Original rifle, rifle-musket ammunition

[Dave Fox]

Right now I'm wrestling with finding a nominal .54 calibre minie which fits the bore of an original Harpers Ferry long-range sighted Mississippi and, concurrently, a Colt modified .58 Mississippi. The HF is going to take something closer to .52 than .54 whilst the Colt will need something .580 true or greater. I've given up on an 1854 Lorenz which appears to be close to an actual .55 calibre. This begs the question: how the heck did they get any accuracy at all in the 1860s from these weapons with issue ammunition, except by random chance? I've a packet of original Macon arsenal .54 rounds, intended for both the Mississippi and Lorenz, weapons of profoundly different bore diameters. Anything under .580 tumbles down the barrel of the Colt conversion...and likewise tumbles out. Yet .580 simply won't even fit in my other original .58s. I recall reading in "Military Collector & Historian" some years ago that many battlefield dropped .58s were oversize, the likely reason for their being discarded. N-SSA shooters closely tailor bullet size to particular bore size. Could even a full regiment of Civil War soldiers have found enough well-armed troops in their ranks, given this ammunition situation, to even field a modestly proficient Skirmish team?

[Maillemaker]

This begs the question: how the heck did they get any accuracy at all in the 1860s from these weapons with issue ammunition, except by random chance?

I have wondered this myself. I've been doing this for about 2 years now and I'm still not completely satisfied with my loads. I still can't shoot a single hole in paper at 50 yards off of a bench rest with my guns with custom barrels.

One thing I have wondered is that the service charges for .58 expanding balls were 60 grains. I'm assuming that the service charges for most weapons were greater than what we tend to use for target shooting. Maybe such "heavy" charges expanded the balls to fit nearly any bore for reasonable accuracy?

Also I wonder if their quality control was not more stringent than we might think? Ammunition was passed through sizers and when inspected if any failed the entire lot wsa rejected. When making firearms if you as a worker produced a sub-standard part you were fined (mulcted) for it!

As an aside, I have thought it would make for an interesting competition to have team competitions using issued, period-style ammunition. :)

Steve

[R. McAuley 3014V]

I have wondered this myself. I've been doing this for about 2 years now and I'm still not completely satisfied with my loads. I still can't shoot a single hole in paper at 50 yards off of a bench rest with my guns with custom barrels.


...and you won't... unless you can find a way to momentarily stop your heart from beating long enough to break the round,... then you "might" shoot all your rounds through a single hole in the paper? Even though I have shot "cleans" (perfect scores in the 10 and/or X-rings) in military service (highpower) rifle matches at ranges up to 600 yards, I've never shot all 10 or 20 rounds through the same hole. Even when I was lying in a "low" prone position to engage targets at 600 or 1000 yards, even with the best rhythm breath control you cannot stop the effect of your heart beat in the motion of the front sight or its effect on the path of the bullet. And you will never eliminate all these variables unless you are shooting from a machine rest in a complete vaccum. Then just maybe, you might shoot every round through the same hole?

[Maillemaker]

I was not clear. I'm not talking about shooting all the bullets through the exact same hole.

I'm talking about a group tight enough to produce a single hole in the paper because all the holes touched one another.

Right now off a bench at 50 yards my holes don't even touch.

Steve

[ms3635v]

Please be aware that some original Springfield muskets had bore sizes greater than .580". I have an original Savage contract that requires a .582" diameter minie to shoot properly. There is a disparity in bore sizes among Civil War firearms. A bullet that is .001" to .002" smaller than bore size will expand sufficiently to produce tighter groups...you also have to try different powder charges.

[Dave Fox]

I'm aware of what tends to work best to achieve useful accuracy in original and replica CW rifles and rife-muskets. The query I pose is: how (or even if) they achieved it in the 1860s. I suspect the mass issue of generic calibre minie ammunition in nominal .54, .58, and .69 resulted in whole packets which wouldn't fit particular weapons (hence so many unfired "drops' recovered from battlefields), or minies that merely tumbled in flight, as my .55+ calibre Lorenz does with .54 calibre ammunition. I suspect a great number of soldiers lived into old age because of ammunition ill-fitted to weapons of divers bore size. I recall, for instance, evidence of minies hitting sideways in the interior walls of Frankin's Carter House and Gettysburg's fence rails.

