Accuracy

[CharlesZ]

Unbelievable! 800 yd shots!
I'm going to start experimenting with different bullets and powder charges. Greasing different parts of the bullet, the base, the grooves. Different lubes. I'll start close, maybe 30, 40 yds and walk it back. I'm looking for consistency more than anything else. Let me see 3-5 inch groups at 50 yds. What I don't want to do is smith the rifle or use special molds for the minies. I still want things basically rank and file.
The historical record seems clear-- the Enfield was capable.

 

[Zonie]

Perhaps David will correct me if I'm wrong but I remember reading that the original British bullet for the Enfield .577 was paper patched.

They came in a paper cartridge but the bullet retained its paper patching when it was loaded.

I don't recall reading anything about the Americans who shot the Enfield using paper patched bullets but, you know those Yanks. Always cuttng corners. :rotf:

As I recall, the article was in an old Muzzle Blasts magazine and it gave the instructions to recreate these bullets.

Seems like it took a special diameter Minie' ball and the process was fairly elaborate so I didn't try it in my Parker Hales'.

 

[poordevil]

My mold is for the smooth side Prichett ball. It never keyholes. I shoot it unpatched (I was going to say naked!) I have patched it before and see no real differance. The treggers are hard and that may cause it to be hard to shoot well.

My lube is 50/50 +- of bees wax and mutton tallow....pork drippins whatever will keep fowling soft. Dip the skirt in the melted lube and go shoot.

 

[ResearchPress]

Yes, the British used cartridges. I have an article on their manufacture on my web site at: Enfield Paper Cartridges.

With the huge number of Volunteer riflemen in mid/late 19th century Great Britain unsuprisingly 'gadgets' appeared on the market. The Volunteers (akin to the US National Guard) in their shooting matches were issued cartridges. Due to inconsistencies in the volume of powder in these cartridges (OK for military purposes, but not quite so for the fastidious target shooter) cartridge checkers were developed. These were small brass funnels of the appropriate volume that could be sat in the muzzle of the rifle. Powder could be dumped into them from the cartridge, levelled off or topped up as necessary, then by various release mechanisms emptied down the bore. Nowadays long range shooters will commonly pre-weigh there charges and bring the powder to the range in phials.

Good shooting can be had from the Enfield but results will differ between from what the marksman shooting on a rifle range and at known distances with a carefully loaded rifle can achieve and a soldier in a combat situation.

Great emphasis was placed on range estimation at the Hythe School of Musketry. With the rainbow like trajectory of the Minie this is important. With the flatter shooting .45 such as the Whitworth, errors due to range estimation were reduced.

David

 

[peter hawbaker]

See if you can find a copy of the 1991 Gun digest. There is an article in there called "making a mule mini". The author was having the same type of trouble you are,with the same gun, and experimented with different molds and plugs until he found one that shot really well. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the reproductions do not have the same rifling in that the original Enfields had. I believe the originals had gain twist rifling, if I remember correctly.

 

[bingo1952]

I have found a Pritchett bullet while relic hunting that still had the boxwood base plug in place and it had been fired. I couldn't say for sure whether the paper was still intact when it was fired though. If you can hold a 12" group at 200 yards with a minie shooter you will be exceedingly deadly in a combat situation since most occur at much closer ranges than this.

 

[TFoley]

I have an 1858 Enfield , replica, in .58. Shooting minies. I pre-lube the grooves on the bullet with a wax the consistency of candle wax.
60 gr of pyrodex the bullets are all over the place. Groups would be 6x6 FEET!!
I get out my softer lube of a cream type consistency and also fill the base cavity which I had left hollow. I start placing the minies in a man-size target consistently at 50 yds. 3/4 of the rounds actually struck at point of aim.
Any ideas on what is going on here? My experience with my setup kind of leads me to believe accuracy in this firearm is a myth. Tips and advice would be welcome. Thanks.

Try 60 grains of FF or F *blackpowder*. It's what the bullet was designed for. You might be surprised how well BP works.
Just because something goes "bang" is no indication it's going to shoot accurately.

Dan

Sir - I have been shooting MY P-H Musketoon with a 530gr Minie made from a Lyman three-piece mould since about 1979. It's an easy 'thumb-it-into-the-muzzle' fit.

With 'only' 55gr of FFG.

Five-shot groups are around 2" or so at 50yards, and sometimes less than 4" at 100.

That is pretty reasonable, IMO.

You really don't need to blow the bejasus out of the sand-trap to achieve accuracy with one of these good-shooting replications.

tac

 

[TFoley]

...I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the reproductions do not have the same rifling in that the original Enfields had. I believe the originals had gain twist rifling, if I remember correctly.

Sir - the original Parker-Hale Musketoon also has not only a gain twist, but a very slightly reduced bore diameter as it approaches the muzzle - or so I was told by Roger Hale.

Bleeve it or don't.

tac

 

[zimmerstutzen]

As I understand it, the bore didn't really constrict. The grooves were deeper at the breech and gradually got shallower toward the muzzle. The land to land diameter was the same. Part of the problem with the Enfields was that under battlefield conditions fouling created all manner of problems, leading to difficult loading and loss of accuracy. The type of war fare was still standing shoulder to shoulder and shooting at an enemy doing the same, so the Brit War Dept, still had that mind set when thhe 1853 Enfield was developed. That attitude toward Gentlemanly fighting face to face across a field endured even into the 1870's.

