Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Pritchett buller.

  1. #1
    gemmer is offline
    Team:
    Visitor (non-N-SSA Member)
    Member
    N/A
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    346
    Region:
    Visitor

    Pritchett buller.

    Just for fun, I recently tried some paper patched .563 Pritchett bullets in my original .58 Mississippi. It was relined by Bobby Hoyt to .577, 1:56 twist. The bullets are patched to .575 with a generous coat of MCM. At 25yds, the first two shots hit 5" and 4" to the right respectively. The next eight hit 1 1/2" to the left and grouped very well. My guess is the first two acted as fouling shots, meaning I need a slightly fatter patch. I'm just curious, as I normally shoot the RCBS Hodgedon with excellent results and have no intention of changing. I have around thirty more to try.

    Comments will be appreciated

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Huntsville
    Posts
    3,733
    Region:
    Deep South - Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas
    Anyone who is interested in the evolution of Enfield ammunition, including the P1851, should absolutely get a copy of Brett Gibbon's book, "The English Cartridge". At a mere $13, it is a steal:

    https://smile.amazon.com/English-Car.../dp/B088N5ZKYT

    Before reading Brett's book, while I had a vague understanding that there were changes in the ammunition over time, I never really understood them, and so I, like most folks, just called all Enfield bullets "Pritchett" bullets. But in fact, the actual "Pritchett" bullet is one-of-a-kind in the evolution of Enfield ammunition.

    The short story of the evolution of P53/56/58 ammunition is that the very first bullet was the Pritchett. The Pritchett bullet was smooth-sided, .568" in diameter, and had a very shallow cavity in the base.

    Pritchett bullet:


    The cavity in this bullet was mostly to push the center of gravity forwards. While there may have been some expansive effect, the Pritchett bullet is mostly a compression bullet. It is not an expanding ball bullet.

    The Pritchett was found not to be able to "bump up" in diameter sufficiently to counter the manufacturing tolerances of the bullets and the musket barrels. When the bullets were sized to .566, and the bores were at their maximum allowable tolerance, accuracy was found to be terrible because the Pritchett bullet could not expand enough to take up the rifling.

    Hay then abandoned the Pritchett around 1855 in favor of a smooth-sided, .568" diameter bullet with a deep cavity. It originally used a hemispherical iron cup, and then a conical iron plug in the cavity which acted as a wedge to cause instantaneous expansion on firing (as had already been found to work with the P1851 ammunition). Within a matter of months, the iron plugs were abandoned in favor of boxwood plugs, which were found to be more accurate.

    Hay bullet with early hemispherical iron plug:


    Whereas the Pritchett, with it's hollow base, allowed the bottom of the cartridge to be simply folded into the cavity, with the (re)introduction of the plug, there was no longer any cavity, and so while the initial Hay bullets were just folded over the (now) flat base of the bullet, it became immediately apparent that the folds must be choked and tied, or else when ramming the bullet home the folds would unfold and the bullet would be driven through it's paper patch. Interestingly I was at the range just last weekend with a teammate who tried making up some Enfield ammunition without choking and tying the base of the bullet and sure enough, he drove the bullet right out of its patch.

    Hay's bullet largely solved the accuracy problems with the Enfield, but it's .568 diameter meant that when paper patched it was an extremely tight fit in the bore. This was not ideal in combat situation with ammunition that had suffered shipping and handling across the globe. This, in conjunction with the discovery that pure beeswax was a superior anti-fouling agent (lube), and that it being so hard it did not work well with .568" bullets, we come to the final Enfield bullet evolution: The Boxer bullet.

    Boxer (who also invented the Boxer primer we all know today) proposed a radical reduction in diameter of the bullet from .568" in diameter to .550" in diameter - a whopping .018" reduction. Naysayers claimed the bullet would simply fall out of loaded arms during soldier's activities. After much field testing, this was found not to be so, and accuracy was at least as good in spite of the massive increase in windage in the bore. The wooden plug caused an "instantaneous" expansion to take up the rifling.

    Boxer bullet with wooden plug:


    The final incarnation of the Enfield ammunition was to replace the expensive and scarce boxwood with fired clay to make the plugs.

    When my eyes were opened up to the radical "incremental" changes of the Enfield bullets through Mr. Gibbon's book, I have taken it as somewhat of a nerdy moral obligation to begin encouraging people to call these bullets by their more-proper names. The Pritchett bullet stands alone from all other Enfield bullets because it is not an expanding ball bullet - it is a compression bullet that has more in common with a Wilkinson bullet than any of the other Enfield bullets. The Hay bullet was basically adopting P51 ammunition to the P53. And the Boxer bullet was radically undersized compared to any of the previous P53/56/58 bullets that came before it.

    Each of these bullets played an important role in the evolution of the Enfield as a fighting weapon and in the scientific understanding of how bullets and manufacturing tolerance worked together in the real world. I think it's important as historians to acknowledge these as the distinctly different bullets they are.