[medic302]

I think more "drops" happened from handling the cartridge with sweaty, greasy fingers and hands while trying to shoot as quick as possible, while being shot at, rather than ill fitting ammunition. I've yet to see in a memoir any mention of ill fitting bullets with the exception being when using captured federal ammunition in rebel enfields without removing the paper. I can't help but think that with as many letters and memoirs that were written, if oversized bullets was that big a problem, the boys would've written or complained about it.

[Maillemaker]

the exception being when using captured federal ammunition in rebel enfields without removing the paper.

I'm interested in this situation. The federal government never made .58 expanding ball cartridges in the British Enfield manner. That is, Union ammunition was always designed to have the ball removed from the paper. The Confederacy used British Enfield cartridges throughout the war and standardized on that style of cartridge for their own manufacture in 1864. This was the style of cartridge that used a smooth-sided ball that was to be loaded with the paper intact.

Did the people in question think that the federal ammo was supposed to be used like Enfield ammunition?

Steve

[jbarber]

I have long believed that the progressive groove depth of CW rifle-muskets and rifled muskets efficiently compensated for variations in bore and bullet diameters, allowing most of these weapons to be fired accurately. As a modern case in point, when I joined the 110th Ohio in the late '60's, all but two members shot '61 Springfields with C.H. Weisz barrels, which were made exactly like the originals. I don't know how much variation there was in the bore diameter of these barrels, but everyone used the Lyman 575213 new style sized to .575 and all these rifles shot well. Due to financial considerations I was stuck with shooting an original-barreled '63 which measured .580, yet it shot very well using .575 minies. Stan Tweed fired a 48-2X from the shoulder using this gun and bullet. Another possible factor contributing to accuracy was the fact that we all used 60 grains of 2F powder. I am sure this heavy service charge helped to expand the bullet base into the grooves. Anyhow, I'm sticking to my belief that the combination of progressive groove depth and heavy charges did compensate for variations in bore diameter and bullet size, at least to some extent.

[medic302]

basically yes, I have to look up which book I've read that in, but, Lee had to issue an order to the troops to remove the bullet from captured federal cartridges. come to think of it, that may be in "shock troops of the confederacy" or it may be in "civil war guns" when I get a chance i'll look it up.

[medic302]

@jbarber- I completely agree with that statement, the advantage of giving the fouling a place to blow into upon ignition, leaves the lands a consistant diameter. so when the bullet expands it bumps up to the same dia with every shot, as opposed to modern constant depth rifling, the fouling accrues steadily, making each shot just a little different. just my thoughts on the matter.

[Dave Fox]

Comrade Bilby in his superb book "Civil War firearms" has several entries regarding ill-fitting generic ammunition, especially oversize bullets. "Some Southern-made cartridges were over bore size.... This situation surfaced time and again in the Confederacy, largely due to improper guages and poor production control. Oversized ammunition became such a problem in the Army of Northarn Virginia that 'the men have repeatedly sought Miss. (.54 calibe) rifle ammunition for their Enfield rifles and rifled muskets'." (page 59). If I had to have someone take a shot at me with a rifle-musket at 100 yards, I'd as lief it be a .577 loaded with a .535 minie. On the flip side, minies too large to even start in an M.1855 and M.1861 rifle-musket fall down the barrel of my Colt-rebored Mississippi (very generous bore in excellent condition) and my Lorenz is easily a full calibre or more greater of bore than the old standard Lyman mould's minie and laughs at stabilization, full charges notwithstanding. this same minie, unsized, won't start in a HF .54 Mississippi bore.

What I'm suggesting is: this is a potentially major factor in bad 1860s shooting, right up there with not aiming low and not aiming at all.

[Muley Gil]

My first smokepole was a Zoli Zouave. It would shoot a 3 shot cloverleaf at 50 yards, sometimes from my shoulder!

Tactics were unchanged for many years and shoulder to shoulder volley fire was very common.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

On the adoption of the British standard .577 service ammunition, the actual bullet diameter was established at .568-inch, but in February 1859 this standard was reduced by 0.018 in windage to a 0.55-inch diameter bullet on account of the amount of fouling that had occurred with the larger standard diameter bullet. It was also at this same time that the lubricant was changed to pure beeswax as the official lubricant.

The .577-inch standard for service ammunition was adopted for the Confederate service according to Bureau of Ordnance Circular of 9 June 1862, and it was this that precluded the use of captured federal ammunition as it relates to rifle musket ammunition. This did not necessarily apply towards other types of ammunition such as for the .54 Sharps or .50 Smith, and No. 56 Spencer, etc. However, it seems Lee’s army required .58 caliber arms because his troops regularly captured stores of federal ammunition and needed guns that could use that caliber ammunition.

