Wes, I checked two of the MM-324 I have and they measure out at .685 x 1.102 x 743 with a .392 deep conical cavity and .687 x 1.101 x 743 with a .402 deep conical cavity.
What I see when I look at the photo of the MM-575 is a bullet with a profile close in appearance to the MM-334. The photo does show what appears to be a slight taper on the upper body and an appearance of a larger mass but it still appears to have a semi to rounded nose. Another bullet it has a similar profile to is the MM-340 which has a slight taper with a semi to rounded nose. Without having the bullet in hand or a decent photo of the bullet we all see bullets in a slightly different manner. Should the bullet be a stand alone bullet? I don't know, there are minor differences such as the distance from the top of the grooves to the nose appears longer than the MM-334/340, the rounded nose is very similar but hard to see in the photo, etc etc etc. Is the MM-575 JA3R? With this thread and the information provided it is for each individual to assess, process, and determine how they will classify the bullet in their collection.
The thought and posting of the MM bullet reference and the taxonomy is for diggers and collectors, novices, enthusiasts and the hard core collector. This thread was started several years ago on the earlier forum and ran out of steam. It's intention is educational, new information, solicitation of questions and overall thoughts on bullets from the different theatres of the war. I am in no way an authority on bullets. I attempt to apply the simplest of techniques in the determination of what I feel a bullet is or is not. Will people agree or disagree on my thoughts of what a bullet is or is not. Most definitely and that is how it should be. State your reasons on why you think a bullet is this or that but let me caution all collectors new and old. Do not attempt to make a bullet be what it is not and don't see a bullet only one way to make that bullet fit what you want it to be. That is a easy trap to fall into especially when you have been stung hard on the purchase of a bullet. It happens to all of us. I have a box of tough and expensive lessons learned the hard way but it is what it is. If you collect relics you will get stung with but knowledge and education it can be limited . I love this as a hobby and it will continue to be a deep love of mine and remain a hobby with the number of ancestors in my family who fought and died in this historical bloody event of our nation. With that ranting said I hope those that have been leery of posting thoughts or questions on bullets will do so without the worry of being blasted. Agreeing or disagreeing is one thing but to chastise and be of the mine set it is my way or now way hopefully is a thing of the past with the other forums. I will not tolerate it and don't think the great moderators of the site will either. This is a hobby and nothing to get your panties in a knot over. If you don't agree that's fine, explain why and be civil. Hopefully this will get more of the guest/lurkers to respond.
With the information provided on this thread alone and how critically bullets can be looked at and measured this day and age it shows what a great job W. Reid McKee and M.E. Mason Jr. did in compiling this reference book so long ago. Are there duplicates of bullets yes? Are some cavities mislabeled or incorrect yes? Did they do a good job No. They did a fantastic job. Their book set the standard for identification of ACW period bullets for collectors with a very user friendly identification and classification system. True pioneers in relics for all of us to enjoy and learn from and attempt to fine tune as new research and documentation becomes available.
Now all of ya can roll your eyes and question whether I ever shut up or not. My wife doesn't think so. Keep the posts coming.
