Combustible Envelope Cartridges

[Erwan]

If the cartridges aren't conical it's more difficult to insert them...
The originals (some more than other) were conical too and this was not really an accident...

 

[Dr5x]

I could be wrong about this so please correct me if I am, but I thought I read some where that reproduction bp revolver chambers are not tapered like the originals, so if there not then can't the cartridge be straight sided?

I WOULD AGREE. IF THE CHAMBERS ARE STRAIGHT THE CARTRIGES SHOULD ALSO BE STRAIGHT.
WHAT PUZZLES ME IS WHEN DID PPER CARTRIGES POP INTO VIEW? WHEN I WAS INVOLVED WITH A REVOLVER WE WOULD POUR THE POWDER DIRECTLY INTO TH CHAMBER, SQUEEZE THE ROUND BAL ON TOP OF THAT, MAYBE SMEAR SOME GREASE OVER ALL OF HE LOADED CHAMBERS TO PREVENT CHAIN FIRES THEN CAP AND FIRE. PAPER CARTRIDGES WERE NOT MENTIONED ANYWHWHERE.

 

[Stantheman86]

Paper cartridges for revolvers were the norm in the 1850's-1860's. Prior to that guns like the Paterson and Walker were, I believe, loaded from a flask designed for those particular guns. Original 5-nozzle Paterson flasks go for big $$$.

Nitrated Paper cartridges are used far less today than they were originally and conical bullets were used more than round balls . The whole "loose powder, round ball, grease chamber " thing started in recent history.

There was also a non-nitrated revolver cartridge type that was basically just a downsized version of the US 1855 Pattern minie cartridge that was adapted to revolvers....where you bit open the cartridge, poured in the powder and inserted the bullet. But no one seems to want to use these.

 

[Gun Tramp]

There was also a non-nitrated revolver cartridge type that was basically just a downsized version of the US 1855 Pattern minie cartridge that was adapted to revolvers....where you bit open the cartridge, poured in the powder and inserted the bullet.

Stan; though it doesn't sound like a combustible envelope, I'd like to learn more. Where did you find info about them?

 

[USMA65]

Gun Tramp, it is obvious you are well on your way perfecting the technique for round ball cartridges. In re-reading you original post I see that you stated that loosely packed conical did not work for you. Understandable as that is, are you planning to progress to the conical paper cartridges utilizing a conical such as the Era's Gone Colt conical?

 

[Stantheman86]

Stan; though it doesn't sound like a combustible envelope, I'd like to learn more. Where did you find info about them?

Over the past 20+ years I've been obsessively reading about the minutia of this stuff and hanging out in gun shops talking to guys who have been shooting original cap and ballers since the 1950s, and long story short, I guess in the "original period" either before nitrated cartridges came into use or even at the same time, cartridges for revolvers were non-nitrated cartridges similar to a Musket cartridge.

I don't think any survive but I'm imagining either a "choked off" type with a conical .45 bullet with the powder behind it or a "two tube" type like the 1855 pattern Minie cartridge.

I'm thinking maybe used for the big sixguns like the Dragoons that had big powder charges and used long conicals like Pickett bullets?

There's so much that is lost to history , we'll likely never know.

I'm tempted to buy another Dragoon (I foolishly sold my Uberti 3rd Dragoon) and make some of these cartridges. I'd go with a 2 tube design, just bite them open and use them like a musket cartridge. It would be slower but then you also don't have to mess with nitrated paper.

These cartridges make sense since a "brace" of Dragoons was carried by a Cavalryman and they would be loaded up with these cartridges, and carried in Pommel holsters. The Cavalrymen would presumably fight with a carbine or "Musketoon" and only draw the revolvers for close quarters stuff. So they likely weren't planning on any "speed loading" going on.

 

[Gun Tramp]

US, I used loose powder and a wonder wad under these two conicals in a third generation 1860. This is a second generation mould; a third generation mould was quite undersize (roundball too) and was returned for this one. The rebated base was then a perfect fit and the rammer recess fit the nose profile well. Though no fun to cast with this mould, it's a neat bullet.
This is Lee's 456-220-1R; the box states "Recommended for use in Ruger Old Army." The rebated base was a perfect fit here also and although the nose profile didn't match the rammer as well, it was close enough. Beautiful mould to cast from, another great slug.

Accuracy was mediocre with both. In frustration I tried roundballs over wad and loose powder and was rewarded with very good accuracy. I still contend it was related to rate of twist.

 

[Eras Gone]

I WOULD AGREE. IF THE CHAMBERS ARE STRAIGHT THE CARTRIGES SHOULD ALSO BE STRAIGHT.
WHAT PUZZLES ME IS WHEN DID PPER CARTRIGES POP INTO VIEW? WHEN I WAS INVOLVED WITH A REVOLVER WE WOULD POUR THE POWDER DIRECTLY INTO TH CHAMBER, SQUEEZE THE ROUND BAL ON TOP OF THAT, MAYBE SMEAR SOME GREASE OVER ALL OF HE LOADED CHAMBERS TO PREVENT CHAIN FIRES THEN CAP AND FIRE. PAPER CARTRIDGES WERE NOT MENTIONED ANYWHWHERE.

Dr5x, Yes years ago no one considered anything other than loose powder and round balls for shooting replica revolvers. I finally did something about that when I started making molds for historically correct conical bullets. However, loose powder was the norm back in the day, especially if you were military or had the funds to buy factory made ammo. Colt first started making cartridges in the late 1840s with the envelope made of tin foil. Those turned out be problematic, so he switched to paper. A host of other companies followed suit with various patent solutions. Nitrated paper, nitrated "skin" ect. The Govt arsenals started out with simple tear and pour cartridges, but began to switch to combustibles on the eve of the Civil War. Practically all cartridges used conical bullets. I have found only one example of a RB cartridge, it was supposedly Confederate and the provenance is unknown.

Generally, combustibles were tapered in shape, not cylindrical like the chambers. This aided in loading and, in theory, the tapered shape would allow the envelope to rupture when it was pressed against the bottom of the chamber. My Youtube channel has a lot of 'how to" videos on making cartridges and cartridge bundles as well as shooting conical bullets.

Cheers!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCW2_HbBV6tCboZvo-vUoFPA

 

[Dr5x]

Dr5x, Yes years ago no one considered anything other than loose powder and round balls for shooting replica revolvers. I finally did something about that when I started making molds for historically correct conical bullets. However, loose powder was the norm back in the day, especially if you were military or had the funds to buy factory made ammo. Colt first started making cartridges in the late 1840s with the envelope made of tin foil. Those turned out be problematic, so he switched to paper. A host of other companies followed suit with various patent solutions. Nitrated paper, nitrated "skin" ect. The Govt arsenals started out with simple tear and pour cartridges, but began to switch to combustibles on the eve of the Civil War. Practically all cartridges used conical bullets. I have found only one example of a RB cartridge, it was supposedly Confederate and the provenance is unknown.

Generally, combustibles were tapered in shape, not cylindrical like the chambers. This aided in loading and, in theory, the tapered shape would allow the envelope to rupture when it was pressed against the bottom of the chamber. My Youtube channel has a lot of 'how to" videos on making cartridges and cartridge bundles as well as shooting conical bullets.

Cheers!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCW2_HbBV6tCboZvo-vUoFPA

YOU SEEM TO KNOW A WHOLE HECK OF A LOT ABOUT THE OLD COLTS REVOLVERS.
I HAVE TO BELIEVE YOU ARE SEVERAL HUNDRED YEAS OLD WHAT AN INCREDIBLE FUND OF KNOWLEDGE. I DOUBTED THE ORIGINAL CHANBBERS WERE TAPERED AS THAT WOULD HAVE COMPLICATED MANUFACTURE AND WOULD SERVE NO PURPOSE. I AM GLAD TO KNOW YOU AR ON THE FORUM.
DUTCH SCHOULTZ

 

[.44 associate]

Never mind. Era's Gone beat me to it.

 

[Erwan]

US, I used loose powder and a wonder wad under these two conicals in a third generation 1860. This is a second generation mould; a third generation mould was quite undersize (roundball too) and was returned for this one. The rebated base was then a perfect fit and the rammer recess fit the nose profile well. Though no fun to cast with this mould, it's a neat bullet.
This is Lee's 456-220-1R; the box states "Recommended for use in Ruger Old Army." The rebated base was a perfect fit here also and although the nose profile didn't match the rammer as well, it was close enough. Beautiful mould to cast from, another great slug.
Accuracy was mediocre with both. In frustration I tried roundballs over wad and loose powder and was rewarded with very good accuracy. I still contend it was related to rate of twist.

