Finally fired one of the reproduction Civil War rifle-muskets

[bones92]

Long story short, I've accumulated a smattering of reproduction Civil War rifle-muskets, but never actually got around to firing one until yesterday.   

These are FUN to shoot.  I enjoyed the ease with which they can be reloaded and fired.  It's surprising that they seem to prefer relatively little powder (typically 40 - 50 grains).   I settled on 40 gr GOEX 3Fg as the rifle seemed to settle into a consistent pattern, which I think was because the bore built up a bit of fouling that contributed to consistency.   She began throwing them into about a 1.5" group (25 yards), and I think some of that variation was because I had to hold the tip of the sight at the very bottom of the bullseye.

Speaking of which, it seems I need to drift the front sight over about 1/8".   Has anyone here done this?  I think I can use a small torch to loosen the sight block and reposition it.  Appreciate any guidance on how to do this smartly.

[smylee grouch]

If the front sight is soldered on, I wonder if you will have to clean the area you plan on shifting to and fluxing it for your solder to flow and tin to the new spot. You don't need a lot of powder for those rifles but the lead expenditure goes up a fair amount over a round ball gun unless of course you shoot round balls in it.

[Clark Badgett]

Rifle muskets used 60-65 gr Musket powder was the common loading depending on Arsenal, I think the Brits used about 68 grains. The Minie should weigh about 500 gr.

[bones92]

I was firing .577" 500gr Minie balls.  I can see using more powder at longer ranges, but this was the first time with it and I was curious to see how the sights were. 

[P.W.Berkuta]

Since this topic has been brought up I was looking to aquire either a 2 or 3 band Enfield and / or a 61 - 63 Springfield musket. Can any one reccomend a manufacture and which one would be better. I have a Remington 1863 Zouave now.

[deepcreekdale]

I am fortunate to have my great grandfathers (Co H 19th Iowa Vol Infantry Reg't) 1853 Enfield which unfortunately is not shootable. I purchased a Pedersoli replica which is a fair representation so I could have something similar to shoot.. It is a blast to shoot like you said, I load paper cartridges of 60 grains 3f with Minie balls which I cast. It is plenty accurate if I do my part, the only problem I had, which seems endemic to Italian replicas were the sights! Mine shot 2 feet high at 25 yards until I dovetailed and soldered an extension to the front sight blade. A friend of mine, who can consistently shoot one hole groups at 50 yards with his 2 band, initially was shooting about 1.5 feet to the left at 25 yards, had to solder a piece of brass to the side his front sight to line it up . The guns are reliable, rugged and have no mechanical problems of any kind but whoever does the sights on them must be on the Vino or else they use interns. For some interesting reading, read what the requirements of the British soldier were in terms of marksmanship in those days. How about qualifying on a 4 x 6 foot target at 1250 yards!

[Lee44shootercnb]

She a beauty and a shooter
In my opinion
Pedersoli is the best reproduction US 1861 you can still get new.
The finish on this rifle was GREAT. Metal is silky smooth and metal to wood is excellent. Cleaned it up and it hit dead on at 50 yards with 70 grain of 2F and 500 grain thick skirt Minie ball with home made lube (bees wax and bore butter). Sight tweaking was not needed. I can shoot this rifle all day, tons of fun.
This rifle takes or you will need to purchase the 4 wing caps. Sometimes Cabela's has them, may depend on the store.
Great rifle...very pleased with the purchase.

[Lee44shootercnb]

I think I read somewhere that the 2 band shoots more accurately than the 3 band Enfields

[bones92]

I agree... I don't see why it is so hard to attach the front sight in the right position at the factory.   I can think of a couple simple jig ideas that would put the sight dead-center.

[grabenkater]

It may very well be dead center of the barrel but off-center from the bore.

[Bob Roller]

I am fortunate to have my great grandfathers (Co H 19th Iowa Vol Infantry Reg't) 1853 Enfield which unfortunately is not shootable. I purchased a Pedersoli replica which is a fair representation so I could have something similar to shoot.. It is a blast to shoot like you said, I load paper cartridges of 60 grains 3f with Minie balls which I cast. It is plenty accurate if I do my part, the only problem I had, which seems endemic to Italian replicas were the sights! Mine shot 2 feet high at 25 yards until I dovetailed and soldered an extension to the front sight blade. A friend of mine, who can consistently shoot one hole groups at 50 yards with his 2 band, initially was shooting about 1.5 feet to the left at 25 yards, had to solder a piece of brass to the side his front sight to line it up . The guns are reliable, rugged and have no mechanical problems of any kind but whoever does the sights on them must be on the Vino or else they use interns. For some interesting reading, read what the requirements of the British soldier were in terms of marksmanship in those days. How about qualifying on a 4 x 6 foot target at 1250 yards!

I doubt if ANY British soldier qualified with the Enfield .577 at 1250 yards.These guns used a hollow base bullet of .55 caliber and most wouldn't hit a bed sheet at 500 yards. Enter Sir Joseph Whitworth who was hired by Her Majesty's Government to find out why the Enfield was so notoriously inaccurate. He found that a lack of standards in bore diameter as well as the terribly under sized bullet were the problems. He set about to make an accurate rifle but had to use a bullet of 530 grains. He came up with a long .451 caliber bullet that weighed that much and developed a hexagon bore rifle to use it and probably fired the first accurate shot from ANY military rifle of that time. It could and did break dinner plates at 500 yards and probably could hit the 4x6 foot target as well using the sights required by regulations of that time.This was the beginning of long range accuracy and the highly developed gun making skills of the British Empire soon got on that idea and came up with superb rifles that surpassed the Whitworth.The work of John Rigby,Alexander Henry,George Gibbs and others are to this day the most accurate long range lead bullet black powder rifles in the world. I owned a semi military Whitworth .451 and shot it for 11 years. The term "semi military" meant it was a sporting rifle with military appearance such as long forearm with barrel bands like a musket. Also called a volunteer rifle. Mine had an Alex Henry barrel and if I did my part it would and did put 5 shots on a quarter at 100 yards.These rifles are my favorite types and to this day I regret selling it. I did make a decent sporting version of it in 2001 and sold it in 2003.I used a Green Mountain barrel,Don Brown precarved  stock, breech plug and butt plate and my own "4 pin" lock. I also made the folding tang sight and used a Lyman 17A on an adjustable base with a small level attached.
Getting back to Sir Joseph Whitworth,he is credited with being the master of accuracy in guns and tool making and supposedly made the first absolutely flat surface and established standards for screw threads.
My history lesson and rant for the day are over so now it's someone else's turn.

Bob Roller

[oldtravler61]

   Bob thanks for the input. Very much appreciated. I look forward to your rants every time. Because I always learn something. Mike

[deepcreekdale]

Bob, interesting information, I am very familiar with Whitworth rifles and you are right, they were and are very accurate.  I may have misspoke, I doubt  EVERY British Soldier had to qualify at 1250 yards, my understanding from the article I read was that marksmen had to be able to hit that sized target at least a few times within what I believe was a 2 minute interval to qualify. In an article at www Military Factory.com regarding the P 1853, they state a "trained" user (whatever that means) could fire between 1 to 3 aimed shots at 2,000 yards. I assume that is in a minute. They do not give a target size. When I was younger, I participated in competition with a similar sized target myself at 1000 yards using my Enfield reproduction. I even hit the target occasionally! The gun could certainly do the job if the trigger actuator did not malfunction. I seriously doubt I would qualify for anybody's army any more at my age!
 Here is a copy and paste on the Enfield regarding the standard sights.

The Pattern 1853 Musket was among the first military muskets to be fitted with sights as standard (Muskets previously had been inaccurate, due to the smoothbore barrel and musket ball, and therefore could only shoot an effective range of 200 yards at the most, a distance of which sights are not necessary). The Pattern 1853 Enfield used an adjustable ladder sight, with increments at:
◾100 yards (91m)
◾200 yards  (180m) - Default / 'battle sight' 
◾300 yards (270m)
◾400 yards (370m)

A second, flip up sight was used for distances between 900 (820m) yards to 1,250 (1,140m)yards. 

This would certainly indicate they at least trained at that range. Plus, most references I have seen list the maximum effective range as 1250 yards, which as you know is the range at which aimed fire will have effect. My personal opinion, which is worth just what you pay for it, is that when the rifled musket came into use, and was an effective killing tool at ranges greater than 1000 yards, they probably trained their soldiers at those ranges, especially after the Crimean War. Of course, in a battle situation, it is doubtful anybody could aim and hit a target at those ranges.
As far as bullet diameter goes, I have several original Enfield Minie balls in my collection that were imported from England during the late unpleasantness, they all mike out around .574 and .576 so I imagine they must have addressed the issue you pointed out with undersized bullets affecting accuracy. 
Remember too, the British army at that time was quite small and was very professional. The British army has always been known for outstanding marksmanship. In 1914, when the "Old Contemptibles" faced the Germans at Mons, the Germans thought they were being faced by machine guns because the British Infantry was so accurate with rapid fire at long ranges. Granted, those were with modern weapons but the training standards were decades old.

[Clark Badgett]

Deepcreekdale, those long ranges were for volley area fire. Smoothbore military muskets were rarely fired over 100 yards in battle due to an utter lack of accuracy, which is also the reason that most armies were still using mass formations into the rifle musket era, when it was realized that such was folly. The P.53 Enfield was known to produce accurate fire out to 300 yards in the hands of capable users, and the P.56 was a touch more accurate.

Bob, you are quite correct, the Enfield did indeed use a smooth sided Pritchett ball that was .55" diameter (sometimes listed as .56") but it also contained a wooden or clay plug in the skirt and was incased in a lubed paper case that was supposed to be loaded along with the ball, essentially making the ball paper patched. That is why the English cartridge was made with the base down and not the other way around like the US cartridge.

And to all those modifying their front sights, the problem is the rear sight of the repro. When I had my Enfield repro, one of the first things I did was preplace the rear with an original P.53 sight, and mine was pretty accurate at every range I tried.

[JCKelly]

The Enfield stock is straighter, and fits the shooter differently than does the Springfield.

You might want to shoulder both before you decide.

On original Springfields the bore diameter (grooves) tapered down from larger at the breech to tighter at the muzzle, for accuracy. Modern rifle-muskets have, I believe, uniform diameter bores (or at least they are supposed to be so)

[Flint62Smoothie]

For those interested in these machining types of info, it was John Hall, inventor of the Hall rifle, patent date 1811, that created the uniform threads standards we know and use today.

The Hall rifle of 1819 was the 1st breechblock arm, flintlock ignition centered on the breech, where the front of the breech block tipped up to accept the powdah and ball, firing an unpatched 0.525" ball over a 100-grn service load. He, not Eli Whitney and the cotton gin, should be credited with the first successful effort of truly interchangeable parts. When the 100 came off the line at Harper's Ferry and passed all tests, they were disassembled, the parts mixed, and then put all back together ... and they too passed all tests. It could fire at a rate 2X that of a smoothbore musket (2-3 times more accurate) and 3X faster than a muzzleloading rifle.

Back to the screws ... Hall also patented the specialized machines, jigs, and fixtures used to manufacture his rifles and carbines and created standardized thread forms. Prior to then, each company or gunsmith made their own. And when worn out, they replaced it with something close.

There are so many "1st's" with the Hall, interested parties should look into them further. Although technically not a muzzleloader, they were equipped with a ramrod so if/when the action became so fouled after fast, repeated fire, if the tilting breechblock did not open, one could pour powdah down the muzzle, then ram the ball down. The first 1-1/2" at the muzzle is counter-bored to facilitate starting the ball.

I have an 1841 model (1st percussion arm issued to US troops) made in 1842 and while shooting it today, just for fun we loaded it like a muzzleloader. Less that the ignition comes in from the top, flint or cap, its design really is like so "in-line" in design ... although I readily admit I too bristled just writing that, haha!

[Bob Roller]

I think I read somewhere that the 2 band shoots more accurately than the 3 band Enfields

Has anyone tried the new Volunteer 451's. I had a Navy Arms catalog saying they were short
range rifles with accuracy to around 200 yards. IF that is true it sounds like the making of a
floor lamp to me. Can anyone comment from experience with one of these rifles??

Bob Roller

[Standing Bear]

I e had "experts" tell me a .22 Hornet was a 100 yd gun too.  Picked mine up and broke a clay pidgeon on the 200 yd back stop. I doubt that .451 hits a wall at 200 yds.
TC

[bones92]

I'd bet a .451 is quite accurate at 200 yards, of loaded correctly.

[Daryl]

The Enfield stock is straighter, and fits the shooter differently than does the Springfield.

You might want to shoulder both before you decide.

On original Springfields the bore diameter (grooves) tapered down from larger at the breech to tighter at the muzzle, for accuracy. Modern rifle-muskets have, I believe, uniform diameter bores (or at least they are supposed to be so)

The Italian Reproductions of the British Enfields have progressive depth rifling.  It is .003" at the muzzle, but .008" deeper at the breech.  This is the same as the original .58 Springfields and also the same as the original .69 cal. rifled muskets.

[varsity07840]

I think I read somewhere that the 2 band shoots more accurately than the 3 band Enfields

The 2 band has a 1 in 48 twist and the 3 band has a 1 in 78. The 2 band needs a longer and thus heavier minie for best accuracy.

[JBJ]

Bones92,
I think you would be a lot happier adjusting the rear sight notch as opposed to trying to shift the front sight base. Rather than filling the rear notch on my early Parker-Hale 2-band Enfield, I elected to make a replacement ladder. I cut the new notch in the appropriate spot after much shooting to verify where it needed to go. Sometimes you can find a spare ladder from the suppliers, close up the existing notch and re-locate the notch appropriately. In my case, I wanted to be able to put the musket back in "original" configuration and put the original ladder away for safe keeping. I have raised the front sights on these by making a taller sight (lowering the point of impact) from thin sheet metal doubled over with a Y-shaped or forked base that fit closely over the existing front site blade. The double thickness of the sheet metal chosen gave me the thickness of the new front blade that I wanted. I elected to J-B weld these on so that they could be readily removed with a bit of heat and minimal cleanup. A bit of file work on the taller front blade adjust the vertical impact as needed. Just the way that I approached these windage and elevation problems. BTW, it is possible to make a new ladder without a milling machine but it does take patience.
J.B.

[varsity07840]

The Enfield stock is straighter, and fits the shooter differently than does the Springfield.

You might want to shoulder both before you decide.

On original Springfields the bore diameter (grooves) tapered down from larger at the breech to tighter at the muzzle, for accuracy. Modern rifle-muskets have, I believe, uniform diameter bores (or at least they are supposed to be so)

The Italian Reproductions of the British Enfields have progressive depth rifling.  It is .003" at the muzzle, but .008" deeper at the breech.  This is the same as the original .58 Springfields and also the same as the original .69 cal. rifled muskets.

I beg to differ. The only repo Enfields with progressive depth rifling are those that were manufactured by Parker Hale in England.
Italian Enfields and Springfields do not have PDR because it's too expensive. Hoyt and Whitacre make replacement barrels and do relines
on import barrels with PDR, as  well as for originals.

[bones92]

JBJ, that is a consideration.  One could even attach a plate to the rear sight notch, and file a notch in the plate. 

I actually pondered taking the rear leaf off, filing the side edges that would allow it to shift left, and fill the space at the hinge pin with a small ring of tubing.  In this case, the front sight tip should align with the very left edge of the existing notch.

Ironically, that Zouave with the Bill Large barrel I posted about separately has a very deep notch cut in the sight leaf, and it is also offset to one side as the front sight is a bit off to one side, as well.

[Daryl]

The Enfield stock is straighter, and fits the shooter differently than does the Springfield.

You might want to shoulder both before you decide.

On original Springfields the bore diameter (grooves) tapered down from larger at the breech to tighter at the muzzle, for accuracy. Modern rifle-muskets have, I believe, uniform diameter bores (or at least they are supposed to be so)

The Italian Reproductions of the British Enfields have progressive depth rifling.  It is .003" at the muzzle, but .008" deeper at the breech.  This is the same as the original .58 Springfields and also the same as the original .69 cal. rifled muskets.

I beg to differ. The only repo Enfields with progressive depth rifling are those that were manufactured by Parker Hale in England.
Italian Enfields and Springfields do not have PDR because it's too expensive. Hoyt and Whitacre make replacement barrels and do relines
on import barrels with PDR, as  well as for originals.

Because my Italian model 1861 Musketoon has progressive depth rifling, I figured they all did, thus my statement.
 It does have an undersized .574" bore, however it has 5-groove, .003" deep rifling at the muzzle and .011" rifling at the breech, which follows the .008" deeper  breech rifling that it is supposed to have.

Don't believe I said the Italian Springfields had progressive depth rifling- if so - I screwed up as I am quite sure they do not, only the originals did.