Fremont Hall Loads

[Carolina Reb]

I just picked up one of the M-1843 Hall carbines that was rifled for Gnl. Fremont back in 1861. It's tight and actually doesn't leak a lot, so I have been trying without much luck to come up with decent load. It would be a lot of fun to shoot it at the National, but I don't want to embarrass my team too badly. Anybody out there have a pet load for these things?

[Jim Leinicke 7368V]

I have some Hall carbines and think they are lots of fun. However, there is no such thing as a very accurate load for one, unless you go to the trouble of sleeving and reducing the inside diameter of the breechblock. While rifle blocks were made to accept a bare, .529" ball, carbine blocks were bored much larger to accept that same .529" ball wrapped in a heavy paper cartridge. The entire cartridge was stuffed into the oversize carbine breechblock after the powder was poured, and all of that paper wadding was supposed to keep everything from jostling out, including the powder. From a shooter's perspective, the wadding also more or less keeps the ball in line with the axis of the bore. As a result, accuracy with these is a relative term, and ball wrapped in paper actually does lots better than a lead ball just rolled into the block. From my experience, however, the rifled carbines are no more accurate than the smoothbores. I would hate to try a bird board with one.

N-SSA is not going to let you tear and stuff paper cartridges into your carbine when at a competition. As I noted, you could possibly have a sleeve inserted into the breech that would be close to bore size and permit use of a bare ball or bullet with some hope of success. After all, Hall rifles are really pretty accurate and a carbine might be also it had a sleeved breech. But in my opinion the best thing to do with your Hall is to roll up cartridges to the original specs and just go out to the pasture and blast away. Like I said, they are a hoot to shoot just as they are.

For what it is worth, Hall carbines and horse pistols were the primary shooting irons for Illinois and other western cavalry regiments for pretty much the first two years of the War. They are a worthy addition to a Civil War arms collection if nothing else.

Jim Leinicke 7368V
114th Illinois

[Carolina Reb]

I was beginning to suspect that. My best load so far is a 0.560” round ball liberally coated with bees wax to keep it down and centered in the chamber. It mostly holds the black at 50. I did try a couple rounds of musket ammo. They fit the chamber and functioned OK. However, the engineer in me has a problem slamming a 0.580” bullet down a 0.530” bore. If we run into each other at the national, I’d like to pick your brain about Halls.

[Michael Bodner]

Well, I'm sure this will start a poop-storm, but I can't seem to find any rules prohibiting the use of wadding (or wrapping the bullet) with anything for carbine.... The rules explicitly dis-allow the use of wrapping smoothbore rounds with paper or cloth (foil allowed), but there is no mention for Carbine or musket...

In 22.1 Ammunition, General it states:

c. Carbine I and II, revolver, and breechloading rifle ammunition may include non-explosive, non-metallic filler, such as cream of wheat or wads.


That's the only mention of 'wadding' in that section (other than the smoothbore).

So, if I'm reading this correctly (and who says I am....) it implies you can patch ANY bullet for any gun EXCEPT smoothbore.... Question becomes: Is this intentional? Is there any competitive advantage to patching a ball or bullet ??

What sayeth you??

-Mike

[Jim Leinicke 7368V]

Hey, my friend, if you are holding the black at 50 with a Hall carbine then you are already doing pretty well. The liberal coat of beeswax is a rather good idea, as the problem is certainly the over-sized chamber. Have you actually slugged the barrel on your Hall to see what the groove diameter might be? On my Fremont the grooves are pretty shallow. Anyway, I started out shooting light loads of about 40 grains of powder and then decided that the carbines shot better with about 60 grains. My rifle likes 70 grains.

During the War, no one at all liked the Hall, but an awful lot of the carbines saw a lot of use on both sides. If I were a horse soldier, I absolutely would have preferred a M1843 Hall to a Gallagher or a Cosmopolitan, or even a Starr. They were entirely obsolete by 1861 but they were quick loading and gave decent service until better weapons came around. What they lacked in accuracy they more than made up for in availability and reliability. So have fun. I guess since someone else is messing with these things I ought to play more with mine.

Jim Leinicke

[jonk]

Well, I'm sure this will start a poop-storm, but I can't seem to find any rules prohibiting the use of wadding (or wrapping the bullet) with anything for carbine.... The rules explicitly dis-allow the use of wrapping smoothbore rounds with paper or cloth (foil allowed), but there is no mention for Carbine or musket...

In 22.1 Ammunition, General it states:

c. Carbine I and II, revolver, and breechloading rifle ammunition may include non-explosive, non-metallic filler, such as cream of wheat or wads.


That's the only mention of 'wadding' in that section (other than the smoothbore).

So, if I'm reading this correctly (and who says I am....) it implies you can patch ANY bullet for any gun EXCEPT smoothbore.... Question becomes: Is this intentional? Is there any competitive advantage to patching a ball or bullet ??

What sayeth you??

-Mike


You're right, it doesn't seem to address that for musket, carbine, etc. It says that ammunition shall consist of a lead or lead alloy projectile and black powder. So I guess using lube is out then, as it isn't mentioned?

I know that the unofficial line is no paper, except for tear open disposable tubes, or for combustible sharps tubes. This pertains even to the traditional match, with paper patching of bullets being disallowed. Even there it says that cartridge paper shall not be put down the barrel, but says nothing of a paper patched bullet that is NOT part of the cartridge.

I would suppose that this is one of those areas where we all know what the intent is, but if anyone ever used a paper patch, they would be entirely within their right to demand that a safety officer or IG point to the rule where it says paper is explicitly not permitted.

I know of one smith shooter who was using TP as wadding in his tubes, leaving quite the mess of confetti, who I saw at the Potomac a few weeks ago. Apparently as things sit, this is not now explicitly disallowed.

I disagree with the prohibition on paper or cloth patches as pertaining to a fire hazard (reason being that chunks of burning sharps tubes are thrown out all day long but somehow a paper wad would present a problem?) but agree with it for a simple reason. They would make a mess of our nice range. Plus it would certainly raise the risk of a cook off. So the prohibition is a good idea, just not really stated. I'm not going to be the one to write up a policy clarification, but for anyone who should, should the organization desire to, making explicit note for which guns it IS permitted (Sharps, Robinson, etc. as part of the cartridge only) would be a logical idea.

[Maillemaker]

Well, I'll have to go re-read the rules. It certainly would seem to open the door to using proper British and Confederate-style Enfield cartridges. Of course the rules for construction of cartridges themselves still apply, so you might have to stick such cartridges in plastic tubes of some kind and remove them from the tube before use. But I don't know - they are allowing traditional 1855 and 1862 paper cartridges in the Traditional match.

I sure like the ease of loading of the Enfield style of cartridge.

I don't worry so much about the paper - the bits will be gone after a rain or two.

Steve

[Maillemaker]

The Traditional match rules state:

"Cartridge paper shall not be loaded into the barrel."

The general ammunition rules state:

http://i.imgur.com/nM63zBy.png
http://i.imgur.com/2J4UskG.png

Your cartridge has to be plastic or cardboard. But it does not specifically prohibit paper-patched bullets.

However, it does say that no cartridge can be used that is designed to be placed in the muzzle. This could be iffy, since bullet portion of the Enfield cartridge is designed to be torn free and put in the muzzle, though not the cartridge itself. So part of the cartridge is designed to be placed in the muzzle.

Steve

[Carolina Reb]

Jim,
The chamber measures 0.582". At the muzzle, bore is 0.526" and groove is 0.537". Rifling is 6 grooves about 1 in 72. Judging by the way the slug went through, the grooves are probably deeper at the breech. I suspect they reamed them just enough to freshen up the bores. It would probably shoot a lot better with a breech block that wasn't reamed up for musket ammo. Plus, they didn't ream the chamber all the way down, the bottom inch or so is smaller diameter. Anything less than about 40 grains leaves a space between the ball and powder.

