1853 Enfield Clay plugs

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GregLaRoche

40 Cal
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Messages
206
Reaction score
67
I recently was reading about the 1853 Enfield. In the article it mentioned, that during a rebellion in India, clay plugs were put in the bases of mini balls to help them expand, improving the seal. Does anyone have more information about this? Does anyone do this today? Has anyone ever tried it? I’ve heard of putting tallow in, but I am pretty sure that was only to aid in keeping the BP fowling soft.
 
I recently was reading about the 1853 Enfield. In the article it mentioned, that during a rebellion in India, clay plugs were put in the bases of mini balls to help them expand, improving the seal. Does anyone have more information about this? Does anyone do this today? Has anyone ever tried it? I’ve heard of putting tallow in, but I am pretty sure that was only to aid in keeping the BP fowling soft.
The plugs were effective, I have tried them using both wood ( a real pitb to make) and Milliput clay. They didn’t perform consistently because I suspect that some did and some did not separate in flight.

I have found that a service, or near to it, charge with bullets sizrd to suit the bore, work best for me. It was an interesting experiment but failed, for me, to perform.
 
I just searched Milliput clay, because I didn’t know what it was. The definition was that of an epoxy clay. Did you use an epoxy clay? Maybe the term has a different meaning or is very general.I don’t think you would want it to adhere to the Minnie.
 
I recently was reading about the 1853 Enfield. In the article it mentioned, that during a rebellion in India, clay plugs were put in the bases of mini balls to help them expand, improving the seal. Does anyone have more information about this? Does anyone do this today? Has anyone ever tried it? I’ve heard of putting tallow in, but I am pretty sure that was only to aid in keeping the BP fowling soft.
The original Minie' balls were made with a clay plug in the base to help to expand the bullet when the gun fired. Wood plugs were also used.
Later on, it was discovered that the slugs worked just as well without the plugs so the Minie' Balls were made just using the hollow base.
 
I just searched Milliput clay, because I didn’t know what it was. The definition was that of an epoxy clay. Did you use an epoxy clay? Maybe the term has a different meaning or is very general.I don’t think you would want it to adhere to the Minnie.
Yes, that’s the stuff. I read an article somewhere that someone has used it successfully. Plain hollow base is producing the best results for me although I have yet to go beyond 100 yards.
 
Muzzle blasts in it long ago had a article about this. He made a plate out of aluminum and used it as a mold for the plugs. He used auto body filler. With the paper patch, he said it was a improvement.
 
British muzzle loaders on youtube and research press have some interesting stuff on it also paper cartridges .com makes them.
it was part of a complex cartridge system to enable fast & sustained shooting with the Enfields it was also accurate. developed by Pritchett using Metford bullets it had the plug for rapid and even expansion then the paper wrapped around it then dipped in beeswax & mutton tallow lube (later beeswax only) a with a powder tube that would break off after inserting the bullet in the muzzle.
my description doesn't do justice to it. this design scraped a lot of the previous shots fouling out with it as it fired and was easy to load so you could keep up a fast rate of fire for a long time.
But I'm not sure I fancy the amount of work needed to make these when i finally get some range time again.
 
When I read about it, I thought the soldiers were taking the soft clay and applying it to the base of the projectile just before loading it. I guess I was wrong and it prepared before and allowed to harden. That’s why people today have experimented with epoxy clays and auto body fillers.
 
These were sintered dry clay fired at a low (earthernware) temperature, produced by the many millions for the British army' service 'Pritchett' cartridges in which it made an initial expansion to seal the rear whilst the rest of the bullet set up and obturated the bore. They were soaked in molten bees wax after firing which seems to help hold them in the cavity in flight. They are not part of the Delvigne/Minie/Burton evolution. Not quite as accurate as the best Burton but can be fired all day without the barrel fouling and loaded faster. The ideal military choice. Search the British Militaria Forum and Paper Cartridges website for more information than the human mind can tolerate on the subject. Not a one clever idea but one integral part of a whole cartridge system.
 
So where in the evolution of the Enfield does the clay fit in? From the very beginning or were the added for a time and then discontinued? I think I remember something about the original Minie balls had wood plugs in them, but were soon discontinued because there was no difference with or without.
 
The Pritchett ball used an iron plug and was found to blow through the bullet. Boxwood plugs were then used asa replacement. As far as timeframe, this was the ammunition used for the P1853 rifle.
 