The Brit War department did all kinds of things to try to rememdy the problem. They played with powder charges, plugs in the hollow base, hollow points, noses with hollows in them but spun shut, reduced diameter, I have a list of official ammunition changes. Things changed almost twice a year for the 1853 Enfield.

They can be "shooters" with the right combination. However, on the field in battle accuracy was miserable after the third or fourth shot, if the soldier could even seat the bullet.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

...I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the reproductions do not have the same rifling in that the original Enfields had. I believe the originals had gain twist rifling, if I remember correctly.

Sir - the original Parker-Hale Musketoon also has not only a gain twist, but a very slightly reduced bore diameter as it approaches the muzzle - or so I was told by Roger Hale.

Bleeve it or don't.

tac

I think you are confusing "progressive rifling" with "gain twist". The progressive rifleing had grooves much deeper at the breech and becoming progressively more shallow toward the muzzle. The bore diameter, as measured across the lands remained constant, only the groove depth changed. Whether or not that really improved performance I really can't say but it was greatly hyped in marketing the Parker/Hale replicas. The two band P/H I once owned would hold a 3" group at 100 yards with it's favorite load and only with that one load. It also shot a patched ball quite well for a low recoil, low cost plinking load.

 

[TFoley]

I think you are confusing "progressive rifling" with "gain twist".

Sir, you are right.

Mind you, my recollection WAS from 1979 or so....

tac

 

[poordevil]

While reading the specs. for the Enfield as made by Euroarms it said that they too use the progressive rifling. I only have the PH musketoon. If I ever bought a new one I think it would be the Euroarms version.

 

[CharlesZ]

"on the field in battle accuracy was miserable after the third or fourth shot, if the soldier could even seat the bullet."

This speaks to my point. If this is true, then I'm searching for a "holy grail." Accuracy wasn't possible due to the piece's fouling.
Then again, I've been to N-S SA shoots in Winchester,Va. These guys are hitting clay trap targets at all sorts of yardage and no one appears to be cleaning between shots.
I read about battles such as Cold Harbor, Va. where rebel rifleman caused terrific slaughter in the space of 30 min. Rate of fire or accurate fire?

 

[zimmerstutzen]

As we all know, there is a big difference between the average grunt civil war soldier of the line and those who actually knew their way around a gun. Don't assume that all those soldiers had enfields. Some snipers were deadly with the guns,but very well knew the guns and their loads, lubes etc. I couldn't hit a formation of barns with my Zouave and minnie balls. Let me load a patched round ball and the weather vane roosters are gone-rs.

Even in the early days of black powder cartrridges for military guns, the chambers would gun up with fouling to the point that after 5 to 10 shots, the chambers had to be cleared to load another cartridge. Happened to the Brits with Martini Henry's at Rourke's Drift and to the US Soldiers with 50-70's at the Wagon Box Fight. (If it wasn't for the lever guns the guides had, the soldiers would have been dead) Some war departments just birefly went to sloppy loose chambers to accomodate more fouling. That was a horrible mistake and led to case ruptures and increased eye injuries. (Like in the movie Four Feathers)

Even in Custer's day, the last one anyway, cartridges were getting stuck in the chambers, due in part to fouling and the balloon heads would get torn or would bend intead of extracting.

 

[BigL]

...I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the reproductions do not have the same rifling in that the original Enfields had. I believe the originals had gain twist rifling, if I remember correctly.

Sir - the original Parker-Hale Musketoon also has not only a gain twist, but a very slightly reduced bore diameter as it approaches the muzzle - or so I was told by Roger Hale.

Bleeve it or don't.

tac

I think you are confusing "progressive rifling" with "gain twist". The progressive rifleing had grooves much deeper at the breech and becoming progressively more shallow toward the muzzle. The bore diameter, as measured across the lands remained constant, only the groove depth changed. Whether or not that really improved performance I really can't say but it was greatly hyped in marketing the Parker/Hale replicas. The two band P/H I once owned would hold a 3" group at 100 yards with it's favorite load and only with that one load. It also shot a patched ball quite well for a low recoil, low cost plinking load.

I'm gearing up for patched ball in my 2 band armisport, what ball and charge did you use.


Thanks

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Sorry neighbor, that was forty years ago and I just flat don't remember. :idunno:

 

[ResearchPress]

......I'm searching for a "holy grail." Accuracy wasn't possible due to the piece's fouling.....
....N-S SA shoots in Winchester,Va. These guys are hitting clay trap targets at all sorts of yardage and no one appears to be cleaning between shots.

The international target shooting discipline for military rifle ( MLAIC rules ) is fired prone at 100m with a sling for support. Course of fire is 13 shots, best 10 to count. With a fouling shot, that's 14 shots fired. Cleaning between shots is not permitted. Winning scores will be in the mid-high 90s shooting at a target with a 2" dia 10-ring and 4" dia 9-ring.

Good accuracy can be attained and without cleaning between shots. Of course this is an artificial environment and not necessarily what a soldier would achieve especially in combat.

David