Replica Military Muzzle Loaders

[Some_Mook]

Brett at paper cartridges released a recent video in which he addresses issues of accuracy when using historical style bullets / cartridge combinations in replica (mainly Italian) versions of infantry muzzle loading rifles. He states that the replica versions (and there is a distinction between a replica and a reproduction) use a broach cutter rifling method as opposed to a progressive-depth rifling method. Due to production tolerances and wear/re-sharpening of the broaching cutters one may obtain an Italian replica with fairly strong rifling or possibly a barrel with lighter rifling, kind of a luck-of-the-draw thing. Since paper-patched 1850s - 1860s Enfield style cartridges and Burton style (etc..) expanding bullets will strip the rifling if they do not get very good contact with the rifling when bumped up at the initial instance of firing Brett states that some people may never get the accuracy and performance out of their Crimean / US Civil War era replica rifles when using historically accurate bullets / paper cartridges without some serious intervention, such as re-barrelling or sleeving with a progressive depth rifling alternative.

I know the N-SSA folks get remarkably good accuracy out of Italian replica rifles, but are not using historically correct loads or patterns of paper cartridges. That is fine, and I have no argument against using what works in 50 yd competition shooting tiles and board mounted clay pigeons, but I enjoy replicating the US 1855 Expanding Ball Cartridges and the 1860 Boxer pattern .550 Pritchet and shooting same at longer ranges. At 100 yards off-hand I am doing better with my Pedersoli 1861 Springfield than my P-58 using self-cast bullets and DIY paper cartridges. Still a work in progress to get where I would ultimately like to be, but not terrible. My intent is to acquire the necessary sheet steel to construct a 4'x6' School of Musketry style target and shoot at 300 - 500 yards for grins.

Curious to hear any of your empirical observations using Italian replicas and historically accurate military loadings at distances greater than 50 yards.

Cheers!

 

[Trot]

I started watching that video but had to stop, but I plan to go back and finish it. I am confused by one point, what do you mean about a distinction between a replica and a reproduction? According to the dictionary reproduction is a synonym for replica. OK, update, I went back and watched the rest of the video. I mostly agree with him, some of the repros/replicas, whatever you want to call them, can be made to shoot pretty well, while others not so much. The only thing I would add is there are other factors besides the rifling that could affect accuracy. Barrel bedding and trigger pull to name a couple.

 

[rmark]

I have a Euroarms 2 band Enfield (.581 bore,1-66 twist, constant depth rifling} and haven't had much success using home cast minies of soft lead sized to .580 or .581. Worked from 35 - 70 grains of 2F and 3F powder, sorta groups at 50 yards, a pallet sized pattern at 100 yards. Very frustrating. Probably just using round balls next time I'm out with it.

I suspect the progressive depth rifling was needed to rifle thin barreled smoothbore muskets and happened to work well with the soft thin skirted mines and relatively slow rifling twists of the time.

 

[dave951]

I've seen Euroarms with poor bedding and by torquing the tang screw down, it introduces stress into the barrel leading to serious accuracy problems.

Back to the OP, to me replica, reproduction, they're the same. If the parts are originals, then it's a parts gun and that's something of a great area in relation to originals with provenance.

 

[wiscoaster]

I saw that video and it was pretty interesting. It sounded plausible to me. But I don't have enough experience with my 1861 yet to tell one way or the other.

 

[Rifleman1776]

I know the N-SSA folks get remarkably good accuracy out of Italian replica rifles, but are not using historically correct loads o

Yes and no. They do get excellent accuracy and, most often, use the popular Italian replicas and historically correct minies/bullets. Going from memory here but I think he used the .575OS bullet. I know it was an OS (for Old Style). Your long treatise looks to me like someone trying to prove an already decided point.

 

[Some_Mook]

Yes and no. They do get excellent accuracy and, most often, use the popular Italian replicas and historically correct minies/bullets. Going from memory here but I think he used the .575OS bullet. I know it was an OS (for Old Style). Your long treatise looks to me like someone trying to prove an already decided point.

I am under the impression that the NSSA does not allow the use of paper patched bullets, hence my comment about 'historically accurate'

I have decided nothing myself as to the point that Brett makes regarding the accuracy or lack there of with Italian rifle barrels. I am happy with my Pedersoli 1861 Springfield. I am fairly happy with my p58 when using Brett's .550 Pritchet cartridges, but have consistancy issues with my DIY cartridges. I feel that my bullets are stripping the rifling. The NOE mold I am using came with two different sets of hollow base forms, so maybe the skirt thickness of what I have cast thus far is my issue, or maybe it is the size of the clay plugs I make or their relative robustness is my issue. Lots of variables, so I was looking for consensus from what others have experienced. Could be as simple as changing from 1.5f Swiss to 3f. Could be more insidious. Lots of things to try, I am hoping to discover the secret.

 

[rmark]

I once had a Zoli Zouave that shot quite nicely with the Moose Molds Wilkinson bullet, not so well with the home cast minies.

 

[Muley Gil]

I once had a Zoli Zouave that shot quite nicely with the Moose Molds Wilkinson bullet, not so well with the home cast minies.

My first muzzleloader was also a Zoli Zouave. At 50 yards, it would shoot a 1" three shot group, from the bench. This was using home cast, un-sized Lyman 575213 Minies over 45 grains of Goex FFFg powder.

 

[tenngun]

I started watching that video but had to stop, but I plan to go back and finish it. I am confused by one point, what do you mean about a distinction between a replica and a reproduction? According to the dictionary reproduction is a synonym for replica. OK, update, I went back and watched the rest of the video. I mostly agree with him, some of the repros/replicas, whatever you want to call them, can be made to shoot pretty well, while others not so much. The only thing I would add is there are other factors besides the rifling that could affect accuracy. Barrel bedding and trigger pull to name a couple.

The difference between a replica and a reproduction is a matter of degree. My Centermark TFC is a replica, it’s in maple, originals were walnut, it’s a 42” barrel that’s too thick, the originals were thin and 44”. The lock is a little different shape ect.
A reproduction will match an original down to little details.
Ofcouse we can get crazy detail here. Wood and metal screws were markedly different in the old days, barrels are now made of steel. You could go that far, but in general a reproduction should be at least visibly a copy of the original while a replica will vary

 

[rmark]

Having old eyes and small sights is half my problem. Inconsistent sight picture at 100 yards.