RANGE REPORT: Loading .62cal PRBs with cleaning / seating jag

[CZMark]

I was at a shoot one time and this Dude had on a Tri-cornered hat and another guy walked by it and got one of the tri's stuck in his eye....Messy but not the end.

That's why safety glasses are always required on the range. :grin:

I can't believe I posted on this topic. :shake:

 

[Dphar]

Thanks for your common sense reply.

"I REALLY dislike being at a shoot or range where people are firing mass produced MLs or percussion guns with drum and nipples."

The same danger exist when folks insist on removing their vent liner each time for cleaning. Sooner or later it's probably going to blow out, and it may hit the shooter to your right. People will tell you it's perfectly safe and they do it all the time. One dead, one fine gun ruined, or one eye lost is one too many for me.

Hey Mark, I see that you feel worried about mass produced percussion cap drum rifles. I have a Euro-Arms 1864 "Springfield". Is this one I should worry about? I assume the worry is the screwed in drum blasting out to my right when the threads let go? Has this actualy happened? Thanks, B&B

Blown nipples, gas cut vent liners and drums breaking off and exiting at some force. I have had all these things happen to me over the years. Mostly when I was under 30. I learned from each one. Since I have no idea how well some drum and nipple has been installed I avoid being on that side of the gun when its being fired.
I am not the only one to have properly threaded nipples blow out... A friend blew one out of a Bill Large Hawken breech. He was neither a neophyte or a fool. He switched to shooting flintlock. Carried little black spots on from imbedded powder fouling in his nose for the rest of his life. To keep the nipple threads from leaking there must be a flat for them to screw against. I ended up making a cutter to do this since breeches on the market sometimes lack this feature.
I would also point out that it is much easier to get a nipple tight enough to seal with a nipple wrench than it is to properly torque a large diameter vent liner with a screw driver, assuming it HAS a place to seal against.

Drums are often made of marginal materials and can crystalize from repeated hammer blows and simply fracture. Care in fitting the drum to the lockplate will reduce this possibility but I simply won't make drum and nipple guns.
Period.
Its a makeshift way of doing things that simply adds a weak point to the breeching.
Mass produced MLs are assembled in many cases by cheap labor and/or people who do not understand how the lock is supposed to work. They tend to do things like go off 1/2 cocked or repeatedly fail to go off when they are supposed to. People also tend to shoot "replica" powders from these and I worry about the fouling making a "crawdad hole" that eventually vents to the outside of the barrel or breech.
This stuff ALL is going on out there.
So...
"I REALLY dislike being at a shoot or range where people are firing mass produced MLs or percussion guns with drum and nipples."
I learn from experience or at least try too.
Dan

What is a real shame here is that we have no records from the civil war where more than half a million "mass produced" nipple & drum guns were used, much of the time by inexperienced shooters! Or do we? Perhaps there are records somewhere, I'm sure if I brought a blown up gun to my Lieutennant he would write down the rason I requested a new rifle. After all they were $14! :wink:

Which "drum and nipple" firearms are you describing?? Please elaborate.


Dan

 

[Geraldo]

I was at a shoot one time and this Dude had on a Tri-cornered hat and another guy walked by it and got one of the tri's stuck in his eye....Messy but not the end.He had a ball starter in his ass pocket and he only fell over and got the starter stuck..... :youcrazy: ...well......you know where. :shake: It happened,it's a real story.Your reading it so it must be true. :youcrazy:

It's true... I was the "Dude" in the tri-corn. :redface:

OK...but come clean all the way...was the point to the front, the rear, or off to one side???
That's really the underlying question here...

Indeed it is. Only a careless dude would improperly wear a tricorn. Don't under-rate the danger of improperly worn headgear. :wink:

 

[Geraldo]

The quality of those rifle was 100 times better than the currently produced replicas. They were assembled by actual craftsmen.

There are certainly crappy replicas out there, but all other things being equal, I'd take new world metalurgy (whether a quality factory or custom rifle) versus some of the old style metalurgy. As an example, Walker Colts are not exactly famous for quality metalurgy.

 

[Halftail]

I was at a shoot one time and this Dude had on a Tri-cornered hat and another guy walked by it and got one of the tri's stuck in his eye....Messy but not the end.He had a ball starter in his ass pocket and he only fell over and got the starter stuck..... :youcrazy: ...well......you know where. :shake: It happened,it's a real story.Your reading it so it must be true. :youcrazy:

It's true... I was the "Dude" in the tri-corn. :redface:

Sorry Claude,
I didn't want to name names.
For the record though....I Wasen't the guy with the short starter in my pocket! :grin:

 

[RC]

oh gees halftail!! TOOO EASY! :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

 

[Dphar]

The quality of those rifle was 100 times better than the currently produced replicas. They were assembled by actual craftsmen.

There are certainly crappy replicas out there, but all other things being equal, I'd take new world metalurgy (whether a quality factory or custom rifle) versus some of the old style metalurgy. As an example, Walker Colts are not exactly famous for quality metalurgy.

"There are certainly crappy replicas".
This is certainly true and not all crappy replicas are muzzleloaders some of the breechloaders being imported are not very well put together or made of the proper materials.
After about 1859 the metals got better. The development of "Silver Steel" (if I recall the name properly) allowed Colt to make 44s on 36 frames and 36s on the 31 frame. The barrels on the Rifled muskets were pretty darn good by any standard being rolled from a "donut" of steel. I don't believe there was a significant failure rate in US rifled muskets. But age becomes a factor at this late date.

Steel making seemed to improve again just after the Civil War.
Improper design, assembly, improper alloys and/or improper techniques in barrel making can offset the safety margin modern steels provide to some extent. In some cases the wrong modern steel can make a design/part less safe than it would be if made of good steel from the Civil War era. This is more common that some would think.
But this always starts another argument.

