• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

Shooting Military rifles like they were designed to be used

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
In 150 years a brand new repro Pedersoli 1861 will be as old as an original 1861 Springfield I own......mind=blown

I wonder if people in the distant future will be fascinated that Italy in particular was a thriving hub of reproduction muzzleloading weapons production 😀
 
Last edited:
Well @Stantheman86 all I know is a want a rifled musket now more than ever after looking at your posts. Definitely make a great deer rifle as stated above. After my success this year with my Hawken, I won't hunt deer with smokeless again. I really think I'm aiming for a musketoon at this point. That would make a sweet compact hunting rig or paper cartridge range blaster! If I can get this particular grease groove bullet to shoot good in my Renegade, I plan on making cartridges for that.
20221211_000055.jpg


20221211_000100.jpg


Musketoons are just a different kind of cool though . I just put this "barrel cover" I got from LePierre leather a long time ago on the wrist of one of my P-H Musketoons. It makes the little rifle easier to handle, I may put another one on the barrel.

They just come to the shoulder so nice and you can hold them by the forearm in your off hand and load them with cartridges without putting the butt on the ground. They're just really sweet handling rifles

I read that JEB Stuart loved these. It may have been the Cavalry carbines with the captive ramrod he loved, maybe it was these, but either way I can see why these were so prized back then.
 
Well @Stantheman86 all I know is a want a rifled musket now more than ever after looking at your posts. Definitely make a great deer rifle as stated above. After my success this year with my Hawken, I won't hunt deer with smokeless again. I really think I'm aiming for a musketoon at this point. That would make a sweet compact hunting rig or paper cartridge range blaster! If I can get this particular grease groove bullet to shoot good in my Renegade, I plan on making cartridges for that.

There is nothing wrong with choosing a musketoon for hunting. Most folks can't hit beyond 100 yards with a muzzleloader anyway.
 
There is nothing wrong with choosing a musketoon for hunting. Most folks can't hit beyond 100 yards with a muzzleloader anyway.
I know guys that have hunted deer with every firearm type for 70+ seasons and they'll say they've never once shot past maybe 150 or so, and going past 100 was rare.

I have a cut down Krag that I bought at a Garage sale, that the ladies' grandad used for 50 years of hunting. Iron sights , short barrel, no one was shooting past 100 on a deer with that

I've helped steer a couple of people over the past few years away from those Palmetto 1855 carbine pistols and toward just getting an Enfield Musketoon or a Pedersoli Cook & Brother
 
There is nothing wrong with choosing a musketoon for hunting. Most folks can't hit beyond 100 yards with a muzzleloader anyway.
You are not wrong! Furthest I shot a deer with an Enfield was 60 yards and that felt like I was aiming at somthing 200 yards away! Paint a paper plate brown and stick it in a bush and try hitting it!
 
I hope I can get out tomorrow with my "Historically Correct/Possible Confederate Sharpshooter CS Richmond " for a range report , with the Service Cartridges I'm about to make as soon as my candle wax melter heats up the lube
 
@Stantheman86, thanks for your post, the discussions and all the info. I know very little about the details of military history, and I have an honest question I'd never thought of before reading this thread.

I've heard many times that the Minie ball was responsible for much higher casualty numbers in the CW (which is true); but I've never heard or read any serious discussion or study of how paper cartridges increased casualties in the CW and all previous wars where they were used.

An intuitive guess would be that the paper cartridge may have had as great an impact on the battlefield as the Minie ball, and at a much earlier date. Any info or thoughts you could share would be appreciated.
 
@Stantheman86, thanks for your post, the discussions and all the info. I know very little about the details of military history, and I have an honest question I'd never thought of before reading this thread.

I've heard many times that the Minie ball was responsible for much higher casualty numbers in the CW (which is true); but I've never heard or read any serious discussion or study of how paper cartridges increased casualties in the CW and all previous wars where they were used.

An intuitive guess would be that the paper cartridge may have had as great an impact on the battlefield as the Minie ball, and at a much earlier date. Any info or thoughts you could share would be appreciated.

The latest research actually shows that the Rifled-Musket in the Civil War may very well have caused LESS casualties than if the .69 Smoothbore had continued to be used by both sides.

The book " The Rifled Musket in the Civil War : Myth and Reality " covers this and it's fascinating. Soldiers didn't generally have the training to use the rifle, firing the Minie with it's looping trajectory, to full advantage and the author states that more soldiers would have been wounded and killed by the flatter shooting .69 roundball than were by the rainbow-like trajectory of the Minie because the average distance of engagement was 110 yards.

The idea of soldiers carrying self contained powder changes goes all the way back to the Matchlock Musketeers and Arquebusiers in the middle ages. They carried little clay pots containing one powder charge and a bag of iron or lead balls. It was the first attempt at "cartridges " to speed loading.

By the mid - late 1600's, the armies of every major power were fighting primarily with flintlock muskets. Paper Cartridges were the norm by this time. Soldiers made their own or they were issued cartridges. Bore variance was great and so was ball size variance, so soldiers slip fit cartridges to see which ones fit in their individual musket and each soldier was to ensure they had a cartridge box full of regulation cartridges before a battle. Of course verified by NCOs. The paper cartridge standardized the Manual of Arms loading process, ensured soldiers had a mostly idiot proof method of loading that could be repetitively trained into muscle memory and could be done under combat stress. No army wants soldiers playing around with flasks and horns , especially conscripts or inexperienced soldiers. Cartridges were easier to use and carry. The British and French drilled the men heavily on musketry and the loading manual of arms.

The British and French used paper cartridges in their muskets and later rifles per regulation for almost 200 years. And during the American Revolution, Washington strived to standardize on the paper cartridge and a standard cartridge box. He did not want soldiers charging muskets with horns , loose ball and wadding but it was still done. I believe France sent many 1000's of cartridges along with the muskets , powder and flints .

