1851 Navy cartridges

[GBA]

What was the standard load for the 1851 navy during the Civil War? Im fairly certain they used conical bullets, but what kind of powder(FF,FFF) and how much did they use? Thanks

 

[Doc Arroyo]

From what I can gather most pistol loads were combustible cartridges, either supplied by Colt or all the other ammo manufacturies that popped up. Conicals were more prevalent, but round ball cartridges are also known to exist. "Rifle" powder was specified because the "F" system doesn't seem to have been used in the United States until after the war, even though it had been used in Europe since 1825 or so.

But as the case with all research...a grain of salt please! eace:

 

[WV_Hillbilly]

What was the standard load for the 1851 navy during the Civil War? Im fairly certain they used conical bullets, but what kind of powder(FF,FFF) and how much did they use? Thanks

Referring to the knowledge in the reference section in the back of the Dixie Gun Works Catalog:

.28 caliber - 8gr of black powder
.31 caliber - 10gr of black powder
.36 caliber - 12gr of black powder
.44 caliber - 15gr of black powder

No further references were listed as to the particular granulation of the black powder or to the weight or profile of the conical bullets used.

So, by that, the Model 1851 Colt Navy, .36 caliber should be loaded with 12 grains behind a conical bullet. I know... this is a pretty pathetic answer! but for the moment that's the only verifiable source I have handy.

IF a person were to buy an original cartridge (if you could even find one) and Heaven Forbid!, tear it apart to see... it still may not help matters, as the powder would most likely have "broken down" and begun decomposition. You would just end up with a souvenir bullet--worth much less than the complete & intact paper cartridge which you just destroyed.

FYI, I have loaded some of test combustible paper cartridges before--to save time at the range. It is possible to use round ball projectiles in the cartridges instead of the "less accurate" conical bullets too. However, with the type of competitive shooting that my friends and I normally do at the range, it just made me more bored to wait around while they reloaded loose components. It wasn't a formal match or anything, but some of my "friends" were quite "miffed" at me for being able to load all 5 rounds in about a 1 minute, rather than their "speed" of about 1 round every 5 minutes!

Good Luck on your endeavor! Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly :front:

 

[Bear Rider]

WV said:
"It wasn't a formal match or anything, but some of my "friends" were quite "miffed" at me for being able to load all 5 rounds in about a 1 minute, rather than their "speed" of about 1 round every 5 minutes!"

Just tell them that it takes you about five minutes a round as well, it's just that you spend 4:50 seconds of it sitting in front of the TV, doing your prep work. ::


I stole a wrinkle from JT Edson, of all people, for my cartridges. I use aluminum foil in place of the tin foil, but that's all I have for now. I cut a square of foil just large enough to wrap a cylinder full of cartridges (generally 6), place the cartridges on the foil, alternating the taper, and then wrap them up in the foil as neatly as a guy can. The resulting package is amazingly sturdy. I throw several packages in a belt pouch, and I'm all set for the day's shooting.

 

[GBA]

Thanks for the replies, I was shooting my Colt navy today and attempted to load conicals had a heck of a time. They seemed too long to fit under the rammer so I went back to the round balls. I was thinking of trimming a little off the bottom of the conicals, any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

 

[WV_Hillbilly]

Thanks for the replies, I was shooting my Colt navy today and attempted to load conicals had a heck of a time. They seemed too long to fit under the rammer so I went back to the round balls. I was thinking of trimming a little off the bottom of the conicals, any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

The cut-out in the frame for loading the projectile on the 1851 Navy replicas really isn't large enough to easily load a conical.

You could also remove the cylinder and use a loading stand & rammer combination to load the conicals, but that is more dollars, and equipment, and even MORE time to load--NOT the best idea for speediness.

On one particular Navy that I used to own, I opened up the cut-out with a Dremel tool and one of those "larger size" rounded profile grinding stones--that are meant for using on a regular drill or press. It's not a perfect solution, but not too many things are...

I don't know if the original '51 Navy guns were ever intended to use anything other than round ball. The cut-out on the later '61 Navy is much better--likwise are the ones on the 1860 Army models. The Remington Army & Navy models both have a sufficiently large cut-out as well.

Those shorter length conicals work better as well. What kind are you using? The ones from Lee moulds... or the ones from those little pincer-type combination round ball & conical moulds that are part of a cased pistol's extra goodies.

BTW, I did try to enlighten my friends, by explaining all that extra work and preparation time beforehand that was needed to "save time" at the range. Sometimes, when rolling the cartridges is particularly awkward for me, I think it might be easier to load on the spot with loose components. On a good day, I can load a cylinder full in 5 minutes, if I've been a "good boy".

Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly

 

[mec]

The original specifications for paper cartridges show very little consistency. Bullet weights seem to range from 120- 150 grains and it's hard to see how some of the combinations would fit into a chamber. the bullets from the dixie/pedersoli replica moulds will fit under the 51 rammers very handily. the overlong bullets sold by Ozark /Warren will not unless you use a smaller bullet sizing die to swage a bevel on the base.

A lot of pictures of original cased navies contain conical bullet moulds and bullets. It appears that conical bullets were in use in the time of the Walker and the Dragoons.

 

[WV_Hillbilly]

The original specifications for paper cartridges show very little consistency. Bullet weights seem to range from 120- 150 grains and it's hard to see how some of the combinations would fit into a chamber. the bullets from the dixie/pedersoli replica moulds will fit under the 51 rammers very handily. the overlong bullets sold by Ozark /Warren will not unless you use a smaller bullet sizing die to swage a bevel on the base.

A lot of pictures of original cased navies contain conical bullet moulds and bullets. It appears that conical bullets were in use in the time of the Walker and the Dragoons.