    Also, selfishly, I hope to distinguish these 3 bullet types from each other because there is, remotely, a possibility that some day the Pritchett might be allowed for use in N-SSA competition. The Boxer and Hay bullets, at least in British configuration, utilize plugs, and thus are considered "compound ammunition" by the N-SSA. While the wooden and clay plugs were much less prone to falling out than the original hemispherical iron cups, it's not impossible that a competitor could hit more than one target with a plugged bullet, and so I don't have much hope in seeing them ever used in competition. But the Pritchett has no plug, and thus its only impediment is its paper patch, which is currently verboten in N-SSA competition. I do not believe there is any safety concern with a paper-patched bullet with regards to cook-offs. The British carefully documented their problems with their ammunition during its evolution, and if cook-offs were a problem I feel certain the historical record would have mentioned it. The British had test guns in their laboratories that were fired for years without cleaning with thousands of rounds of ammunition and no mention of cook-off problems were made. The only mention of something close to cook-offs was when there was a test conducted to see how many continuous rounds of ammunition could be expended before the guns became fouled to the point of usability and during that test the guns became so hot that they were afraid cookoffs might happen. But even this was due to the temperature of the gun barrels and not the paper patching of the bullets. I personally don't believe that any paper patch loaded as part of a bullet on top of a powder charge will ever linger in the barrel after firing. It all goes out the barrel to become confetti on the ground within a dozen feet or so from the muzzle. There could be a risk of ground fires caused by smouldering paper, as I have personally seen happen with Sharps ammunition. It's rare, but it can happen, but can easily be remedied with a company of feet stamping on the grass.

    As far as shooting them goes, I have made up cartridges in the "1853" style (sadly using Hay bullets not Pritchett, though without the plug to try and simulate Pritchetts, or Confederate ammo (they never used plugs)), the "1857" style (though there are at least 5 different conflicting sources for the dimensions of these cartridges), and the final "1860" pattern of cartridge. I have only ever used service loads (approximated with 68 grains 2F Goex). So I've never tried to do any load workups to find an optimal target load.

    They load like a dream. If you have ever used a bore mop to clean your barrel then you know exactly what it feels like to load an Enfield cartridge. Since it's a paper-patched bullet that has been dipped in lube, you can feel it squeegy the bore the whole way down with anti-fouling agent as it goes. Patches are noticeably cleaner when you clean your bore, which is unsurprising given the swabbing nature of the bullet itself. And of course there is no leading with Enfield ammunition, since the paper-patched bullet does not appreciably come in contact with the barrel.

    Even with the limited number of Enfield rounds I have fired (perhaps 400?) it is readily obvious that this ammunition clearly was the penultimate evolution of muzzle loading military ammunition. It is not surprising that the Confederacy tried throughout the war to standardize on the Enfield style of cartridge. It is somewhat surprising to me that the United States did not investigate and adopt this style of ammunition, since they had the manufacturing ability to support it. Their test of the bullet was to try shooting it "naked" like a Burton ball and of course it would be horribly undersized for that task and, unable to carry and lubricant with no grooves, it would foul even more. However, it could be argued that given the non-existent training in rifle shooting that troops on either side got the full potential of actual Enfield ammunition was lost on both Union and Confederate troops. As such, Burton balls were probably good enough and they absolutely were simpler and cheaper to manufacture with only the bullet having to be accurately sized.

    Anyway I've rambled on here long enough. I highly recommend Brett Gibbon's books, which are the basis for nearly everything I've written above (any mistakes I claim for myself and my faulty memory). He has another book called The Destroying angle which is also only $12 and also covers the evolution of the Enfield.

    https://smile.amazon.com/Destroying-.../dp/171985727X
    Steve Sheldon
    Commander
    4th Louisiana Delta Rifles
    NRA Certified Muzzleloading Instructor

  3. #3
    noonanda is offline
    Team:
    12th Regiment US Regular Infantry
    Member
    14002
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    232
    Region:
    Potomac - Virginia, Maryland and Delaware
    Quote Originally Posted by Maillemaker View Post

    Even with the limited number of Enfield rounds I have fired (perhaps 400?) it is readily obvious that this ammunition clearly was the penultimate evolution of muzzle loading military ammunition. It is not surprising that the Confederacy tried throughout the war to standardize on the Enfield style of cartridge. It is somewhat surprising to me that the United States did not investigate and adopt this style of ammunition, since they had the manufacturing ability to support it. Their test of the bullet was to try shooting it "naked" like a Burton ball and of course it would be horribly undersized for that task and, unable to carry and lubricant with no grooves, it would foul even more. However, it could be argued that given the non-existent training in rifle shooting that troops on either side got the full potential of actual Enfield ammunition was lost on both Union and Confederate troops. As such, Burton balls were probably good enough and they absolutely were simpler and cheaper to manufacture with only the bullet having to be accurately sized.

    Anyway I've rambled on here long enough. I highly recommend Brett Gibbon's books, which are the basis for nearly everything I've written above (any mistakes I claim for myself and my faulty memory). He has another book called The Destroying angle which is also only $12 and also covers the evolution of the Enfield.

    https://smile.amazon.com/Destroying-.../dp/171985727X
    Its funny that you mention the Union testing of enfield bullets as well as pritchett bullets. I have spot in Stafford that was part of the Winter of 1862-1863 encampment of the 6th Corps. I found a spot where they must have cleared muskets by firing prior to going into camp. Besides finding quite a few type 1 cleaners and regular burton style Minnies, I have found about 3 pritchett style bullets. At first I thought they were Enfields till I cleaned the base off.
    Daryl Noonan
    NSSA # 14002
    12th Regiment US Regular Infantry

    "You see in this world there are two types of people my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig!!"

Similar Threads

  1. Smith Carbine Buller Diameter
    By hobbler in forum Small Arms
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-15-2015, 09:45 PM
  2. Mould for Pritchett bullets
    By nobade in forum Shooting Techs, Tips, & Tricks
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-02-2015, 05:50 PM
  3. Pritchett bullet mould
    By hwaugh in forum Wanted/For Sale Items
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 06-03-2013, 12:51 AM
  4. Pritchett mold?
    By Maillemaker in forum Small Arms
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-16-2013, 05:02 PM
  5. Molds for Pritchett Ball?
    By Walt-MT in forum Shooting Techs, Tips, & Tricks
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-14-2011, 07:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •