Paper patched round ball in .58 rifle musket

[frogwalking]

I read a post elsewhere that a fellow planned to shoot round balls out of a civil war type rifle musket.  I said I had never heard of patching a round ball in a rifle with a paper patch.  Others chimed in and said they have been shooting them with good results for years.  I suggested he try it and let us know how it works.  He has, so far, not responded.

What are your thoughts and is your experience?  I sold my rifle musket years ago, am and just curious.

[JBJ]

I have tried .570 rb with cloth patches in a P-H 1858 Enfield and the results were fair at best. Never tried to paper patch a round ball but plenty of .568 Pritchett bullets paper patched to .577 diameter. In fairness, I did not spend much time playing around with the rb loads.
J.B.

[Bob Roller]

I read a post elsewhere that a fellow planned to shoot round balls out of a civil war type rifle musket.  I said I had never heard of patching a round ball in a rifle with a paper patch.  Others chimed in and said they have been shooting them with good results for years.  I suggested he try it and let us know how it works.  He has, so far, not responded.

What are your thoughts and is your experience?  I sold my rifle musket years ago, am and just curious.

In the late 1950's and early 60's I was shooting CW muzzle loading rifles and Sharps and Starr
capping breech loaders.I never had any good results with patched balls in any of the muzzle loaders
but got some better results with hollow base bullet they were intended to use.I would imagine that a
lot of the CW muzzle loaders today might still have Bill Large barrels and that would account for the
good results with patched balls or hollow based bullets.I helped Bill with these for a long time and
I had the first one on an Enfield dated 1863 on the lock.
These new ones now sold I can't speak of because of no experience with them and it was years ago
that I was shooting originals and rebarreled ones.
I had a Colt Special Model 1861 that I bought in 1966 from Turner Kirkland and it hade been reamed
out to use as a shotgun. Bill made a 54 caliber barrel for it and we attached it to the original breech
and that one was a real shooter. That was the last one and that was 50 years ago.
The most accurate original military rifle I ever owned was an 1863 Sharps when used with the odd
multi diameter bullet designed for it. The most accurate of all the old ones I owned was a semi military
Whitworth with an Alex Henry barrel in caliber .451. Long range was really possible and I used it for 11
years and sold it in 1973.

Bob Roller

[WadePatton]

Because I recalled that DarylS used to hunt with paper ctgs for subsequent shots, I knew there was a place for them in hunting.

But then I dug a little in response to your thread here and found the short answer.  As I see it 58 may be the "breakover" point where paper patching works.  Bigger bores, no problems according to these guys I've learned to trust.  

Any sort of hunting load in the small calibres develops too much pressure, I assume, for the paper patch to maintain it's integrity as a pressure barrier.

We had a member here some time ago who tested rifles from .73cal to smaller and found his .54 shot reasonably well with paper ctgs, but the .50 did not, with hunting loads.

Light loads, so up to 60gr. might be just fine, but for me, are not really hunting loads, nor target loads, for that matter.

Paper ctgs. shot identically as to accuracy and point of impact with cloth patched round balls in hunting loads in my .69.

DPhar also found this in his 16 bore, as did BruceB in his .75 and woodsy Bob, of course.

Quoted from thread: http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=38708.0

[Daryl]

I read a post elsewhere that a fellow planned to shoot round balls out of a civil war type rifle musket.  I said I had never heard of patching a round ball in a rifle with a paper patch.  Others chimed in and said they have been shooting them with good results for years.  I suggested he try it and let us know how it works.  He has, so far, not responded.

What are your thoughts and is your experience?  I sold my rifle musket years ago, am and just curious.

Actually there never were any .58 rifled muskets that I am aware of. Calling the .54's and .58's rifled muskets is a misnomer.  A rifled musket is a firearm that started it's "life" as a musket (smoothbore), but was later rifled (after 1860) for shooting the then adopted Minnie-style projectile. Thus those are rifled muskets. All of the rifled muskets are .69's- whether Harper's Ferry or Springfield made.  Some years of manufacture did not have adequately thick barrel steel for rifling, some did.  The 1842 model percussion .69 did have adequate steel and was recalled and rifled, turning it into one of the very best rifled muskets.  Some Army Commanders preferred the rifled musket .69's to the newly issued .58 Rifles, as the .69's showed much better accuracy.  This information, in much greater detail is contained in "Firearms of the American West  1803 - 1865"

I started shooting cloth-patched round balls in military muzzleloaders in around & after 1975.  I re-crowned the rifles for the lads to a nicely smoothed radius to prevent cutting the patch when loading, then got the guys using .562" round balls in the replica Zouaves and Parker Hale Enfields with .020" denim patching. We soldered re-filed blades onto their existing 'issue' sights to get them zeroed for shooting at rendezvous.
The muzzles of ALL replicas are too sharp and will cut the patch - the muzzle crowns need to be reworked.
Patched round balls gave better accuracy in ALL .58's and .577's we tried them in - and continue to do so today.
I use nothing but patched round balls, in my Italian 1861 Musketoon, bot some day will likely try Minnie conicals at long range at our Blackwater facility which has steel plates to 1000 meters.
For normal range shooting, patched round balls have so far been superior for me, and actually are all that are allowed at our black powder shoots or on the trail walk Thus, it is a good thing they give such good accuracy.
I was able to get 3" to 4" groups at 100 meters when developing loads for my 1861 carbine.

The right-hand rifle's muzzle is my .577 (actual .574") Musketoon model 1861.



Paper patching with round balls, which about all military's of the world issued for their muskets, should or may work well in these rifles. The issued paper ctgs. had grossly undersized balls. We've found the ball should be about .005" smaller than the bore only, for use in rifles with a double paper wrap.  The paper should be very quite snug in the muzzle, yet the muzzle not so sharp as to cut the patch - same as with cloth patches.

I found in my .69 rifle, I could fire up to 10 paper ctgs. without accuracy loss, but then had to fire a cleaning shot with a wet patched load having normal cloth patch and a round ball. Once firing that one, I could load and shoot another 10 paper ctgs. with good accuracy.
The wet patch cleaned out all the fouling buildup from the previous 10, non-lubed shots.

[frogwalking]

Daryl. 

Please note my original past said "rifle musket" not "rifled musket".   The ones I have seen appeared to have three lands and three rather shallow grooves with the twist for a hollow based bullet.  This is what I was asking about.   

I thought the paper patched cartridges containing round balls were for smooth bore muskets only.

[Daryl]

Rifle Musket - Rifled Musket - sorry for the "d" if indeed, it is not supposed to be there.

The .58's and .54's were all rifles.  They were not rifle muskets or rifled muskets.  Some of the Hall rifles were actually rifle muskets or rifled muskets - .69 smoothbores to start. Later on, they were made as rifles right off the bat.

All of these had progressive-depth rifling, as-did all the European rifles the American guns were rather 'loosely' patterned after.  The rifling was .008" deeper at the breech than at the muzzle - the bore remained constant diameter, thus the rifling .003" at the muzzle, .011" depth at the breech.  The cheap Italian reproductions did not have this feature, but the Italian reproductions of the Enfield rifles do - at least mine does.  The Parker Hale Enfields also have progressive depth rifling.  This does not seem to hurt patched round ball accuracy at all and patches do not show burning - which I expected but did not get. Thus, I think that by the time you get to a 260gr. ball, there is sufficient obturation of a snug combination ball/patch to seal in the deeper breech rifling.

The Union military issued the Minnie balls in paper ctgs. during the civil war. I do not know if the Confederate Army did likewise. The paper was ripped, powder [poured into the muzzle and the bullet (minnie) removed from the paper and inserted and rammed home - with 3 blows of the rod, I believe to ensure it was seated on the powder.  This 3 blows of the rod was a carry-over from the paper ctgs. with round balls in the muskets.  3 blows also seated and expanded the round balls into the rifling when used in the European rifles the US military purchased from  France and Austria - the Tinge and Delvinge - equipped rifles.

The Officer's models in English guns, the 2 band Enfield, had 5 grooves as did the short model 1861 Enfields. These had 48" twists, except for the 3 band, the 1853, which had 3 grooves and a 78 twist, but was also meant for the Minnie Ball, ie: 560gr. Pritchert or 'Pritchet'.

The American guns, as far as I know, had 72" twists which shoot amazingly well with patched round balls.  They should also shoot paper ctgs with round balls just fine - mine shot well with cloth patched round balls as I noted in the post above - or thought I did.

Over the years, I've had 2 of the Zouave Remington models - both with 3 grooves and 72" twists.

This is how I understand this situation.

