M1819 Hall Rifle - range report

[steved]

I shot my US Model 1819 Hall Rifle at the range for the first time yesterday. This particular rifle was made in 1826 in the Harper's Ferry arsenal.

The load I used was 50gr FF (Goex) and roundballs cast from a .525 Jeff Tanner mould. Most of balls dropped from the mould at .527. Because the breech block loading chamber is significantly wider in diameter than the ball, as well as the first two inches of the breech end of the barrel, I wrapped the balls in scraps of paper torn from a brown lunch bag to prevent the ball from rolling down into the bore and creating a dangerous obstruction. This replicated the paper cartridge that was originally used.

The target distance was only 25yds, to make it easier to locate shots since I had no idea where this thing would shoot. I must admit I closed my eyes and ducked a little when I pulled the trigger on my first shot, praying that the 186yr old breech block would hold together. I had no reason to doubt that it would because there is a significant amount of steel surrounding the chamber in the breech block and careful inspection revealed no visible cracks. Same can be said for the breech end of the barrel. Considering the weight of the gun, the 50gr load barely kicked at all and everyting held together. I was sure to keep my left forearm away from the breech area due what I've read about the escaping gas at the junction of the breech block and barre. The rifle shot a bit high to the right, as shown in the below target. I did pull two shots to the left, probably the result of sight picture. The notch in the rear sight is quite wide and it's easy to line up the front post off center. Also below are photos of my son and I shooting the Hall, in which you can see the escaping gas around the breech. It was not as bad as I was expecting.

Some might question the wisdom of shooting an antique rifle like this. I purchase my old US military firearms with every intention of shooting them, feeling the connection to soldiers from times gone by. I didn't mind cleaning the rifle after shooting it - more or less the same procedure as used on my "modern" flintlocks. As all forum members know, careful cleaning of BP guns after shooting is a labor of love that cannot be avoided. The below photo shows the breech block and barrel breech after shooting. When I was done cleaning there was no evidence of any damage to the original finish - a risk I was willing to take because I have no intentions of ever "flipping" this rifle to make money. It's destined to be passed down one day to the young man you see in the picture.

 

[crockett]

THANKS for sharing. Really neat rifle. As I understand matters the United States was the first nation to adopt a breech loading rifle as official issue. I was in Harper's Ferry last year and looked at some of what they have.
I think unless used in actual combat/field, a lot of the military rifles are in very good shape since they had to pass inspection. Your rifle apears to be in excellent condition. The only thing I'd ever worry about is to clean real good after each use.
I like the idea you're shooting it, guns were made to be used and enjoyed.

 

[crockett]

BTW- the Block (if that is the proper term?) that holds the charge and ball- was that normally removed to clean the firearm? The in-line rifles of the day that I have read about were not succussfull because cleaning was difficult and built up fouling caused problems.

 

[steved]

Crockett,

BTW- the Block (if that is the proper term?) that holds the charge and ball- was that normally removed to clean the firearm?

From what I can tell from my limited experience with this Hall rifle, to effectively clean the gun the breech block needs to be removed. It's simple to do - just remove one screw along the side of the metal frame and it pops right out. I'm saying this from the perspective of an owner of an historic, collectible firearm who wants to keep it as clean as possible to preserve it. Back in the day, it looks like a soldier could field swab the barrel by tipping up the breech block and running a patch down the barrel from the muzzle end. I think there is enough clearance for the cleaning jag to protrude from the breech end of the barrel and any crud or sludge pushed out could drain down the slot in the bottom of the stock for the action lever. Messy but should work in the field of fire. The risk is that crud build up would prevent the block from dropping back into position and locking up.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Thanks for posting about this very interesting rifle. A couple of questions, first, is it rifled or smoothbore? It surprised me that they ever made any Hall smoothbores since breech loading eliminated the difficulty of loading a tight ball I would think it pointless to make smoothbores but a lot of them were.
Then I wonder how you settled on a .525" ball? Was that the original military issue ball? Or was it derived from bore measurements?

 

[steved]

CoyoteJoe,

I'll try to answer your questions. My Hall is rifled. It is the full length version of the Hall, which I think were all rifled. To my knowledge only the Hall carbines were smoothbore.

Regarding why I chose to use a .525 ball, I choose to use a .525 ball because that is the information that was confirmed to me by fellow forum members a while back when I posted a question regarding the original load used in a Hall. See below link.
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/266234/post/1107931/hl//fromsearch/1/

The rifles were made as .52 caliber. Because the ball is loaded at the breech it is not possible to use the typical patch/ball combination. As we know, rifles loaded from the muzzle use the tight seal of the patch/ball against the rifling to impart the spin needed for optimum accuracy. Because it's not possible to use a patch in the Hall, a progressively tapered bore was used in the barrel to effectively swage a slightly oversized ball into the rifling as it progressed down the barrel, creating the spin that is otherwise imparted when using a patched ball. I could not mic the muzzle due to the fact that there is no rifling present for the last 1.5" or so, as you can see in the pic. I forget the diameter of the opening in the breech block but it's definitely oversized, as well as that of the breech end of the barrel. A bare ball will roll about 2" down the barrel at the breech when placed there.

I'm thinking I'm wrong when I wrote that I can't mic the muzzle because there is no rifling present. Since the caliber measurement is taken of the grooves, not the lands, I guess the measurement will be the same because the opening should effectively be the groove diameter. Right?

 

[crockett]

So the paper you mentioned, was that wadded and put over the ball to hold it in place? How fast was it to reload the rifle?
And, One of Boone's sons was in the Military and led a group of Dragoons across the plains- I think they had Hall rifles. Really interesting firearm.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

FYI, lack of rifling at the muzzle is most likely a sure sign that they (designer or the military) intended or knew troops would clean it from the muzzle. This area w/out rifling is done to prevent premature muzzle and 'crown' wear that is detrimental to accuracy.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

The lack of rifling at the muzzle was to allow the rifle to be loaded at the muzzle when the rifle became fouled in action and the block could not be opened, it's as simple as that and it happened frequently with heavy use, it was the chief shortcoming of the Hall design and kept it from becoming more widely issued.

Since the Hall Rifle used the standard US military ball ammunition - .525 caliber, the same used on all .54 cal. standard pattern rifles like the M1803, M1917 and M1841 - the ball was too large to be easily rammed at the muzzle and the groove depth relief at the muzzle allowed the ball to be inserted in the muzzle and thus made it easier to ram, though it was still hard getting the ball started down the rifled barrel.

 

[steved]

So the paper you mentioned, was that wadded and put over the ball to hold it in place? How fast was it to reload the rifle?

I actually wrapped the paper around the ball like it was a patch, then pushed it into the breech block action with a short starter. The object was to hold the ball in place. Now that you mention it, I could have pushed the ball in with my finger or short starter and just wadded the paper over the ball to hold it in place.

The rifle was pretty easy to load. I was being pretty meticulous because I'd never shot it before, plus my powder was on the loading bench behind the shooting bench and I had to measure the powder then bring it to the bench to load. You can tell that if you needed to load it quickly you could do so, especially with a pre-made paper cartridge.

Va.Manuf.06

Thanks for the excellent info.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

The lack of rifling at the muzzle ...

Yes, thank you so much for adding that information sir. Cheers!

 

[Tumblernotch]

That is a very well preserved rifle and I don't don't blame you a bit for shooting it, especially if you plan to keep it and pass it on.

I assume that you do know that it was originally a flintlock. Harpers Ferry didn't produce any percussion rifles or carbines until 1843. I also have to assume that this rifle was actually made in 1827 (or after 1831) since no rifles were made in 1825, '26, '28, '29, '30 or '31. Most likely the breechblock was made during those years when parts were being made up for future production and tooling perfected. There being no sign of a pan ever being present, someone did a good job of altering. At any rate, it is a very nice piece. :thumbsup:

 

[steved]

KanawhaRanger,

Thanks! I was real lucky to "find" such a nice example of a Hall rifle laying on a table at a gun show back in February. Good thing most of the attendees seemed to be interested in black rifles and semi-auto pistols and did not pay attention to this one laying amongst a few beat up old Civil War muskets and trapdoors.