I agree on that first point, which is why I only referred to the DGW catalog information. There are (were) quite a lot of variations in loads and projectiles. The "ball-ettes" were a comparatively short conical--does anyone shoot that "PA conical" by Hornady?--nothing more than a "glorified ball-ette". It DOES increase the mass of the projectile, sometimes substantially in those smaller calibers. A round ball in a .31 weighs roughly 45grs--so any increase in weight is going to be welcomed. The ballistic pendulum was probably the only laboratory instrument they likey used for comparisons. I imagine that most "real-life performances on human targets" tended to be greatly exaggerated for better or worse.:results:

Knowing what a round ball in a Walker will do to my test media versus a conical in a '60 Army model--I think the loss in accuracy makes the conical more of an exercise in difficult loading nowadays, as they lose significant velocity and the potential for penetration gain was just marginal at best. The available space for powder and projectile was much more favourable in the bigger Dragoons and Walker. A decent length conical forces the powder charge in a Navy or Army to be lowered by significant amounts. The typical loss in accuracy at close range though is not bothersome if we're referring to large targets--such as was the case in The War Between the States. For me, accuracy is first and foremost in ANY gun. If you miss the target, it doesn't matter how good or bad the bullet performs.:nono:

Still... it's always nice to have an alternate choice for a projectile in the present day of having several pages of bullet choices for our modern .44 caliber metallic cartridge guns.

FWIW, One of the ONLY two, cap-n-ball revolvers that I "wore out"--was a nice 4-screw 1860 Army model (the first of many that I owned so long long ago). I had a habit of regularly shooting 200gr Speer semi-wadcutters (I believe it was?) and as full a charge of FFFg as I could. I'm absolutely positive that fact was the cause of the gun's demise. It was a steel frame with shoulder stock too!!! :cry:

Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly

BTW, I'm sure some of you are wondering what the other revolver that I wore out was. It was a brass framed 1851 Navy (in .44 caliber), that was the FIRST '51 Navy I owned and I didn't bother to be mindful of shooting full capacity loads in that gun. Eventually it loosened up to where the cylinder would skip a beat (lose timing) and that is not a good thing when you can still drop the hammer on a primed and loaded chamber that IS NOT aligned properly with the forcing cone/barrel. Fortunately nothing bad happened as I watched the gun carefully once it started acting up.

 

[GBA]

Those shorter length conicals work better as well. What kind are you using? The ones from Lee moulds... or the ones from those little pincer-type combination round ball & conical moulds that are part of a cased pistol's extra goodies.

The conicals I have were made by Ozone Mountain. They are labeled "conical pistol bullets 36 cal". .375 Dia 123 gr. I've been looking at real civil war pistol conicals and the ones I have seem to be longer than the ones they used in the Colt Navy. Then again maybe Im doing something wrong. Thanks again

 

[mec]

Using the 110 grain ones from the bric-a-brack brass moulds. I have a yellow box from Thompson center that contains a bunch of 125 grain bullets of the same profile- sharp point-bevel or stepped base. They will fit under the rammer of a 51 but the Thompsons haven't been made for years. A neighbor gave them too me and I was surprised that TC ever bothered with revolver bullets.

The brass-molded bullets fill out pretty well. The sharp point doesn't mesh with the rammer very well and its easier to seat them crooked than not. I've gotten some good 25 and 50 yard groups with them but the usual outcome is a shot or two from each cylinder several inches out of the main group. The warren- now ozark bullets appear to be a 9mm flat point with single lube groove I don't know what the diameter is- hopefully .375+ rather than .356. The .45 conical they sell is a 200 grain wadcutter intended for the .45 ACP. We managed to load some of these by pushing the base far enough into a .41 caliber bullet sizer to form a step on the base. Done this way they would fit under the rammer of a Dragoon. Accuracy was poor.

The buffalo 125 grain .36 bullets have a nice rounded nose , a long bearing surface and a stepped base, I've shot them in a 61 navy and they are very accurate. Don't have any on hand to check if they will fit a 51 but it would be nice if they did. These buffalo bullets would probably not make good envelop cartridges as they have a very slick lubricant that would screw up attempts to glue nitrated paper or foil.

My 61 navy sighted for balls shoots several inches high with the buffalo bullets. When I clamped on the shoulder stock, it brough the bullets to point of aim vertically with about an inch horizontal displacement that wasn't there without the stock.

 

[arcticap]

I'm not sure why I'm asking this but if your Ozone Mountain
bullets are too long for your ram, wouldn't it be better to
shorten the nose rather than the base? Especially if the ram is possibly going to affect the nose anyway? I think that maybe a deformed nose may be more preferable than a deformed base. At least I have found that to be true with other types of bullets. You initially asked for any suggestions so here's mine. :m2c:

 

[crockett]

Get an issue of the Dixie Gun Works Blackpowder Annual 2005. Big article all about combustible cartridges, the history and how to make modern loads.

 

[mec]

It's helpful to have a step on the base to start the bullets into the front of the chambers. As they come, the erzatz .44 and .38 "conicals" are flat based for loading into metallic cartridges.

Lee and Buffalo both have rebated bases for that purpose.

 

[JackAubrey]

Dear GBA,I have had mixed results making combustible[url] cartridges.In[/url] fact,once I discovered some confederate "soldiers"in the Kansas/Missouri theatre of operations made NON-combustible cartridges,more resembling paper musket cartridges,I abandoned combustibles entirely.I will use 25 grains of 3f Goex,a lubed wonder wad then the .375 ball.I realize this is not the Civil War loads you were looking for but it does allow rapid reload and is historically correct.Cheers,Jack.