I recently was reading about the 1853 Enfield. In the article it mentioned, that during a rebellion in India, clay plugs were put in the bases of mini balls to help them expand, improving the seal. Does anyone have more information about this? Does anyone do this today? Has anyone ever tried it? I’ve heard of putting tallow in, but I am pretty sure that was only to aid in keeping the BP fowling soft.
Back in the days when they were experimenting with the Delvigne Minie, attempts at using clay/wood were common. Eventually they relied (at least in America) on the exploding gasses to do that. There were a few cases where the "plug" sometimes deformed the bullets which affected accuracy.
 
Years ago I tried wooden plugs with mini's. I found they did not effect accuracy for better or worse. I do use a leather over powder wad with my mini's to prevent the lube from wetting the powder since I use mini's when deer hunting and the gun will be loaded for who knows how long. I tried some with a small hole in the center of the wad to allow the gas to reach the cavity, again no difference in accuracy.
 
You said you used a leather wad to protect the powder. Was that because you put lube in the base?
 
Some folks like to fill the base with lube but from my experience, it does nothing at best and harms accuracy at worst. I’ve recovered minies from the backstop that still had a base full of lube.
 
The Pritchett ball used an iron plug and was found to blow through the bullet. Boxwood plugs were then used asa replacement. As far as timeframe, this was the ammunition used for the P1853 rifle.
The iron plug was in the Minie used for the British Pattern 1851 rifle. The Pattern 1853 used boxwood plugs, which were later replaced by clay plugs for economy. The 'Minie' (Burton) used in America was never intended for a plug and anything in the cavity reduces it's accuracy.

Claude Minie's contribution to the evolution was to add an iron plug to the Delvigne bullet. James Burton did away with the plug by using thinner walls. Pedantically the French Minie is a Delvigne/Minie (and Minie was scrupulous in crediting Delvigne) whilst the American 'Minie' is a Delvigne/Burton. The British 'Pritchett' is it's own offspring of the expanding bullet family.
 
I highly recomment Capt Brett Gibbon's book on the subject. He will give you more information about the developement of Enfield Cartridge and how it evolved than you can remember. His other book, "The Destroying Angel" is all so excellent. It examines the rifle musket in use in the Crimea, US Civil War and the Sepoy Rebellion.

https://www.amazon.com/English-Cart...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1610550285&sr=8-1
 
Ah yes, the pritchett. No form of ammunition has given me more grief. And yet when I did succeed, my expectations were not aligned with reality and I was sorely disappointed. They are annoying little *******s. Indeed they DO allow the use to fire shot after shot, however the slightest hiccup in quality control with cause it to fail. And accuracy wise? 6 to 10 inches at best. I nearly failed to harvest a deer due to pritchetts. Missed two well aimed shot with them and somehow has time to reload A SUPERIOR BURTON and killed the bugger.
 
Ah yes, the pritchett. No form of ammunition has given me more grief. And yet when I did succeed, my expectations were not aligned with reality and I was sorely disappointed. They are annoying little *******s. Indeed they DO allow the use to fire shot after shot, however the slightest hiccup in quality control with cause it to fail. And accuracy wise? 6 to 10 inches at best. I nearly failed to harvest a deer due to pritchetts. Missed two well aimed shot with them and somehow has time to reload A SUPERIOR BURTON and killed the bugger.
The Pritchett is an industrial product as a complete ammunition system, not just a bullet. Home hand making requires much care and the originals were industrially made to fine tolerances and close quality control. They were factory made by the many, many millions for military service, despite the extra cost over the Delvigne Minie or Burton. The military wanted a reasonable but consistent accuracy and the Pritchett gave them that together with a constant rate of fire in all weathers from ammunition for as long as needed whilst it had to cope with oceanic sea voyages followed by bullock cart travel over weeks. Hence the care over their packaging as well as production. Brett Gibbon's fine made Pritchett ammunition displays his clear knowledge and considerable investment to make a factory standard cartridge in a tiny company. Everyone I have ever known who experimented with making their own have had a long learning curve to get factory standard results. However, the accuracy of a well made Pritchett does not do badly but I suspect that it does not stabilise as quickly as a Burton. But then the military did not need button size accuracy at short ranges.

Look at https://www.papercartridges.com and FTG Military History and also Paper Cartridges on Youtube.

A good Burton is a worse military choice, but for the few rounds for hunting and target competition, the Burton will give superior accuracy (until it fouls up after a few rounds). Horses for courses. If I want to hunt a deer or compete at a target when I need few shots I would certainly choose a Burton. Were I equipping an army I would unhesitatingly choose a Pritchett.

OT but the 1:78 slow twist Enfield is ideal for a short range Forsyth rifling type patched round ball too.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top