Gauging Interest in a .58 Cal Gardner Reproduction mold

[noonanda]

Updated with info, no need to scroll all the way down

Well good news we are back on track LOL. Just got the drawings back from NOE for it, in order to get it made we only need 10 people to roger up for it. Or 9 since obviously I am one of em. Hopefully between here andsome other sites as well as a couple facebook groups we should be able to get this thing finally going. I wish they could make an flanged bullet as this would also cross over to the Living history groups.

Also the base will be .573 not .593
If you are interested, here is a link to the NOE website where you can sign up for the group buy

http://noebulletmolds.com/smf/index.php?topic=2899.0



Ladies and Gentlemen, I come to the professionals of the BP shooting world. This post has been cross posted on a few forums like NOE and Cast Bullits as well as a few facebook sites.


"Years ago Dean Thomas had built for him a reproduction of the Confederate Gardner machine. he also had a custom nose pour mold made.

IFor those that may not be familiar with it, it had a lead "flange" that as the bullet was formed after casting would cause it to grip the paper that would hold the powder. It was a good idea in theory but the field use showed that it weakened the paper and it would rip where the bullet began spilling powder.

Fast forward to 2 weeks ago, while at a Relic show I found a unformed and formed bullet made from this mold. As both a Civil war Nut, Relic hunter, Black powder shooter, and Bullet caster, I snagged it up as I had been looking for an example to potentially have a mold made.

Is there Anyone else interested in possibly getting a mold made? I will send in these 2 examples for measurements. I will also send in a actual dug Civil war Gardner for original measurements as well."

Also I ask of you, would it be better to make a mold that has the flange on it to form similar to the original, or would a Gardner style (aka a formed bullet) be better?

624788778878

[Maillemaker]

I would be interested with one with a flange, if there were a swaging tool of some kind available to form it after the paper tube is attached. I would like to do this just for historical reasons.

I would not be interested in a "pre-formed" version.

Steve

[RaiderANV]

I would be interested with one with a flange, if there were a swaging tool of some kind available to form it after the paper tube is attached.

Steve

Arbor press and a regular sizing die

[noonanda]

Arbor press and a regular sizing die I have a Sizing die that I bought somewhere that is threaded and set up to use in a regular single stage reloading press. I have a Hornady L&L single stage that i use it with. The sizing die might need to be beveled slightly to form the flange/paper crimp without cracking it.

this is the sizing die I have
http://www.lodgewood.com/Precision-Sizing-Die-with-Plunger_p_1605.html

[YOU DON'T KNOW ?]

With the flange. I'd definitely consider one . G Pope WBR

[george7542]

I would take one without the flange ready to size and shoot

[Southron Sr.]

About 15 or so years ago, Greg Editingtom had Lee Moulds make up a fair number of moulds that produced a Gardner bullet in .58 caliber without the flange. He sold these moulds to N-SSA members and others.

These moulds produced accurate bullets. Lee might even still have the programming used to produce the Gardnet moulds for Edington in their program archives.

The reason Gardner rounds were dropped by the Confederacy was that when the rounds were carried in the cartridge boxes of marching tfroops on warm Summer days, the lube on the bullet partially melted and soaked into the cartridge papers, weakening them and causing the cartridges to fall apart.

So in battle, when a soldier reached in his cartridge box to get another round to load, often as not, he would find a sticky mass of black powder, bullets and bits of lube soaked cartridge paper in his cartridge box.

As for selling a modern mould that cast a bullet with a flange, it would have to be sold with a sizer that fit into a single stage reloading press and a ram that would push the flanged bullet through the sizing die to not only size the bullet, but to turn down the flange and attach the paper cylinder to the bullet.

Flanged Gardner bullets cast in .58 Caliber could be used in Rifle-Muskets after the bullet flange was turned down, sized and the paper powder cylinder attached.

Flanged Gradner bullets cast in ,52 caliber could be sold to Sharps shooters to be used to make combustible cartridges used in Sharps rifles and carbines.

Flanged Gardner bullets cast in .44 and .36 calibers could be used to make combustible revolver cartridges IF the BOD ever legalizes the use of combustible cartridges in N-SSA revolver competition.

In other words, bullet moulds that cast a flanged Gardner bullets in various calibers would produce a versatile bullet that could be used for a variety of purposes.

[noonanda]

Al at NOE is making the drawing as we speak. Bad news is he said he can't make the unformed/ flanged bullet, but just having s mold to cast Gardner style bullets is still pretty good to me. If you all are interested head over to the NOE page

[Carolina Reb]

Greg's Gardner mold had the original base cavity shape and it wanted a pretty stout charge to shoot it's best. You might want to enlarge the base pin a bit for skirmishing.

