Hall's Breech Loading Flintlock

[crockett]

Has anyone shot a Hall's Breech Loading flintlock rifle? What was the accuracy and could this weapon be loaded while the shooter was behind a stump, etc( in other words- you didn't have to stand up)? How well does the gun lock up? Is there gas leakage, etc? How fast was it to re-load. It seems it would be fairly fast since you didn't have to ram the ball.

 

There was an article on this gun in Dixie's BP Annual mag a few years back. I don't know the answers to all of your questions, but they could be loaded while prone and were probably as accurate as most military arms of the period. Reloading was speeded up, but I don't think the article addressed actual times. These weapons were issued to selected US troops ca. 1840.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Has anyone shot a Hall's Breech Loading flintlock rifle? What was the accuracy and could this weapon be loaded while the shooter was behind a stump, etc( in other words- you didn't have to stand up)? How well does the gun lock up? Is there gas leakage, etc? How fast was it to re-load. It seems it would be fairly fast since you didn't have to ram the ball.

I shot a Hall rifle (M1841, percussion) years ago. The gun was in very nice condition with a smooth face on the breach and locked up securly but there was some gas escape and it wasn't for the faint of heart - you could get used to it.

As far as speed of loading, none of us tried for speed but the average line infantryman of the muzzleloading era was trained to load and fire his smoothbore musket at least three times per minute. I would say that the Hall could at least double that speed. Keep in mind that while the Hall could be loaded and fired "while the shooter was behind a stump" but so could the muzzleloader. Soldiers were trained and more than capable of firing their muskets from behind cover, even while lying down. It was all part of "The School of the Soldier" in any military manual of the era. The Hall offered little in the way of advantage in that respect.

Hall rifles (flint M1819 and percusion M1841) were resonably accurate but were no more accurate than their standard or common rifle cousins, the M1803, M1817 and M1841. The rifled carbines were fairly accurate as well but the smoothbore carbine versions may have had a slight advantage over the smoothbore muzzleloading carbines due to the fact that the muzzleloaders used undersized balls while even the smoothbore Hall carbines used slightly oversized balls so accuracy was much better.

One thing you have to remember about the Hall guns is that they were VERY expensive to produce in all of their different versions. They were all made interchangeable though, whether made at Harpers Ferry or by the contractor, Simeon North. They were well made arms and initially quite popular with the troops. However, as the tolerances were very close by early to mid-19th Century standards, they did give problems as they were used. Gas leakage became worse with use and, worst of all, the action could freeze up at the worst possible times. As long as the weapons were issued to well disciplined troops, the Hall was fairly successful but when issued to militia (as in the case of most of the M1819 rifles) trouble started. Militia troops used them in the Seminol Wars in Florida where the hot, damp climate made the rifles difficult to keep clean and powder fouling and rust rust caused severe problems and quickly turned the breachloaders into muzzleloaders. Good thing that John Hall had the good sense to equip them with ramrods! When used as a muzzleloader, The balls issued with the Hall were slightly larger than the Hall's bore and were more than just a little difficult to load, causing a severe slow down in the expected rate of fire. The Hall rifles were not issued to Regulars but many of the various carbines were issued to regular cavalry, artillery and Dragoons who, due to training and discipline, were more succesful with their use than militia who were well known for damaging their weapons and other equipment through neglect.

:imo: The Hall rifles and carbines were the first completely interchangeable arms made for US service and were shining examples of the manufacturor's art at the time but they were, in the end, a very expensive side road in military arms design. As far as modern use, when babied along they can be a great deal of fun to shoot and are quite accurate but, like the old line infantryman, I would prefer a reliable muzzleloader for steady and "serious" use. :results:

 

[marcstephen]

Has anyone shot a Hall's Breech Loading flintlock rifle? What was the accuracy and could this weapon be loaded while the shooter was behind a stump, etc( in other words- you didn't have to stand up)? How well does the gun lock up? Is there gas leakage, etc? How fast was it to re-load. It seems it would be fairly fast since you didn't have to ram the ball.

I shot a Hall rifle (M1841, percussion) years ago. The gun was in very nice condition with a smooth face on the breach and locked up securly but there was some gas escape and it wasn't for the faint of heart - you could get used to it.

As far as speed of loading, none of us tried for speed but the average line infantryman of the muzzleloading era was trained to load and fire his smoothbore musket at least three times per minute. I would say that the Hall could at least double that speed. Keep in mind that while the Hall could be loaded and fired "while the shooter was behind a stump" but so could the muzzleloader. Soldiers were trained and more than capable of firing their muskets from behind cover, even while lying down. It was all part of "The School of the Soldier" in any military manual of the era. The Hall offered little in the way of advantage in that respect.

Hall rifles (flint M1819 and percusion M1841) were resonably accurate but were no more accurate than their standard or common rifle cousins, the M1803, M1817 and M1841. The rifled carbines were fairly accurate as well but the smoothbore carbine versions may have had a slight advantage over the smoothbore muzzleloading carbines due to the fact that the muzzleloaders used undersized balls while even the smoothbore Hall carbines used slightly oversized balls so accuracy was much better.

One thing you have to remember about the Hall guns is that they were VERY expensive to produce in all of their different versions. They were all made interchangeable though, whether made at Harpers Ferry or by the contractor, Simeon North. They were well made arms and initially quite popular with the troops. However, as the tolerances were very close by early to mid-19th Century standards, they did give problems as they were used. Gas leakage became worse with use and, worst of all, the action could freeze up at the worst possible times. As long as the weapons were issued to well disciplined troops, the Hall was fairly successful but when issued to militia (as in the case of most of the M1819 rifles) trouble started. Militia troops used them in the Seminol Wars in Florida where the hot, damp climate made the rifles difficult to keep clean and powder fouling and rust rust caused severe problems and quickly turned the breachloaders into muzzleloaders. Good thing that John Hall had the good sense to equip them with ramrods! When used as a muzzleloader, The balls issued with the Hall were slightly larger than the Hall's bore and were more than just a little difficult to load, causing a severe slow down in the expected rate of fire. The Hall rifles were not issued to Regulars but many of the various carbines were issued to regular cavalry, artillery and Dragoons who, due to training and discipline, were more succesful with their use than militia who were well known for damaging their weapons and other equipment through neglect.

:imo: The Hall rifles and carbines were the first completely interchangeable arms made for US service and were shining examples of the manufacturor's art at the time but they were, in the end, a very expensive side road in military arms design. As far as modern use, when babied along they can be a great deal of fun to shoot and are quite accurate but, like the old line infantryman, I would prefer a reliable muzzleloader for steady and "serious" use. :results:

Very interesting information on a relatively obscure (compared to muskets) Firearm. Thank you!!!! :applause:

 

[threepdr]

I have a Hall's Rifle that was made in 1833 and converted to percussion in the 1850s. It is in excellent condition, but I have never shot it.

There was an article in "Men at Arms" magazine a few years ago that featured a live fire of a Hall's by a fellow who worked at (I think) the West Point Museum. What he found was the accuracey began to deminish significantly after about 7 or 8 rounds.

The reason was that there was not patch or lube on the ball. The ball was oversized to engrave on the rifling so they did not deam a patch necessary. No patch, also no lube. As a result no residue that is normally left in a bore after firing was being removed by the patch on subsequent loadings. The gunk was just smoothed out and accumulated in layers in the bore by each firing. After a few rounds the 12 groove rifling was overcome by fouling and failed to stabalize the ball. Pressures also increased and cause excessive gas to escape between the breech block and barrel.

Just before the Civil War a conical bullet with lube grooves was introduced in cartridges instead of round ball. This overcame much of the fouling and and accuracy problems. Of course by then the utility of the whole Hall's system was suspect, so the improvements were really moot. The Hall's is actually more important to history because of it's precision interchangeble parts instead of the breechloading technology it introduced. :m2c:

 

[TANSTAAFL]

Gas leakage was the bugaboo for the Hall's system.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Gas leakage was the bugaboo for the Hall's system.

I won't disagree completely with that staement but trhe chief bugaboo for the Hall was the fact that it became jammed so easily and had to be used as a muzzleloader. Gas leakqage in the Hall was not that much worse than in the Sharps which was much less prone to jamming with fouling.

Also found this on the Hall's performance in Berkley R. Lewis standard referance "Small Arms and Ammunition in the United States Service", quoting from the 1826 tests conducted by the US military on arms then in service:

"Penetration (in white oak planks) was .63 inch at 50 yards (possible misprint?), .93 inch at 100 yards, .40 inch at 150 yards, and zero penetration at 200 yards."

The issue flintlock rifle (M1817 Common Rifle) was as follows:

".94 inch at 100 yards, .29 inch at 200 yards and zero at 300 yards."

It seems that the muzzleloading Common Rifle sustained greater power at the longer ranges but was nearly equal to the Hall at 100 yards. A .29 inch penetration in white oak at 200 yards would give a dangerous wound to a human target but the Hall's zero inch dent at the same range would be, at best, an insignifigant flesh wound resulting in only a bruise. It must be remembered that both used the same .525 diameter ball with 100 grain powder charge. This could be due to the loss of power from the gas leakage.

 

[Flint1]

Very interesting discussion on the Hall. I've also heard that during the Mexican War troops armed with the Hall would sometimes remove the loaded breech from their weapons and stick them in their pockets to be used as protection when going out for a night on the village.

 

[TANSTAAFL]

Interesting stats on the penetration performances at varying ranges.

I was just reading in the 1897 bound issue of Confederate Veteran where a soldier got hit with a minnie in the thigh from a range of few hundred yards. It walloped him a good blow, he then pulled ball out of the flesh with his fingers.