Questions

[Southron Sr.]

According to then contemporary U.S. Army manuals, what were the following for the U.S. M1855 (33 inch barrel) Harpers Ferry RIFLE:

1. Muzzle velocity?

2. Muzzle energy?

3. Maximum effective range?

THANKS!

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

Answer to no. 3 ....... 500 yds accurately, 1000 yds of killing power

For No 1 & 2 .. At that time in our history the technology your asking about did not exist. So there is nothing written in those terms from that time period as far as I know.

Good question that someone today can do by replicating the load at the time.

[bobanderson]

Good question that someone today can do by replicating the load at the time.

I've been told that today's black powder is different than what was produced 150 years ago. Urban legend?

Without data from the period, how would you replicate the old loads?

[Don Dixon]

The following chart is based upon contemporary data, part of which comes from disinterested tests conducted by the Dutch Army Shooting School in 1859-60 when the Dutch Army was evaluating what it regarded as the best military shoulder arms in the world for possible adoption by the Dutch Army. Notably, the Springfield rifle musket was not among them. The Dutch, not surprisingly, selected the Swiss Feldstutzer for adoption, but then decided to hold off and ultimately go with breechloading technology:



Firearm
Weight of the Bullet in Grains and Grams
Muzzle Velocity in Feet and Meters Per Second


Model 1842 Smoothbore Musket
412 [26.7] (Round ball)
1,500 [457.2]


Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle Musket (British Army Cartridge in Royal Dutch Army tests)
527 [34.1] (Pritchett bullet, without Culot)
1,181 [360]


Model 1842 Rifled Musket
730 [47.3] (Elongated ball)
879 [268]


Muster 1854 Austrian Infantry Rifle
(k.k. Army Cartridge in Royal Dutch Army tests)
452 [29.3] (System Lorenz bullet)
1,148 [350]


Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle Musket (Federal Army Cartridge)
510 [33.1] (Elongated ball)
963 [293.5]


Model 1855 Springfield Rifle Musket
510 [33.1] (Elongated ball)
963 [293.5]


Model 1855 Springfield Rifle
510 [33.1] (Elongated ball)
914 [278.6]


Model 1873 ?Trapdoor? Springfield Carbine
405 [26.2]
1,150[350.5]



Reflective of the technology available at the time there is considerable variation in data. Various sources, state that the velocity of Muster 1854 System Lorenz Austrian ammunition in Muster 1854 rifle muskets was about 100 feet per second higher than the Dutch data. Not included are data on the Federal Army?s 50 gr load for Mississippi and System Lorenz rifle muskets, or data on the Confederacy?s cr*p ammunition. Some of the data I have seen from Confederate tests at Augusta is in the nature of pure fiction. With bullet weight and velocity, you can use a good ballistics program to calculate muzzle energy. Since 74-foot pounds [100 Joules] of energy is regarded as adequate to kill a man, you can also calculate the killing power at various ranges.

Regarding the maximum effective range of the M1855 rifle musket, Captain Henry Heth?s pre-Civil War U.S. Army marksmanship training manual, stated that as soldiers progressed to live firing, they were to fire at distances from 150 to 1,000 yards at the following sized targets, which were divided by horizontal and vertical black lines crossing at the center:



Distance in Yards
Height of Target in Feet
Width of Target in Inches


150 and 225
6
22


225 and 300
6
44


325, 350, and 400
6
66


450 and 500
6
88


550 and 600
6
110


700
6
132


800
6
176


900
6
220


1,000
6
264



The six-foot height of the target required that the soldier understand the importance of range estimation and be able to accurately estimate range. The widths of the targets were based upon the expectation that a trained soldier should be able to hit an individual enemy soldier at ranges to 300 yards, the area occupied by an artillery piece and crew at 600 yards, and the area occupied by an artillery section of two guns at 1,000 yards.

Since Federal and Confederate marksmanship training was virtually nonexistent, a real world maximum effective range was under 200 yards.

Regards,
Don Dixon

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

I've been told that today's black powder is different than what was produced 150 years ago. Urban legend?

Without data from the period, how would you replicate the old loads?

I see original period loads still for sale, just pricey. The powder, I have heard, does not appear to have been degraded over time. Anyone with the must know, must have, historical data can still figure it out. Check out The Horse Soldier Shop in Gettysburg, Pa

[Maillemaker]

Great post, Don.


I've been told that today's black powder is different than what was produced 150 years ago. Urban legend?

Black powder has been made with the same basic proportions of Potassium Nitrate, Charcoal, and Sulfur for hundreds of years. There is/was some variation in the quality of the raw materials. And there can be variation in grain size depending on how well you screen your particles by size. Even today there is variation in performance between manufacturers of black powder. And most modern black powders are glazed with graphite.