Confederate Bureau of Ordnance never officially adopted the 0.55-inch “reduced windage” standard adopted by British Ordnance in 1859, though it nonetheless imported great quantities of ammunition based on this standard as is evinced by such shipments of ammunition like that recovered aboard the blockade runner Minho that was run aground on Sullivan’s Island in Charleston Harbor and shelled by the Federals.

As for the Austrian Lorenz and Bavarian arms, these were only “nominally .54 caliber”, whilst actually about 0.535-inch diameter being the nearest Imperial conversion. As I know others here are aware, the Austrian-Bavarian alliance relied on a joint standard for service ammunition, hence why these arms are so similar, they were designed by the same designer.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

I'm interested in this situation. The federal government never made .58 expanding ball cartridges in the British Enfield manner. That is, Union ammunition was always designed to have the ball removed from the paper. The Confederacy used British Enfield cartridges throughout the war and standardized on that style of cartridge for their own manufacture in 1864. This was the style of cartridge that used a smooth-sided ball that was to be loaded with the paper intact.

Did the people in question think that the federal ammo was supposed to be used like Enfield ammunition?

Steve

Steve,

You may wish to read the 1861 U.S. Ordnance Manual for the proper construction of paper cartridges, as they are very similar in their construction to the British Enfield cartridge with excepting the position of the bullet. The U.S. standard placed the bullet at the top or front end of the cartridge whilst the Enfield cartridge contained the bullet in the base end. In loading, the American cartridge is "handled" and the folded or tail end is torn open with the soldier's teeth, and the powder poured into the bore; the bullet, wrapped with heavier paper in its own compartment, is then torn from the lighter outer paper wrapper and is placed into the bore, and outer wrapper discarded (or sometimes used as wadding). The loading procedure for the British cartridge is much the same fashion except it requires the bullet to be turned over end when loaded into the muzzle, and retains the harder inner "lubricated" paper wrapping whilst the outer wrapping is discarded. Probably the bigest difference is the location of the lubricant: the Americans lubricated the bullet whilst the British the wrapper. in both cases, the lubricant soon bled into the paper and often it continued to deteriorate with time, either drying out and falling off, or leached out completely due to exposure to heat and/or moisture.

[Maillemaker]

You may wish to read the 1861 U.S. Ordnance Manual for the proper construction of paper cartridges, as they are very similar in their construction to the British Enfield cartridge with excepting the position of the bullet. The U.S. standard placed the bullet at the top or front end of the cartridge whilst the Enfield cartridge contained the bullet in the base end. In loading, the American cartridge is "handled" and the folded or tail end is torn open with the soldier's teeth, and the powder poured into the bore; the bullet, wrapped with heavier paper in its own compartment, is then torn from the lighter outer paper wrapper and is placed into the bore, and outer wrapper discarded (or sometimes used as wadding). The loading procedure for the British cartridge is much the same fashion except it requires the bullet to be turned over end when loaded into the muzzle, and retains the harder inner "lubricated" paper wrapping whilst the outer wrapping is discarded. Probably the bigest difference is the location of the lubricant: the Americans lubricated the bullet whilst the British the wrapper.

Hi Richard,

I believe that is exactly what I said. :)

The .58 Caliber expanding ball cartridges based on both the 1855 and 1862 patterns were totally different from the British Enfield style of cartridge.

Here are pictures of 1855 and 1862 style cartridges I have made per the ordnance manuals:

http://imgur.com/a/H5PHo#0
http://imgur.com/a/n1hJ7#4

Here is a nice web page on the different kinds of cartridges:

http://cartridgetubes.com/Authentic_Cartridges.html

Steve

[R. McAuley 3014V]

I'm interested in this situation. The federal government never made .58 expanding ball cartridges in the British Enfield manner. That is, Union ammunition was always designed to have the ball removed from the paper. The Confederacy used British Enfield cartridges throughout the war and standardized on that style of cartridge for their own manufacture in 1864. This was the style of cartridge that used a smooth-sided ball that was to be loaded with the paper intact.

Did the people in question think that the federal ammo was supposed to be used like Enfield ammunition?

and

One thing I have wondered is that the service charges for .58 expanding balls were 60 grains. I'm assuming that the service charges for most weapons were greater than what we tend to use for target shooting. Maybe such "heavy" charges expanded the balls to fit nearly any bore for reasonable accuracy?

Steve

Although Enfield service ammunition may have been wrapped in paper, the lubrication was not applied by dipping the cartridges but was done before the cartridge was closed, and in most instances, the paper was removed before the bullet was inserted into the muzzle and rammed home. Certainly this required more dexterity in handling, and for some of us, it may have also required both hands. But whilst the British used paper-patched bullets in rifles such as the Whitworth and other long range rifles, there was sufficient windage with the .550 ammunition to insert the entire bullet and greased outer wrapping, though when this was done it only served to increase the amount of fouling.

As for using a 60 grain charge. When I shot my P/60 Enfield rifle, I had used a 60-grain charge because that anything lighter the bullet tended to keyhole at 50 yards. But at 60-grains, my favourite event was the slices of wooden 2x4's (actual dimensions being 1-1/2" wide by 3-1/2 inches high), and it was rare that I missed any hanging targets with that rifle. I don't have many misses with my '55 Rifle but when I do miss it's usually less than half an inch. I do shoot individuals but I really hate trying to argue about two or more bullets through the same hole. I have had at least one target with a single bullet hole with two cresents on each side from the two succeeding rounds but that is the closest I have done to getting one ragged hole. But that was also "offhand" not from any benchrest.

[Maillemaker]

Although Enfield service ammunition may have been wrapped in paper, the lubrication was not applied by dipping the cartridges but was done before the cartridge was closed, and in most instances, the paper was removed before the bullet was inserted into the muzzle and rammed home.

I'm not sure which cartridge you are talking about here for "Enfield service ammunition".

.58 Expanding Ball cartridges made by the 1855 and 1862 Ordnance Manuals utilized a grooved, lubricated bullet that was wrapped in paper, and was designed to be removed from the paper before being loaded. These kinds of cartridges were used by the Union and the Confederacy for all kinds of .58 caliber arms, including Enfields.

The P1853 Enfield cartridge utilized a smooth-sided Pritchett bullet and the bullet end of the cartridge was dipped in molten lube thus impregnating the paper surrounding the bullet. It was loaded with the paper.

Here is a reproduction P1853 Enfield cartridge with the lubricated bullet end being stuck in the muzzle as would have been done during loading. Of course this is a completed cartridge and in practice the powder would have been dumped and the powder end of the bullet gets torn off after the bullet has been started in the muzzle:

http://cartridgetubes.com/images/enfld3.jpg

Steve

[robertdeans72]

Hi there,

Enfield Service ammo was lubricated on the outside of the paper and the whole was inserted into the muzzle. The lubrication was not on the actual bullet.... There is no way for the bulet to hold any, as it was, as stated, smooth-sided.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNIt8RvGP5M

Cheers,
Rob

[medic302]

I believe you are incorrect about the use of the enfield cartridge sir. the outer wrapper is the paper jacket for the bullet, the rest of the cartridge being snapped off at the muzzle upon loading. It was the same before and after the caliber reduction from .568-.555, concerns with fouling prompted the change in caliber. the only time the british suggested removing the bullet from the cartridge was in the case of dried or insufficient lubricant, in which case the bullet was to be placed in the soldiers mouth and wetted with saliva then rammed home. if the outer jacket was to be removed as you suggest then the british wouldn't have experimented with the various slits in the outer wrapper to aid separation from the bullet when fired, since the dipped lubricant would on occasion let the paper stick to the bullet and cause flyers.

[medic302]

rob and mailemaker beat me too it. :)

[medic302]

I also on occasion shoot pritchets from cartridges just a rob has shown in his video, they are a lot of fun!

[jek279]

Are you basing information off your own experience or from historical records. The Enfield Paper .550 ball was meant to be rammed down the barrel with the paper. That is why they had the three cut lines in the ball. There are even recovered Pritchett rounds with the three lines visible on dropped rounds. As for fouling, the paper did help with fouling, remember the hollow base had the wooden plug to expand the skirt and push the paper against the rifling. I shoot ammunition through my model 53 Enfield identical to historical ammunition (minus wooden plug), and I have tried the difference between no paper and leaving the paper on. After about five rounds of using GOEX 3F 60 grains, the with no paper it became hard to seat the ball. I then cleaned the bore and used the paper on the round and shot over 50 rounds with about the same ramming effort as round 10. I Think it would have gone to 70-80 rounds before I would have to address the fouling. This is just my experience.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

To all those who immediately responded: dormitat Homerus!

