Actually it was cursed, since it's slightly tighter bore and style of rifling led to harder loading during follow-up shots. Lots of civil war myths out there
I had always understood that the point of a minie out of a rifle musket was to get some of the terminal ballistic improvements that a rifle provides and approximate the rate of fire you could get from a smooth bore musket. They had and used very accurate rifles prior to the minie ball but they were quite tight in the bore and slow to load and fire. Anyone who has shot patched round ball out of a rifle musket knows what I mean. The 61 springfield loaded with period correct cartridges was always a compromise weapon and definitely provided a range advantage over smoothbores, this is entirely evident reading the accounts from the war but obviously the advantage is greatly exaggerated in the public consciousness.
I've seen both Minie ball and round ball shot into ballistics gel, neither expands. They lack both the velocity and the nose profile to expand, the terminal ballistics should hardly vary between Minie and round ball. The effect is about on par with a modern JHP 9x19mm round that also expands to about 0.58-inch, the Muskets will penetrate about 30 inches rather than only 14. The distinction minie not only to allow faster loading but also greater accuracy than even round ball as the cannelures (grease groves) act like the feathers on a shuttlecock keeping the bullet pointing in line with its path through the air. By contrast a round ball will start its trajectory at an upwards angle with the axis of rotation pointing up but as the trajectory arcs down the axis of rotation keeps pointing upward. This causes more turbulence and a slight magnus effect that can be counterintuitive to correct for. This is why the most accurate rifles have rifling just barely enough to stabilize the round, too much then on the descending arc the bullet is slipstreaming sideways through the airflow.
@@Treblaine a rifle delivers more energy to the target over a smoothbore owing to the higher velocities involved. that's going to mean a rifle has better terminal ballistics. Not that it means that the bullet will expand or something. The point was that a Minie gets the rifle's advantages in accuracy and energy delivered to the target without sacrificing rate of fire the way that rifles had previously.
@@ScottMaurer-g2b The greater velocity doesn't increase the wound diameter, only the depth. Projectiles with a smooth rounded nose (or ogive) are very inefficient at using kinetic energy to cut chemical bonds in tissue. Consider cutting a long slab of beef in half using a sharp knife, how little force you need to separate it into two cuts, contrast that with hitting the same spot with a sledgehammer until you've crushed the beef at the point of impact. Far more energy for the same effect. Remember, lots of people survived being shot by minie balls and even walked to aid stations only to die from infection. This was Florence Nightingale's huge contribution to the war effort in Crimea, if you just could prevent infection using aseptic technique the injuries of Minie ball were often survivable even with minimal surgery.
@@Treblaine a fair point and well argued. However, the superior wounding capabilities of the Minie ball over the round ball are often cited, perhaps erroneously, by both period and modern sources as to reasons for adopting the Minie. so regardless of whether this was the case or not, the perception of this effect was almost certainly a factor in the use of the minie over the round ball. which goes to my earlier point. It is however difficult to get period data about the wounding characteristics of each type of shot though I know it was tested.
@@ScottMaurer-g2b The same sources that claim the Minie ball was more deadly also cite many other supposed phenomena that were later debunked, like the conjecture that the rifled muskets increased the range of combat. Paper Cartridges argues against that decisively in one of his videos. What many historians did notice was that the casualties were massive and they struggled to explain it, so when they saw rifled muskets had just been introduced they declared "well that must be it." The reality is far more a matter of logistics: steam ships and steam locomotives just allowed far larger armies to be used at greater concentration. Industrialization allowed armies to be equipped far faster than they could be trained. The battles were simply larger. The huge increase in the size of armies also lead to less sophisticated strategy which meant things weren't as decisive. The reason for the Minie ball taking over was industrial inertia. Rifles were being mass produced and minie ammunition was being mass produced. Some units still had Smoothbore muskets at Gettysberg but they had to trade in for Rifled Muskets as they were going to be resupplied with ammunition that wasn't even the correct caliber for their smoothbore muskets. Colonel Fackler did extensive research to develop the "Ballistics gelatin" standard, it is more or less accurate for wound size and penetration and expansion. I think we can be quite confident in such ballistics-gel tests. Yeah, .58-cal minie ball is bad, but probably more or less the same as other piercing weapons that had been on the battlefield and has been seen since.
I am so glad you make such great rifled musket videos, very informative and entertaining. I especially like content focusing on 1840s-1860s muzzle loaders! I'm new to muzzle loading, especially rifled muskets and have benefited greatly from your detailed videos. I appreciate the way you blend history and technical knowledge. I know you shoot mostly (or exclusively?) antiques, and was hoping that you, may at some point, provide insights into the differences and problems one might run into when one, such as myself, adapts the historical cartridges you feature in your videos to modern reproductions... I've been at it a few months and feel somewhat discouraged because I don't feel like I'm getting the accuracy my rifle should be capable of... I'm happy I can hit a torso sized target within 100 yards... I'd love to get to point where I can begin to reliably hit targets at distances the originals were designed to hit. Perhaps I'm just no good, but I can hit the target I'm aiming at (with acceptable reliability (for me)) when I shoot a modern lever gun... So I don't feel my frustration is completely my ineptitude with regards to aiming and such. Could it be that the Pedersoli made rifled musket is incapable of achieving the accuracy that the originals were capable of? What do you think? Any helpful hits or suggestions would be appreciated! Apologies for the ramble.
The Pedersoli should be capable of very good accuracy. The crucial factors are the size of your bullets compared to the actual size of the bore and the powder charge. Sometimes a little trial and error is needed to figure out what your rifle likes. For instance, sometimes a rifle will shoot very poorly with 3F powder, but group nicely with 1.5F Powder. Make sure the bullets are absolutely pure soft lead. If possible, size them 1 or 2 thousandths of an inch below bore size. Lube them with a generous amount, this will keep the fouling soft and prevent it from becoming hard and filling the rifling grooves. Try different powder charges in 2 grain increments. Start with around 50 grains and work up 2 grains at a time.
Hey, Thanks Robert for the reply. An outside perspective and support is always very helpful. I'm kinda figuring this out by myself and youtube... I really appreciate the feedback! I'll keep working at it! @robertstallard7836
Thanks Paper Cartridges for the reply. I'll keep working at it... At the moment I"ve got 3 different bullets, sized, lubed and ready for trial I haven't tried different grains yet... Thanks for the input and suggestions. I keep working at it. @@papercartridges6705
These guys got it right. There are too many variables to effectively create a comparison. Still, there is no reason one can't get the Pedersoli to shoot very well. While it does not have the progressive rifling, it is a Match Grade barrel. My careful experimentation with available materials, one should be able to wring some serious accuracy from these guns.
Again, thanks for the tips y'all. I've done all you've suggested and have greatly improved. I'm hitting 100 yards with consistency and started working on 150 yards today. Thanks for the encouragement.
I will also mention, if people are not aware, the North South Skirmishers Association holds several National matches just about 5-10 miles north of Winchester VA, I believe it is Gainesboro (Fort Shenandoah) You will see hundreds of target shooters shooting clay targets with period style Civil War weaponry. Its a great experience, and Winchester is a nice area to visit. If this is your thing, you really should go check it out.
A long time ago I was part of the CWSA before it disbanded, we shot at 50 & 100 yards with rifle muskets at clay pigeons or 4" sq bathroom tiles, they were pretty accurate.
@@1stminnsharpshooters341 For a short time I was a member of Company C 2nd Regiment USSS out of PA. They didn't attend NSSA events, but were big into the living history aspect. Which was also very interesting, I really enjoyed interacting with the public and answering any questions they had. As far as Winchester, the Fall match is always the better time to go, and its coming up in the next month or so. Taylors firearms is also in Winchester on the North end, not far from the match.....check their hours first, I believe if you want to hit Taylors it will have to be on a week day. The reason I mention this above, is the NSSA events seems to have become somewhat smaller, and I am hoping people here can go and show their support for what they do. Its an experience, and you can walk the camp sites and bunk areas and everyone is happy to talk to you. And "The Virginia Farm Market" has the best pies on the planet, look them up too!
@@kevingooley9628 The cannon matches are a real eye opener. When they retrieve the target from 200 yards, some of the best teams had a one hole clover leaf cut in the target! These guys could literally take your head off at 200 yrds, with a Civil War cannon!
Even to the end of the war, you could still find percussion smooth-bore muskets in service and not just in the secondary theaters or second line troops. The Irish Brigade for all of its existence, armed only one regiment, the 28th Massachusetts with rifle-muskets (.58 M1861). This regiment was used as the brigade skirmishers. The other four original regiments were armed with (and retained in service until 1864), the .69 musket M1842. These muskets were used with "buck and ball" ammunition, a single large ball and three buckshot. And the problem of standardization remained. Between 1857 and 1862, tens of thousands of M1842 muskets and even earlier flintlock muskets converted to percussion, were rifled and fired a massive .69 Minie type round. There were the imported weapons that took everything from a .71 ball to a .54 Minie round. These weapons were placed in four categories, one through four, with one being the best, the .58 M1855 rifle and rifle-musket, the M1861, M1861 Special and M1863 rifle-muskets and the .577 Enfield rifles and rifle-muskets. The Enfields were almost dropped into category two, because they were commercial models without interchangeable parts. The Dresden rifle-musket and the Lorenz rifles and rifle-muskets along with both caliber M1841 "Mississippi" rifles were in category two. As production ramped up of the M1861, imports were reduced, even that of the Enfields and no more foreign rifles or rifle-muskets were imported from the beginning of 1863. The increased production also led to most of the imported firearms and some of the older American conversions being disposed of. But while this was happening, the US Army found itself having to supply ammunition to a new set of firearms, breech-loading single shot and magazine rifles and carbines such that by the end of 1863, it was issuing ammunition for Spencers, Henrys, Sharps, Burnsides and Merrills. The ammunition situation was not resolved until 1875-76, when the Sharps and Spencers were withdrawn and replaced with the .45-70 Springfield rifle and the 45-60 carbine.