Dan

 

[Swampman]

The working parts of old guns were normally made from forged metal. Almost all current reproductions(and non-reproductions) are made from cast metal.

I saw a reproduction musket from India recently that blew up using a blank charge. I have to admit that even I was suprised that a modern musket blew up using a blank charge. Maybe a fellow making 50 cents a day isn't such a good choice for assembling firearms. I prefer American made barrels myself. At least the part that contains the pressure should be of reasonable quality. Of course no matter where the barrel is produced the person loading it has to use safe loading practices. I'm not that pretty, but having a scar shaped like a rear sight isn't something you wanna look at in the mirror.

 

[Tumblernotch]

This will probably start another argument.

US Civil War musket barrels were made of iron, not steel, as were all of those previous.

 

[MrMarine79]

That's it Robert, inject some new life into the thread. :rotf:

 

[Tumblernotch]

hehehehe! :stir: Well, they were! :grin:

 

[Dphar]

This will probably start another argument.

US Civil War musket barrels were made of iron, not steel, as were all of those previous.

None the less they were rolled from a large donut to form the tube if I am properly informed.
I do know that by the end of the Civil War no quality guns were using iron barrels. "Cast steel" had been in used as gun barrels for quite some time previous.
I also know that the proof load was 200 gr of musket powder with a mini spaced 2" from the powder. It takes pretty good iron to take this.

Dan

 

[Tumblernotch]

You were wrongly informed. Short version: "The barrel is made from a short, flat bar of iron, which is first formed into a hollow cylinder and then welded and drawn out to the required size, length and taper, by passing it through a series of rolls for that purpose." US Ordnance Manual 1862 I can type up the rest of the info later if you need it. I have to go back to work. I also have the old processes used in the armories, which were quite different, but all required the use of iron skelps.

As for proving with a 2" gap, somebody has gone and told you something very dangerous. If we have to be careful and not leave an air gap with modern steels and normal loads, why would they double and triple a load in an iron barrel and expect it to stay in one piece?

Here's the proof load for the M1855 muskets and rifles:

1st Charge: 280 grs. powder; 1 ball (500 grs.);2 wads.

2nd Charge: 250 grs. powder; 1 ball (500 grs.); 2 wads.

One wad is placed on the powder and the other on the ball, and well rammed with a copper rod. The wad occupies about 3/4" in the length of the barrel.

As for cast steels being used, I'm not aware of Springfield Armory using it before the War ended. Some contractors may have been working up some batches of cast steel barrels, but I don't have anything on that. I'll look. The favorite iron of the National Armory was Marshall Iron from Britain. Most of the contractors used it when they could.

 

[Dphar]

You were wrongly informed. Short version: "The barrel is made from a short, flat bar of iron, which is first formed into a hollow cylinder and then welded and drawn out to the required size, length and taper, by passing it through a series of rolls for that purpose." US Ordnance Manual 1862 I can type up the rest of the info later if you need it. I have to go back to work. I also have the old processes used in the armories, which were quite different, but all required the use of iron skelps.

As for proving with a 2" gap, somebody has gone and told you something very dangerous. If we have to be careful and not leave an air gap with modern steels and normal loads, why would they double and triple a load in an iron barrel and expect it to stay in one piece?

Here's the proof load for the M1855 muskets and rifles:

1st Charge: 280 grs. powder; 1 ball (500 grs.);2 wads.

2nd Charge: 250 grs. powder; 1 ball (500 grs.); 2 wads.

One wad is placed on the powder and the other on the ball, and well rammed with a copper rod. The wad occupies about 3/4" in the length of the barrel.

As for cast steels being used, I'm not aware of Springfield Armory using it before the War ended. Some contractors may have been working up some batches of cast steel barrels, but I don't have anything on that. I'll look. The favorite iron of the National Armory was Marshall Iron from Britain. Most of the contractors used it when they could.

It has been years since I read this and I will have to back track to see if I can find it. The 280 gr is correct rather than the 200. The 2" gap was done (or not), as I recall, to deal with the fact the the Minie ball was notorious for moving off the powder. Still is in a clean bore. It was .015"-020" undersize afterall.
The rolled from a cylinder is still correct. How long and thick the skelp was when welded and thus how long the cylinder was I do not know. As with many things of this sort the "translation" one reads when one does not have the source document is sometimes not always accurate. But I don't rely on "flakey" sources.
I don't at this time know if the place I found this is in the book case or boxes of magazines in the shop or if I got it from an aquaintance. 40 odd years of reading and discussion can result in things being lost... PITA...

If you have time and can do it easily I would appreciate the information. If you can scan it and e-mail it might be easier. I have high speed so big files are not a problem.

Cast steels were pretty common in commercial barrels but steel is not necessarily better than iron in the era before the Civil War. *Good* iron actually had advantages in ML barrels.
By about 1870 the steels got a lot better and it became the standard for cartridge gun barrels. But by the mid 1870s breech pressures had climbed to 25000+ for heavy bullet long case BPCR loads. Higher than found in MLs.

Dan

 

[Tumblernotch]

I've forgotten a lot of stuff myself and not only that, I forget where I put some of my sources, so I sometimes only have part of the information. And sometimes that's just about as bad as having none. :redface:

I'll try to scan this as soon as I can. The book is thick and I don't know how good it will work. If it doesn't, I'll type it up and send it as a text document or however your computer will accept it. Give me a little time. I'm starting on my garden and have other things that have to be done. As a matter of fact, I should be getting out and burning my lettuce bed right now.

 

[FPDoc]

The old medical saying is, "When you see hoofprints, look for horses, not zebras."

Unless you're in Africa :wink: