossible. But, based on its apparent diameter width, as shown in the base-view photo, it seems to be either a .357 Magnum or .38 caliber pistol bullet, most-likely from the 20th century.

 

[Monty]

Similar to a Whitmore minnie of the CW era? Monty

 

[Breezie]

Is it carved? Breezie

 

[Monty]

I don't think it was carved, rather it was loaded into a waxed paper cartridge and the waxed paper acted as a lubricant and engaged the grooves and lands. In the CWP II by McKee and Mason Jr. it is the very first example in the book! Monty

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

Monty wrote:
> In the CWP II by McKee and Mason Jr. it is the very first example in the book!

If by saying "the very first example in the book" you mean bullet #1, jefg231's bullet is definitely not that bullet. Just above Bullet #1 the book says "Base #1 - No Grooves." Base #1 is a flat solid base. See page 17 for "Names And Types of Bullet Bases." Jefg231's bullet does not have a solid flat base.

Also, the CWP II book's Bullet #1 is 1.32" long. In jefg231's photo, the ruler shows his bullet is only .75" long.

 

[Monty]

I believe if you will look you will see that I said it is similar to the Whitmore. Too often I have seen someone positively ID a bullet as a particular type when it obviously isn't exactly the same. The picture on the thread looks to be a hexagonal bullet "similar" to the Whitmore. The bullet I am talking about is #1 on Page 22 of CWP#2. But if you look on page 40 at examples in the middle of the first row, you will see 3 more Whitmore bullets that are longer and have a base cavity #5. Perhaps these are more exactly like what I am seeing in the picture posted. So, canonball guy, you tell me what you think it is? Monty