Minié/Burton ball sizes

[kh54]

Forum member Texas Gil’s recent thread about Minié balls moving in the bore while carrying one’s rifle all day made me wonder about something. I know that Burton’s patent drawing specified the size of his design to be .5775” but how well did Miniés made during the ACW meet that spec? For that matter, how close to spec were the nominal .577 Enfield and .58 Springfield rifled muskets? How about imported Miniés, i.e. those from Great Britain?

One reason I ask is that I’ve been trying with my four or five muskets to get just the right size so that I don’t have to swab the barrel after each shot. I know tighter bullets such as many recommend (.002-.003 below bore diameter) might be more accurate but I find that the fouling is a problem without frequent swabbing. Going smaller, maybe .005 smaller seems to allow near continuous shooting without pausing to clean. I suspect that was more important to the average ACW soldier than the kind of accuracy match shooters today can achieve. Any thoughts?

 

[dave951]

One reason I ask is that I’ve been trying with my four or five muskets to get just the right size so that I don’t have to swab the barrel after each shot. I know tighter bullets such as many recommend (.002-.003 below bore diameter) might be more accurate but I find that the fouling is a problem without frequent swabbing. Going smaller, maybe .005 smaller seems to allow near continuous shooting without pausing to clean.

Type of powder and lube are big factors here. With beeswax/lard and Swiss, I can go up to 60 shots without needing to wipe and with no loss of accuracy.

 

[ResearchPress]

For that matter, how close to spec were the nominal .577 Enfield and .58 Springfield rifled muskets? How about imported Miniés, i.e. those from Great Britain?

Keep in mind that the British bullets at .550 were considerably under bore size - they were however carried in a lubed cartridge, so effectively paper patched.

David

 

[kh54]

All: Thanks for the information. I was really just interested in what "the old boys" did in the war. As I recall the lube was four parts tallow to one part beeswax, maybe more like 50-50 by the end of the war. I've mostly been interested in trying to replicate the conditions that were encountered then. I've not tried the British type cartridge but that may be a winter experiment.

 

[Stantheman86]

The reason the Burton ball was standardized to .575 was because continuous shooting was more important than accuracy. Most soldiers couldn't hit anything anyway, as long as they shot to a 5-7" standard at 100 yards , the Ordnance Dept said this was good enough . The production of 1861 type rifles by over 12 different contractors led to variance in bore size of probably a few .001 here and there.

When the 1855 Springfield was developed I believe a .578 Burton Ball was the concept, because peacetime manufacture of the 1855 allowed for more uniform bore size and wethe US wasn't buying Enfields then.

Testing showed sticky loading after lots of repeated shots and the .575 was eventually settled on. The lube was altered throughout the course of the war.

.575 Burton balls could also be used in the Enfield.

I've never had a problem with .575 balls in any of my .58 rifles muskets, I'm not was worried about absolute accuracy as much as being able to enjoy shooting 50 rounds without having to wipe the bore.

 

[dave951]

I'm not was worried about absolute accuracy as much as being able to enjoy shooting 50 rounds without having to wipe the bore.

The real key to this is your powder type and charge level, lube and lube type. In doing load development and looking for best accuracy and observing results, I found that a quality powder like Swiss or Old E that has relatively low fouling is the critical. Don't be a cheapskate and expect to achieve what you're after by using regular Goex or Scheutzen. Competition grade powder is the only path here. Type of lube is also very important. Just slopping together some beeswax and crisco won't cut it. You have to methodically experiment (something the Ordnance Dept did). I found a mix of beeswax/lard/lanolin/coconut oil to work best. Just slobbering the lube on will affect how many shots you can take. Lastly, lube grooves are critical too. Some minies lend themselves to low fouling much more than others. Again, experiment.

Since I stumbled onto a good combination, I haven't changed it. It simply works. I don't wipe or do anything else to my gun through an entire match. In working with Scouts, this same load simply works. And yup, it can be very accurate.

 

[SolidLeadSlug]

There was an article about a union shipwreck recovered in one of the great lakes not too long ago. On. Board, severa boxes of ammunition were found. They measured the diameter and averaged them. Different arsenals obviously had variances in the Burtons with most trending between .573-575. However, a small yet considerable percentage of projectiles varied from .571 all the way to .583 leading the reaserches to believe quality control was poor and the soilder quite literally did not know if he would get a good cartrodge or not.

 

[Stantheman86]

There was an article about a union shipwreck recovered in one of the great lakes not too long ago. On. Board, severa boxes of ammunition were found. They measured the diameter and averaged them. Different arsenals obviously had variances in the Burtons with most trending between .573-575. However, a small yet considerable percentage of projectiles varied from .571 all the way to .583 leading the reaserches to believe quality control was poor and the soilder quite literally did not know if he would get a good cartrodge or not.

It's almost as if that batch of cartridges skipped the sizing step.....

 

[Stantheman86]

Forum member Texas Gil’s recent thread about Minié balls moving in the bore while carrying one’s rifle all day made me wonder about something. I know that Burton’s patent drawing specified the size of his design to be .5775” but how well did Miniés made during the ACW meet that spec? For that matter, how close to spec were the nominal .577 Enfield and .58 Springfield rifled muskets? How about imported Miniés, i.e. those from Great Britain?

One reason I ask is that I’ve been trying with my four or five muskets to get just the right size so that I don’t have to swab the barrel after each shot. I know tighter bullets such as many recommend (.002-.003 below bore diameter) might be more accurate but I find that the fouling is a problem without frequent swabbing. Going smaller, maybe .005 smaller seems to allow near continuous shooting without pausing to clean. I suspect that was more important to the average ACW soldier than the kind of accuracy match shooters today can achieve. Any thoughts?

Minie Rifles such as the 61 Springfield were not intended or designed to be loaded and carried around

The Minie will move forward , most likely , if the rifle is carried muzzle down especially in a clean bore

The rifles were designed to be loaded when a battle commenced, as the nature of warfare in that period didn't require soldiers marching with loaded weapons since it was a pretty rare event to just bump into another Division of Infantrymen no one knew was there . These were intended for firing volleys in ranks, not snap shots in close combat.

Only sentries and picketts had loaded weapons, and they were unloaded after being relieved

 

[Buckskinquin]

The real key to this is your powder type and charge level, lube and lube type. In doing load development and looking for best accuracy and observing results, I found that a quality powder like Swiss or Old E that has relatively low fouling is the critical. Don't be a cheapskate and expect to achieve what you're after by using regular Goex or Scheutzen. Competition grade powder is the only path here. Type of lube is also very important. Just slopping together some beeswax and crisco won't cut it. You have to methodically experiment (something the Ordnance Dept did). I found a mix of beeswax/lard/lanolin/coconut oil to work best. Just slobbering the lube on will affect how many shots you can take. Lastly, lube grooves are critical too. Some minies lend themselves to low fouling much more than others. Again, experiment.

Since I stumbled onto a good combination, I haven't changed it. It simply works. I don't wipe or do anything else to my gun through an entire match. In working with Scouts, this same load simply works. And yup, it can be very accurate.

View attachment 162254

View attachment 162255

What distance were these shots made? Offhand or bench?

 

[dave951]

What distance were these shots made? Offhand or bench?

Load development, bench testing. Opens up a tad offhand

 

[Buckskinquin]

Load development, bench testing. Opens up a tad offhand

Distance?

 

[kh54]

I've been reading all y'all's recommendations regarding lube, load development, preferred bullet, etc. for some time, here as well as on another forum prior to this. My inquiry with this thread is really about specifications and actual manufactured bullets and firearms in use in the American Civil War. Perhaps period sharpshooters went into the same detail as you match shooters do, but I'm more interested in the average soldier.

I guess in the simplest terms, the question is this: How much smaller than the nominal bore size/caliber of ACW rifle muskets (primarily the .577 Enfields and .58 Springfields) were the Miniés that were commonly issued? Burton's patent implies a difference of only .0025, which is within the range modern shooters use for greatest accuracy, but in my limited experience is still difficult after maybe a dozen rounds due to fouling. I also found this on Wikipedia (so take with a block of salt): "The original Pritchett design was modified by Col. Boxer, who reduced the diameter to 0.55 after troops found the original 0.568 too hard to load during the Indian Mutiny..." That's a bullet that's .027 smaller than the bore!

 

[SolidLeadSlug]

US - .574
CS PRITCHETTS - .55 NAKED -. 575 PATCHED

 

[Stantheman86]

I've been reading all y'all's recommendations regarding lube, load development, preferred bullet, etc. for some time, here as well as on another forum prior to this. My inquiry with this thread is really about specifications and actual manufactured bullets and firearms in use in the American Civil War. Perhaps period sharpshooters went into the same detail as you match shooters do, but I'm more interested in the average soldier.

I guess in the simplest terms, the question is this: How much smaller than the nominal bore size/caliber of ACW rifle muskets (primarily the .577 Enfields and .58 Springfields) were the Miniés that were commonly issued? Burton's patent implies a difference of only .0025, which is within the range modern shooters use for greatest accuracy, but in my limited experience is still difficult after maybe a dozen rounds due to fouling. I also found this on Wikipedia (so take with a block of salt): "The original Pritchett design was modified by Col. Boxer, who reduced the diameter to 0.55 after troops found the original 0.568 too hard to load during the Indian Mutiny..." That's a bullet that's .027 smaller than the bore!

There were various sizes found but the "standard" ammunition for the 1863 Pattern Expanding Ball cartridge was a .575 Burton ball with a 50/50 mix lube of Mutton and Beeswax, with a 60 gr charge of what would be similar to 2f.

I make them all the time, if there is a "standard" round then this is it.

The original size of .578 that was used in the 1855 Pattern cartridge was found too hard to load in the various rifles in use by the time the war started and it was necessary to find a "median" size of .575 so that soldiers could actually load and fire the ammo in any of the .58 rifles.

 

[kh54]

Thank you all! Just the kind of info I was looking for. I’m sizing some Rapine 577460 Miniés for my Parker Hale 1858 Enfield with a .579 bore. My .576 marked sizer is off and actually gives me a .578 sized ball, so I’ll be sizing them with my .575 sizer. This is the first time I’ve tried this mold so I’m interested to see the results at the range tomorrow. I’ll let y’all know if you’re interested.

 

[dave951]

Distance?

Did you read the data on the Zouave target?

 

[ResearchPress]

"The original Pritchett design was modified by Col. Boxer, who reduced the diameter to 0.55 after troops found the original 0.568 too hard to load during the Indian Mutiny..." That's a bullet that's .027 smaller than the bore!

As I posted above, keep in mind that although the British bullets at .550 were considerably under bore size - they were however carried in a lubed cartridge. So the bullet has a wrap of paper around it, and that paper is lubricated. They weren’t just throwing an undersized bullet down the barrel.

David

 

[User_Dan]

They were also issued a cleaner round in each arsenal pack to help scrap the barrel.

Wish I could find a mold for the cleaner round.

 

[kh54]

As I posted above, keep in mind that although the British bullets at .550 were considerably under bore size - they were however carried in a lubed cartridge. So the bullet has a wrap of paper around it, and that paper is lubricated. They weren’t just throwing an undersized bullet down the barrel.

David

I realized that after I posted but I was too lazy to correct it.