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

Ya can't shoot a smoothbore breechloader in the smoothbore match. It's got to be a muzzle stuffer in the smoothbore match right? So a Hall rifled or smothbore carbine is shot in the carbine1 class, a rifle in the carbine2 (breechloader) class like the Sharps rifles are. BTW... I'd be hard pressed to call an aluminum foiled round ball a patched bullet but that is the only real patching of any bullet we allow in the N-ssa as I recall.

[Jim Leinicke 7368V]

Hi, Carolina- Flayderman and assorted other sources like to indicate that these Fremont carbines were bored out .58 but I suspect they made that erroneous assumption by measuring the hole in the breechblock. Your bore measurements sound about right. As I noted, the standard ball load for a Hall .54 carbine employed a .529" ball if you believe Ordnance reports, and I have never seen anything to suggest that a special cartridge was issued for the non-regulation "Fremont" rifled M1843 carbines. Obviously, with .537' grooves you could use a .535" or a .540", and that gets you a bit closer to the chamber size. I haven't tried it, but I wonder how a ball would work wrapped in a few wraps of foil and then well dipped in lube? Anything that would help center the ball in the chamber and hold it in place would be helpful, and that would get you around the N-SSA "No paper" rule.

I suppose you are by now fully aware that those big gas vents on either side of the breach are there for a reason. The Hall guns are comfortable to shoot but you don't much want to be standing close by to the side.

By the way, I have a pretty neat percussion carbine styled after a Model 1840 Hall carbine but actually altered from a flintlock M1819 Hall rifle and restocked in maple. I suspect it is Virginian in origin, based on the styling and the particulars of the percussion alteration. Anyhow, it is a great little shooter because the breech is bored to correspond closely to the rifled bore.

Jim

[Muley Gil]

Jim, could it be a Barrett carbine?

"The Wytheville Hall muzzle loading rifles and carbines have perhaps the most interesting history of any of the arms made by either the North or South during the war. To understand the full story it is necessary to go back quite a few years. John Hall invented, about 1810, a breech loading rifle, which was adopted by the Government in 1819 as an official arm of the service. This has the distinction of being the first flint lock breech loading arm adopted by any Government. In 1833, the Government adopted the first breech loading percussion carbine, under the same Hall's patent. When the Virginia troops captured Harpers Ferry, they found a quantity of Hall parts, which were taken to Wytheville, Virginia, where in the shop of J.B. Barrett they were made up into muzzle loading rifles by using an entirely new breech block, with percussion nipple and a center hung hammer. The stocks were apparently all hand made, as no two are exactly alike. On most of them the offset sights are still retained as are the original rifling and calibre -- 54. The number produced is unknown, and the surviving specimens are much sought after as collectors items. This is one example of a famous breech loading gun converted to a muzzle loader for official Government use."

Taken from this site:

http://www.cincinnaticwrt.org/data/ccwrt_history/talks_text/holt_shoulder_arms.html

[Jim Leinicke 7368V]

No, it isn't altered to a muzzleloader. Virginia had lots of Hall weapons and parts but decided to issue no Hall rifles in their original form. Carbines were another matter and Virginia altered all of its late production percussion Hall rifles into a distinctive carbine patterned after the M1840 carbines and these got considerable use. An excavated breechblock from the Danville area indicates that some flintlock M1819 rifles may have also been altered to percussion carbines. I have seen two carbines made from 1819 rifles that in all particulars follow the carbine pattern adopted by Virginia and since both came from that state I have to assume that is where they originated. Beyond that I know nothing about them. Virginia Hall carbines feature rifled barrels, altered rifle trigger guards that eliminate the hand rail, a cleaning rod stop under the barrel muzzle, and a pair of sling swivels instead of a sling bar.
By the way, at the time of its capture, Ft. Sumter had a huge inventory of Hall spare parts awaiting disposal as surplus. This stuff presumably also found its way into the southern arms industry.
Jim