The comment was not based on mypersonal experience but upon reading of the minutes of evidence taken beforethe Commissioners on Breech-Loading Rifles (10 December 1867- 21 March 1868),Vol. II, Appendix I (HMSO, 1869). Lt-Colonel Fletcher, presiding as Chairman; panelmembers: Captains Rawlins, Mackinnon, Earl Spencer, K.G., and Captain Haig,Secretary (some others standing in on occasion also), soliciting on theexpertise of various individuals engaged in small-arms trade: including Lt.Colonel Charles Hay (former Inspector General of Musketry); Mr. Charles WilliamLancaster; Mr. Alexander Henry; Colonel Haliday (Inspector General of Musketry,Hay’s successour); Mr. John Rigby; Mr. James H. Burton (former Superintendantof the Armouries, Richmond, Virginia); Colonel Manley Dixon (Superintendent ofthe Royal Small Arms Factories); Colonel E.M. Boxer (Superintendent of theRoyal Laboratories at Woolwich); Mr. James Kerr (formerly Superintendent of theLondon Armoury Company); Mr. Joseph Whitworth; Mr. Westley Richards; FrederickAugustus Abel (Chemist to the War Department at the Royal Arsenal); amongothers. Of several questions put to each, theywere asked questions relating to the proper system of rifling; the idealbullet; the effects of fouling and its causes; the ideal lubricant; and of whetherthe lubricant should be applied to the bullet or to the paper covering; and severalother questions relative to both the existing muzzle-loading arms and newbreech-loading arms. Though some expressed the opinion of the lubricant’splacement on the bullet, none advocated for placing the lubricant on theoutside cover as in some instances it was said ‘to disappear in hot climates’or the lubricant would become ‘hardened’ over time, or ‘the casing of thecartridge hardened’, or simply had experienced ‘great difficulties’ with theearlier greased ammunition versus the later ‘all-beeswax’ type.

But included in the testimony ofFrederick Augustus Abel (Chemist to the War Department at the Royal Arsenal), Abelwas asked: “Have you made many experiments with regard to the best lubricationto be used for rifle cartridges?” To which Abel replied: “I have; the subjecthas received a good deal of attention on my part from some years past, indeedever since 1856, when the question as to an improvement in the lubrication wasfirst raised. A committee was appointedin 1857 to report on the proposal made by Colonel Boxer at that time tosubstitute pure beeswax for a mixture of beeswax and tallow as a lubricationfor small arms. A great number of experiments were in consequence made, notonly by the committee, but by myself individually, to ascertain, in the firstinstance, whether beeswax would act as efficiently, as a lubricant, as anymixture of beeswax with a softer material; and, secondly, whether certain defectswhich were inherent in other lubricants would be remedied by the use of beeswaxalone. The results of those experiments proved incontestably that beeswax actedefficiently as a lubricant, and indeed more so than mixtures of varioussubstances, either with or without beeswax; it possessed a lubricating propertywhich acted differently from those other substances, and it had the greatadvantage of perfect permanence in its properties and perfect stability; thatis to say, the influences of heat, or atmospheric influence generally, theinfluences of moisture, and the effects of time, produced little or no changein the beeswax, if at the begging a material of the best quality was employed.

When asked with regard to thelubricating properties of beeswax, Abel was asked: “Do you consider that theyare better than would be obtained by any mixture with any softer material?”Abel replied: “I consider that they are, because the beeswax acts quitedifferently as a lubricant from any fatty materials. The action of the wax inthe barrel is similar to a burnishing action, and as the wax is carried alongthe surface of the barrel is glazes it; it does not merely smear it over withsome soft matter, which might partly prevent the adhesion of fouling, as when afat is employed, but it glazes the barrel so perfectly that it produces asurface to which any fouling material or leading has very little if anytendency to adhere. Therefore I consider that it has more perfect action as alubrication, although it is a very different action to that possessed by anyother lubricant.” When queried: “What effect has tallowor a lubrication like tallow have upon the bullet?” Abel replied: “The actionof any fatty material upon the bullet is to promote a gradual oxidation, and toproduce upon the bullet a crust, which in fact is white lead, or rather amixture of white lead with the fatty acid that is produced from the fat whichis used. The reason of this is, that all these fats, although you may use themin a perfectly pure condition at first, undergo a change by exposure to air,and especially in thin films, which results in a development of acid. Then thisacid matter establishes a corrosive action on the lead, and eventually thelubrication may be entirely destroyed and converted into a hard materialcontaining lead in its composition. On the one hand the bullet is corroded, andon the other hand the lubrication is destroyed.”
Adding to this, Abel spoke of theeffect of climatic conditions where in India, for instance, deterioration wasquite rapid: “It is very difficult to fix the precise period, but in 1857 Iexamined some ammunition which had been returned after, comparatively speaking,a very short time; and in that instance the corrosion had proceeded to a veryconsiderable extent, although the lubrication at that time consisted only onepart tallow mixed with five parts of beeswax.”

When asked “Would the use of any otherlubricant than beeswax on the paper, not in immediate contact with the bullet,be objectionable?” Abel replied: “It would be in this way, that howevercarefully a soft lubricator may be applies, containing any fatty matter in thefirst instance, the tendency of the paper is gradually to draw the latterforward towards the bullet. In the case of that apparently hard mixture whichhas been referred to as Price’s mixture, the lubricant was applied verycarefully to a given length of the cartridge, but after exposure for about aweek to a temperature not exceeding 80° F during the day, and 60° F during thenight, the fatty portions had been gradually drawn into the paper towards thebullet, and absorbed by the wrappers.” There is a proper cover to protect the lubricant, which has tobe stripped off before lading the bullet into the muzzle. If the ends of the finishedpaper cartridges were “dipped” whether in pure beeswax or even a mixture ofbeeswax and tallow (as in the pre-1857 type cartridges), then there would be agreat tendency for the cartridges to stick to one another, and over time, to furtherharden into a mass, indeed, so hard as might break apart and their contents spiltin separating them. As Able relates, even coating the inner casing with such a lubricantwould over the span of a few hours weep into the outer wrappings. In thislatter instance, there would appear almost no visual evidence that thecartridges were not dipped, except for perhaps the cartridges would not be assticky because the beeswax was applied internally to the inner casing and notthe outer.

No doubt there may have been some unscrupulousdealers selling more cheaply made cartridges that were “dipped” in a tallow-beeswaxmixture, but these were not the cartridges produced for the British Army or Navy.Just as Abel remarks to the advantages of the properties of beeswax, there isone chief disadvantage, and one which would be appreciably more disadvantageousif the lubricant was applied to the outer wrappings, and that is exposure to cold.Though as Abel relates: “naturally, in the first round or two in cold climatesit will always be somewhat deficient in its action, because first of all thebarrel is very cold, and the wax is hard, and therefore it would have atendency to be brittle in very cold climates,” though this would soon correctitself after firing a few rounds to warm up the barrel, when the season turnsor troops are deployed to hotter climes, the lubricants (even beeswax) tends todisappear. Just as Abelrelated to cartridges he examined in India that had corroded in the heat anddamp, the same would have been quite applicable to conditions in parts of thedeep South (i.e. Virginia).

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Sorry about the above post guys, seems to be some formatting issues with IE 9. I type "beginning" and get "begging", and all these run-on words that look perfectly fine when typed but convert into something else when saved: I give up!

[Hickok]

I have edited out portion on the test accuracy of the 1861 SpringField as done by the Federal Ordinance department, as I can't find the scource of information.

In reading the four volume set, Round Balls to Rimfire, it appears when contractors were trying to attract a Federal contract for the making of ammunition, the contractors produced high quality minie ball cartridges for the tests. After securing a contract of say two million rounds of said ammunition, the quality of the product sent to the goverment was usually never up to the standard of the test amminition.

Also the Federal Arsenals had their own headaches producing quality ammunition. After producing millions of rounds, the swage dies and sizing dies became worn and the resulting minie balls grew in diameter to the point that complaints were received from the field that the ammo would not fit the bores of the rifles. Quality checks were supposed to be made at the arsenals by gauging the bullets during production runs, but sometimes this was overlooked, and sometimes the guages themselves varied from one arsenal to another. The south suffered like problems.

It was said the finest ammunition of the war was the .577 Enfield Ammunition imported from Great Britain. The British not being in a civil war, could take the time and extra effort involved to produce a high quality, carefully checked and gauged cartridge. Besides, they had years of experience with the Enfield rifle platform, and its ammunition, perfecting both.

[Maillemaker]

Hi Richard,

This is an interesting passage. I do not know what to make of it.

