While it is always nice to be cited in print as a "sage,"I'd like to clarify a point about Jim's article. The subject at hand was a question regarding relining an original rifle musket. The writer described a situation in which "the bullet dropped all the way to the bottom freely without the rammer" and use was precluded with "anything but an old time minie." The implication of the questioner's post was that the rifling of the weapon was in serviceable condition, but the bore was large.
I wrote: "One of the objectives of the N-SSA is supposed to be the preservation of original Civil War weapons." [The Small Arms Committee has repeatedly stated that it has forbidden adding rear sights to original smoothbore muskets which were not originally sighted for that reason.] "Reline a serviceable weapon that meets original service standards so that you can skirmish with it? I go back to my original response."
The Federal Army specified a minimum standard bore diameter in a Springfield rifle musket of .580 inches and a maximum bore diameter of .583 inches, and provided inspectors with go and no go gauges for those standards. In a bore of .581-.583 inches - service standard - a Minie ball from most modern moulds will drop unimpeded to the breech. My solution in this instance would be to obtain an appropriately sized mould; a solution which is cheaper than relining and which preserves the original weapon.
In general I have no objection to reworking a damaged weapon or one which has a sewer pipe for a bore. The exception would be arms which have significant value no matter what their condition. I acquired a Muster 1854, Type II, System Lorenz rifle which had been bored smooth and had the muzzle cut back to the front sight for a very good price. I was valueless as both a collector's piece and as a shooter. Bobby Hoyt extended the barrel to the correct length and relined the bore, which I view as an appropriate response to the condition of the gun when I bought it.
Regards,
Don Dixon
2881V
Wormey
Bookmarks