Load for an original Harper's Ferry M1803

[TNVolunteerEngineer]

I have one coming in I'd like to shoot. The former owner hunted with it, but there are no load data and no components. Is this going to be a gun that will shoot a .540" ball?  What was the original powder charge?  I have a personal 54 caliber Issac Haynes replica that I hunt with.  My hunting charge is 100 grains of 2F.

[smylee grouch]

I have heard two different loads as the original load. One was 1 forth the ball weight and the other was 1/3 of ball weight. 

[Seth Isaacson]

I've seen the original load for the Model 1841 as a .535 round ball, sewn on linen patch, and 60 grains of musket powder which I believe was supposed to have been the same load as the Model 1803. If I am recalling correctly, by the Civil War they increased the powder charge to something like 75 grains for the Model 1842s that were still .54s.

[Daryl]

That sounds legitimate, Seth.
Trying to remember Lewis and Clark's notes. They did state the 1803's ctg. did not hold enough powder for the plains grizzlies, they encountered.
I "seem" to recall they did mention the 60gr. charge, now that you mentioned it.

[Seth Isaacson]

The reason the 60 grains part stuck in my head is because that is the same they used for the .58 Minie balls too. I know I have a book or reference saved somewhere that listed some of the original cartridges from the Civil War at least.

[smylee grouch]

That 60 grain charge would be KINDA close to 1\4 ball weight and a 75 grain charge would be KINDA close to 1\3' ball weight.

[Longknife]

If I recall right, Captain Clark practiced at Camp DuBois with his men shooting the HF rifles at 40 rods. That is 220 yards. I wouldn't think a 54 cal. ball would be very accurate at that distance with only 60 grains of powder....LK

[Daryl]

As long as they were using issue ctgs. that would be the load. I recall at some point, they lost a bunch of powder due to swamping or tipping over
one of the boats. After they, they were stingy on powder & took apart some ctgs. for loose powder charges. Does that mean they reduced powder
charges further?

[Longknife]

There were several incidents where powder horns were lost or got wet but when the canoe got swamped there was no powder lost.

 On Feb 1st 1806 Capt lewis wrote " today we opened and examined all our ammunition, which had been secured in leaden canesters.    we found twenty seven of the best rifle powder, 4 of common rifle, three of glaized and one of the musqut powder in good order,  perfectly as dry as when first put in the canesters, altho' the whole of it from various accedents has been for hours under the water.    these cannesters contain four lbds. of powder each and 〈contain〉 8 of lead."

This was 40 pounds of powder and only seven months from the end of the journey, not short powder by any means....LK

[smylee grouch]

I was under the impression that the lead canisters held the amount of powder for the number of balls that lead would cast up, so unless my math is wrong 8 lbs of lead and 4  lbs of powder should be about half the ball weight in powder or approx 110 grs.  

[Daryl]

Could very well be as noted. I'm trying to remember from what I read some 35 to 40 years ago. Loaned out the "Condensed Chronicles", 2 books instead of the 11 or 12 written.

[Longknife]

I was under the impression that the lead canisters held the amount of powder for the number of balls that lead would cast up, so unless my math is wrong 8 lbs of lead and 4  lbs of powder should be about half the ball weight in powder or approx 110 grs.  
[/quote

Smylee, that is correct. Also, there is the mistaken idea that paper cartridges were used in the 1803 rifles but there is no reference in the journals of paper cartridges being taken or made on the expedition. The list of supplies for the rifles include shot pouches, powder horns, flints, ball screws, wipers, bullet molds, lead, and powder, but there is no mention of cartridges.   Cartridges were used though, by the regular army, and issued to the Riflemen, as a backup in case of a firefight.   

[Daryl]

That's interesting, because I know I read about paper ctgs. in the condensed chronicles.

[utseabee]

If I remember correctly, I read somewhere that they used .525 balls in the 1803. I built one a couple of years ago and used 80 grains of 2f, .526 balls, and a .022 patch. That combo worked well for me and loaded pretty easily.

[Dphariss]

Great now I need to read the Journals again. I have the complete unedited set but there is a LOT of reading and not sure I am up to it. One really needs to be motivated to read through the day to day things that are the greatest part of the Journals. But I did learn a number of things the second (?) time around. Such as the baby had a stuffed bear doll for a toy…. Which was lost in a flash flood while they were portaging around the Great Falls of the Missouri.
I suspect that the rifles had fairly large vents and lost some velocity as a result. In the West where ranges were often much longer the trajectory became an issue. Especially since range estimation can by difficult 150 can look like 100 in some conditons/situtations.  A ball this size will easily kill deer at 800 fps, at least give adequate penetration, even for Elk and Buffalo but I would want a little more for these two.  But it takes more powder to get to over 1000 fps at 100-120 yards. 100 grains or so in a 54. A hunting load as I use in a 54 will run close to 1100 at 100 yards and will kill elk at ranges past that. And a 50 cal RB at 800 fps MV will shoot through a Deer side to side at 25 yards or so. Which I have done. Assuming its a lung shot. The RB is a pretty darned good hunting projectile if placed right and used within its range limits. But back about the time the TC “Maxi-Ball” came out the modern gunwriters got involved and since TC was buying ad the RB was useless because it did not carry enough energy. Which in the BP world in a meaningless term.
G bears? I have lived in AK a few times and I heard a story only third hand (friend of a participant) not rumor, about a Gbear hunt and sometimes if can take a lot of ammo no matter what you are shooting. Especially if the first shots (2 in this case from a high “energy” magnum)  don’t get the job done….. Yeah it was pretty ugly and made the news paper.
Two days out a the range some guy that oughta know better, was shooting a 50 cal something or other, looked like a foreign copy of a TC with a stout charge a of powder anda 600 gr slug. Then yesterday was shooting something lighter. This exceeds “silly” and gets right into stupid in a ML of this type. Even Sharps never loaded a bullet over 500 gr in the 50 cals.

[Dphariss]

When Lewis got shot the ball showed a remarkable lack of penetration, unless it hit something before striking Lewis. And since they could identify it I would think it did not deform a lot either. So if we think of the vent size, which could have been near 1/8” with the attendant velocity loss we can assume the charge was not very heavy or range greater than it seemed to be. I don’t know the granulation used but rifles generally used a powder finer than that of the musket and it was usually better powder by the time in spent in the mill compared to “Musket” being ground longer and may have had a little more nitrate.  And we should remember that the 1/2 ball weight of powder was known as a rifle charge. But we also must remember that they har to deduct priming from the 4 pounds powder/8 pounds lead in the canisters. Unless they were using the common rifle or glazed powder as prime. But the shooting of Lewis seems to mean a charge of 60-70 gr max. And I wonder what the glazed powder was since if the “best rifle” was made as it should been it would have shined up in the drying drum. The British Milirary at least would, from my reading, accept no graphited (black lead) powder. Since all it does in increase the fouling. I would think the Americans would know this as well.