Years ago I had an Enfield and loved it, I still have the 575213 Lyman mold I made bullets with, it shot it's best with 60 gr charges and was very accurate at 100 yds
I have extensive experience shooting a .58 US Rifle-Musket in competition in the North-South Skirmish Assn., an association devoted to firing Civil War weapons of all types from revolvers to artillery. All Rifle-Musket competitions are shoulder fired without a sling and timed. The Rifle-Muskets are teams of 8 lined up on a firing line with 60+ other teams shooting frangible targets. Typical 50 yard targets are clay pigeons or 4"ceramic tile, typical at 100 yards are 9" tile or milk jugs. With the exception of 32 pigeons on a 4'x8' cardboard all the targets are hanging from a frame. I use a Lyman 575213 bullet, a very good copy of the Burton Bullet. Many of my fellow shooters use other bullets, some even wadcutters. We have the added complication in matches of close to 500 shooters, basically shoulder to shoulder, generating an incredible amount of smoke. I personally shoot an original M1855 Rifle-Musket made in Harpers Ferry in 1858 because I prefer the sight picture of the long range sight. These days almost everyone shoots replicas, although when I started 50 years ago my whole team shot original 1861s except for me. Since I practice by shooting charcoal briquettes dangling on wires at 50yds I almost never miss a 50yd target in competition. Since the 100 yd targets are more than double the size of the 50 yard ones I sometimes miss. I attribute the misses to my tendency to rush the shot by neglecting to aim carefully in the firm belief I couldn't possibly miss anything that big 😀 Starting with a loaded musket I can get off 4 carefully aimed shots in less than 50 seconds. In competition we do not replace the ramrod, but instead lean it on a bayonet stuck in the ground.
Current National's targeting for the team rifled musket match is 50 yards: clay pigeons on a backer, 4" hanging tile, hanging pigeons, and 3" clay simulations of a flower pot. 100 yards are 6" hanging tile. 5 minute max time per event.
I can’t speak for civil war situations but sticking the ramrod in the ground was discouraged as any change of position could end up leaving it behind. That would slow down the firing rate! Not a problem in competitions I imagine.
I shoot matches with the North- South Skirmish Association. At 100 yards our targets are 6" ceramic tiles hung by a wire. I am using a Parker Hale 1858 Enfield, made about 1976 in Birmingham England, 2 band Naval Rifle or a Reproduction of a 1863 Springfield. The Enfield is sized .575 and the Springfield is sized .579. Both use 50 grains of 3f.
Awesom video. Civil War History is Awesome. Thank you. Mom's dad is WW2 Marien Veteran. Lived in New Jersey, he went to Gettysburg frequently. Now I know why he loved it
It's amazing to me that 50 years after the 1861 was in service, John Moses Browning's 1911 was in service. This makes me want to go to the range to see how quickly I can get a similar sized group out of my 1991A1.
Thanks for all of the videos on civil war small arms. I've dug lots civil war bullets with a metal detector. I'm amazed at the difference in the size and weight of the bullets. It makes more sense to me now that you said they didn't worry about accuracy in service ammunition.
There is definitely a dizzying amount of bullet variants, weights, shapes, sizes, and that’s just for .58 rifle! It’s really incredible how they got the armies supplied.
Great Channel, I wonder can you answer a question. I've seen a good few documentaries abut the arrival of metallic cartridge/repeating rifles that slowly made their way into the battlefield of the civil war like the Henry and Spencer rifles. Obviously these were a big step up in terms of firepower, but did they really make a difference ? Was there any battles or skirmishes where one side completely dominated over the other because they were armed with repeating rifles. My guess is that they were issued in too small a quantity to make a significant difference.
Tactics, logistics, and maneuver really matter more than the actual guns. In 1870, using a gun designed in 1841, the Prussians defeated the French who were using the brand new small bore bold action Chassepot. It’s when you combine the good guns with effective tactics, good logistics, and effective maneuver, that you absolutely get to dominate the enemy. This is very rare historically.
At least one occasion where wilders brigade made a difference due to being armed with repeaters. And I suspect there was more then one occasion where union cavalry forces had the upper hand due to just simply having more breechloaders issued. It does make quite a difference in timed events and I think that would have been just as apparent in combat.
Watched your videos and find them interesting just a question should you not be firing these weapons from a rest to remove shooter error, and only focus on the weapons inherent accuracy or lack thereof? What would happen if we improved the trigger and the sights? So is it then the weapon or the sighting system lots of questions I know but it would be very interesting to see how well we could get the weapon to perform. Be
At the end of the video I explain why I choose to shoot standing rather than from a bench. Basically, it’s because that’s how Civil War soldiers shot them, and these rifles were never designed or intended to be shot from a bench, or the prone.
I have been looking to get a civil war rifle. I know the confederate sharpshooters commonly used the 2 band enfield. However as a vermonter I am interested in getting a rifle that my ancestors used. I also know that the enfield was a very common weapon used by the union but I can not seem to find any information about union sharpshooters using the enfield. I think part of this is because so much press either now or during the war was paid to rifles like the sharps in use by federal sharpshooters, but if you look at the numbers it seem to be the case that many federal sharpshooters must have been stuck with a muzzle loading rifle. If I bought a 2 or 3 band enfield do you think that would be a realistic representation of a sharpshooter in the union army?
It took "Paper Cartridges" here on average 40-45 seconds to load and accurately fire each shot. According to data, the infantry soldier could do this at the rate of 3 shots per minute; an average of 20 secs/shot! 🙋🙏
He is taking his sweet time here. There is another video of him shooting as fast as possible, he did 4 shots in one minute. Furthermore, the three shots per minute expected of Civil War infantrymen was more of an ideal; in battle two volleys per minute was more realistic. Also their markmanship standard was simply atrocious, as they were barely given any ammo to practice with. So they wouldnt do much aiming during volleys. There were definitely skilled shots on both sides, who had been hunters before the war, but those would be concentrated in separate formations of skirmishers/sharpshooters.
The funny thing is that it looked like you took more time aiming with the rifle musket than you did with the smoothbore. At the end of the day, most people wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of someone firing these muskets at them, especially someone with real experience firing them.
have you ever played around with Buck'n Ball loads? I know that was a common Yankee load in the War of Independence but I read that some units used smoothbores in favor over rifles all the way till the mid-civil war and used the BnB load to good effect... So I read.
There’s a few videos on my channel where we shoot buck and ball. It’s pretty devastating at close range. It’s true that units in the civil war also preferred buck and ball, there’s a famous monument here in Gettysburg for the 12th New Jersey and they even put buck and ball on top of their monument.
@@papercartridges6705 My bad for not referring to the back catalog 1st. IDK why but the Buck and ball load fascinates me, I may be wrong but it seems to be mostly an Americanism and something a few privets came up with rather than the fancy lads with a commision.
Commented on your smoothbore vid just a couple min ago... just because our groupings got tighter doesn't mean a smoothbore won't put a hole in you. Rifle means kill shot percentage increased greatly. And modern rifles can reliably buzz through small port holes. Still doesn't mean I'll stand in the open against anything being tossed my way!
Brett, I was excited and hoping that you were gonna fire the 2nd. Most imported and the 3rd. Most widely used rifle during the war and that was the “fine” Austrian Lorenz that was on the table. The test isn’t complete
Came from your "best" video, after looking once more at your 100yd smoothbore target, it shot consistently to the right. A man who used this weapon would know how his sights worked and I'd bet would have had compensated for this. Also, how many rounds to heat the barrel? One? A few? Could shooting out of a cold barrel have detrimental effects on where the round ended up? Your words on combat effectiveness were cogent, all the negative influences you touched upon in the intro above would have had an effect on the trooper, especially the "green" ones, though a wide shot at that distance could have hit the man next to your target. Great video, loved the Irish accent and the rifle's accuracy.
The Williams bullets were not intended to be a more accurate bullet, they were designed to scrape out the accumulation of burnt powder in a bore to facilitate loading. With properly lubricated Burton bullets one can shoot a lot before the bore needs to be cleaned.
@@mike03a3 I am going to link a video Brett did on the Ministry for History TH-cam channel a few years ago that does a deep dive on the history of the Williams Bullet. You will find you have it almost perfectly backwards. th-cam.com/video/bAdfKe1M4rk/w-d-xo.html
@@mike03a3 wow, I missed this comment by a long shot but you literally could not be more wrong. All you need to do is look up the original patent on the Williams bullet. It's not hard to find. It was 100% designed to be a more accurate bullet.
Just a thought. But as an experiment. What if the US had plugged the base of the bullet similar to an Enfield cartridge, just without the paper patching.
Talk with some of the shooters of the North-South Skirmish Association. They can give some really good info on accuracy of rifled muskets and carbines.
Good shooting, been wanting to get a muzzle loader for a while now. Would be interesting to see how fast you could reload the musket and how accurate you would be off hand with your heart rate up.
What I took away from this is the Burton is clearly superior because with its extra vertical and horizontal spread you can keep the same hold and kill the tall guy, and the short guy to his left or right all with the same point of aim. 🧐
Thanks for a very interesting presentation. I appreciate your efforts to test the old arms the way they were actually used more than 100 years ago. It's interesting to have an idea of what could be expected from the men and the equipment, which helps us distinguish truth from fiction or exaggeration in historical accounts. You are correct that the practical accuracy was probably good enough for the tactics in use at the time. While the exploration of practical accuracy is valuable and interesting, I'm also interested in a test of potential accuracy. How would the U.S. Springfield rifles do with a correctly sized bullet had the need to accommodate the Enfields not muddied the logistics? This is all unknown to me as my only experience with muzzleloaders is with cap and ball revolvers and patched ball rifles. I also wanted to compliment you on your pronunciation of German. It's really quite good, far better than I hear on many shows, including outfits with a much bigger budget than you have! Wie weiss ich? Weil ich ein Jahr bei der Uni Salzburg studiert habe. So eine schoene Stadt!
Love the videos. Can I recommend "The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat" be Earl J Hess. It is an excellent book that uses historical data to back up your claims and expand upon the topic. Also, taking my kid to go shoot your Enfield cartridges out of my original Bently and Playfair this weekend.
There’s a copy of Hess on my shelf in the background! You may be interested in my book “The Destroying Angel” where I interact with Hess’s conclusions extensively and take a slightly different approach.
The Destroying Angel is excellent book. You present clear historical data to back your argument that when soldiers are well TRAINED with a rifle, they change the course of warfare. @@papercartridges6705
Very informative. I am struggling with my Springfield at 100 yards. W 50 grains i got 7/9 on paper similar you but i was sitting on a bench w rifle supported. Where is your point of aim? Once i get better i will try standing. I was thinking the heavy trigger causes thecrifle to rise. Thank you.