There is a wide variation in paper cartridge types but by the Civil War, they were a standard. The US and CS both produced or purchased millions of cartridges for all of the various rifles and muskets in use. The cartridges were the ammunition for a Rifle-Musket and a weapon was considered officially useless without a cartridge box and a cap box. Soldiers were issued 10-packs of cartridges containing 12 caps to put in their cartridge boxes.

The rate of fire was certainly faster with cartridges vs "loading loose" and 3 or even 4 shots per minute are possible, possibly even 5 with something like Pritchett cartridges.

I used an Enfield Musketoon with Prichett cartridges and I shot with a guy that had a 45-70 Trapdoor. And I was able to get off 5 aimed shots in a minute to his 8. Only because I had a Musketoon but still, the gap in rate of fire was not huge, unless maybe we're talking a Battalion armed with P53 Enfields vs one armed with 45-70 Trapdoors, then those 3 shots would make a difference.
 
The book " The Rifled Musket in the Civil War : Myth and Reality " covers this and it's fascinating. Soldiers didn't generally have the training to use the rifle, firing the Minie with it's looping trajectory, to full advantage and the author states that more soldiers would have been wounded and killed by the flatter shooting .69 roundball than were by the rainbow-like trajectory of the Minie because the average distance of engagement was 110 yards.
First thank you for one of the most informative posts I've read on TMF. I've ordered a used copy of "The Rifled Musket in the Civil War: Myth and Reality ". It is a fascinating subject.

If I may ask a follow up question: Was this lack of understanding about bullet trajectories limited mostly to city and town residents, or was it common across the entire eastern U.S.

The reason I ask is, most rural born and raised men I've known (north, south and west) were at least adequate marksmen. Some were exceptional. Plus, 80% of the U.S. population was rural in 1860.

I was given a BB gun about age 4 or 5. After instruction on lining up the front and rear sight I was on my own. Watching those little copper balls arc and drift into, or past, my target was my shooting instructor. Same for slingshots, bow and arrow. I knew about trajectories even before I knew the names or causes.

Again, the question above is sincere. I'm really puzzled.
 
If I may ask a follow up question: Was this lack of understanding about bullet trajectories limited mostly to city and town residents, or was it common across the entire eastern U.S.
The reason I ask is, most rural born and raised men I've known (north, south and west) were at least adequate marksmen. Some were exceptional. Plus, 80% of the U.S. population was rural in 1860.
But in 1860 were the rural population that were familiar with rifles, just shooting patched ball at modest ranges, bringing home game for the pot. I wonder if they were familiar with military rifle muskets firing Minie bullets at 600 yards?

David
 
Last edited:
I wonder if they were familiar with military rifle muskets firing Minie bullets at 600 yards?
Very true. Even today in southern Appalachia my average hunting range is about 50 yards. With the good vision of my youth, I have shot much further using PRBs and iron sights, but at targets of opportunity like rocks and stumps (in safe locations), not at living animals. Now with my older eyes I need peep sights at just 50 yards.

Edit: Also, BB guns weren't around in 1860 either and considerable hunting with bow and arrow probably wasn't as common as it is today.
 
Last edited:
But in 1860 were the rural population that were familiar with rifles, just shooting patched ball at modest ranges, bringing home game for the pot. I wonder if they were familiar with military rifle muskets firing Minie bullets at 600 yards?

David
The target shooters in the northeastern US and the rifles they used were responsible for many splendid targets.
 
Dammit, now I’m gonna go shoot my Enfield with loose pyrodex, a plastic sabot and modern pistol bullet ignited by a 209 primer conversion nipple using a cheap bushnell 3-9 scope. All the while wearing historically accurate clothing from the French and Indian war over a cheap set of Tijuana sandals and black socks. You have bestirred my contrarian nature.
 
And you'd be wrong. Just because we don't use 60g 2f doesn't mean it's a "greatly reduced" load. Here's the facts- most guns don't perform their best at maximum or service charge load. Next- most N-SSA guys use Swiss, widely acknowledged to be "hotter" than regular Goex. SO that 45g Swiss charge is about the equivalent of a 50g Goex charge. Now factor in that we use 3F instead of 2F and that's about the equivalent of another 3g of "regular" powder. So in reality, that "greatly reduced" load used by a N-SSA shooter is about the equivalent of a 53-55g charge of regular Goex 2F. I hardly would characterize that as a "greatly reduced" load. Past that, the minie will not engage the rifling properly if pressure levels aren't adequate, again, mitigating against a "greatly reduced" load.


Quit spreading misinformation.
I shoot 50 gr of 2f Swiss, with stock sights.
 
The latest research actually shows that the Rifled-Musket in the Civil War may very well have caused LESS casualties than if the .69 Smoothbore had continued to be used by both sides.

The book " The Rifled Musket in the Civil War : Myth and Reality " covers this and it's fascinating. Soldiers didn't generally have the training to use the rifle, firing the Minie with it's looping trajectory, to full advantage and the author states that more soldiers would have been wounded and killed by the flatter shooting .69 roundball than were by the rainbow-like trajectory of the Minie because the average distance of engagement was 110 yards.
That seems off a bit to me. Balls are lousy projectiles, bullets although heavier have better sectional density and retain their velocity better. Would be interesting to see the trajectories of .69 balls and bullets on a graph. Maybe someone here can offer real world experience comparing both. YMMV
 
I'm pretty sure the guy who shot Sedgewick wasn't from north of the Mason-Dixon line.
Perhaps, but the northern snipers were all target shooters from the northeast, and overall were much better shots than those from the south.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top