If I am following it correctly, the interview is from post Civil War? Perhaps there was some move after the war to lubricate the bullet rather than the paper, and the bullets removed from the paper entirely.

But during the war, I am fairly certain that the British Enfield cartridge, and the Confederate copies, were lubricated on the outside of the cartridge, and this lubricated cartridge end, paper and bullet, were loaded into the barrel.

Here are the orders from "Rules to be observed in the Laboratories of C.S. Arsenals and Ordnance Depots", from Josia Gorgas' (Confederate Chief of Ordnance):


C.S. Central Laboratory, (Ordn.)

Macon, Ga., Feb. 9, 1864.
[CIRCULAR] It has been recently ordered by the Chief of Ordnance that the only patters of cartridge to be hereafter used with muzzle loading rifled small arms shall be that known as the English pattern of Enfield cartridge.
It is important that the troops should be taught to load this cartridge properly - the following instructions upon the subject are therefore published - Ordnance Officers on field service will endeavour to secure their observance, and to correct any irregularities which they may notice.
1. - If the powder end of the cartridge has been "pinched" or folded straighten out the folded portion of the paper - if it has been twisted (as is the case with the cartridges made in England) untwist the end with the finger and thumb.
2. - Tear off the part of the paper at the powder end beyond the stiff inside cylinder, taking advantage of leverage upon the edge of this stiff cylinder, and tearing off as close as possible to the edge.
3. - Pour the powder from the end of the cartridge thus opened into the barrel of the gun, taking care not to lose or scatter any of the powder - Hold the barrel vertically, so that but few grains may remain adherent to the inside surface.
4. - Invert the cartridge, and insert the lubricated end into the muzzle of the piece (without tearing off any of the paper from the ball).
5. - Press the bullet end of the cartridge down into the barrel until the top of the cylindrical portion of the ball is just flush with the muzzle taking acre that the axis of the bullet coincides with that of the barrel, and that the cartridge is pressed directly down - not twisted.
6. - Break off the empty powder cylinder from the bullet, taking advantage of leverage against the edge of the muzzle, and being careful not to twist or pull the bullet out of its place.
7. - Ram the ball steadily down, using no more pressure than is necessary, and avoid twisting the ramrod. Settle the bullet in its place by one or two light taps.
8. - Cap the gun, which is then ready to be discharged.
In case of the gun becoming excessively foul, so as to prevent easy loading in the proper way, as above detailed, the paper of the cartridge may be torn off from the bullet, and the latter loaded naked. As the lubricant is upon the outside of the paper and not upon the bullet this practice is not to be recommended unless it be rendered necessary by the cause mentioned.


J. W. Mallet, Maj.
Supt. C.S. Laboratories Approved:
J. Gorgas, Col.
Chief of Ordnance
Richmond, Va., Feb. 15, 1864.

It seems clear that in 1864 the Confederates are copying the English pattern of Enfield cartridge which has a lubricated cartridge paper end and is loaded with this lubricated paper in place.

More information on period sources concerning the manufacture of the British Enfield cartridge here:

http://www.researchpress.co.uk/firearms/british/enfield/cartridge.htm

Steve

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Are you basing information off your own experience or from historical records. The Enfield Paper .550 ball was meant to be rammed down the barrel with the paper. That is why they had the three cut lines in the ball. There are even recovered Pritchett rounds with the three lines visible on dropped rounds. As for fouling, the paper did help with fouling, remember the hollow base had the wooden plug to expand the skirt and push the paper against the rifling. I shoot ammunition through my model 53 Enfield identical to historical ammunition (minus wooden plug), and I have tried the difference between no paper and leaving the paper on. After about five rounds of using GOEX 3F 60 grains, the with no paper it became hard to seat the ball. I then cleaned the bore and used the paper on the round and shot over 50 rounds with about the same ramming effort as round 10. I Think it would have gone to 70-80 rounds before I would have to address the fouling. This is just my experience.

Just to clarify terms (jek279 and ONLY jek279), when you say “cut-lines”, do you mean cannelure grooves (i.e. grease grooves, like a three-ring minie)?

P.S.
Believe it or not, but I have committed the sacrilege of shooting “original” Pritchett minies (not merely modern recasts from original moulds) in original muskets for experimental purposes, with and without the base plugs. But that was back in the day when minies recovered from the Minho were cheap (less than $1 a piece), while I have seen some now selling for $45 each. For our purpose, we used something on the magnitude of about 5 rounds per musket, rifle, and carbine at a range of 50 and 100 yards. They didn’t shoot worth a flip in any of the guns tested except for the P/60 rifle.