Where in the trajectory would you see a a rifle musket of. 58 and a standard c60-68gshoot POA? I think you mentioned in another video but I can't find it
I really need to get an Enfield so I can stop being so primitive! But really, I acknowledge the Pritchett cartridge is way better, but there is just something pleasing about the Burton cartridge and the Springfield. The Springfield rifle is just beautiful.
I don't get the confusion between the UK .577 and the American .58 rifles. I have slugged a number of (original) Pattern 53 Snider conversions and they were all .581 to .582. In the UK we used to measure the lands rather than the grooves as you do in the US - possibly the difference? For example the 303, which is actually .311 to .312.Great video by the way.
After 160+ years of wear, the barrels have enlarged. In the 1860s, if a rejecting-gauge of .580 was able to be inserted into the barrel, it was removed from service or classified as a lower-class arm, for the Militia or stores.
I won't disagree with you but the dimensions I quoted were from pretty much mint bores, with a smoother finish (after all that time) than some modern rifles. I would not waste your time with quoting the dimensions of some of the rust buckets I have tried to get to shoot! Was the .580 Gauge measured at the grooves or the lands? If a 580 Gauge slug would fit into a Pattern 53 then there would be no rifling left. I suspect it might be the same with the Springfield?
Enjoyed the video but how about using a .5775 or .578 diameter bullet that the U.S. rifle-muskets were designed for, that may have been a bit fairer in a heads up against the Endfield. Granted, you did explain at the end of the video, perhaps a subject to cover in a future video.
I find these posts interesting to see just what the ammo/ gun can deliver. but, there is always a but. When you are in war with a hundred balls/ bullets coming at you something is going to hit you unless you are lucky
Burtons work great in Enfields. The Pritchetts also shoot OK in the Springfield but not quite as good as in the Enfield, since there’s 3-thousands of additional windage. If the Pritchett has a plug, it will usually shoot better in the Springfield. But it’s really all just academic hair splitting, since they’ll all shoot at least to center mass.
At 3:05, you mention that the ball size was reduce "... load easier in the .5770 ..." Many early Civil War bullets were poorly formed causing many loading problems in .58 caliber muskets. This was a more import reason to reduce the size of the bullets. (see below) At 3:28 you mention that the charge was increased a mere 5 grains. However, the bullet was reduced 40 grains to 460 grains. I checking several original bullets I own. The two 500+ grains bullets are the fist one is .583 to .577 and the skirt averages .13" The second on is .577 to .562 with the same average skirt diameter. The 460 grain bullets are .565 to .570 with a average skirt thickness of .095. A bullet with a thinner skirt does not need more powder to expand. At 5:45, it appears that the lower left hit in the black is a double. Also, you said you think you shot once over the frame, so how can you have 5 (or 6) on paper, 3 off the paper and 1 over the frame with 8 rounds? At 6:29, you claim the "rifle musket (US Mode 1861) is not as accurate at 100 yards". This is highly subject to the shooter and not the firearm nor the ammunition. Also, your follow up shooting with the Enfield shows better what a rifled musket can do. That is why the Army tested the new Model 1855 with a firing sled to remove shooter error from the testing out to ranges of 1000 yards. At 12:29, that is a great target. A US 58 caliber rifled musket can also do that well with service ammunition. At 13:20, you mention "the correct historic ammunition". That is a very tall order. First, all bullets used by the US were cold pressed lead. Cast lead bullets can have flaws which effect accuracy. Second, there is no modern black powder that meets the Civil War standard. The Ordnance Manual (pg 226) states "... the charcoal has the greatest effect upon its quality ...Light, friable and porous charcoal ... is best adapted ..." Charcoal was made from willow or better black alder with the latter being "best". The charcoal "... heats and if in a heap of 30 lbs. or more, takes fire spontaneously." Also, on pg 230 "Inspection and Proof of Powder", "... when flashed in a quantities of 10 grains on a copper plate, it should leave no bead or foulness." No modern powder meets this standard, but Swiss is the best. At 13:54, you states "... the service cartridge was not an accuracy load by any standard by any means ..." This is debatable. There was extensive testing in 1855 to select the new rifle and ammunition for the US army. The English Enfield was know to the testers but not accepted. (see below) At 14:45, you state that an N-SSA shooter uses a bullet that is .001" undersized. That is laughable. I have been a member of the N-SSA for nearly 30 years and I know of no one that shoots that tight of a ball. Many shooters need a "fouling round" for best accuracy because it decreases the windage when you need to shoot 10 shots for score. Most shoot a .577" or a .575" (like me) in a rifle musket with no problems. We also shoot .007" to .010" undersized smooth bores without patches. Patches are not allowed by the rules. Lastly, at 15:08, by 1862 they were trying to FIX the problem with the earlier ammunition. Many of the bullets were badly molded and oval in shape. They met bore diameter measured across between the mold half perpendicular to the joint. However; the across the joint seams, they were oversized. Thus the stories of soldiers having to use trees to ram home bullets because they wouldn't seat properly. The bullet diameter changes had little to due with the Enfield. If they wanted to standardize ammunition, the US should have adopted the Enfield cartridge because it would work in the ALL US .58 caliber muzzle loading rifled firearms and the Fremont Halls carbines. Also, the paper patch is more forgiving on size than a solid lead bullet ----------------------- This information is taken directly from the "Report of Experiments with Small Arms for the Military Service" printed in 1856 of the 1855 testing at Harpers Ferry. On Page 109 of the Small Arms report of 1855, it call out the same ball diameters, ball weights and powder charges of in the Ordnance Manual (pg 257). The altered 69 caliber rifle cartridge was a .685" diameter, 730 grain ball with 70 grains of powder. The new Model 1855 rifle cartridge was a .5775" diameter, 500 grain ball with 60 grains of powder. The new Model 1855 pistol-carbine cartridge was a .5775" diameter, 450 grain ball with 40 grains of powder. The new preferred diameter of the .58 caliber ball would cause it to "foul out" quickly. This likely caused the development of the "Williams Cleaning Bullet" patented on May 30, 1861. There was also mentioned in 1863 of there being a .69 caliber version, but none were ever ordered. This is likely because none were ever needed because the bullet was properly sized and overly tight. Why? Note that the .69 rifled muskets ball is .005" under sized. This was used in converted Model 1816's (made after 1822) Model 1840's and Model 1842. At the same time, the allowance for an oversized bore for .69 caliber rifled muskets was .015 by both the Small Arms Report of 1855 (pg 94) and the Ordnance Report (pg 174). This could make the ball .020" undersized in a maximum allowable sized bore. I shoot a .575" ball from my Model 1855 with no accuracy problems nor fouling problems. However, the ball for the Model 1855 rifle musket and the Model 1855 pistol carbine was only .0025" or half as much. With a maximum sized bore, the ball was .005 under sized. A standard cartridge pack of 10 rounds included 1 Williams Cleaning Bullet with 60 grains of powder. Another problem with early bullets was that when they were swedged (not case) they were oval. That is to say the diameter across the seam was too large causing loading problems and f This amount of windage allows firing of up to 20 rounds (the top of a standard 40 round cartridge box) without needing the foul to be cleaned. I shoot a .575" ball from my Model 1855 with no accuracy problems nor fouling problems. For more information see below www.libertyrifles.org/research/uniforms-equipment/fouled-muskets-revisited
I would have been very happy to engage with your comment, since you seem to know a great deal, although you are very close yet slightly wrong on several points… but you directly accused me of lying and misleading people, and that’s a non-starter. I don’t make these videos, and spend my precious time making them, just to have keyboard commentators accuse me of lying or misleading people. I shot 8 rounds. One clearly went over the top. The holes in the rubber target frame, those may or may not have been from me. I assumed they were. Maybe one or two were from previous shooting. Cheers.
@@papercartridges6705 I never "directly accused" you of anything. Except, maybe not being able to properly count your hits and misses. Whatever. I simply disagree with some of your points or when you made statements about bullet tolerance that N-SSA shooters prefer actually made me laugh. "Fouling out" (being unable to finish loading and ram home a follow up shot) in team completion is a something no one wants to happen. Use a bullet which is too tight, and you will be waiting for the Safety Team to come and blow out your stuck bullet (because of fouling) with compressed air. If that doesn't work, you and your weapon literally get carted away off the firing line to a safe area where maybe, the problem gets fixed. There are hundreds of members in the N-SSA. I've never heard of using a .001" or .002" tolerance. it is unnecessarily tight. If you want to test the accuracy of the weapon, it should be shot from a sled. This eliminates any error in accuracy do the the shooter's skill. A rifle musket that is inaccurate can be that because of many sources such as; the shooter, the trigger pull, the condition of the rifling and bore, the sights, the sight picture, the variation in the powder, ball, fire produced by the cap, the hardness of the lead used in the bullet, etc., etc., etc. In fact I know shooter that will get different performance and accuracy by atmospheric conditions like humidity and barometric pressure. The Enfield target was a very good target. There is no reason the Model 1861 can't do as well. However; you seem to be very biased against the Burton Ball and US cartridges construction in favor of the Enfield cartridge. The Small Arms Testing report of 1855 had a slightly different design. On page 115, they discuss the importance of paper. The Small Arms report state that No. 3 paper (used for blanks) was better for the outer cartridge than No. 1 paper which which was "too strong" and normally used is smooth bore cartridges. This is because the loading procedure stated in the Small Arms Report of 1855 states (pg 116) after tearing and pouring the powder in the the barrel "... then seize the ball end firmly between the thumb and fore finger of the right hand, and strike the cylinder (powder end) a smart blow across the muzzle of the piece; this BREAKS the cartridge and exposes the bottom of the ball; a slight pressure of the thumb and fore finger forces the ball into the bore clear of all the cartridge paper." It goes on too state the cartridge should be held at right angles to the muzzle otherwise the blow "... would only bent the cartridge without rupturing it." Your Enfield cartridge paper seems to tear (break) very nicely. You might want to make some US style cartridges using that paper.
You're a better shot than I am, Gunga Din. I make up for this by shooting reproduction matchlock smoothbore muskets (cutting edge military technology from the 1590s) and have a perfectly believable excuse for not even hitting the paper.
Just to make it clear right from the start: I'm a complete layman when it comes to practical experience with any weapon (i'm German^^) But i've read quite often about the loading process of a smooth bore compared to a rifle which says that smooth bores were often preferred over rifles by infantry men for the quicker/ easier loading process. Now, i couldn't for the life of me find any differences in the two videos. Maybe bc Mr. PaperCartridge is so used to it? Idk really. So my question would be is there any difference at all?
Prior to the use of the expanding based minie (spelling) bullet the rifle was harder to load as you had to drive an oversized bullet down through the refiling. the new bullet was under sizeed and could be loaded as fast as the smoothbore.
I enjoy ur video's very much i in the last year was able to git me Enfield p53 i realy enjoy this rifle i make my own carriages just was only ably to git a 4 cavty Pritchard mold haveing problumes with clean breaks but keep it up
As someone who has been shooting black powder fire arms since the Reagan administration, there is a difference in shooting target loads, hunting loads and that of a combat load. As when shooting a standard government issued load, you shot what the government gave you. Which is completely different than what someone that is shooting for accuracy is going to shoot. That’s because a private individual who is shooting for hunting or targets, is most likely casting their own bullets like I do or buying a pre-cast bullet that they know has the best fit for their gun. An example: shooting a .45 caliber Kentucky rifle that uses a .440 round ball with a .01 or .011 patch to engage the rifling. Or a maxi ball of .440 that expands to .45 windage when shot.
How does one determine if a bullet mold or two they have might be for versions of the Pritchett projectiles? I have two molds which I believed to be molds for shotgun slugs but now I have my doubts. I base this assumption upon the appearance that they don't fit any shotgun calibre. I do not based this assumption on any measurements taken of the mold cavities. To be made functional as a bullet mold, both would need some work to bring them back to full functionality. Regards John
@@papercartridges6705 Thank you for your reply. I pulled the molds out of the hiding place and had another look at them. Both are the brass plier type molds with steel pins etc. Upon closer inspection, one is marked with No 577, has grooves milled into the cavity, a steel base plug on a screw which retains it in place and slides across to allow the projectile to drop free. The second mold only has the number 12 stamped on a top surface which would normally be under the sprue plate. There are no grooves in the profile, the brass base plug is the same type as the previous mentioned one but is seized solid. Trying to measure across the half cavity, I come up with a reading of .5645" Not an accurate reading at that. It would be nice to restore them to a usable condition but not at the cost of further damage to them. Regards, John
One has to wonder if it would help if the bullet was .576 or .5755 at the smallest? Then it would fit both Enfield and Springfield and not have too much windage.
Some of them would have been larger. The US bullets were made by compression (swaging) in steel dies, which would gradually wear larger as they stamped out tens of thousands of bullets. So the dies were made .574, and they would enlarge by wear to .575 or even .576 before they got replaced. So the soldier might be issued packs of ammo with some .574 and some .576 and some in between.
Well I did try… don’t really know how else to convince you. It shoots much, much better with the .5775 bullet that was used from 1856 to 1861. If you look closely, you can even see that some of the holes in the paper are oblong slightly keyholed, because the .574 bullets didn’t quite expand enough to fully stabilize.
I'm guessing, pure guess as I've never been in combat nor-the actual civil war, but my guess is in a true combat situation that bullets getting rammed like a demolition derby just took place in that barrel. Even by highly trained British regulars.
@@Lemonjellow True that, particularly in the Civil War where few soldiers had any serious training with live ammo before going into combat. Most training consisted of how to march, deploy into different formations, and practice 'dry' loading enough to instill muscle memory of the process. Over ramming during loading can induce a series of problems such as previously mentioned damage to the bullet, canting in the bore, as well as possible crushing of the powder charge which itself would create ballistic anomalies on a shot to shot basis. Still, that might well have been more or less the 'norm' in an actual battle where finesse goes out the window. And, one can add onto that such problems as might be encountered with the age or condition of the issue ammo which might have deteriorated over time--particularly deterioration of the tallow/beeswax grease with which the bullets were lubricated.
Yes, it shoots just as good as the Enfield with a .5775 sized Minie, which was the regulation size from 1855 to 1861. In fact, I would even say it’s more accurate than the Enfield.
These a whole lot of Skirmishers in the North-South Skirmish Assoc that will disagree, and yes, I'm one of them. At one time, I could consistently ring a 12 in gong at 250 yards with my 1842 Springfield.
Great job showing them off, if you'd like to shoot your guns in some rapid fire competition check out the north south skirmish association. I'm the editor of our magazine and would love to have you out as a guest.
Highly amusing how Brett specifically states why he is not using a rest, then the comments teem with people asking why he did not use a rest. Pay attention class.
But you are watching. And I’m not farby. I have some premium kit, all hand stitched, excellent Merrick leathers, the best. I’m just lazy, and don’t want to deal with all the questions and stares from everyone else at the range. Bad enough with just the hat!
My Burtons shoot fine at 100. But they’re only .003 under bore diameter. I have several rifles and each have their own mold specific to the bore diameter.
Did you use balls? or the minie projectiles which were used with rifles back then? Being hollow at the back which allows them to expand and grip the rifling when fired. if this test was with balls, its still interesting, but not a great comparison of what would've been used.
I feel like the main takeaway is that the US Army just wasn't that concerned with accuracy. If soldiers aren't given training and ammunition to make use of the greater potential accuracy of a rifled musket, the practical difference from a smoothbore musket is just that: Potential.
Depends on what you mean by accurate. Do you mean the sights line up and at 100 yards it right on? If so this is very rare But I did have a .41 cal Dillinger black powder that was dead on accurate and lethal at 75 yard. Beyond that. It's about knowing you fire stick. Knowing the right charge and bullet weight . A black powder long arm ( brown Bess) which is a smooth bore. Can be lethal and hit the target at 400 yards. The myth a black powder is useless past 50 yards is made by people that don't know how to shoot. Shooting of anything requires knowing. The charge - amount of powder, draw of bow. Projectile weight - bullet/ ball, arrow head. Barrel - rifling, smooth bore, length of arrow. Not even going to get into Sheppard slings. Side note, you can shot arrows from a bow with no fletchings and be very strait. It's a matter of finding the right length of shaft. Now I can't get a bow / crossbow to hit 300 yards. But I'm sure someone can. But I can get a smooth bore long arm to hit 400 yards. And I can get a Sheppard sling to hit 400 yards Both legal. The huge difference is the smooth bore I can get in inches of were I want it to hit. The sling if I hit a 4x8 piece of plywood I'm happy. So accurate it is not Lol but hearing that whistle that has a artillery sound has to be a WTF moment.
Biting is for barbarians. I note that you used the more accurate Hay cartridges rather than the later Boxer cartridges with the P-53--very wise for an accuracy comparison. Seeing that, and knowing how little training American troops had with musketry, it's so clear we lucked out a *lot* over the Trent Affair.
@@helland846Maybe, although I have yet to find anyone who can supply a government rule about that. Do you have one, or are you repeating hearsay you haven't actually researched? But setting that aside, you misunderstood the point of my comment. The British cartridges for the P-53 rifle were *not* bitten, they were torn. Brett usually shoots the British cartridges (as do I) because they are so incredibly superior to the Burton-ball cartridges (what people mistakenly call Minié balls) used in the 1861 Springfield. Thus, my comment was actually a tease about him using the inferior cartridge that required biting. I hope this helps you understand.
The Enfield P1853 was very beloved on both sides.....
Actually it was cursed, since it's slightly tighter bore and style of rifling led to harder loading during follow-up shots. Lots of civil war myths out there
I appreciate you “getting your hands dirty” and actually demonstrating in the real world what others might only talk and speculate about.
Very interesting test, thank you for the video!
Let me know if you ever venture east into the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, we should do some shooting!
@@papercartridges6705 I would love to see video of that as I watch both channels :)
I had always understood that the point of a minie out of a rifle musket was to get some of the terminal ballistic improvements that a rifle provides and approximate the rate of fire you could get from a smooth bore musket. They had and used very accurate rifles prior to the minie ball but they were quite tight in the bore and slow to load and fire. Anyone who has shot patched round ball out of a rifle musket knows what I mean. The 61 springfield loaded with period correct cartridges was always a compromise weapon and definitely provided a range advantage over smoothbores, this is entirely evident reading the accounts from the war but obviously the advantage is greatly exaggerated in the public consciousness.
I've seen both Minie ball and round ball shot into ballistics gel, neither expands. They lack both the velocity and the nose profile to expand, the terminal ballistics should hardly vary between Minie and round ball.
The effect is about on par with a modern JHP 9x19mm round that also expands to about 0.58-inch, the Muskets will penetrate about 30 inches rather than only 14.
The distinction minie not only to allow faster loading but also greater accuracy than even round ball as the cannelures (grease groves) act like the feathers on a shuttlecock keeping the bullet pointing in line with its path through the air.
By contrast a round ball will start its trajectory at an upwards angle with the axis of rotation pointing up but as the trajectory arcs down the axis of rotation keeps pointing upward. This causes more turbulence and a slight magnus effect that can be counterintuitive to correct for.
This is why the most accurate rifles have rifling just barely enough to stabilize the round, too much then on the descending arc the bullet is slipstreaming sideways through the airflow.
@@Treblaine a rifle delivers more energy to the target over a smoothbore owing to the higher velocities involved. that's going to mean a rifle has better terminal ballistics. Not that it means that the bullet will expand or something. The point was that a Minie gets the rifle's advantages in accuracy and energy delivered to the target without sacrificing rate of fire the way that rifles had previously.
@@ScottMaurer-g2b The greater velocity doesn't increase the wound diameter, only the depth. Projectiles with a smooth rounded nose (or ogive) are very inefficient at using kinetic energy to cut chemical bonds in tissue.
Consider cutting a long slab of beef in half using a sharp knife, how little force you need to separate it into two cuts, contrast that with hitting the same spot with a sledgehammer until you've crushed the beef at the point of impact. Far more energy for the same effect.
Remember, lots of people survived being shot by minie balls and even walked to aid stations only to die from infection. This was Florence Nightingale's huge contribution to the war effort in Crimea, if you just could prevent infection using aseptic technique the injuries of Minie ball were often survivable even with minimal surgery.
@@Treblaine a fair point and well argued. However, the superior wounding capabilities of the Minie ball over the round ball are often cited, perhaps erroneously, by both period and modern sources as to reasons for adopting the Minie. so regardless of whether this was the case or not, the perception of this effect was almost certainly a factor in the use of the minie over the round ball. which goes to my earlier point. It is however difficult to get period data about the wounding characteristics of each type of shot though I know it was tested.
@@ScottMaurer-g2b The same sources that claim the Minie ball was more deadly also cite many other supposed phenomena that were later debunked, like the conjecture that the rifled muskets increased the range of combat. Paper Cartridges argues against that decisively in one of his videos.
What many historians did notice was that the casualties were massive and they struggled to explain it, so when they saw rifled muskets had just been introduced they declared "well that must be it."
The reality is far more a matter of logistics: steam ships and steam locomotives just allowed far larger armies to be used at greater concentration. Industrialization allowed armies to be equipped far faster than they could be trained. The battles were simply larger. The huge increase in the size of armies also lead to less sophisticated strategy which meant things weren't as decisive.
The reason for the Minie ball taking over was industrial inertia. Rifles were being mass produced and minie ammunition was being mass produced. Some units still had Smoothbore muskets at Gettysberg but they had to trade in for Rifled Muskets as they were going to be resupplied with ammunition that wasn't even the correct caliber for their smoothbore muskets.
Colonel Fackler did extensive research to develop the "Ballistics gelatin" standard, it is more or less accurate for wound size and penetration and expansion. I think we can be quite confident in such ballistics-gel tests.
Yeah, .58-cal minie ball is bad, but probably more or less the same as other piercing weapons that had been on the battlefield and has been seen since.
I am so glad you make such great rifled musket videos, very informative and entertaining. I especially like content focusing on 1840s-1860s muzzle loaders!
I'm new to muzzle loading, especially rifled muskets and have benefited greatly from your detailed videos. I appreciate the way you blend history and technical knowledge. I know you shoot mostly (or exclusively?) antiques, and was hoping that you, may at some point, provide insights into the differences and problems one might run into when one, such as myself, adapts the historical cartridges you feature in your videos to modern reproductions...
I've been at it a few months and feel somewhat discouraged because I don't feel like I'm getting the accuracy my rifle should be capable of... I'm happy I can hit a torso sized target within 100 yards... I'd love to get to point where I can begin to reliably hit targets at distances the originals were designed to hit.
Perhaps I'm just no good, but I can hit the target I'm aiming at (with acceptable reliability (for me)) when I shoot a modern lever gun... So I don't feel my frustration is completely my ineptitude with regards to aiming and such. Could it be that the Pedersoli made rifled musket is incapable of achieving the accuracy that the originals were capable of? What do you think? Any helpful hits or suggestions would be appreciated! Apologies for the ramble.
The Pedersoli should be capable of very good accuracy. The crucial factors are the size of your bullets compared to the actual size of the bore and the powder charge. Sometimes a little trial and error is needed to figure out what your rifle likes. For instance, sometimes a rifle will shoot very poorly with 3F powder, but group nicely with 1.5F Powder. Make sure the bullets are absolutely pure soft lead. If possible, size them 1 or 2 thousandths of an inch below bore size. Lube them with a generous amount, this will keep the fouling soft and prevent it from becoming hard and filling the rifling grooves. Try different powder charges in 2 grain increments. Start with around 50 grains and work up 2 grains at a time.
Hey, Thanks Robert for the reply. An outside perspective and support is always very helpful. I'm kinda figuring this out by myself and youtube... I really appreciate the feedback! I'll keep working at it! @robertstallard7836
Thanks Paper Cartridges for the reply. I'll keep working at it... At the moment I"ve got 3 different bullets, sized, lubed and ready for trial I haven't tried different grains yet... Thanks for the input and suggestions. I keep working at it. @@papercartridges6705
These guys got it right. There are too many variables to effectively create a comparison.
Still, there is no reason one can't get the Pedersoli to shoot very well. While it does not have the progressive rifling, it is a Match Grade barrel.
My careful experimentation with available materials, one should be able to wring some serious accuracy from these guns.
Again, thanks for the tips y'all. I've done all you've suggested and have greatly improved. I'm hitting 100 yards with consistency and started working on 150 yards today. Thanks for the encouragement.
Thanks for the very good demonstration on the civil war rifles and ammunition.
I will also mention, if people are not aware, the North South Skirmishers Association holds several National matches just about 5-10 miles north of Winchester VA, I believe it is Gainesboro (Fort Shenandoah) You will see hundreds of target shooters shooting clay targets with period style Civil War weaponry. Its a great experience, and Winchester is a nice area to visit. If this is your thing, you really should go check it out.
A long time ago I was part of the CWSA before it disbanded, we shot at 50 & 100 yards with rifle muskets at clay pigeons or 4" sq bathroom tiles, they were pretty accurate.
been following NSSA for years pars ... would love to attend some day, participate on the range and visit around the camp fire --LT
@@1stminnsharpshooters341 For a short time I was a member of Company C 2nd Regiment USSS out of PA. They didn't attend NSSA events, but were big into the living history aspect. Which was also very interesting, I really enjoyed interacting with the public and answering any questions they had. As far as Winchester, the Fall match is always the better time to go, and its coming up in the next month or so. Taylors firearms is also in Winchester on the North end, not far from the match.....check their hours first, I believe if you want to hit Taylors it will have to be on a week day. The reason I mention this above, is the NSSA events seems to have become somewhat smaller, and I am hoping people here can go and show their support for what they do. Its an experience, and you can walk the camp sites and bunk areas and everyone is happy to talk to you. And "The Virginia Farm Market" has the best pies on the planet, look them up too!
@@kevingooley9628 The cannon matches are a real eye opener. When they retrieve the target from 200 yards, some of the best teams had a one hole clover leaf cut in the target! These guys could literally take your head off at 200 yrds, with a Civil War cannon!
@@nickf9392Reminded of Leonidas Polk.
Even to the end of the war, you could still find percussion smooth-bore muskets in service and not just in the secondary theaters or second line troops. The Irish Brigade for all of its existence, armed only one regiment, the 28th Massachusetts with rifle-muskets (.58 M1861). This regiment was used as the brigade skirmishers. The other four original regiments were armed with (and retained in service until 1864), the .69 musket M1842. These muskets were used with "buck and ball" ammunition, a single large ball and three buckshot.
And the problem of standardization remained. Between 1857 and 1862, tens of thousands of M1842 muskets and even earlier flintlock muskets converted to percussion, were rifled and fired a massive .69 Minie type round. There were the imported weapons that took everything from a .71 ball to a .54 Minie round. These weapons were placed in four categories, one through four, with one being the best, the .58 M1855 rifle and rifle-musket, the M1861, M1861 Special and M1863 rifle-muskets and the .577 Enfield rifles and rifle-muskets. The Enfields were almost dropped into category two, because they were commercial models without interchangeable parts. The Dresden rifle-musket and the Lorenz rifles and rifle-muskets along with both caliber M1841 "Mississippi" rifles were in category two. As production ramped up of the M1861, imports were reduced, even that of the Enfields and no more foreign rifles or rifle-muskets were imported from the beginning of 1863. The increased production also led to most of the imported firearms and some of the older American conversions being disposed of.
But while this was happening, the US Army found itself having to supply ammunition to a new set of firearms, breech-loading single shot and magazine rifles and carbines such that by the end of 1863, it was issuing ammunition for Spencers, Henrys, Sharps, Burnsides and Merrills. The ammunition situation was not resolved until 1875-76, when the Sharps and Spencers were withdrawn and replaced with the .45-70 Springfield rifle and the 45-60 carbine.
It's good to see you aren't suffering from the percussion cap drought. Over here in England there isn't a cap to be had.
I was in the N.S.S.A for a few years and loved shooting . Glad i found your channel
Years ago I had an Enfield and loved it, I still have the 575213 Lyman mold I made bullets with, it shot it's best with 60 gr charges and was very accurate at 100 yds
I have extensive experience shooting a .58 US Rifle-Musket in competition in the North-South Skirmish Assn., an association devoted to firing Civil War weapons of all types from revolvers to artillery. All Rifle-Musket competitions are shoulder fired without a sling and timed. The Rifle-Muskets are teams of 8 lined up on a firing line with 60+ other teams shooting frangible targets. Typical 50 yard targets are clay pigeons or 4"ceramic tile, typical at 100 yards are 9" tile or milk jugs. With the exception of 32 pigeons on a 4'x8' cardboard all the targets are hanging from a frame. I use a Lyman 575213 bullet, a very good copy of the Burton Bullet. Many of my fellow shooters use other bullets, some even wadcutters. We have the added complication in matches of close to 500 shooters, basically shoulder to shoulder, generating an incredible amount of smoke.
I personally shoot an original M1855 Rifle-Musket made in Harpers Ferry in 1858 because I prefer the sight picture of the long range sight. These days almost everyone shoots replicas, although when I started 50 years ago my whole team shot original 1861s except for me. Since I practice by shooting charcoal briquettes dangling on wires at 50yds I almost never miss a 50yd target in competition. Since the 100 yd targets are more than double the size of the 50 yard ones I sometimes miss. I attribute the misses to my tendency to rush the shot by neglecting to aim carefully in the firm belief I couldn't possibly miss anything that big 😀
Starting with a loaded musket I can get off 4 carefully aimed shots in less than 50 seconds. In competition we do not replace the ramrod, but instead lean it on a bayonet stuck in the ground.
Current National's targeting for the team rifled musket match is 50 yards: clay pigeons on a backer, 4" hanging tile, hanging pigeons, and 3" clay simulations of a flower pot. 100 yards are 6" hanging tile. 5 minute max time per event.
@@herbertliedel7019 Thanks for the update, it’s been a while since I’ve been to the Nationals.
What is it currently for smoothbore muskets?
I can’t speak for civil war situations but sticking the ramrod in the ground was discouraged as any change of position could end up leaving it behind. That would slow down the firing rate!
Not a problem in competitions I imagine.
Enjoyed the video Brett!! Nice job, and thanks again for putting this one together!!
I saw your poll, I would like to see "bench" shooting with standing as well, great content, Subbed first video!
I shoot matches with the North- South Skirmish Association. At 100 yards our targets are 6" ceramic tiles hung by a wire. I am using a Parker Hale 1858 Enfield, made about 1976 in Birmingham England, 2 band Naval Rifle or a Reproduction of a 1863 Springfield. The Enfield is sized .575 and the Springfield is sized .579. Both use 50 grains of 3f.
Nice!
Those English made Parker Hale rifles are the best reproductions ever made, in my opinion.
Awesom video. Civil War History is Awesome. Thank you. Mom's dad is WW2 Marien Veteran. Lived in New Jersey, he went to Gettysburg frequently. Now I know why he loved it
It's amazing to me that 50 years after the 1861 was in service, John Moses Browning's 1911 was in service. This makes me want to go to the range to see how quickly I can get a similar sized group out of my 1991A1.
A person born in 1840 could have learned to shoot with a flintlock as a kid, and lived to buy a Colt Monitor machine gun as an old man.
Good shit man. Very well put together video. Much appreciated.
Loving these video. Any chance of Napoleonic era musket comparison? French versus English?
I did a video a few years ago with Brown Bess, and the Sharpe “tap loading” method. It has more dislikes than any other video on my channel.
Thanks for all of the videos on civil war small arms. I've dug lots civil war bullets with a metal detector. I'm amazed at the difference in the size and weight of the bullets. It makes more sense to me now that you said they didn't worry about accuracy in service ammunition.
There is definitely a dizzying amount of bullet variants, weights, shapes, sizes, and that’s just for .58 rifle! It’s really incredible how they got the armies supplied.
Great Channel, I wonder can you answer a question. I've seen a good few documentaries abut the arrival of metallic cartridge/repeating rifles that slowly made their way into the battlefield of the civil war like the Henry and Spencer rifles. Obviously these were a big step up in terms of firepower, but did they really make a difference ? Was there any battles or skirmishes where one side completely dominated over the other because they were armed with repeating rifles. My guess is that they were issued in too small a quantity to make a significant difference.
Tactics, logistics, and maneuver really matter more than the actual guns. In 1870, using a gun designed in 1841, the Prussians defeated the French who were using the brand new small bore bold action Chassepot. It’s when you combine the good guns with effective tactics, good logistics, and effective maneuver, that you absolutely get to dominate the enemy. This is very rare historically.
At least one occasion where wilders brigade made a difference due to being armed with repeaters.
And I suspect there was more then one occasion where union cavalry forces had the upper hand due to just simply having more breechloaders issued. It does make quite a difference in timed events and I think that would have been just as apparent in combat.
@@matthewcharles5867. Yep. Never saw any record of men on the ground wanting a slower firing weapon.
Watched your videos and find them interesting just a question should you not be firing these weapons from a rest to remove shooter error, and only focus on the weapons inherent accuracy or lack thereof? What would happen if we improved the trigger and the sights? So is it then the weapon or the sighting system lots of questions I know but it would be very interesting to see how well we could get the weapon to perform. Be
At the end of the video I explain why I choose to shoot standing rather than from a bench. Basically, it’s because that’s how Civil War soldiers shot them, and these rifles were never designed or intended to be shot from a bench, or the prone.
Thanks for all you do for the shooting sports 🤙🏼🇨🇦
I have been looking to get a civil war rifle. I know the confederate sharpshooters commonly used the 2 band enfield. However as a vermonter I am interested in getting a rifle that my ancestors used. I also know that the enfield was a very common weapon used by the union but I can not seem to find any information about union sharpshooters using the enfield. I think part of this is because so much press either now or during the war was paid to rifles like the sharps in use by federal sharpshooters, but if you look at the numbers it seem to be the case that many federal sharpshooters must have been stuck with a muzzle loading rifle. If I bought a 2 or 3 band enfield do you think that would be a realistic representation of a sharpshooter in the union army?
"Have all been sacked" will always conjure that one scene from that one film by that one group of comic geniuses!
Møøse
It took "Paper Cartridges" here on average 40-45 seconds to load and accurately fire each shot. According to data, the infantry soldier could do this at the rate of 3 shots per minute; an average of 20 secs/shot! 🙋🙏
He is taking his sweet time here. There is another video of him shooting as fast as possible, he did 4 shots in one minute.
Furthermore, the three shots per minute expected of Civil War infantrymen was more of an ideal; in battle two volleys per minute was more realistic. Also their markmanship standard was simply atrocious, as they were barely given any ammo to practice with. So they wouldnt do much aiming during volleys. There were definitely skilled shots on both sides, who had been hunters before the war, but those would be concentrated in separate formations of skirmishers/sharpshooters.
The funny thing is that it looked like you took more time aiming with the rifle musket than you did with the smoothbore. At the end of the day, most people wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of someone firing these muskets at them, especially someone with real experience firing them.
Lol I got in as far as seeing you use US cartridges, and went "If he doesnt compare the Pritchett too..." I should have had faith.
have you ever played around with Buck'n Ball loads? I know that was a common Yankee load in the War of Independence but I read that some units used smoothbores in favor over rifles all the way till the mid-civil war and used the BnB load to good effect... So I read.
There’s a few videos on my channel where we shoot buck and ball. It’s pretty devastating at close range. It’s true that units in the civil war also preferred buck and ball, there’s a famous monument here in Gettysburg for the 12th New Jersey and they even put buck and ball on top of their monument.
@@papercartridges6705 My bad for not referring to the back catalog 1st. IDK why but the Buck and ball load fascinates me, I may be wrong but it seems to be mostly an Americanism and something a few privets came up with rather than the fancy lads with a commision.
Really an outstanding video. Thank you!
Good follow through in shooting. Head down continuing to aim after shot, steady
Commented on your smoothbore vid just a couple min ago... just because our groupings got tighter doesn't mean a smoothbore won't put a hole in you. Rifle means kill shot percentage increased greatly. And modern rifles can reliably buzz through small port holes. Still doesn't mean I'll stand in the open against anything being tossed my way!
i dont think it being rifled or not increases the lethality, tighter group just means theres a higher chance youre going to be hit
Brett, I was excited and hoping that you were gonna fire the 2nd. Most imported and the 3rd. Most widely used rifle during the war and that was the “fine” Austrian Lorenz that was on the table. The test isn’t complete
I have more Lorenz videos coming!
@@papercartridges6705 I have 3 type I Lorenz rifles, I would like to compare a type I to a type II on the range
Came from your "best" video, after looking once more at your 100yd smoothbore target, it shot consistently to the right. A man who used this weapon would know how his sights worked and I'd bet would have had compensated for this. Also, how many rounds to heat the barrel? One? A few? Could shooting out of a cold barrel have detrimental effects on where the round ended up? Your words on combat effectiveness were cogent, all the negative influences you touched upon in the intro above would have had an effect on the trooper, especially the "green" ones, though a wide shot at that distance could have hit the man next to your target. Great video, loved the Irish accent and the rifle's accuracy.
Would love to see you do the same experiment with Williams bullets to see how much if any improvement they make over the Burtons.
The Williams bullets were not intended to be a more accurate bullet, they were designed to scrape out the accumulation of burnt powder in a bore to facilitate loading. With properly lubricated Burton bullets one can shoot a lot before the bore needs to be cleaned.
@@mike03a3 I am going to link a video Brett did on the Ministry for History TH-cam channel a few years ago that does a deep dive on the history of the Williams Bullet. You will find you have it almost perfectly backwards. th-cam.com/video/bAdfKe1M4rk/w-d-xo.html
@@mike03a3 wow, I missed this comment by a long shot but you literally could not be more wrong. All you need to do is look up the original patent on the Williams bullet. It's not hard to find. It was 100% designed to be a more accurate bullet.
Just a thought. But as an experiment. What if the US had plugged the base of the bullet similar to an Enfield cartridge, just without the paper patching.
Talk with some of the shooters of the North-South Skirmish Association. They can give some really good info on accuracy of rifled muskets and carbines.
Good shooting, been wanting to get a muzzle loader for a while now.
Would be interesting to see how fast you could reload the musket and how accurate you would be off hand with your heart rate up.
Fastest I've done is 5 rounds in 1:18
th-cam.com/video/w3_gEyVnF_k/w-d-xo.html
What I took away from this is the Burton is clearly superior because with its extra vertical and horizontal spread you can keep the same hold and kill the tall guy, and the short guy to his left or right all with the same point of aim. 🧐
I really enjoyed your video. Subscribed! Thanks for sharing your insights. :)
Thanks for a very interesting presentation.
I appreciate your efforts to test the old arms the way they were actually used more than 100 years ago. It's interesting to have an idea of what could be expected from the men and the equipment, which helps us distinguish truth from fiction or exaggeration in historical accounts. You are correct that the practical accuracy was probably good enough for the tactics in use at the time.
While the exploration of practical accuracy is valuable and interesting, I'm also interested in a test of potential accuracy. How would the U.S. Springfield rifles do with a correctly sized bullet had the need to accommodate the Enfields not muddied the logistics? This is all unknown to me as my only experience with muzzleloaders is with cap and ball revolvers and patched ball rifles.
I also wanted to compliment you on your pronunciation of German. It's really quite good, far better than I hear on many shows, including outfits with a much bigger budget than you have! Wie weiss ich? Weil ich ein Jahr bei der Uni Salzburg studiert habe. So eine schoene Stadt!
You were SUPPOSED to get cartridges for either the Springfield or Enfield. As you can imagine, the wrong cartridges were occasionally sent to units.
@@BrettBaker-uk4te what? The U.S. Army fouled up logistics? I can’t imagine ….
Love the videos. Can I recommend "The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat" be Earl J Hess. It is an excellent book that uses historical data to back up your claims and expand upon the topic. Also, taking my kid to go shoot your Enfield cartridges out of my original Bently and Playfair this weekend.
There’s a copy of Hess on my shelf in the background! You may be interested in my book “The Destroying Angel” where I interact with Hess’s conclusions extensively and take a slightly different approach.
The Destroying Angel is excellent book. You present clear historical data to back your argument that when soldiers are well TRAINED with a rifle, they change the course of warfare.
@@papercartridges6705
Very informative. I am struggling with my Springfield at 100 yards. W 50 grains i got 7/9 on paper similar you but i was sitting on a bench w rifle supported. Where is your point of aim? Once i get better i will try standing. I was thinking the heavy trigger causes thecrifle to rise. Thank you.
Thank you for protecting the free World. Your research and dedication to passing on your knowledge is awesome.
Good video. I like the idea of shooting from the standing position instead of bench resting them.
We do it in rapid fire competition in the north south skirmish association all the time.
Where in the trajectory would you see a a rifle musket of. 58 and a standard c60-68gshoot POA? I think you mentioned in another video but I can't find it
I really need to get an Enfield so I can stop being so primitive! But really, I acknowledge the Pritchett cartridge is way better, but there is just something pleasing about the Burton cartridge and the Springfield. The Springfield rifle is just beautiful.
The straighter stock of an Enfield is a pain in the neck to me.
Always enjoyable,many thanks,regards from nz.
I don't get the confusion between the UK .577 and the American .58 rifles. I have slugged a number of (original) Pattern 53 Snider conversions and they were all .581 to .582. In the UK we used to measure the lands rather than the grooves as you do in the US - possibly the difference? For example the 303, which is actually .311 to .312.Great video by the way.
After 160+ years of wear, the barrels have enlarged. In the 1860s, if a rejecting-gauge of .580 was able to be inserted into the barrel, it was removed from service or classified as a lower-class arm, for the Militia or stores.
I won't disagree with you but the dimensions I quoted were from pretty much mint bores, with a smoother finish (after all that time) than some modern rifles. I would not waste your time with quoting the dimensions of some of the rust buckets I have tried to get to shoot! Was the .580 Gauge measured at the grooves or the lands? If a 580 Gauge slug would fit into a Pattern 53 then there would be no rifling left. I suspect it might be the same with the Springfield?
Great video. Next you should do the same test with the Sharps and the Spencer.
Enjoyed the video but how about using a .5775 or .578 diameter bullet that the U.S. rifle-muskets were designed for, that may have been a bit fairer in a heads up against the Endfield. Granted, you did explain at the end of the video, perhaps a subject to cover in a future video.
Maybe I’ll do a video comparing the .574 to the .5775
I find these posts interesting to see just what the ammo/ gun can deliver. but, there is always a but. When you are in war with a hundred balls/ bullets coming at you something is going to hit you unless you are lucky
Outstanding! How does a Burton work in and Enfield and vice versa?
Burtons work great in Enfields. The Pritchetts also shoot OK in the Springfield but not quite as good as in the Enfield, since there’s 3-thousands of additional windage. If the Pritchett has a plug, it will usually shoot better in the Springfield. But it’s really all just academic hair splitting, since they’ll all shoot at least to center mass.
At 3:05, you mention that the ball size was reduce "... load easier in the .5770 ..." Many early Civil War bullets were poorly formed causing many loading problems in .58 caliber muskets. This was a more import reason to reduce the size of the bullets. (see below)
At 3:28 you mention that the charge was increased a mere 5 grains. However, the bullet was reduced 40 grains to 460 grains. I checking several original bullets I own. The two 500+ grains bullets are the fist one is .583 to .577 and the skirt averages .13" The second on is .577 to .562 with the same average skirt diameter. The 460 grain bullets are .565 to .570 with a average skirt thickness of .095. A bullet with a thinner skirt does not need more powder to expand.
At 5:45, it appears that the lower left hit in the black is a double. Also, you said you think you shot once over the frame, so how can you have 5 (or 6) on paper, 3 off the paper and 1 over the frame with 8 rounds?
At 6:29, you claim the "rifle musket (US Mode 1861) is not as accurate at 100 yards". This is highly subject to the shooter and not the firearm nor the ammunition. Also, your follow up shooting with the Enfield shows better what a rifled musket can do. That is why the Army tested the new Model 1855 with a firing sled to remove shooter error from the testing out to ranges of 1000 yards.
At 12:29, that is a great target. A US 58 caliber rifled musket can also do that well with service ammunition.
At 13:20, you mention "the correct historic ammunition". That is a very tall order. First, all bullets used by the US were cold pressed lead. Cast lead bullets can have flaws which effect accuracy. Second, there is no modern black powder that meets the Civil War standard. The Ordnance Manual (pg 226) states "... the charcoal has the greatest effect upon its quality ...Light, friable and porous charcoal ... is best adapted ..." Charcoal was made from willow or better black alder with the latter being "best". The charcoal "... heats and if in a heap of 30 lbs. or more, takes fire spontaneously." Also, on pg 230 "Inspection and Proof of Powder", "... when flashed in a quantities of 10 grains on a copper plate, it should leave no bead or foulness." No modern powder meets this standard, but Swiss is the best.
At 13:54, you states "... the service cartridge was not an accuracy load by any standard by any means ..." This is debatable. There was extensive testing in 1855 to select the new rifle and ammunition for the US army. The English Enfield was know to the testers but not accepted. (see below)
At 14:45, you state that an N-SSA shooter uses a bullet that is .001" undersized. That is laughable. I have been a member of the N-SSA for nearly 30 years and I know of no one that shoots that tight of a ball. Many shooters need a "fouling round" for best accuracy because it decreases the windage when you need to shoot 10 shots for score. Most shoot a .577" or a .575" (like me) in a rifle musket with no problems. We also shoot .007" to .010" undersized smooth bores without patches. Patches are not allowed by the rules.
Lastly, at 15:08, by 1862 they were trying to FIX the problem with the earlier ammunition. Many of the bullets were badly molded and oval in shape. They met bore diameter measured across between the mold half perpendicular to the joint. However; the across the joint seams, they were oversized. Thus the stories of soldiers having to use trees to ram home bullets because they wouldn't seat properly. The bullet diameter changes had little to due with the Enfield. If they wanted to standardize ammunition, the US should have adopted the Enfield cartridge because it would work in the ALL US .58 caliber muzzle loading rifled firearms and the Fremont Halls carbines. Also, the paper patch is more forgiving on size than a solid lead bullet
-----------------------
This information is taken directly from the "Report of Experiments with Small Arms for the Military Service" printed in 1856 of the 1855 testing at Harpers Ferry. On Page 109 of the Small Arms report of 1855, it call out the same ball diameters, ball weights and powder charges of in the Ordnance Manual (pg 257).
The altered 69 caliber rifle cartridge was a .685" diameter, 730 grain ball with 70 grains of powder.
The new Model 1855 rifle cartridge was a .5775" diameter, 500 grain ball with 60 grains of powder.
The new Model 1855 pistol-carbine cartridge was a .5775" diameter, 450 grain ball with 40 grains of powder.
The new preferred diameter of the .58 caliber ball would cause it to "foul out" quickly. This likely caused the development of the "Williams Cleaning Bullet" patented on May 30, 1861. There was also mentioned in 1863 of there being a .69 caliber version, but none were ever ordered. This is likely because none were ever needed because the bullet was properly sized and overly tight.
Why? Note that the .69 rifled muskets ball is .005" under sized. This was used in converted Model 1816's (made after 1822) Model 1840's and Model 1842. At the same time, the allowance for an oversized bore for .69 caliber rifled muskets was .015 by both the Small Arms Report of 1855 (pg 94) and the Ordnance Report (pg 174). This could make the ball .020" undersized in a maximum allowable sized bore.
I shoot a .575" ball from my Model 1855 with no accuracy problems nor fouling problems.
However, the ball for the Model 1855 rifle musket and the Model 1855 pistol carbine was only .0025" or half as much. With a maximum sized bore, the ball was .005 under sized. A standard cartridge pack of 10 rounds included 1 Williams Cleaning Bullet with 60 grains of powder. Another problem with early bullets was that when they were swedged (not case) they were oval. That is to say the diameter across the seam was too large causing loading problems and f
This amount of windage allows firing of up to 20 rounds (the top of a standard 40 round cartridge box) without needing the foul to be cleaned.
I shoot a .575" ball from my Model 1855 with no accuracy problems nor fouling problems.
For more information see below
www.libertyrifles.org/research/uniforms-equipment/fouled-muskets-revisited
I would have been very happy to engage with your comment, since you seem to know a great deal, although you are very close yet slightly wrong on several points… but you directly accused me of lying and misleading people, and that’s a non-starter. I don’t make these videos, and spend my precious time making them, just to have keyboard commentators accuse me of lying or misleading people. I shot 8 rounds. One clearly went over the top. The holes in the rubber target frame, those may or may not have been from me. I assumed they were. Maybe one or two were from previous shooting.
Cheers.
@@papercartridges6705 I never "directly accused" you of anything. Except, maybe not being able to properly count your hits and misses. Whatever.
I simply disagree with some of your points or when you made statements about bullet tolerance that N-SSA shooters prefer actually made me laugh. "Fouling out" (being unable to finish loading and ram home a follow up shot) in team completion is a something no one wants to happen. Use a bullet which is too tight, and you will be waiting for the Safety Team to come and blow out your stuck bullet (because of fouling) with compressed air. If that doesn't work, you and your weapon literally get carted away off the firing line to a safe area where maybe, the problem gets fixed. There are hundreds of members in the N-SSA. I've never heard of using a .001" or .002" tolerance. it is unnecessarily tight.
If you want to test the accuracy of the weapon, it should be shot from a sled. This eliminates any error in accuracy do the the shooter's skill. A rifle musket that is inaccurate can be that because of many sources such as; the shooter, the trigger pull, the condition of the rifling and bore, the sights, the sight picture, the variation in the powder, ball, fire produced by the cap, the hardness of the lead used in the bullet, etc., etc., etc. In fact I know shooter that will get different performance and accuracy by atmospheric conditions like humidity and barometric pressure.
The Enfield target was a very good target. There is no reason the Model 1861 can't do as well. However; you seem to be very biased against the Burton Ball and US cartridges construction in favor of the Enfield cartridge.
The Small Arms Testing report of 1855 had a slightly different design. On page 115, they discuss the importance of paper. The Small Arms report state that No. 3 paper (used for blanks) was better for the outer cartridge than No. 1 paper which which was "too strong" and normally used is smooth bore cartridges.
This is because the loading procedure stated in the Small Arms Report of 1855 states (pg 116) after tearing and pouring the powder in the the barrel "... then seize the ball end firmly between the thumb and fore finger of the right hand, and strike the cylinder (powder end) a smart blow across the muzzle of the piece; this BREAKS the cartridge and exposes the bottom of the ball; a slight pressure of the thumb and fore finger forces the ball into the bore clear of all the cartridge paper."
It goes on too state the cartridge should be held at right angles to the muzzle otherwise the blow "... would only bent the cartridge without rupturing it."
Your Enfield cartridge paper seems to tear (break) very nicely. You might want to make some US style cartridges using that paper.
Interesting test and I still have my Enfield rifle i used to use for Confederate ACW reenactment.
You're a better shot than I am, Gunga Din.
I make up for this by shooting reproduction matchlock smoothbore muskets (cutting edge military technology from the 1590s) and have a perfectly believable excuse for not even hitting the paper.
@ paper cartridge.