I figured the rifle was originally a flintlock based upon the date on the breech block. It is interesting that there are no remnants of the pan on this one. I've seen pictures of ones with the nipple coming out of the pan which still hangs out over the side of the breech block (like the one currently for sale on the Track website). Regarding the manufacturing dates, I've read conflicting information about rifles not being produced in some of the years mentioned in your post. I pulled the following from the Hall listing in the National Firearms Museum website:

"No rifles were assembled prior to 1824, at which time all 1,000 were completed. The government ordered an additional 1,000 rifles, and these were completed in just over one year. In 1826, a special military commission was established to investigate Hall's claim of interchangeability. For testing purposes, 100 Hall rifles were disassembled, and the individual parts were mixed together. Then, using 100 new stocks recently delivered from Hall's rifle works, the rifles were re-assembled with no problems. As a result of this successful test, Hall received yet another government contract in 1828, this time for 3,000 rifles."
http://www.nramuseum.com/the-museu...el-1836-breechloading-percussion-carbine.aspx

Considering what's written there, assuming the info is accurate, it's possible that my Hall was produced in 1826 as dated on the block. It could have been one of the 1000 referenced above as being "completed in just over one year". Likewise it could have been produced in 1827 or later as you noted. I asked this question to the rifle, but like the other US arms in my collection, it didn't answer me back. :grin: As we all say, we wish these firearms could talk and tell us of their lifetime experiences.

 

[crockett]

I was wondering what the ramrod was for.

 

[Swede50]

Neet looking rifle does anyone make a reproduction?

 

[steved]

Neet looking rifle does anyone make a reproduction?

Pulled from The Rifle Shoppe website:

"We now make all parts for the 1819 Hall Breech Loading Rifle."
http://www.therifleshoppe.com/catalog_pages/us_arms/(645).htm

 

[Tumblernotch]

According to the table at the back of the book "Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology, the Challenge of Change" which I highly recommend if you're interested in the history of Harpers Ferry, there were 22 rifles completed in 1823 and 980 in 1824. Two, I think were pattern rifles. In 1827 an additional 1,000 rifles are noted. Most likely, they meant that 1,000 rifles were turned into store which means that a good many were probably actually made in 1826 soon after the report of a military board consisting of the staff of the Artillery School of Practice was made available to the committee headed by John H. Cocke. All of this followed an extensive 5 month trial at Fort Monroe by 2 companies of troops who were to “begin a course of practice in opposition to an equal number of men armed with new pattern Springfield Muskets and another company armed with Model 1814 Harpers Ferry Rifles.” The trial ended in December 1826 and the report forwarded to the Cocke committee. In that same month, the Carrington, Sage and Bell committee arrived in Harpers Ferry and began their very intense 3 week inspection of the Hall works and submitted their report in January 1827. It was a very favorable report and it seemed that everyone wanted the rifle added to their state militia equipment. But it wasn’t until 1832 when 4,360 Hall Rifles were turned into store at Harpers Ferry. Meanwhile Simeon North had been given a contract in December 1828 for 5,000 rifles, but it was 1830 before partial deliveries were started.
I would say that you are correct in saying that yours is from that batch delivered in 1827 but made in 1826. I’m like you. I wish these guns could tell us where they’d been. I’ve often looked at an old piece and tried to picture the man who had finished the stock or filed the lock or the one who may have carried it in battle. Yep, these things would certainly have a story to tell.

 

[Tumblernotch]

I was wondering what the ramrod was for.

For loading from the muzzle if and when fouling made it impossible to open and close the breechblock and of course for cleaning the bore.

 

[rickystl]

Shooting an original Hall!! Very Cool!! Your's is obviously in good shootable condition. Congrats on the find. :hatsoff: Nothing like shooting an original. Must have been really interesting loading that breech assembly. Again, great gun. :thumbsup: Rick.

 

[steved]

KanawhaRanger,

Thanks for the detailed info. There's no substitute for a well-researched book. Unfortunatly I don't have an extensive firearms library and they tend to be very expensive. Would love to have the book you referenced as well as a copy of the book on John Hall that I heard is out there but out of print and hard to find. By the time I buy all of the books on my wish list I could have purchased a fine firearm. Tough choice.

Ricky,

Thanks! It definitely was interesting loading the Hall vs. loading a flintlock or other muzzleloader. Before my next range session with it I plan to make up a bunch of pre-measured paper cartridges so I don't have to get up after each shot and measure a new charge at the loading station. That way I can just sit there and load each shot from the cartridge then just stuff a chunk of the paper over the ball to keep it in place. Then I'll get a much better sense of how quickly you can load and fire this rifle compared to a front stuffer.