.660 Nessler Balls (shotgun slugs) in .69 Smoothbore....almost there....need advice

[Rat]

Dip the bare slug in pure bee's wax, see if that takes up the windage.

 

[Stantheman86]

That may work.

I'm thinking if a rifled .69 takes a .685 Minie ball, given variance in bore size.....a .678 or .680 slug is probably able to be loaded bare.

I did find Freezer Tape today, that some "old heads" at my gun club use to patch 45-70 bullets.

 

[Rat]

A .575" minne' in my 1861's .580+ bore (yes I've said this before) will drop/fall down the bore and shoot extremely inaccurate, if I dip them in wax (and fill the cavity with bondo) they load normally, any extra wax is shaved off, and they shoot very accurately. Might not work in a smooth bore, but might not hurt to try.

 

[Stantheman86]

I will dip some in pure , melted Beeswax and use those as part of my testing.

.680 leaves some space to play around with, I usually try to avoid shoving hard wax covered objects down bores but that may work. As long as it not a huge glop on the slug.

 

[Rat]

Thank you. I feel much better now. I think it's worth a shot.

 

[Stantheman86]

The man at Fury Bullets recommends loading them bare, and that the. 660's tore skirts from uneven obturation from being undersized. They were likely separating from the paper in the bore.

He made me some thick skirt .680 slugs.

 

[kingsax26]

this is a neat read, and very interesting. However Im going to stick with a roundball....much easier

 

[Stantheman86]

I'm basically working with the owner of Fury Bullets to develop an actual Nessler Ball copy.

I honestly believe these were used in many different ways, in paper, without paper, so I feel as long as I use materials that would have been available in the 1860s then I'm doing it right.

Round Balls are my go to in other stuff but it's so much fun to experiment. If these can be as accurate as a round ball and maybe reach out to 100 yards with consistent hits I'll be happy.

 

[RAEDWALD]

Major Alfred Mordecai in his "Report of the Military Commission to Europe" for the House of Representatives of 'the United States 1856 commented that the Nessler was made 'in the usual way for round balls' (i.e. in a paper cartridge) the ball part (i.e. the bullet end of the cartridge) dipped in melted tallow 'the ball being inserted into the gun in the paper in which it is wrapped'.

This means that the greased paper is around the bullet when it is loaded and takes up part of the windage in the bore and keeps the bore coated with grease. This is compatible with it the rear of the bullet forming the rear of the cartridge just as with a mInie bullet and loaded in the same manner. Not that the bullet itself was not greased nor was it removed from the paper. Making one like a French Minie cartridge will reproduce a Balle Nessler cartridge. As shown in https://www.armes-ufa.com/IMG/pdf/Etude_sur_la_fabrication_de_cartouches_anciennes_05b_.pdf Clearly a Nessler version is shorter and fatter but the paper cartridge design is the same.

 

[Stantheman86]

I would love to try to replicate this original Nessler cartridge, I kind of simplified it with the .660 slug. The .680 slug leaves very little windage for any paper, the wrap would have to be .005 or so. The white cartridge I made in the above posts is super fragile, as in it would probably tear under rough handling in a cartridge box. The paper, I believe, would probably fail during the trip down the pipe. You would almost need Onion paper.

I saw in earlier posts that the Balle Nessler used in testing was .660 but must have had a thicker skirt.

The Eras Gone NC Nessler is .680, I like the idea of the guy who made the mold, that they were for .71 muskets ,in a paper wrap .

I can find no info on the Chace Ball. It was never adopted and only that Chace fired some over the Potomac for Lincoln (that must have been nerve wracking , having the President himself watch you fire an experimental bullet) but no drawings exist. The only originals are likely 10 feet down in the dirt near the Potomac. Was the Chace ball in a paper wrap? Someone has to know......or not.

I honestly can't think of any way to get a paper wrapped .680 Nessler down a .69 bore that's fouled, and some Nesslers mic to .678-.680. I've seen French muskets listed as ".70" in American Ordnance Tests....did they just round up to a nominal bore size or were they .70's? In that case, a .678 or .680 Nessler makes sense for French and Belgian use.

Given that these were used by at least 4 nations for 10+ years there was probably changes made to them. How the NC Nessler was a .680 is baffling other than the .71 musket idea.

