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.