military cartredges

[brian]

what is a good string to use for tying cartredges?
how come my little bit of 70 grains of powder, dont
fill the cartredge like it shows in the pictures?
did thay have bigger gun powder back then?

give em someore grape capn bragg!
rough and ready

 

[musketman]

The powder may have been corser back in the day, and their powder measurer may have been off...

The extra paper could be twisted and/or folded over so no string is needed, this would account for the extra paper...

The cartridges below are both twisted and folded...

If string is needed, a simple cotton string would be my choise...

Also, are you using nitrated or plain paper?

 

[Stumpkiller]

Consider this, also. When you're tearing off a paper cartridge with your teeth and dashing in a shot of powder for the priming, and then lowering the firearm to dump the remainder down the muzzle, all as fast as you can while receiving fire, you're bound to spill a bunch. I imagine they filled the pan and used up 15 to 20 grains before dumping in the main charge. In volley fire, it didn't matter a bit that there was too much prime and it burnt like a fuse instead of flashing. As long as it went off. I know my hands would be shaking so that I'd bobble a bunch of the charge between teeth, pan and muzzle. I would estimate each cartridge had 30% factored in "extra" for prining and spillage.

The French style cartridges have enough extra paper ahead of the powder that it can be folded back and retained by the walls of the holes in the cartridge box. At least half again the length of the folded cartridge. The English "tied" style were cut after tying, so the extra was removed.

I used plain old cotton carpeting thread. Heavy stuff that's almost string. It's the same stuff we used for parachute cord in model rockets a bazillion years ago. Eventually, I just switched to the French style because it's soo much easier.

 

Up until about 1830 or so, the US ctg. charge for the .69's was 165gr. After that time, it was reuced to 130gr.
: The British charge, pre 1800, I don't know, but was probably well over the 100gr. level and perhaps closer to 160gr. using a .700 ball in the .73 to .80 cal barrels. 2 of the 4 Bess' Taylor has re-furbished were .80 cal, 3" down from the muzzle. They were both enlarged at the muzzle, probably from the rod wear and/or use of plug bayonettes, although one was a Sea Service of 1772(lock date).

 

[elmonk]

Daryl,

What you are looking at is the point in time when the military switched from unpressed black powder to powder that had been press densified.
This allowed the powder charges to be reduced by about 30%.

 

[Zonie]

Is it just me, or is this guy taking his ammo out of his neighbors cartridge bag?

 

[Keith]

No. It's just Maxiball getting another patch knife!

 

[RussB]

Zonie...."Is it just me, or is this guy taking his ammo out of his neighbors cartridge bag?"...... :agree:
Ya know, I have looked at this "every-which-way", and I get the same impression. The angle of that picture sure makes me wonder where the photographer was standing.

Thanks to some of the members here, I've been trying my hand at this cartridge thingy lately, and although I still have a way to go, the concept is great....and works!
I've also experimented with the "shot cartridge", where I seem to be doing best, and have all intentions of trying it on grouse in just a few short weeks.
:m2c:
Russ

 

[Stumpkiller]

In Zonie's case it might be true, but for most of us it would be difficult. There are two left hands in the image. :haha:

 

[Rebel]

Actually, it appears to be 2 right hands. Does that mean two rights makes it wrong? ::

 

[musketman]

Far be it from me to stray off topic but is the guy on the left wearing a period correct flannel shirt?

 

[Rebel]

Nope, it's one of them Pillow ticking shirts with the blue stripes. ::

 

[Stumpkiller]

Calico. Me ol' shipmate Calico Jack Rackham wore such danties. Arrrrrr. He were a looker fer a one-eyed, peg-legged, hook fisted crusty 'ol scoundrel. When the scabs were in remission he were the bell o' the Friday Night dances.

 

Thanks for clearing that up, Bill- the only stated reference was that "improved powder" allowed the reduction.
: 130gr.of reasonable good powder is a healthy charge for a .69, even if including priming. That should be equivelent to 120gr. of GOEX- in the barrel - or thereabouts, which was a reasonable charge in India for dangerous game there. Said Baker-" 4 1/2 drams would drive a ball (of that size) through and through an elephants head". He referrred to good C&H sporting powder and hardened balls. In those days, they used murcury for hardening.-DON'T DO IT TODAY. WW balls work just fine & are harder than murcury hardened balls. Inagine, 123gr. driving a 15 bore ball completely through an Indian Elephant's head. THAT's why I used 165gr. in my .69 for moose with 14.5 bore pure lead balls and 15 bore WW balls! It WORKED! :crackup: :crackup: (same mould- 484gr.=pure, 466gr.=WW)

 

[brian]

would you recomend that size charge for a modern 1816a3?
or 1842.
shootin buck and ball.
couse I hate it when the barrel explodes.


rough and ready

 

[Musketeer]

Zonie, you ol' desert rat!

Yes, I believe this guy is stealing his buddy's ammo. I do this all the time, as it saves me loads of money! 'Course I don't have too many buddies left... :crackup: :crackup: :crackup: :thumbsup:

 

The charges I spoke of are just fine - AS LONG AS. The gun is breeched properly. I would use the 4 to 5 dram charges in a 20 bore without worry as they are normal up here in .54's for moose. They wuld also be OK with buck and ball.
; In a 14 bore, (.69) THE 165 GR. charge of GOEX 2F will produce less than 10,000LUP. If this is within specs for the gun, then by all means, you may use it. This is for single ball only. I proofed my rifle at 360gr. and 2 balls.
: Use what the mfg'r says is OK. The service charges for original 1816's and 1842 muskets was 165gr. and 130gr., a portion of which was for priming. Although some would be dropped, and some would blow by, perhaps, the powder they had was still more potent than our's today. the original guns had damascus barrels, and in the case of any othr than HArpers Ferry guns, were of inferior quality. That is, the Springfield guns and perhaps contract firms put out inferior workmanship than did the Harpers Ferry group. they were still better - probably - than what passes for replicas today, although today's guns are made from modern steels that will allow great transgressions in workmanship.
: My buddy has an 1 1/8" barrel on his .75 rifle leaving a fairly thin barrel at the breech.(1 1/8" is 1.125" - .78[groove depth] = .345 divided by 2 = 0.1725" per side) That's less than 3/16" - almost exactly 11/64" per side and pleanty strong enough for those loads. He continually used 200gr. + a tightly patched .735 ball for sevral years for moose hunting. he has now reduced his charge to 100 to 120gr. to keep the balls inside the moose. They don't go down as hard, but he at least has a souvenere from each one he shoots now. His barrel is safe because it is properly breeched - is yours? Am I getting paranoid about safe breeching now? - HA!

 

[Musketeer]

Daryl, life's a breech! :crackup: :crackup: :crackup: :thumbsup: