Enfield Cartridges?

**Capnball** · 10-19-2022

Has there been any progress towards legalizing the paper patched Enfield style cartridges in the sport? Just curious.

**Maillemaker** · 10-20-2022

I don't think so. I have never heard any rumblings of anyone trying.

The "trick" will be convincing the N-SSA that there is no significantly-greater risk of cook-off from paper-patched ammunition vs. "naked" ammunition.

I don't think cook-offs are any more likely to happen with paper-patched ammunition than with "naked" ammunition. In all of my research on historical British Enfield ammunition, including the evolution of the P51, I have found no mention of cook-offs. Given how extensively the weapons system was tested and documented, both in the field and at arsenal laboratories, I feel like if this was a concern it would certainly have turned up in the historical record.

This cartridge was so extensively used and monitored that the paper wrapper evolved through at least 3 different evolutions from 1853-1860. Likewise the bullet itself changed numerous times with the P51 and with the P53 changed 3 times with the Pritchett, Hay, and finally Boxer variants of bullet, again all from 1853-1860. Likewise the plugs evolved from hemispherical iron cups to truncated cone iron cups to boxwood conical plugs to clay conical plugs from 1851-1860.

The upshot here is that this cartridge was extremely critically examined, reported on, and revised over a period of only 7 or so years, whereupon it became obsolete as a military cartridge 6 years after that. These changes came about rapidly and directly due to problems discovered in field use of the ammunition as well as research at arensals. I have to believe if cook-offs were a problem this would have been revealed in the historical record.

The only reference involving cook-offs that I have read at all was when they were doing initial testing of the P1851 musket they were doing continuous firing to see how many shots they could get off before fouling made the guns unloadable. The mention was made that the guns got so hot from the prolonged firing that they were concerned about cook-offs. But no actual cook-off was reported even then.

My believe currently is that anything that is on top of the powder in a muzzle loader is going to exit the barrel on firing. I cannot fathom any part of the paper wrapper somehow surviving and staying in the barrel to smolder. However, I must admit that I did read a passage (I think this was a tertiary source though) where it was found that when the hemispherical iron cups were being used once one of the cups was found to remain in the barrel after firing.

In my opinion, in order to have any hope at using historical British Enfield cartridges in muskets one would have to do an extensive test to demonstrate that there is no danger of cook-off, which I believe is the predominant concern with such ammunition. I envisioned making up 500 rounds of historical ammunition (about 5 pounds of powder, and 40 pounds of lead, incidentally), and firing them without cleaning the musket. If you fired all 500 at a rate of 3 rounds per minute you are looking at about 170 minutes of sustained fire. More realistically you would probably want to fire 20-shot strings (more than you could ever hope to get off in a skirmish course of fire) and let the barrel cool. Otherwise you might end up with a cookoff from the hot barrel which would then invalidate your test.

And even if you did this, it would not prove that a paper-ember-induced cookoff could never happen, and so there would be people who would continue to be against it regardless.

Steve

**Capnball** · 10-20-2022

Originally Posted by Maillemaker

I don't think so. I have never heard any rumblings of anyone trying.

The "trick" will be convincing the N-SSA that there is no significantly-greater risk of cook-off from paper-patched ammunition vs. "naked" ammunition.

I don't think cook-offs are any more likely to happen with paper-patched ammunition than with "naked" ammunition. In all of my research on historical British Enfield ammunition, including the evolution of the P51, I have found no mention of cook-offs. Given how extensively the weapons system was tested and documented, both in the field and at arsenal laboratories, I feel like if this was a concern it would certainly have turned up in the historical record.

This cartridge was so extensively used and monitored that the paper wrapper evolved through at least 3 different evolutions from 1853-1860. Likewise the bullet itself changed numerous times with the P51 and with the P53 changed 3 times with the Pritchett, Hay, and finally Boxer variants of bullet, again all from 1853-1860. Likewise the plugs evolved from hemispherical iron cups to truncated cone iron cups to boxwood conical plugs to clay conical plugs from 1851-1860.

The upshot here is that this cartridge was extremely critically examined, reported on, and revised over a period of only 7 or so years, whereupon it became obsolete as a military cartridge 6 years after that. These changes came about rapidly and directly due to problems discovered in field use of the ammunition as well as research at arensals. I have to believe if cook-offs were a problem this would have been revealed in the historical record.

The only reference involving cook-offs that I have read at all was when they were doing initial testing of the P1851 musket they were doing continuous firing to see how many shots they could get off before fouling made the guns unloadable. The mention was made that the guns got so hot from the prolonged firing that they were concerned about cook-offs. But no actual cook-off was reported even then.

My believe currently is that anything that is on top of the powder in a muzzle loader is going to exit the barrel on firing. I cannot fathom any part of the paper wrapper somehow surviving and staying in the barrel to smolder. However, I must admit that I did read a passage (I think this was a tertiary source though) where it was found that when the hemispherical iron cups were being used once one of the cups was found to remain in the barrel after firing.