That's perfectly right (for me) and this was something I did learn sixty years ago: longer is the twist rate more the bullet mus be short and with a slow or long twist rate the accuracy is much better with a round ball than with a conical...
And what is the rule for a handgun is also the rule for a rifle...
Up till a certain point it's possible with a bit too long twist rate and a bit more speed but in this case the best accuracy will be always better with a round bullet..
That's what my grandfather taught me when I was ten years old...

If the Twist of a handgun is like on the Pietta of 1:30 (now is around 1:20 I think) you can forget the conical that anyway are not good as the round ball and with My ROA the conical that works good is the bullets made with the old Lyman 452-389: the LEE aren't not good and I don't believe that the Era bullets (never did try) could be much better than the LEE: twist rate and equilibrium of the bullet and contact too short in the scratch but it's was so in the past and the conical bullets were the most currently used by the people...
That's what I think and my grandfather never told me anything 'bout my ROA of 1976 and Italian clones...

 

[Stantheman86]

What were the original twist rates?

The vast majority of military use of percussion revolvers and the big portion of Civilian use was with cartridges containing conical bullets.

Did they just sacrifice some accuracy for stopping power?

 

[Erwan]

What were the original twist rates?

The vast majority of military use of percussion revolvers and the big portion of Civilian use was with cartridges containing conical bullets.

Did they just sacrifice some accuracy for stopping power?

About the twist rates I don't know: I never had the possibility of mesuring one of them, but in here sure that a lot of people knows this exactly...
If I say all I ear about the paper cartridges for Colt and other I can say that I think most of people and not only military had used them.
The first I ear talking were the tinfoil cartridges, in German tin in fact, because the american tin wasn't of good quality in this time...
It was complicated with those cartridges: piercing with a needle, put in the chambers and shoot. The tin let very small unburned balls in the chambers and the yield was not at its best. So Sam Colt and the Col Hazard have made new paper cartridges and the value of the pulp stocks required to supply the cartridges remains in some archives.
After that the paper was treated with KNO³ and some test were made with treating by acids, skin cartridges (pig or sheep intestines leached with potash), cartridges made with powder and collodion (brevets Bartholow and Jonston & Daw), etc, etc, etc...
Concerning the stopping power, the bullets and the accuracy they certaily did something about this, something like a mix, conical bullets weighing more than the round bullets, good powder charges for the stopping power and, may be the best (the case of the 1861 and Remington for sure) : progressive rifling revolver barrels for speed and certainly a best accuracy...

That's all I believe to known in this subject...

 

[rodwha]

Were they not gain twist? Seems I’ve read this often enough, but how many of the revolver makes/models?

 

[Erwan]

Yes, but I forgot, when answering, the right term of "gain twist" and so I writed "progressive rifling" (rayures à pas progressif in french)...
I'm sure of this only for Colt 1861 and the Remington but may be all the barrells were like that for a best accuracy... I suppose...

 

[Dr5x]

About the twist rates I don't know: I never had the possibility of mesuring one of them, but in here sure that a lot of people knows this exactly...
If I say all I ear about the paper cartridges for Colt and other I can say that I think most of people and not only military had used them.
The first I ear talking were the tinfoil cartridges, in German tin in fact, because the american tin wasn't of good quality in this time...
It was complicated with those cartridges: piercing with a needle, put in the chambers and shoot. The tin let very small unburned balls in the chambers and the yield was not at its best. So Sam Colt and the Col Hazard have made new paper cartridges and the value of the pulp stocks required to supply the cartridges remains in some archives.
After that the paper was treated with KNO³ and some test were made with treating by acids, skin cartridges (pig or sheep intestines leached with potash), cartridges made with powder and collodion (brevets Bartholow and Jonston & Daw), etc, etc, etc...
Concerning the stopping power, the bullets and the accuracy they certaily did something about this, something like a mix, conical bullets weighing more than the round bullets, good powder charges for the stopping power and, may be the best (the case of the 1861 and Remington for sure) : progressive rifling revolver barrels for speed and certainly a best accuracy...

That's all I believe to known in this subject...

WE HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING WHAT THE ORIGINAL RATES OF TWIST WERE.
WHY WOULD THAT BE OF INTEREST. KNOWING AMATEUR GUN SMITHS WOULD VARY WIDELY FROM SMITH TO SMITH.IS THERE A BELIEF THAT BECAUSE THOSE RATES WERE OLD TIME THEY MUST BE BETTER.
THIS IS A BELIEF THAT GUN SMITHS ARE GETTING DUMBER AND DUMBER AS TIME PASSES BY.

I FEEL THEY MUST HAVE GOTTEN BETTER AS TIME PAST BY AND THE ABILITY TO EXCHANGE IDEAS AND LEARN COULDN'T HELP BUT CAUSE IMPROVEMENT.
IF YOU STUDY HOW THE MACHINES WERE SET UP TO SLOWLY REVOVE THE BARREL AS THE CUTTING BLADES ARE WITHDRAWN MICKEY MOUSE WILL CROSS YOUR MIND BUT PATIENTLY THESE OLD TIMERS WOULD PRODUCE BARREL AFTER BARREL OF EXCELLENT QUALITY. JUST AN OPINION.
DUTCH SCHOULTZ

 

[Dr5x]

About the twist rates I don't know: I never had the possibility of mesuring one of them, but in here sure that a lot of people knows this exactly...
If I say all I ear about the paper cartridges for Colt and other I can say that I think most of people and not only military had used them.
The first I ear talking were the tinfoil cartridges, in German tin in fact, because the american tin wasn't of good quality in this time...
It was complicated with those cartridges: piercing with a needle, put in the chambers and shoot. The tin let very small unburned balls in the chambers and the yield was not at its best. So Sam Colt and the Col Hazard have made new paper cartridges and the value of the pulp stocks required to supply the cartridges remains in some archives.
After that the paper was treated with KNO³ and some test were made with treating by acids, skin cartridges (pig or sheep intestines leached with potash), cartridges made with powder and collodion (brevets Bartholow and Jonston & Daw), etc, etc, etc...
Concerning the stopping power, the bullets and the accuracy they certaily did something about this, something like a mix, conical bullets weighing more than the round bullets, good powder charges for the stopping power and, may be the best (the case of the 1861 and Remington for sure) : progressive rifling revolver barrels for speed and certainly a best accuracy...

That's all I believe to known in this subject...

WHENEVER I WRITE SOMETHING ON MY THREADS OR ANYWHERE ON THE ML FORUM I GET A GOODLY SUPPLY OF RESPONSES.
THE ODD THING IS THAT ALL THE RESPONSES SHOW UP IN THE ALERTS SECTION OF THE FORUM LIKE YOUR RESPONSE IS A SECRET THAT WE CAN'T SHARE. MY REPLY TO THE ALERT IS EQUALLY SEQUESTERED AWAY FROM THE MASS OF HUMANITY IF I UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM.I WOULD RATHER ALL RESPONSES ANSWERED ME ON THE MAIN DECK OF THE FORUM SO ALL CAN LEARN, LAUGHOR JEER AT OUR ASSUMED WISDOM.
THE ROMAN FORUM INVOLVED A PODIUM IN THE FORUM WHERE YOU COULD STAND AND SPOUT YOUR WISDOM OR IGNORANCE FOR ALL TO HEAR. I THINK THAT WAS INTENDED FOR THIS FORUM AS WELL.I WILL QUIIT RESPODING TO ALERTS IF THA'T THE ONLY WAY TO GET THE DISCUSSIONS OUT IN THE SUN LIGHT.
PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I HAVE A THOUROUGH AND COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE PURPOSE OF THE ALERTS.
I COULD BE WRONG. I WAS MARRIED ONCE AND I BECAME AN EXPERT IN MY ERRORS.
DUTCH SCHOULTZ

 

[Erwan]

WHENEVER I WRITE SOMETHING ON MY THREADS OR ANYWHERE ON THE ML FORUM I GET A GOODLY SUPPLY OF RESPONSES.
THE ODD THING IS THAT ALL THE RESPONSES SHOW UP IN THE ALERTS SECTION OF THE FORUM LIKE YOUR RESPONSE IS A SECRET THAT WE CAN'T SHARE. MY REPLY TO THE ALERT IS EQUALLY SEQUESTERED AWAY FROM THE MASS OF HUMANITY IF I UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM.I WOULD RATHER ALL RESPONSES ANSWERED ME ON THE MAIN DECK OF THE FORUM SO ALL CAN LEARN, LAUGHOR JEER AT OUR ASSUMED WISDOM.
THE ROMAN FORUM INVOLVED A PODIUM IN THE FORUM WHERE YOU COULD STAND AND SPOUT YOUR WISDOM OR IGNORANCE FOR ALL TO HEAR. I THINK THAT WAS INTENDED FOR THIS FORUM AS WELL.I WILL QUIIT RESPODING TO ALERTS IF THA'T THE ONLY WAY TO GET THE DISCUSSIONS OUT IN THE SUN LIGHT.
PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I HAVE A THOUROUGH AND COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE PURPOSE OF THE ALERTS.
I COULD BE WRONG. I WAS MARRIED ONCE AND I BECAME AN EXPERT IN MY ERRORS.

If you have some problem with the forum you better tell it to Zonie I guess...

 

[Erwan]

WE HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING WHAT THE ORIGINAL RATES OF TWIST WERE.
WHY WOULD THAT BE OF INTEREST. KNOWING AMATEUR GUN SMITHS WOULD VARY WIDELY FROM SMITH TO SMITH.IS THERE A BELIEF THAT BECAUSE THOSE RATES WERE OLD TIME THEY MUST BE BETTER.
THIS IS A BELIEF THAT GUN SMITHS ARE GETTING DUMBER AND DUMBER AS TIME PASSES BY.

I FEEL THEY MUST HAVE GOTTEN BETTER AS TIME PAST BY AND THE ABILITY TO EXCHANGE IDEAS AND LEARN COULDN'T HELP BUT CAUSE IMPROVEMENT.
IF YOU STUDY HOW THE MACHINES WERE SET UP TO SLOWLY REVOVE THE BARREL AS THE CUTTING BLADES ARE WITHDRAWN MICKEY MOUSE WILL CROSS YOUR MIND BUT PATIENTLY THESE OLD TIMERS WOULD PRODUCE BARREL AFTER BARREL OF EXCELLENT QUALITY. JUST AN OPINION.
DUTCH SCHOULTZ

The rifling was different between a rifled barrel of gun and an handgun but not all the time, only (I think) the revolver had a gain twist and, for me, only because the bullet going out the cylinder have only one way for shooting and twoo for the rifled long barrel: down and up...
So if the barrel have a variable twist you loose the whole accuracy because you can't put a bullet from the small hole with a short twist rate and a deep rifling near a long twist with a normal twist rate and normal deepth...
On a revolver this way is logical in the maner of the bullet goes first and slow rotate to accelerate near the end of the bore, so with this system the gain of speed is bigt and the accuracy augmented by a better stabilization of the projectile and of fact a better stopping power...

This did certainly don't come alone but after reflection and knowledge and this is an amelioration with regard of a constant twist rate in a revolver barrel...

Those weapons weren't build by itinerant gunsmiths or with a small shop but in big factories with always the same machinery and in great production...

Talking or discuss about the evolution of the rifling in long barrel and/or ML have no reason to be here when the discuss is about revolver produced by Colt, Remington or other but for handguns...

I maybe not understand your quote and your reply and this is very difficult to answer you, I think that we don't talk about the same subject, and with my poor American vocabulary it's really hard for me...

I hope you understand me and what I'm talking about...

Regards

Erwan

 

[Zonie]

DUTCH AND ANYONE ELSE GETTING ALERTS YOU DON'T WANT:

GO UP TO THE LITTLE BELL IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THE SCREEN AND HOLD YOUR CURSOR OVER IT.
A LITTLE WINDOW WILL OPEN. CLICK ON THE "ALERT PREFERENCES" TO OPEN A WINDOW WHERE YOU CAN FIX THINGS.

IF ANY OF THE LITTLE BOXES HAVE A CHECK MARK IN THEM, READ WHAT THAT BOX IS FOR AND IF YOU DON'T WANT A ALERT FOR THAT REASON, UNCHECK THE BOX.

SOME PEOPLE MIGHT LIKE TO BE NOTIFIED IF ANYONE DOES SOME OF THE THINGS THAT CAN TRIGGER AN ALERT BUT I WOULD RATHER NOT BE BOTHERED BY THEM. IF THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT MY POSTS, THEY CAN DO SO IN THAT THREAD.
THAT'S WHY I HAVE ALL OF THE BOXES UNCHECKED EXCEPT FOR THE " POSTS ON YOUR PROFILE" AND "NEW FOLLOWER" SO I RARELY GET ANY ALERTS.