I'm looking for a grey hat like yours with the castle. ( Engineer)
You know where I can find one?
Id buy a mug with "certified TH-cam pseudo expert"
Just to make it clear right from the start: I'm a complete layman when it comes to practical experience with any weapon (i'm German^^)
But i've read quite often about the loading process of a smooth bore compared to a rifle which says that smooth bores were often preferred over rifles by infantry men for the quicker/ easier loading process.
Now, i couldn't for the life of me find any differences in the two videos. Maybe bc Mr. PaperCartridge is so used to it? Idk really. So my question would be is there any difference at all?
Prior to the use of the expanding based minie (spelling) bullet the rifle was harder to load as you had to drive an oversized bullet down through the refiling. the new bullet was under sizeed and could be loaded as fast as the smoothbore.
@@herbertliedel7019 i see. Thx o7
Your Ulster accent is a damn sight better than your Minnesota one!
I sorve the Croyne, sorr.
@@papercartridges6705 King Billy rules! Pauses for a quick chorus of ‘The Sash My Father Wore’………
I enjoy ur video's very much i in the last year was able to git me Enfield p53 i realy enjoy this rifle i make my own carriages just was only ably to git a 4 cavty Pritchard mold haveing problumes with clean breaks but keep it up
Please Bret, is it possible to use Prichett style effectively in Lorenz?
Yes, the Confederates used mostly Pritchett style bullets in imported Lorenz rifles.
As someone who has been shooting black powder fire arms since the Reagan administration, there is a difference in shooting target loads, hunting loads and that of a combat load. As when shooting a standard government issued load, you shot what the government gave you. Which is completely different than what someone that is shooting for accuracy is going to shoot. That’s because a private individual who is shooting for hunting or targets, is most likely casting their own bullets like I do or buying a pre-cast bullet that they know has the best fit for their gun. An example: shooting a .45 caliber Kentucky rifle that uses a .440 round ball with a .01 or .011 patch to engage the rifling. Or a maxi ball of .440 that expands to .45 windage when shot.
Thanks
How many times have you accidentally fired the ramrod?
Never happened to me yet… knock on wood.
So British muzzleloader set you straight. Nice vid thanks
How does one determine if a bullet mold or two they have might be for versions of the Pritchett projectiles? I have two molds which I believed to be molds for shotgun slugs but now I have my doubts. I base this assumption upon the appearance that they don't fit any shotgun calibre. I do not based this assumption on any measurements taken of the mold cavities. To be made functional as a bullet mold, both would need some work to bring them back to full functionality. Regards John
If they’re Pritchetts they will be .550 to .568 in diameter.
@@papercartridges6705 Thank you for your reply. I pulled the molds out of the hiding place and had another look at them. Both are the brass plier type molds with steel pins etc. Upon closer inspection, one is marked with No 577, has grooves milled into the cavity, a steel base plug on a screw which retains it in place and slides across to allow the projectile to drop free.
The second mold only has the number 12 stamped on a top surface which would normally be under the sprue plate. There are no grooves in the profile, the brass base plug is the same type as the previous mentioned one but is seized solid. Trying to measure across the half cavity, I come up with a reading of .5645" Not an accurate reading at that. It would be nice to restore them to a usable condition but not at the cost of further damage to them. Regards, John
One has to wonder if it would help if the bullet was .576 or .5755 at the smallest? Then it would fit both Enfield and Springfield and not have too much windage.
Some of them would have been larger. The US bullets were made by compression (swaging) in steel dies, which would gradually wear larger as they stamped out tens of thousands of bullets. So the dies were made .574, and they would enlarge by wear to .575 or even .576 before they got replaced. So the soldier might be issued packs of ammo with some .574 and some .576 and some in between.
Very accurate! Been behind my 1847 rifle sighted musket over 20 years l . Y’all don’t want to be on the receiving end of that thing
Another great video!!
I love civil war muskets... have several.
You didn't try with the Springfield. And you know it.
Well I did try… don’t really know how else to convince you. It shoots much, much better with the .5775 bullet that was used from 1856 to 1861. If you look closely, you can even see that some of the holes in the paper are oblong slightly keyholed, because the .574 bullets didn’t quite expand enough to fully stabilize.
I wonder if your very hard final thump with the ramrod might be damaging the bullet's nose or causing it to cant slightly off centre in the bore.
I'm guessing, pure guess as I've never been in combat nor-the actual civil war, but my guess is in a true combat situation that bullets getting rammed like a demolition derby just took place in that barrel. Even by highly trained British regulars.
@@Lemonjellow True that, particularly in the Civil War where few soldiers had any serious training with live ammo before going into combat. Most training consisted of how to march, deploy into different formations, and practice 'dry' loading enough to instill muscle memory of the process. Over ramming during loading can induce a series of problems such as previously mentioned damage to the bullet, canting in the bore, as well as possible crushing of the powder charge which itself would create ballistic anomalies on a shot to shot basis. Still, that might well have been more or less the 'norm' in an actual battle where finesse goes out the window. And, one can add onto that such problems as might be encountered with the age or condition of the issue ammo which might have deteriorated over time--particularly deterioration of the tallow/beeswax grease with which the bullets were lubricated.
PA State Game land range users, represent. Nice video.
Have you tried a larger diameter minie ?
Yes, it shoots just as good as the Enfield with a .5775 sized Minie, which was the regulation size from 1855 to 1861. In fact, I would even say it’s more accurate than the Enfield.
YES! Oh my goodness if it’s a smooth bore then it’s literally a roulette table from the shoulder! 😂
Did you see the earlier video he references in the opening? The smoothbores were surprisingly more accurate than expected.
These a whole lot of Skirmishers in the North-South Skirmish Assoc that will disagree, and yes, I'm one of them. At one time, I could consistently ring a 12 in gong at 250 yards with my 1842 Springfield.
@@southronjr1570150 yards maybe but 250 yards?? I need a vid for that!
Wow, I see my comment went a MILE over the heads of you all… kind of like a round from a smooth bore! 🤭
7:33 Nice Monty Python reference. 😃😃😃
Great job showing them off, if you'd like to shoot your guns in some rapid fire competition check out the north south skirmish association. I'm the editor of our magazine and would love to have you out as a guest.
Acuracy is always done at the bench so as to minimiz human error. Battlefield accuacy depends on the individual.
Highly amusing how Brett specifically states why he is not using a rest, then the comments teem with people asking why he did not use a rest. Pay attention class.
Watching your farby loading is fascinating.
But you are watching.
And I’m not farby. I have some premium kit, all hand stitched, excellent Merrick leathers, the best.
I’m just lazy, and don’t want to deal with all the questions and stares from everyone else at the range. Bad enough with just the hat!
interesting - but I am surprised you even hit paper with the way the muzzle wandered around in unsupported position
Thanks, I like being reminded about how bad a shot I am by random strangers on the internet.
Yeh, but three of the Burton Minnie look like they’re sideways through the target !
If your last video was the second best performing on the channel which one is your first?
Last I checked it was my video on shooting the Whitworth rifle
Shooting the Whitworth Rifle
th-cam.com/video/QRBk-1PPzoI/w-d-xo.html
My Burtons shoot fine at 100. But they’re only .003 under bore diameter. I have several rifles and each have their own mold specific to the bore diameter.
If I’m shooting for accuracy, I size mine .5775 so two and a half under bore size. They shoot very well.
Is that repro or original 1861?
That video got me to subscribe. Thanks.
Glad to have you!
It was the can of extra rancid ludefisk at the end that got me most.
Replicas today are rifled different. They are constant instead of graduated. Patched ball is the most accurate.
Did you use balls? or the minie projectiles which were used with rifles back then? Being hollow at the back which allows them to expand and grip the rifling when fired. if this test was with balls, its still interesting, but not a great comparison of what would've been used.
How many ft lbs energy on target you say. How many fps too
Good video.
It would be interesting to see you firing the buck and ball
He has a video doing just that.
I feel like the main takeaway is that the US Army just wasn't that concerned with accuracy. If soldiers aren't given training and ammunition to make use of the greater potential accuracy of a rifled musket, the practical difference from a smoothbore musket is just that: Potential.
No flinch
Are you using 2f or 3f powder?
1.5F Swiss
Intresting when you have also read Grossmen's Book "on killing"
Depends on what you mean by accurate.
Do you mean the sights line up and at 100 yards it right on?
If so this is very rare
But I did have a .41 cal Dillinger black powder that was dead on accurate and lethal at 75 yard.
Beyond that. It's about knowing you fire stick. Knowing the right charge and bullet weight .
A black powder long arm ( brown Bess) which is a smooth bore. Can be lethal and hit the target at 400 yards.
The myth a black powder is useless past 50 yards is made by people that don't know how to shoot.
Shooting of anything requires knowing.
The charge - amount of powder, draw of bow.
Projectile weight - bullet/ ball, arrow head.
Barrel - rifling, smooth bore, length of arrow.
Not even going to get into Sheppard slings.
Side note, you can shot arrows from a bow with no fletchings and be very strait. It's a matter of finding the right length of shaft.
Now I can't get a bow / crossbow to hit 300 yards. But I'm sure someone can.
But I can get a smooth bore long arm to hit 400 yards.
And I can get a Sheppard sling to hit 400 yards
Both legal.
The huge difference is the smooth bore I can get in inches of were I want it to hit.
The sling if I hit a 4x8 piece of plywood I'm happy. So accurate it is not
Lol but hearing that whistle that has a artillery sound has to be a WTF moment.
Biting is for barbarians. I note that you used the more accurate Hay cartridges rather than the later Boxer cartridges with the P-53--very wise for an accuracy comparison. Seeing that, and knowing how little training American troops had with musketry, it's so clear we lucked out a *lot* over the Trent Affair.
A man who had no teeth to bite the cartridge was not acceptable for service in that time.
@@helland846Maybe, although I have yet to find anyone who can supply a government rule about that. Do you have one, or are you repeating hearsay you haven't actually researched? But setting that aside, you misunderstood the point of my comment. The British cartridges for the P-53 rifle were *not* bitten, they were torn. Brett usually shoots the British cartridges (as do I) because they are so incredibly superior to the Burton-ball cartridges (what people mistakenly call Minié balls) used in the 1861 Springfield. Thus, my comment was actually a tease about him using the inferior cartridge that required biting. I hope this helps you understand.
You gotta shoot it with the much improved williams cartridges
thank you so interesting.