Fouling

[paulvallandigham]

They Didn't. They were in the middle of a battle where people were shooting back at them. If the gun fired "prematurely", that was simply one of the hazards of WAR. If the gun blew up and injured the soldier, that was just a risk of War.

The one thing they did do to REDUCE the risk of injury was to package powder in pre-measured paper "cartridges", so that the only powder that might burn when contacting a live ember would be the normal powder charge to fire the barrel.

Soldiers did not load from a powder horn in the ranks- Rifleman may have done so, but they were expected to be "sharpshooters", taking their time, to aim, and to reload their rifle carefully to insure best accuracy.

Today, we occasionally see some "uninformed" shooter trying to " speed load" his Rifle dumping a powder charge into the barrel directly from a horn. If the powder ignites, it also stands a good chance of igniting the powder in the horn, with danger to both the shooter, and people nearby.

The practice is to be discouraged as a SAFETY NO-NO! It also speaks ill of this sport whenever some jerk injures himself doing these things. The Anti-freedom forces love these incidents so they can argue how "Irresponsible ALL shooters are in general, and how dangerous an activity this IS! Anything to ban guns, and gain control over people. :hmm:

 

[Pete Gaimari]

I didn't expect they were loading from the horn Paul. With a paper cartridge you don't just have the powder, but the bullet too being rammed down.

Have you read much about soldiers getting hurt loading?

 

[Tumblernotch]

Just a general question that's asked of the whole thread.

We worry about an ember setting off the charge as we reload.

How do they get away with reloading so fast, and not running into an ember?

There's not a real big threat of charges cooking off during rapid fire unless the barrel is extremely dirty or there is a smoldering piece of cartridge paper in the barrel. The only time I've ever seen one cook off was in a dirty barrel (and I do mean dirty) when a guy in our unit was loading a blank. When you're shooting live rounds, if you're using properly lubed Minies there should be enough lube left in the barrel to cut back on any embers that may be left. There could be some in the breech if there was any paper put in the barrel. One precaution we used when reenacting to prevent cook-offs was to leave the hammer down on the nipple when loading to exclude air from the barrel. This is similiar to "thumbing the vent" when loading a cannon.

Like Paul said, cook-offs were probably the least of their worries.

 

[DanChamberlain]

Capper, if there was an ember, it would flash the powder as it was being poured down the barrel, and probably before the mini was in place.

Dan

 

[CharlesZ]

I could use some clarification on some terms I've read here. Please set me straight.
I take a musket to be any longarm that has a smoothbore.
A rifle as a longarm where the barrel is grooved.
How would one delineate those from a rifled-musket?

 

[Zonie]

You are pretty much right but when I use the term "Musket" I'm speaking of a military arm.

It differs from a rifle in more ways than just having a smooth bore because it usually is much stouter, being made for battle.

It has few graceful lines and often (but not always) is equipped with a mounting for a bayonet and a sling.

This revised way of looking at a Musket gives a clue to the reason a Rifled Musket is called what it is.

Rifled Muskets have provisions for a bayonet, a sling, they are quite stout and can be used as a club in hand to hand warfare. The prime difference between them and the Muskets being used in the mid 1800's is that the barrels were rifled.

The military in those days was still using the "mass fire" method where swift loading was required. For that reason they weren't interested in rifles because rifles up to then took too long to load.

The invention of the Minie' ball, a undersized hollow based lead slug that could be swiftly loaded, even in a fouled gun and would expand on firing to grab the rifling changed all of that.

With this invention suddenly rapid fire and accuracy could both be had so rifling became standard for the military and the Rifled Musket became the standard weapon issued to the troops.

A great deal of testing was done and the .580 caliber was chosen by the U.S. as the best caliber when recoil, bullets/pound, range and several other things were considered. The British came to roughly the same conclusion settling on the .577 caliber for their Enfield Rifled Muskets.

The military even dug into their warehouses and got out many of their older smoothbored Muskets like the M1842 with it's .69 caliber bore and rifled many of them and added a rear sight for use with an oversized .69 caliber Minie' bullet.

I hope this answers your question.

 

[Tumblernotch]

I could use some clarification on some terms I've read here. Please set me straight.
I take a musket to be any longarm that has a smoothbore.
A rifle as a longarm where the barrel is grooved.
How would one delineate those from a rifled-musket?

There are a few variations of these terms. Zonie explained how a musket becomes a rifled musket. But it goes even farther than that when you are doing an in-depth study or if you are collecting them. Here are the different terms used:

Musket: Smoothbore, long barreled shoulder fired weapon, usually fitted for a bayonet. Most were flintlock but the US M1842 was the only US percussion smoothbore musket adopted. Surprisingly, it appears that most of these were left smoothbored.

Altered Musket: Same as above, but in this case originally flintlock and altered to percussion. Some were also rifled at this time, but most were left smooth. You will see this term used extensively in ordnance reports and returns in the Civil War period. Most of those seen are of the M1816. Most of the M1835's (the last flintlock musket model) were also altered. Several thousand were altered to the Maynard tape primer lock, mostly by Remington. The Confederacy also converted many Virginia Manufactory muskets of an earlier model to percussion.

Altered and Rifled: Same as above. In this case it is noted that the musket was percussioned and the barrel was rifled. You'll see this term less than "altered", but it does pop up now and then. Most appear to have been fitted with the long range rear sight later adopted on the early M1855's. But remember, not all altered muskets were rifled.

Rifle-Musket: An entirely new arm. This is a rifle of musket length, percussion and originally rifled and sighted to fire the elongated expanding ball (Minie). The first American rifle-musket adopted was the M1855.

European countries were actually a few years ahead of us in altering muskets and designing rifle-muskets.

An interesting note is that some American manufacturers put out repeating rifles in the 1870's and 80's that were called muskets. A couple of examples were the M1873 and M1886 rifles with 30 inch barrels.

One thing to keep in mind is that your Mississippi is not a musket, but a rifle. To be designated a musket requires a barrel length of at least 39 inches which is what the English Enfield is and a caliber of about .54 inch or more. But in your case, if you're using a Minie, you will have the same problems and advantages as a rifle-musket. In the 1700's many guns with 40 and 42 inch barrels were considered carbines, but that's another confusing topic.

 

[hanshi]

While Zonie's information was a lot more detailed and academic, your thoughts on musket/rifle are good enough for the street. I like to avoid complexities whenever possible; so I sorta go along with your thinking. To me a musket conjures up a robust smoothbore with bayonet lug. A fowler is a less robust smoothbore with no bayonet provision. A rifle, of course, has a spiral grooved bore.

But like I said, I prefer to keep things simple. With this in mind I often call anything with a smooth bore a musket - exception: T/C and other switch barrel modern guns - and this works for me. I seldom differentiate between military/civilian smooth bore arms. For the street there's no need to.

 

[Swampman]

IMO the rifling on original guns was deeper than the repos. I've seen military instructions that even suggested using urine to clean barrels if water was scarce.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Maybe we can bottle that up and make some money?

 

[Zonie]

I sure hope you can find the military instructions that recommended using urine for barrel cleaning.
When you do, please post where I can find them.

I will be greatly interested to get a copy for my library.

 

[Tumblernotch]

You won't find it in any official US manual I'm bettin'. None of mine mention it. Who would sanction pouring salt water into a barrel?

 

[Swampman]

It was a British manual. I read a copy of it years ago.

There are documented cases of yankee soldiers throwing their muskets away rather than clean them.

 

[Dave K]

That must have been earlier than the use of gas masks during WW1. They were activated with urine. I would rather clean a gun with urine than to soak my gas/face mask with it, than use it to so I could breathe.

 

[skierman0]

Hey there's a fresh wrinkle to the "blowing down the barrel" argument. I'm laughing just imagining this. javascript:void(0)

 

[Bill Hall]

:rotf: Instead of "I would never put my mouth over the barrel", substitute "mouth" for something else. :rotf: Hey, it could also serve as a good visual for "This is my rifle, this is my gun" Oh, the potential for jokes are endless. Bill

 

[Dphar]

IIRC the Springfield Rifle Musket was proved with a heavy charge of powder and a minie spaced 2" off the powder.
They knew then they did not stay on the powder...
However, excessive space is a major no-no.

The Army also developed a fouling scraper bullet the expanded a zinc ring against the bore and scraped out the fouling when fired. Its effectiveness was questionable from what I have read.

Frankly I thing 15 shots with a minie is pretty good. If you switch to Swiss 1F or 1.5F this might improve since it fouls less. 60 grains

It will shoot longer with a PRB with decent lube.

BUT in any case.
Fouling buildup in the breech can, and has, harbor a spark so its advisable to wipe the gun out now and then.
A wadded up wet patch put in the muzzle and pressed down and twisted with a "tow worm" will wipe out the fouling a most breeches. Follow with a couple of dry ones. Best is to plug the nipple then dump in 2-3 ounces of water and slosh by tipping the rifle muzzle down 2-3 times with the muzzle closed off with a thumb then wiping dry.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

It was a British manual. I read a copy of it years ago.

There are documented cases of yankee soldiers throwing their muskets away rather than clean them.

In a Civil War battle there were likely cleaner muskets laying around after the first fire so dropping a dirty one to get a clean(er) one is a good idea. So "throwing away" has to be taken in context.
I have heard of men in WW-II dropping a perfectly good M1 to pick up a BAR.

There are accounts of men using urine on guns. But its was not in any manual I know of. But things that occur in battle may not be in the manual.
I have heard of it being used to free the breechblock on percussion Sharps in combat.
Example:
You are on Little Roundtop and the Rebs are coming again and your breechblock was froze up what would YOU do to free it?

Dan

 

[Tumblernotch]

IIRC the Springfield Rifle Musket was proved with a heavy charge of powder and a minie spaced 2" off the powder.
They knew then they did not stay on the powder...
However, excessive space is a major no-no.

Dan

I'm afraid you have mis-read the regulations or someone gave you the wrong info. They did not leave a space between the bullet and powder. The charge used to prove the M1855 Rifle-Musket was:

280 grs. musket powder followed by a paper wad 32 square inches in area and .01" thick. Then a 500 gr. bullet of .570" dia. This was followed by another wad of the same dimensions as the first. The load was then well rammed with a copper rod. The barrel is then placed in a proving bed and fired using a proving plug with a vent in it. After verifying that the charge has been fired, the inspector loads the barrel again with the same type of charge the difference being that the powder charge is reduced to 250 grs. After this the barrel is examined. Any which have burst are examined for the cause of rupture. Barrels passing proof are then passed on to be reduced to their final dimensions, straightened and completely finished. Then they are strictly inspected in all aspects.

(per The Ordnance Manual for the use of Officers of the United States Army 1862 Edition pp. 184-185 Inspection of Barrels

 

[Tumblernotch]

It was a British manual. I read a copy of it years ago.

There are documented cases of yankee soldiers throwing their muskets away rather than clean them.

I understand now. :grin: Actually, when I think about it, I suppose even that is better than nothing. It's been documented that soldiers in both World Wars used urine in emergencies in water cooled machine guns and GIs in the Battle of the Bulge whizzed on rifle receivers to thaw them out in combat. Still, it couldn't have been good for any of it unless you properly cleaned it very soon.