[Maillemaker]

when you say “cut-lines”, do you mean cannelure grooves (i.e. grease grooves, like a three-ring minie)?

The three lines he is speaking of are the three cuts scored into the paper that made the paper detach from the bullet after firing. Otherwise the paper had a tendency to stick to the bullet and ruin accuracy. By slicing the cartridge paper it would fly off shortly after leaving the barrel.

This is what the 3 lines on the Enfield cartridge bundle labels indicated:
http://www.researchpress.co.uk/firearms/british/enfield/images/cartridge_label.jpg

You can also see them in the patterns for the cartridge papers:

http://i.imgur.com/JyFGY6L.jpg

The Pritchett bullet used in Enfield cartridges was smooth-sided and had no grease grooves. It did not need them since the paper carried the lube.

http://www.fototime.com/6BC2C97C7D40D5E/standard.jpg

Steve

[Hickok]

As to the cut lines they are definately needed. I paper jacked some minies for my Armisport Enfield which has a slightly large bore diameter. Didn't add the cuts to the paper. Shot real good @ 50 yards, 2 inch and less for groups, when shot at 100 yards the groups went to 10 to 12 inches. Apparently, the paper stayed on at fifty yards, and then in the trip to the 100 yd target, the paper came off inconsistantly ruining accuracy.

I then put the 3 splits in the paper, and it separates from the bullet right after leaving the muzzle, and 100 yd. accuracy is in the 4 inch grouping area. (Since then, I have gotten a Rcbs Hodgdon Mold in .580" so I can do away with the hassle of paper patching)

[robertdeans72]

Although Enfield service ammunition may have been wrapped in paper, the lubrication was not applied by dipping the cartridges but was done before the cartridge was closed, and in most instances, the paper was removed before the bullet was inserted into the muzzle and rammed home. .......

Hi there,

This is the comment that sparked the reply-fest, if I recall correctly.... This is what people were correcting... It seems to me, that your reply to the many comments (the article) was based on the type of lubricant used (beeswax vs mixed BW/tallow).... It was a very interesting article but I didn't see any content that would support your quote above. Correct me if I am wrong but were you trying to support your statement (above) with the lube article?

Cheers,
Rob

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Yes, my mistake (dormitat Homerus - 'even Homer nods'). Removing the paper was in regards to another matter I was researching. It was in regards to the special ammunition for the 26-bore (.568-cal) Whitworth rifle used in the trials of February 1864 using a heavier 600-grain cylindro-conoidal bullet with cavity in base, wood plug in apex, with a charge of 75 grains of Curtis & Harvey’s No. 5 grain powder, having “a proper cover to protect the lubricator, which had to be stripped off before loading; in other respects the cartridge is used like the service cartridge.” [Extracts from the Reports and Proceedings of the Ordnance Select Committee, Vol. II, January-December 1864 (1865) p211.] In this trial, this rifle shot a 5-inch group at 300 yards and 8-inch group at 500 yards!

http://books.google.com/books?id=8HTNAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA213&ots=jyNF_q79LA&dq=large-bore Whitworth&pg=PA211#v=onepage&q=large-bore Whitworth&f=false

Interestingly, the Ordnance Select Committee had been given to understand that the Secretary of State had "no objection to the trial of such ammunition as Mr. Whitworth chose to submit, provided always, that it could, if required, be fired from the Enfield rifle, the Committee proceeded to fire the Whitworth special ammunition from the Enfield rifle, but after 16 rounds at 300 yards it was found necessary to stop the practice, in consequence of the wildness of the shooting, many of the bullets turning over in their flight." The large-bore Whitworth fired at targets from 300 to 1200 yards, shooting a 3-ft group at 1000 yards and 4.59-ft group at 1200 yards compared to the Lancaster large-bore groups of 3.55-ft and 7.33-ft, respectively.

Uploaded a few pictures of one of the 26-bore Experimental Large Bore Whitworth rifles in Reply #19 at the following link:

http://www.n-ssa.org/vbforum/showthread.php/7509-A-comparison-between-Euroarms-P53-and-Pedersoli-P58-(pictures)/page2?highlight=large-bore


http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/rmac1023/Whitworthpic05_zpsabc32549.jpg


Now... that's a Whitworth!