British Pattern 1851 P-51 Service Charge

[hobbler]

Was looking at relic / recovered bullets and noted the thickness of the skirt on the paper cartridge bullet from the British pattern 1851, dug up around Vicksburg. Larger diameter means better expansion for a thicker skirt but wow, looks about 1/8" thick.
Anyone have info on what the service charge of powder was? Been searching this morning and coming up with zippo por nada.
I've worked with these guys in the US 1847.
http://i.imgur.com/A4bGO6x.jpg (https://imgur.com/A4bGO6x)

And these guys.
http://i.imgur.com/6UdzEZH.jpg (https://imgur.com/6UdzEZH)

But they certainly do not have that much thickness.
If anyone has info on the service charge used in the 1851 would appreciate hearing about it.
Thanks,
Hib

[Eggman]

As I recall the load was either 60 or 70 grains ffg. This is terribly abusive for the high strung, emotionally sensitive skirmisher of today. Thus we have light loads and thin skirts.

[hobbler]

Yeah, reckon it makes a difference when you're trying to reach and touch someone, fustist widda mostest.
Labor Day weekend everybody was enjoying those 750 grain minies and 50 grains of powder. Even a junior high schooler was just a rollin' with it. Jump it up to 60 and more and things change pretty quick.

[hobbler]

By the way, that minie is showing promise, the thicker front band resisting misalignment and the rings diameter enlarged to fit the Armisport .696 bore.

[Maillemaker]

Of course, paper-patched bullets like the British Enfield with its Pritchett bullet are not currently allowed for N-SSA use.

I have done some experimenting with them. I did not bother with extensive load workups for accuracy, but did experiment with different paper types. I do believe that the British Enfield cartridge was the zenith of military muzzle loading cartridge technology, as there are many benefits to it, and it is not surprising to me that the Confederacy tried hard to standardize on it as their standard cartridge up until the end of the war, when they finally succeeded in doing so only to rescind the order within weeks of issuing it.

Unfortunately the cartridge is quite sophisticated to manufacture, and requires good quality control over the size of the bullet, the thickness and quality of the paper, and the final overall size of the cartridge. The Confederacy already struggled with consistent sizing of bullets across its arsenals, and I suspect that of all the problems the lack of consistent quality paper played a big role in the pulling of the plug on this style of cartridge for them.

The Enfield style of cartridge is very nice in that it is quite efficient to load. There is no fumbling around with the paper to extract a bullet as you do with the US style of cartridges. Instead, after pouring in the powder, you simply turn the cartridge around and stick the bullet end in the muzzle until the lube mark is flush with the crown, and then snap off the rest of the paper, leaving a lubricated, paper-patched bullet there which can then be driven home in the usual manner.

In addition, at least with reasonably fresh lube (which is all I ever had), when you ram the bullet home you can actually feel the lube squeegying down the barrel as it goes. It's like swabbing your bore with a grease patch, which of course is exactly what you are doing. This probably results in the bore, in addition to the bullet, being lubricated prior to firing, which helps reduce fouling. During testing, one test musket was fired over 16,000 times between August 5th, 1863 to May 5th, 1866, at a rate of about 20 rounds per day, without ever cleaning it. During other testing, it was noted that with care, the Enfield could be loaded and fired over 200 times in succession without difficulty in loading.

I have some articles by myself and others concerning the manufacture of period paper cartridges, including the British Enfield, here:

http://4thla.weebly.com/paper-cartidge-patterns-and-information.html

The service charge for the Enfield cartridge was 2.5 drams, which is about 68 grains of powder. Of course, the bullet was massive by N-SSA standards, being about 530 grains in weight. But, this bullet would penetrate 12 1/2" thick elm boards at 500 yards. That's 6" of wood at over a quarter of a mile.