 

[RAEDWALD]

The reported diameters of Nesslers that I am aware of are in the 0.660" to 0.675" range although a German book shows detailed sections of two in the 0.630" to 0.640". French, Russian and Sardinian muskets were nominally to the same calibre and all extensively used Nesslers so the usual size dropped into the usual bore in actual service. From my Enfield Pritchett experience the greased paper covered bullets keep the bore clear of fouling by smearing the bore on the way in and on the way out. With a typical extra 0.012" extra diameter for the paper (x2 wrap of 0.003" paper) and a, say, 0.670" ball the windage is a 0.004" gap between ball and barrel. One can then juggle the numbers to suit. My Crimean Nessler shows no sign of enthusiastic ramming on the nose so must have gone down fairly easily. Most recovered Crimean Nesslers that I have seen are the same.

It all points to the US 'Nessler' as being used with just grease in the groove and loaded bare which is a very different system and underlines that the only resemblance to the 'Balle Nessler' is in the name.

 

[Stantheman86]

The White masking paper comes in at .0015 , might be promising for a .660 slug with a few wraps.

The .680 is a challenge , I'm going to try to get out before work one day this week and pop a few of them off.

 

[Stantheman86]

I found that a 3" wide square of Tracing paper will allow a .680 slug to slip fit a .69 bore. If any of this works, 2 pieces of 3"×3" tracing paper and a 1.5"×3" strip of writing paper to form a "powder tube" like an 1855 Pattern cartridge is the way to make a cartridge, with the bullet upside down in the 1st tube. Basically a Pritchett/Lorenz type/1855 meld. Historically similar if not the same as what was used.

For testing I'll just use 1 tube with the bullet in it, so I can play with powder charges.

I may get out over the next few days and test my remaining NC Nesslers and the two types of .680 Foster slugs I have.

If the NC Nesslers work with this, I'll share the video with the Eras Gone guy and maybe he'll be interested in it after I get some complete cartridges working. Very slim chance he might do some more molds if I can get these working but don't hold your breath.

 

[Dphar1950]

this is a neat read, and very interesting. However Im going to stick with a roundball....much easier

"The more you over think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the drain". Commander Scott Star Trek III

 

[Stantheman86]

Overthink, is my middle name

Tomorrow I'm going to make another attempt to make long dead, obsolete bullets work.

 

[Dphar1950]

I see no point in this. A 15 gauge round ball (approximate ball size for the 69 caliber rifle) is capable of killing cleanly animals as large as Indian Elephant. AND it can be cast hard to provide much greater penetration. See "The Sporting Rifle and its Projectiles" by Forsythe and some other writing of the 1850s/60s by hunters. Notably Sir Samuel Baker using ML arms in Africa and his experiments with bullets in his "devil stopper" 2 groove rifle in his early books. Bullets did not become viable hunting projectiles until the advent of brass suppository guns. The various military bullets of the 1850s-60s were low velocity projectiles that had a primary goal of continuing linear tactics in warfare. Stand in ranks, load and shoot a few volleys as fast as possible then charge with the bayonet. There is a reason so many original CW Rifle Muskets taken home by discharged soldiers are found bored smooth for shot. Other than military use the various hollow base bullets are not very useful for any other purpose. They were not used in the Cavalry at all in the American Civil War they would unload in the mile or 3 when slung. Thus the attempts at Minie Ball carbine were abandoned in the 1850s (smooth bore carbines were about as bad but at least with these they could patch the "carry load" to keep the thing loaded for the first shot. The American Rifle Musket service load makes about 900-1000 fps at the muzzle so it has a very high trajectory even to 100 yards See "Firearms of the American West, 1803-1865" for comments by officers on the cavalry and other military arms of the early 19th c.

 

[Stantheman86]

It's a Hobby and it's for fun, I wasn't aware there had to be a "point " to trying to recreate historically accurate ammunition.

I'm having a lot of fun working with this and I'm sharing my results to people who are interested. Also, in certain countries where rifled weapons, even muzzleloaders , are regulated, an alternative "Nessler Ball " that extends the range of a smoothbore could be useful for range shooting.



If you think about it , we are all using weapons that have been obsolete since the 1860s so any person can say muzzleloading as a whole has "no point " but we still do it , because it's enjoyable .