[Hungry Horse]

I have a 1803 Harper's Ferry that has a n incorrect .58 cal. barrel on it designed to shoot minies. It is 1 in 72" twist, and shoots a conical bullet marginally well. But, if you want it to really shoot follow Daryl's patch round ball recipe, it is exactly what I use, and it shoots amazingly well. I have never had much luck with paper cartridges, with either conicals, or round balls, as the projectal. They shoot dirty, and are notorious fire starters.

 Hungry Horse

[Daryl]

If the paper ctg. is loose in the bore - as-were the issue Period Correct paper ctgs. they will present a fire hazard for sure.  In the paper ctgs. I shot, because they were a tight fit - I assume, not one caught fire nor did any even smoulder. 
I used 165gr. 2F and a WW .684" ball. A starter or choked up rod was needed to get them into the muzzle, but once started they went down quite easily until 10 had been fired.

[frogwalking]

When you talk about paper cartridges in civil war type rifles, I assume you mean hollow base bullets.  Is this correct? 

[Daryl]

yes

The paper ctgs I used, had round balls, pure lead as well as WW alloy.  These did not present any fire hazard for me, nor for Dan or Bruce.

[Clark Badgett]

Daryl, the official designation, at least this side of the border/pond for the Models of 1855, 1861 and 1863 as well as the imported Pattern 1853 Enfield (as well as the rest of the European modern infantry rifles of that age) was indeed Rifle-Musket. The rifle was a shorter barreled arm and the rifled-musket was like you pointed out a smoothbore that was rifled later on.

So basically in the correspondence of the 1860s era,
Rifle-musket was M55, 61, 63 and P53 (infantry Sharps and Spencers also)
Rifle, M41 and P56
Rifled-musket, M42 (I think there was an English equivalent that came over is small numbers)
Carbines were the various cavalry arms both front and rear loading

Basically up until the world went to smokeless arms and the shorter barrels, infantry arms were often called muskets regardless whether the barrel was smooth or grooved.

[Daryl]

Thanks for clearing that up, Clark.

[Clark Badgett]

Daryl, wasn't the English P56 considered a Sergeants rifle, at least in the Queen's service?

[Dphariss]

PP bullets.... In MLs they were invariably loaded through a false muzzle back in the day and by and large that way today. The problem with trying to us a RB with a PP and no significant wadding is blowby destroying the patch. Bullets, even fairly short ones even in alloys of 1:20 will upset and fill the bore before powder gasses reach the patch due to their greater inertia causing the rear of the bullet to move before the front. Shortening the bullet and making it larger in diameter. With no more than a card wad a long bullet will upset as much a .020" and shoot accurately if its properly designed. The upset occurs before the bullet moves.
The paper cartridge and a RB prevents blowby since the "tail" of the cartridge acts as a very effective wad in my experience (thanks to Daryl).
The problem with Rifle Muskets is the shallow bullet rifling. Bullets, either "naked" like Minie Ball or patched with paper do not require deep rifling. .003" deep grooves are enough. The cloth patch on a RB relies on the patch as a gasket since the RB is short and does not upset to the extent a elongated bullet will.
A Lyman 457125 (the old Army infantry bullet) cast soft and shot in a ML barrel with a .456" BORE shot with 70 grs on BP would upset to at least touch the rifling all the way to the nose ogive. These were loaded without a false muzzle simply thumbed in. With a wad, lubed felt wad and another card to reduce the fouling. Had we had a platinum line nipple it would have been a great setup. It would shoot pretty to 1000 yards at gongs and such. But gas cut nipples at an incredible rate.

Dan

[Daryl]

Good point, Dan - I forgot about vent wear and nipple flash-hole wear being excessively high when shooting bullets from muzzleloaders.

Clark - I am not familiar with the designation P56.

[Daryl]

So- I looked it up. Here is the printout, or part of it.

 "The long three band rifle musket which was used by the regular line infantry was introduced in 1853 and the model is known as the P-1853. The P-1856 was issued to all sergeants of Line

 Regiments, the Rifle Brigade and the 60th Regiment, the Cape Mounted Rifles and the Royal Canadian Rifles. Unlike the P-53 that was called a "rifle musket" the P-56 was called a "short rifle" or

 just a "rifle" to separate them from the long three band P-53 with a 39" barrel and the short carbine with 24" barrel. The P-56 had a 33" barrel. The P-56 replaced the old Baker and Brunswick rifles

 which was used in the British Army prior to the adoption of the minié system in 1851."

  http://www.svartkrutt.net/articles/vis.php?id=2