Still, in the end, it's just finely powdered Potassium Nitrate, Charcoal, and Sulfur dampened with water and pressed under tons of pressure to corn the powder and force the ingredients into close physical contact.

Steve

[Carolina Reb]

Most of what you are looking for is in the 1856 Small Arms report on the development of the Models of 1855. You will have to calculate energy from the bullet weight and velocity.

Harpers Ferry rifle reamed up to 58 cal.: Charge, 60 grains "Musket Powder", Bullet weight 510 grains (10 grains lighter than the Lyman New Style, 10 grains heavier than the Lyman Old Style) Initial Velocity: 914 fps.
Mean deviations: 500 yards, 15" vertical, 12.7" horizontal; 1000 yards, 58" vertical, 25.2" horizontal.

M-1855 Rifle Musket, same ammo: Initial Velocity: 963 fps.
Mean deviations: 500 yards, 17.4" vertical, 14.4" horizontal; 1000 yards, 55.9" vertical, 25.5" horizontal.
Interestingly, the target size at 1000 yards was 20x24 feet. Of 25 shots fired, one missed.

As for the powder being different today, a lot of factors go into that. Different types of charcoal have different residual resins and tars, which affect both energy and the character of fouling. Finished powder has varying moisture content, which also has an affect. Purity of the ingredients has a strong affect on powder performance. One of the reasons George Rains' Augusta Powder Works was so successful was that he had a very efficient process for purifying niter. Federal powder quality got worse through the war and charges had to be upped from 60 to 65 grains. Confederate powder started off pretty crappy and got better when Rains took over. Ordnance records on both sides are full of complaints about poor quality powder. Another problem is that niter absorbs moisture from humid air. A lot of good powder became weak because of poor shipment and storage. Most mills varied their ingredients, mixing ratios, moisture content and mill processing in an attempt to reduce fouling and keep the residual soft, with the result that some powders were a lot slower and bulkier than others, particularly among the commercial powders.

[Kevin Tinny]

Hello:

Yes to all and:

Tom Hunger and others told me they have dissected original paper, Smith and Spencer ctg's with uncompressed powder, which was common in copper cased ctg's, and the loose grain size was slightly smaller than our current 2F, closer to our 3F.

In the early 1980's, Dupont, Moosic engineers Don Samonie and Vern Osdal and GOEX owner Frank Fahringer told me their test standards were set to U.S. Gov't spec's because the gov't took 75% of production, pyro 15% and sporting 10%. Both DuPont and GOEX used the same sized screens to fit gov't spec's, but pyro and sporting were not as uniform in grain size or graghite. The interesting figure was that they were allowed lot-to-lot, up to 7% velocity variation, mostly from moisture differences. A 7% velocity variation will play the devil with velocity consistency at longer distances. A few years back SWISS changed an ingredient and had a lot of comments about zero changes. In the 70's to '90's, with commomly available GOEX, we just used the same SIFTED VOLUME of charge and clicked off sighter shots for new lot zero. The change could be worth an inch, even two at 200. Skip range estimation differences for soldiers.

French artillery mixed black powder ingredients in the field to create desired strength.
Have no idea how corning fit into this practice, but the French were capable. H'mmm.

A sifted GOEX 2Fg muzzle velocity variation extreme spread of 30fps will be worth 2" - 3" at 200! Hard to imagine a trooper in the heat of battle loading with uniform seating pressure and keeping hits within 15" at 300 on a good day. Yes, vertical, man height is helpful. And those Confed sharpshooters at Petersburg were shooting through loopholes, but they practiced the setup off-target and knew the drops. Japs did the same thing on Pacific islands. Carlos, also.

Amazing how accurate muskets can be, even with all the variables.
Carlos was a good friend of Jim Land, who told me that the 50 BMG snipers in Nam used AVIATION ammo because that was the most consistent. Getting old. Haha.

Respectfully,
Kevin Tinny

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

Every one should note the word " contemporary " that is used in the charts language. This means " belonging to or occurring in the present." The fine chart shown is a MODERN conversion based on some old data that is inaccurate at best. You need modern equipment to answer the original question. An accurate way of timing wasn't even available to do such a test until the 1930's. You need old original ammunition. No original data exists for a comparison, its all subjective. I would propose that someone like The Carolina Reb should go and make up a " Go Fund Me " page to elicit money for him to go and buy some original rounds and do a test to determine the real characteristics. Its the only way to really answer both the of the remaining questions. I sure would contribute to it as well as others who want an answer too.