In my opinion, in order to have any hope at using historical British Enfield cartridges in muskets one would have to do an extensive test to demonstrate that there is no danger of cook-off, which I believe is the predominant concern with such ammunition. I envisioned making up 500 rounds of historical ammunition (about 5 pounds of powder, and 40 pounds of lead, incidentally), and firing them without cleaning the musket. If you fired all 500 at a rate of 3 rounds per minute you are looking at about 170 minutes of sustained fire. More realistically you would probably want to fire 20-shot strings (more than you could ever hope to get off in a skirmish course of fire) and let the barrel cool. Otherwise you might end up with a cookoff from the hot barrel which would then invalidate your test.

And even if you did this, it would not prove that a paper-ember-induced cookoff could never happen, and so there would be people who would continue to be against it regardless.

Steve

Good stuff, Steve! Methinks those you refer to who still wouldn't be happy after extensive testing like that should probably never leave the couch, lol.

I for one would help pay for the testing if it were likely to get us this ammo legalized.

**Jim_Burgess_2078V** · 10-20-2022

There may be more concern that the paper patching after leaving the muzzle might start fires on the range in dry, windy weather. I can understand the desire of some for authenticity, but I don't understand why any skirmishers would want to make ammunition preparation more complicated. Paper patching is extra work. James Henry Burton did a masterful job of perfecting and simplifying the Minie ball so that base plugs and paper patching were not needed. Those bullets still work well if sized properly to the bore and have adequate lube.

Jim Burgess, 15th CVI

**Capnball** · 10-20-2022

Originally Posted by Jim_Burgess_2078V

There may be more concern that the paper patching after leaving the muzzle might start fires on the range in dry, windy weather. I can understand the desire of some for authenticity, but I don't understand why any skirmishers would want to make ammunition preparation more complicated. Paper patching is extra work. James Henry Burton did a masterful job of perfecting and simplifying the Minie ball so that base plugs and paper patching were not needed. Those bullets still work well if sized properly to the bore and have adequate lube.

Jim Burgess, 15th CVI

With all respect Jim, I got a real good laugh out of your praise for the Burton bullet- after Burton joined the Confederate cause, he loudly advocated that the South adopt the Enfield paper patched cartridge! The confederate made version didn?t use plugs either. Seems Burton saw the clear advantages of the Enfield cartridge: Faster and easier to load, no loss in accuracy, and nearly 30 percent more velocity without any danger of leading. I agree, maybe no real advantage for skirmishing (unless rate of fire is important). And sure, the cartridges aren?t as easy to make, but they?re not that hard either.

**Muley Gil** · 10-20-2022

"There may be more concern that the paper patching after leaving the muzzle might start fires on the range in dry, windy weather."

I believe this is the biggest concern as well.

**Maillemaker** · 10-20-2022

As far as the fire hazard goes, I saw the field catch on fire at Eva, TN one year from Sharps paper. So, it is a concern. But, we allow combustible cartridges for revolvers and for the Sharps so that bridge has already been crossed.

In my tests so far with Enfield cartridges I have not gotten any accuracy that was impressive to me. But I have not fired many - perhaps 200 rounds, and I have not done any competition load workups either - I have been working with service loads (68 grains of powder). So, I cannot say if competition target accuracy can be achieved with Enfield style cartridges. I have also only recently discovered how to make fired clay plugs, which are rock hard and my perform better than the softer plugs I had tried made from Bondo and Sculpy. Maybe they will improve accuracy but I have not fired them yet.

But I do believe that the Enfield style of cartridge was the ultimate evolution of the military muzzle loading ammunition. The Confederacy worked throughout the war to standardize on it, finally issuing a proclamation in 1864 to use it exclusively, which was rescinded after a month. The issue, I am sure, was the lack of consistent supplies of paper. The Confederates never used plugs in their bullets, likely from the lack of machinery to make them.

Loading and firing the Enfield style of cartridge is a dream. Basically, you are running a lubricated mop down your bore after every shot. You can feel the lube being smeared along the bore as the bullet goes home. There is much greater surface contact between the lubricated paper and the bore than with a naked bullet. This makes loading subsequent shots easy and cleaning also. Of course being paper patched leading is no longer a concern.

So, would it be worth the effort? That would depend entirely on whether I could develop a good load. But even if I did, the Enfield cartridge will be more expensive to shoot than even a traditional Minie. Would it be worth the effort inside 100 yards? Maybe not.

But they are "something else" to shoot. It's an entirely different sensation than "Minie" (Burton) balls.

Steve

**Muley Gil** · 10-20-2022

Steve,

Did you receive the N-SSA pot target I sent you?

I originally wrote "Did you receive the pot I sent you?" but decided that didn't sound good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**Maillemaker** · 10-20-2022

Yup! Thanks so much!

Steve

**Don Dixon** · 10-21-2022

One shouldn't talk about just the Enfield paper cartridge. Everyone in Europe used paper cartridges which were loaded into the firearm, to include the cartridges used in the breechloading Dreyse and Chassepot needle guns. If paper cartridges loaded into the weapon produced a "cook off" problem, it would have been well documented. But, we're so authentic we don't permit the use of authentic ammunition.

Regards,
Don Dixon
2881V