[Southron Sr.]

So, WHY can't NOE make a Gardner WITH the flange? It isn't that hard.

Yup, I would buy a Gardner WITH the flange just to encourage your and NOE's enterprise.

The Sharps shooters would probably buy a lot of .52 Caliber flanged Gardners as that would alleviate the drudgery of making up combustible cartridges for their Sharps.

[bobanderson]

So, WHY can't NOE make a Gardner WITH the flange? It isn't that hard

People "open up" moulds all the time. It should be a simple enough matter to have a machinist (or a hobbyist with a lathe) cut the flange into an unflanged mould.

[John Holland]

As Bob says, cutting a flange into the mould is easy with a boring bar, which looks like a Ring of Saturn when the bullet is cast. But, what you have to take into consideration is the finished diameter. If you start with a mould that casts a diameter of 0.575" and then cut a a 0.020" thick flange ring into the mould, once the flange is folded down you will end up with a finished diameter of 0.615". The original Confederate mould had a base diameter below the unformed flange of about 0.535" to accommodate the flanging process that adds about 0.045" to the diameter once the flange is formed down around the cartridge paper. The finished diameter at the base of the bullet is then about 0.577". It is a much more complicated mould to produce than it appears.

[noonanda]

So, WHY can't NOE make a Gardner WITH the flange? It isn't that hard.

Yup, I would buy a Gardner WITH the flange just to encourage your and NOE's enterprise.

The Sharps shooters would probably buy a lot of .52 Caliber flanged Gardners as that would alleviate the drudgery of making up combustible cartridges for their Sharps.

I dont know exactly why, I wish I did.

[gemmer]

Would a Garner cartridge be N-SSA legal?

[Maillemaker]

Would a Garner cartridge be N-SSA legal?

A period-correct Gardner cartridge would contain paper crimped under the lead flange. Per the current rules:

g. Cartridges for muzzle loading firearms must be either:

1. A cardboard or plastic hollow cylinder, sealed on one end,

No cartridge shall be employed that allows the ramrod to be pushed through the cylinder.

No cartridge may be used that is designed to be set in place on, in, or around the muzzle.



2. A paper cartridge, of either the Pattern 1855 US cartridge or of the Pattern 1862 US cartridge, properly rolled and tied.

Use of nitrated paper or “flash” paper is prohibited.

Paper shall NOT be put into the bore of a muzzle loading firearm.


However, one of the above proposals is to have a mold made that simulates an already-formed Gardner, which would, of course, have no paper under its simulated crimped flange.

Steve

[Southron Sr.]

To start with, perhaps the BOD should review our rules because:

1. Paper patched, British made .577 ammunition was considered to be the most ACCURATE of all .577/58 issue ammo (at least so far as Confederate Sharpshooters were concerned)....so, the N-SSA (a target shooting organization) paradoxically bans the use of the most accurate ammunition!

2. Would someone PLEASE explain to me HOW a .58 caliber Gardner rifle-musket bullet would present a "Cook Off" hazard?

3. Would not a .52 Caliber Gardner Sharps round be 100% legal under N-SSA rules?

THANKS!!!!

[Maillemaker]

I'm in the middle of casting up 1,000 Pritchett style bullets to make up in authentic, plugged Enfield ammo for a torture test of rapid-fire use. There was an Enfield used in testing in England that was used over a period of years with thousands of rounds put through it without it ever being cleaned. There are no historical records there (or anywhere else, that I have seen) of cookoffs. I'd love to hear some historical accounts of cookoffs; they would be interesting.

So, I believe the risk of cookoff due to paper-patched bullets such as the Enfield cartridge are negligible. My hope is that my torture test demonstrates this and then perhaps the N-SSA rule can be revisited.

I don't think a Gardner is any more of a cook-off risk than any paper-patched bullet. Probably less since the only paper left on the bullet is the remnants trapped under the crimp and anything protruding out from under it. All in front of the charge and virtually certain to be expelled with the bullet.

Paper is not an issue with breech loaders like a Sharps as the nose of the incoming projectile pushes any residue out of the way as it goes in. Usually. I think I have read of a modern skirmisher having a cookoff with a Sharps.

Steve

[John Holland]

Steve - I am familiar with the British test of the paper patched Pritchett bullet, and how many times and how long a time period it was fired without cleaning. The question that has always bothered me about that statement is the residue buildup in the breech. In my mind there is no way possible they could have done that without ending up with an extensive carbon buildup half way up the barrel. Your thoughts?

I will briefly address the old topic of using the British Pritchett paper patched bullet. The late "Traditional Match" was the proving ground for traditional type shooting activities. When the match was being carefully designed, the Traditional Match Committee presented the concept of also allowing traditional type ammunition. The committee was instructed by the Board to present a demonstration of the standard U.S. wrapped cartridge at the next August Board meeting. Todd Harrington and I were co-chairman of the committee. At the demonstration Todd did the shooting and I gave the verbal dissertation along with answering the questions of the Board.
The Board then agreed to allow use of the original type cartridge for the Traditional Match, only. That cartridge worked very well in the Traditional Match. The committee then began experimenting with the British Pritchett round with the intent to present another demonstration to the Board to show the viability of allowing that cartridge, too. The committee's conceptual approach was to "Start Small and Think Big"! The intent of the committee was to have a match that would appeal to those authentic living history groups who looked down on the N-SSA as a "Farby" group who did nothing authentic. In an attempt to encourage that special group of people to join he N-SSA, the rules of the Traditional Match required fully authentic uniforms, ammunition, and the use of muskets that were unmodified in any way, shape, or form, from how they were issued during the American Civil War. The committee had some very good long range plans including the use of additional types of ammunition, and even authentic campsites. Unfortunately after two years of struggling with a lack of participation in the Traditional Match, everything fell apart. Why, because the majority of Units/Teams who promised to support the Traditional Match, very simply, did not do so. Therefore, after much discussion with the National Commander, the Board, and the Program Chairman, who was in full support of the match and its concept, the Traditional Match was removed from the schedule of events, and the Traditional Match Committee was dissolved. Along with the loss of this match was the potential recruitment of Living History enthusiasts, and also the "Golden Opportunity" to prove to everyone that the many types of original Civil War musket cartridges could be used safely.

[Maillemaker]

Steve - I am familiar with the British test of the paper patched Pritchett bullet, and how many times and how long a time period it was fired without cleaning. The question that has always bothered me about that statement is the residue buildup in the breech. In my mind there is no way possible they could have done that without ending up with an extensive carbon buildup half way up the barrel. Your thoughts?

That is a good point.

Just this last weekend I was cleaning my Enfield with Whitacre barrel. Normally when I clean my musket, I remove the barrel so I can stick the breech end in my utility sink as I swab the barrel. But lately I have not done this, going for just an "in the gun" cleaning. Partly because folks said it was detrimental to accuracy to unship the barrel, partly because I was lazy in cleaning. :)

Well, this last weekend I was running a pipe cleaner down the flash hole with the nipple out, and it "felt funny". I took a prick and inserted it into the flash hole and it would not go very far into the bolster/barrel. I took my bore scope out and looked down at the breech face and at first I thought perhaps a bullet has been double-loaded and blasted down against the breech face - the breech face looked like a glassy/metallic mass. And the channel from the fire channel was actually coming through this mass (out of the "face" of the breech).

So, I took the barrel out, and used a breech face scraper with the breech end of the barrel submerged in the sink, and eventually was able to get it all sparkly clean inside. I could then see that on this barrel the fire channel enters the bore almost at the breech face.

So clearly coking/carbon buildup is an issue. Maybe the British account of "no cleaning" is exaggerated? Maybe they used a breech face scraper but did not clean the bore/rifling? Or maybe the percussion cap continuously blasts the fire channel path though the coke clear so that the musket keeps firing in spite of the coke buildup?

I was sorry to see the Traditional Match fall by the wayside. I never would have been able to participate with it (I hardly ever go to Nationals - only ever been to 2 of them) but I thought it was a cool idea. I think it was probably a bridge to far to hope to have large participation at the team level. But, I hope that individuals will be able to be as authentic as they would like to be within the rules. I'm going to use my US cartridges in Individuals. For one thing, my P8 likes 60 grains of powder and with the plastic tubes you can barely get the bullet to sit in the mouth with that much powder!

Steve

[Southron Sr.]

Everyone needs to "pull the breech plug" on their Skirmish arm every year or so and clean out the "cake" on the face of their breech plug. "Cake" is nothing more than hardened powder fouling and can be responsible for cook offs.

[John Holland]

Southron, did you ever un-breech a Bill Large barrel, or an original H&P, Leman, etc? They are all chambered breeches and tighter than bark on a tree! Then, lining them back up again straight & proper after your annual cleaning is no piece of cake, either! Been There....Done That....Won't Do It Again!