[RaiderANV]

I would strongly suggest even then you will not have your answer. Powder varied so much from batch to batch and improved year to year. It's known the Confederates had better powder with their process. So any testing.....especially with original ammo would be trivial at best.

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

The things you say may be true. The fact that remains, regardless, is that the only way to answer the original question is to use original Civil War ammunition. It would really be of great historical value to do this.

[John Holland]

The destruction of original ammunition would be contrary the N-SSA Bylaws:

BYLAWS of the NORTH-SOUTH SKIRMISH ASSOCIATION

ARTICLE I: NAME, OBJECTIVES, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

SECTION 2

(H) To encourage the preservation and public display of Civil War era artifacts, manuscripts, and literature.

[Blair]

Just a thought on my part...?
But, would you not also need an original firearm to shoot the original ammo through?
There are almost too many modern variables to take into an accurate account.
My best,
Blair

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

Blair, Right on my friend. I'm sure some 1855 rifles exist out there that are not mint and are begging to be shot. Everything should be as period correct as someone can make it. Even down to the swagged bullet. Sort of a Myth Busters episode that has been not shot yet.

[Don Dixon]

I would strongly suggest even then you will not have your answer. Powder varied so much from batch to batch and improved year to year. It's known the Confederates had better powder with their process. So any testing.....especially with original ammo would be trivial at best.

Any competent ordnance officer knows that powder - black powder or modern smokeless - varies from lot to lot and manufacturer to manufacturer, which is why I find Gorgas' endless complaints to his ammunition laboratories that Confederate ammunition didn't meet the Confederate ordnance manual standards for powder charge weight to be interesting. If the laboratories were testing powder, the weights for almost each batch of ammunition should have been different.

As for the Confederate mill/process at Augusta producing superior powder. LOL. Pure lost cause mythology. No other black powder manufacturer, then or now, has ever used Rains' process. Although it was significant industrial achievement, Augusta produced no more than 3 million pounds of powder. Between 1861 and mid-1864 the Federal Army purchased over 15 million pounds. "Confederate" powder was primarily run through the blockade, not produced at Augusta.

Regards,
Don Dixon

[Eggman]

The following chart is based upon contemporary data, part of which comes from disinterested tests conducted by the Dutch Army Shooting School in 1859-60 when the Dutch Army was evaluating what it regarded as the best military shoulder arms in the world for possible adoption by the Dutch Army. Notably, the Springfield rifle musket was not among them. The Dutch, not surprisingly, selected the Swiss Feldstutzer for adoption, but then decided to hold off and ultimately go with breechloading technology:
Don Dixon
I'd be leery about what the Dutch had to say in those days. As Edgar Allan Poe observed about that time, "The Dutch have, perhaps, and indeterminate idea that a curtain is not a cabbage."

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

Ok, So what is the consensuses on a type of powder to use that would be close to original? Maybe try several types? By the way the Dutch did get the chocolate right!

[Eggman]

I should interject here that it's not wise to stigmatize the Dutch, being one of that ilk myself. You know -- "There's the Highland Dutch and the Lowland Dutch, and the Rotterdam Dutch and the ___ ______ Dutch." I pride myself in being one of the former.

[Eggman]

Ok, So what is the consensuses on a type of powder to use that would be close to original? Maybe try several types? By the way the Dutch did got the chocolate right!
So since GOEX is the direct descendent of the original (Civil War) Dupont, wouldn't an inquiry directed to GOEX about formula consistency be in order??? To me logically GOEX or some older but not antique Dupont (still have some) would be the ideal test bed.

[Don Dixon]

One the first issues in a test. Both Federal and Confederate musket powder was granulated so that none of it would pass through a sieve with holes 0.03 inches [0.762 mm] in size, and all of it would pass through a sieve with holes 0.06 inches [1.524 mm] in size. This is comparable in size to today?s 1.5Fg GOEX and Swiss No. 4 cartridge powder and is somewhat coarse compared to the FFg or FFFg granulations of black powder that modern competitive shooters use in their rifle muskets. (U.S. Army, Ordnance Manual, 1862, 242; C.S. Army, Field Manual, 72; Benton, Course of Instruction, 27-

I misspoke in one of my posts above. I should have checked my data rather than relying on recollection. The Lost Cause myth would have one believe the Augusta powder mill was the major source of Confederate gunpowder. Certainly Rains? estimate that his mill produced 2,750,000 pounds of gunpowder, and the estimate of the authors of Never For Want of Powder that Augusta produced 3,168,450.7 pounds of powder, is indicative of a major manufacturing achievement. However, between 1 January 1861 and 30 June 1864 the Federal Army procured 18,569,101 pounds of gunpowder; averaging 5.3 million pounds per year. At that rate, the Federal Army would have procured an additional four million pounds by the end of the war. Thus, the Augusta works could have produced during its entire production cycle an amount of powder comparable to only 14.8 to 17 percent of the powder procured by the Federal Army from January 1861 to June 1864. It is difficult to believe that the Confederate Army could have effectively fought the war with such a disparity in powder manufacture, and the obvious conclusion is that the majority of the Confederacy?s gunpowder was run through the blockade. (Benet, Ordnance Reports, IV, 997)

So, how do you account in a modern test for disparities in the quality of manufacture. The institutional wisdom seems to be that on the Federal side Dupont and Hazard made pretty good powder, while that from other manufacturers ranged from good to very marginal. Reports reprinted in the O.R. and from Confederate correspondence in the National Archives indicate that a lot of Confederate ammunition was really pretty lousy stuff. One can see the problem today in modern black powder. Having shot them over my chronograph, Swiss is by far the best, there is a lot of variation in standard deviation between lots of GOEX, and I wouldn't foul my bore with Elephant when that was available. All three were made with the same materials (saltpeter, sulphur, and charcoal) in the same proportions, and while they all went bang the difference in quality was/is startling.

Regards,
Don Dixon

[Eggman]

Seems like Don you're making a strong case to use the SAME lot ALL THE TIME. Our goal is consistency, not power (!00 yds max). My 25 pound bag of GOEX still has a few years left in it.

[Kevin Tinny]

Hi, Don:

Tx for the perspective.

I went through the Elephant, South American, era.
It was sodium, rather than posassium nitrate based, less graphited and visibly hydroscopic.

Again, as DuPont and Frank told me, all Dupont, GOI and GOEX into the 1990's was to Milspec.
What might be different with Old E is after me.
The screens aspect is complicated by the diameter of the wire and the resultant opening.
I found that "meshes" may not be identical based on wire OD, etc.
I just sifted to remove the fines that doubled my ES.

All the best
Kevin Tinny

[Eggman]

hi, don:

Tx for the perspective.

I went through the elephant, south american, era.
It was sodium, rather than posassium nitrate based, less graphited and visibly hydroscopic.

All the best
kevin tinny

wild stuff!!!

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

I don't think we should consider confederate powder. The initial question is all about Union powder and an 1855 Rifle. Goex is OK. So do we screen it? Who has a screen of proper size? Who has one to lend out? Who has swagged original bullets to donate?

[Eggman]

[QUOTE=Bruce Cobb 1723V;Who has swagged original bullets to donate?[/QUOTE]
Bruce - I think you mean original STYLE swaged bullets - not the originals (see post 12).

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

Bruce - I think you mean original STYLE swaged bullets - not the originals (see post 12).

We are not talking about using the originals still in the paper wrappings with powder any more. I don't think by using just the bullet we are destroying them. There are millions for sale, all were dropped. Of course this point doesn't matter. I guess you have to balance the issues. Since the information wanted does not exist, the test would greatly add to our historical knowledge and it balances out. My personal interpretation only. The test and its bullet(s) can be put on display to further educate people about the Civil War.

[Eggman]

Hmmmmmm!!! Interesting view!

[Don Dixon]

Seems like Don you're making a strong case to use the SAME lot ALL THE TIME. Our goal is consistency, not power (!00 yds max).

Yes. I buy Swiss in 25 pound lots. But, with Swiss I've never seen much difference between lots, either over the chronograph or on target.

[Eggman]

We are not talking about using the originals still in the paper wrappings with powder any more. I don't think by using just the bullet we are destroying them. There are millions for sale, all were dropped. Of course this point doesn't matter. I guess you have to balance the issues. Since the information wanted does not exist, the test would greatly add to our historical knowledge and it balances out. My personal interpretation only. The test and its bullet(s) can be put on display to further educate people about the Civil War.
This observation/plan really stirred up the ounce and a half of grey matter I still have left. All the "drops" that I have also have about a half inch thick coating of oxidation on them. How do you load/shoot them?? Then once shot yer gonna pick them up and put them on display. What sort of back stop are you gonna use to catch the bullets and prevent distortion?

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

You capture the bullet(s) in a large plastic coffee can filled with wet sand. A little fine steel wool works wonders on the bullets and will not change the size. Bullets I had were just tooth brushed off and then looked great.

[bobanderson]

I think Dr. Franklin Mann used a box filled with oiled sawdust to catch bullets in The Bullet's Flight. It caught them without deforming them.

[Maillemaker]

I made a "bullet bucket" using a plastic 5 gallon bucket with lid, filled with chipped rubber mulch. I put a steel gong in the bottom to keep the bottom of the bucket from getting knocked out. After you shoot a few bullets, it kind of bores a tunnel through the mulch, but still works to stop them for recycling the lead. But many are relatively intact.

I originally tried sand, and it works great, but the bucket is very heavy, and when you shoot a hole in the plastic lid, the sand runs out. Maybe wet sand would be less prone to running out. But it would be heavier. Weight was a concern for me because I use a public range and have to tote my bullet bucket.

Hard to believe it was 8 years ago when I wrote this up:

http://4thla.weebly.com/bullet-bucket.html

Steve

[Kevin Tinny]

Hello:

I have used Dr. Mann's recovery method with muzzle loaded cast pure and 30:1 alloy bullets having muzzle velocities around 1200-1300fps. The secret is to use the slightly larger grained sawmill, not finer grained table saw blade sawdust. I want to recall Mann saying the same thing.

LIGHTLY oiled sawdust with re-refined 30 wgt motor oil and completely mixed in a child's play pool using 30 wgt worked perfectly. Lots cheaper than ordinary motor oil. The two boxes were each seven feet long, pkywoid lid, and 14" square inside with a connecting joint if more penetration arose. The boxes had cardboard sawdust retaining panels on both ends. If cross section more than 14", the pressure of the oiled sawdust would push out the cardboard.

Bullets were recovered AFTER EACH SHOT to prevent contact. Finding bullets was with hand searching at the guessed penetration area time and was quite time consuming. They were barely abraded on the meplat and could be resued and would shoot into the same 100 yd group!

I found this was the fastest and most revealing way to know the bullet:
Was not gas cutting, engraved the same length up the sides, the nose was not setback during upset and the base edge was retained with no land "drag-back". All had minute, but clear powder granule imprints in the soft lead base. It required at least 30:1, lead:tin alloy to prevent nose collapse and rumpling to one side at 1250fps. Pure lead BALLS, at up to 2250 fps simply smashed into the cardboard and sawdust and were distorted into round backed, flat faced, double diameter pieces. Scary.

To save time, I fired through an OEHLER chrono placed carefully in line with the axis of the box. The chrono NEEDED a 6" round bladlst shield PRECISELY aligned, 2 feet in front of the first screen to prevent the pressure wave triggering the first screen.

Pure lead bullet noses would deform and be unevenly pushed slightly off-axis if velocities were around 1400 fps. Once in a while a bullet would move oddly through the sawdust and skid inside against the plywood wall. None penetrated a full seven feet unless the charge produced over 1500 fps.

I shot, with permission at an outdoor range 30 miles away, WA-KE-DE, in Bristol, IN, with the boxes on top of a picnic bench. One day decided to put them in my South Bend, IN garage for a quick test of a new bullet and fired from down the driveway. Neighbors knew I was strange, but safe and gave their permission and assured me they would not call the police. The good old 1975 days.

Used a 40 caliber 30:1 alloy paper patched bullet and a heavy 3Fg GOI BP charge to see if a higher velocity might allow form retention and bullet length to stop yaw at 200. Bullet was tipping on paper tgt cards at 200. First shot fine and recovered. Decided to double bump the next one with a solid brass rod to see if penetration more. Shot through entire 14 FEET of oiled sawfust and into door of refrigerator at back of garage! Beer frame!

Was always careful to align bore axis with axis of boxes much like chrono screen sensitivity corridor and had no bullets skip out top or run along underside of plywood top cover. Still, I imagine it can happen so please watch your backstop and any refrig's!

General Hatcher tested recovery media and penetration and wrote in HATCHER'S NOTEBOOK that wet sand provided the shortest recovery depth, way less than anything else. He did not comment on distortion or bullet condition, but I imagine they were jacketed.

So oiled sawmill sawdust works, but is a laborious and time consuming process.

My bullets were cast and swaged in custom dies, even the balls. Swaging matters for uniformity.

Frankly, I think that all we will learn from a reasonably conducted test of original minie's using a close approximation of powder is that man-sized target hits at 300 are maybe 50%. Sure, they fly further, but the average soldier with 300 yards of interval, being shot at by tired, excited, scared troops with weather and distance issues was safe if he was BEING aimed at, ricochets included. Just my respectful 2 cents.

Thanks,
Kevin Tinny

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

We are only after the 2 unknowns. Accuracy is a known and is given in many period military accounts. Lots of good information has been given by many in this thread. Thanks .... How about a combo, oily sand? Can' t hurt to try it.
BTW: Steve / Kevin ... Great article and information.