The Pritchett bullet was used in the Enfield cartridges in conjunction with a plug that fit into the hollow base. The British felt this gave better expansion of the bullet into the rifling and better accuracy at longer ranges. Initially, this plug was an iron cup. But this was discarded as sometimes the plug would be blown entirely through the bullet on firing, and there was also concern about shrapnel hitting friendly troops when firing over them. They soon moved to a conical plug made of boxwood, and this was replaced in the final evolution of the cartridge with a fired clay plug. The Confederacy opted to omit the plug.

Here is a video I made about how to construct one of the early variants of the Enfield cartridge, which is similar to some Confederate efforts to copy it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzA9aXEyT-c

Steve

[Eggman]

Good job Steve. Meanwhile I finally scarfed up my old "Ready, Aim, Fire!" by Dean Thomas. The Eley Bros. cartridges for Enfield contained 68 grains.

[gmkmd]

Steve,
Do you have any additional info regarding the .70 caliber pattern 1851 (which this thread was started about) cartridge and how it differed from the pattern 1853 ?

[Maillemaker]

Nope, sorry, didn't catch that we were talking about a larger bore than the .58.

Steve

[hobbler]

Just found something that I'd forgot I had...

"EXTRACT FROM REPORT OF EXPERIMENTS WITH SMALL ARMS,
CARRIED ON AT ENFIELD, (ENGLAND,) 1852,
By the Hon. A. Gordon, Lieutenant colonel. Published London, 1853.
These experiments were ordered by the Master General of Ordinance, (Viscount Hardinge.)
The following, principal gun makers offered arms, which, as well as the Minie rifle, adopted in 1851, and the regulation two-groove rifle, were experimented on, being fired from a frame..."

So OK, the get to the good stuff:
"REGULATION MINIE.-Weight with bayonet, 10 pounds 8 3/4 ounces.
Barrel.-4 pounds 10 ounces: length, 3 feet 3 inches; diameter, .702 inch.
Grooves.-No.4; twist once in 6 feet 6 inches.
Charge.-Powder 2 1/2 drachms F.G.
Bullet.-Minie, diameter, .690 inch; length 1.03 inch; weight, 680 grains."

Yep, that'll leave a mark.

[hobbler]

Looking at the charge of 2 1/2 drachms. That's 150 grains, right?
Was the Pattern 1851 that much more strongly built than a rifled 1842 / 1847 or was the US adopted charge really a matter of just not needing to touch someone quite so far away?

The original US round ball powder charge is eye opening when one squeezes off.
25% more powder and a long minie to boot in the 1851 must have made one long for bayonet practice.

[FedericoFCavada]

Isn't 2-1/2 "drachms" 2 and 1/2 drams, thus the same powder load of 68 grains as used in the smaller-bore Pattern 53?

My understanding is that the .69 smooth bore in the U.S. used 110 grains in a percussion musket, since 10 grains from the flintlock-era cartridge of 120 grains was used to prime the pan. This was initially a .64 cal. ball, later .65 cal.

The rifled .69 used a 730 grain conical Minié/Burton bullet backed by 70 grains of powder.

It is my understanding that Secesh smooth bore cartridges used 100 grains.

Powder has apparently improved such that smaller charges than those in the regulations can achieve similar velocities?
Question: Did the U.S. rifled .69 caliber conical bullet cartridge resemble the Model 1855 .58 with a separate powder chamber of two pieces of paper, or did the construction entail two pieces of paper like the wartime paper cartridges?

[FedericoFCavada]

<snip>
Question: Did the U.S. rifled .69 caliber conical bullet cartridge resemble the Model 1855 .58 with a separate powder chamber of two pieces of paper, or did the construction entail two pieces of paper like the wartime paper cartridges?

A: Both! never mind...

[hobbler]

A 68 grain charge (drachms to Avoirdupois ounces) versus 150 grains (drachms to Apothecaries ounces) would certainly seem more sensible.

[hobbler]

About the quality of their powder, cannot help but wonder what they had. The reference I found said single F. And, that the single F gave less fouling than finer granulations. Reckon I may have to spring for some high quality Fg and see how it does.