[bobanderson]

did you ever un-breech an original H&P, Leman, etc? They are all chambered breeches and tighter than bark on a tree! Been There....Done That....Won't Do It Again!

I've tackled a few, as a hobbyist, not a gunsmith. In my experience, a good solid vise (I use a milling machine vise) and a good long handled wrench makes it an easy job.

[Kevin Tinny]

Hello:

Bothers me to pull plugs because they loosen.
Guess that happens because I was told of one that can now be removed with only fingers!

Couldn't find bore fitting, forward facing cup brushes with brass bristles that were, years back, readily available from sutlers. Found unthreaded shank DREMEL tool ones in a diameter that works in 54 and 58 bores.
They can be EPOXIED into rod adapters.

These get the corners, with and without patches.
If stuff remains, I tape a T- shaped bulletin board pin to a rod to gently get into the edge around the plug face.

These have been enough and I don't have to use a scraper on plug faces that are flat and and smooth.

Respectfully,
Kevin Tinny

[John Holland]

I agree with Kevin Tinny regarding the wisdom of removing breech plugs on a regular basis.

[Maillemaker]

I have found, via borescope, that you can get the breech face shiny metal clean with a scraper without having to remove the breech. I like the idea of wire cup brushes, too.

Steve

[Hal]

I like the cup brush idea too. I've been using a patch puller. I take a 3x3 patch, fold it in half and then in half again so I have a 3/4 x 3 patch four thicknesses thick. I wrap it around the patch puller to get the 'corners'. Seems the cup brush would be even better.

[John Holland]

The thread about the Gardner mould interest sure degenerated into an entirely unrelated topic!

[MR. GADGET]

And I thought this thread was about cleaning and removing the breech plug....
shame on me....

[Southron Sr.]

Dear John:

I have confined my rifle-musket barrels for the past 50 years to:

1. Weisz Barrels

2. Whitacre Barrels

3. Parker-Hale and Euroarms Enfield Barrels

All of these barrels have conventional breech plugs that can be pulled. My experience has been that bore scrapers, bronze bristle bushes, etc., cannot remove all the "cake" on the junction made by face of the breechplug and the wall of the bore.

For the very reasons you mentioned, I have always avoided those "exotic" barrels like barrels with patent breeches, etc.,

As for Gardner Bullets....surely there is someone in the N-SSA that has the ability to make a production "True" Gardner
bullet mould.

Question: Would not a .58 Caliber Gardner Bullet be legal for N-SSA use IF the case was made of aluminum foil rather than paper?

THANKS!

[Bob Lintner]

The thread about the Gardner mould interest sure degenerated into an entirely unrelated topic!

I was thinking the same thing. It was just getting real interesting too. Lets get back on track. If the mold was made once, someone, somewhere can do it again! Just saying...

[Southron Sr.]

Someone with a CNC Lathe could easily make a Gardner Bullet Mould. Of course, someone would have to program the lathe to make the mould.

Hopefully, they could make the moulds out of 360 Brass. As far as I am concerned, brass moulds are at least 100% better than aluminum moulds.

[noonanda]

I was thinking the same thing. It was just getting real interesting too. Lets get back on track. If the mold was made once, someone, somewhere can do it again! Just saying...

Well good news we are back on track LOL. Just got the drawings back from NOE for it, in order to get it made we only need 10 people to roger up for it. Or 9 since obviously I am one of em. Hopefully between here and the NSSA sight as well as a couple facebook groups we should be able to get this thing finally going. I wish they could make an flanged bullet as this would also cross over to the Living history groups. Hopefully this will still appeal to them.88758876

[John Holland]

Daryl - Is the base diameter really going to be 0.593"?

[noonanda]

Daryl - Is the base diameter really going to be 0.593"? let me confirm, that does seem way outta wack

[noonanda]

Daryl - Is the base diameter really going to be 0.593"?

Just spoke to Al, .573 for the base.

[John Holland]

Thank you, Daryl.

[EPPS1919]

573 is to small needs to be around 578


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EPPS1919]

And the front band needs to be close to 578


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RaiderANV]

I?d probably be in for one

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

You have to distinguish here a bore close to the original VS a modern Italian made bore size. In the war, I would be a dead soldier using a .578 size! I'd be swearing up a storm as the bullet gets stuck in my barrel and then an enemies bullet promptly takes care of me having to worry about it any further. End of story!

[EPPS1919]

You can size it down .573 is not going to shoot good in the bore sizes today like a .580 bore


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[noonanda]

You can size it down .573 is not going to shoot good in the bore sizes today like a .580 bore


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am in discussion with Al to have them scale the bullet to .575 on the rings.