Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

[maillemaker]

As I recall, the British-issue Enfield cartridge, that is, the paper-patched Pritchet ball cartridge, was imported and used by the Confederacy. However it was too long to fit in standard issue cartridge boxes. So many were sent to arsenals and broken up and re-made into Confederate Enfield-style cartridges, but shorter.

How was this achieved? The only way I could see this happening is if less powder were used?

I have recently ordered a Pritchett mold from Noe Bullet Molds, along with a mold for making the base plugs out of Bondo, and want to make up Enfield cartridges for live fire.

Steve

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

Steve:

What is your "source" for this "re-made into Confederate Enfield-style cartridges, but shorter."?

Here is a communication I had with Dean Thomas (Round Ball to Rimfire fame) on this very subject...

Mr. Thomas:
I have to ask… Did they really do THIS?
In a BB posting discussing re-manufactured British imported cartridges…
“Augusta Arsenal "re-manufactured" hundreds of thousands of imported Enfield rounds to the US system so they could be carried in the "standard" US/CS design .58 cartridge box.”
This is sited (I am told, I do not have the book) in: C.L. Bragg,Never for Want of Powder: the Confederate Powder Works in Augusta, Georgia, University of South Carolina Publishing (Columbia, SC), 2007, p. 138.
There is nothing about this that makes sense...breaking up British import cartridges to the US style?

First problem is how do you lube them? there are no external rings to hold lube, the bullets are TOO small in diameter. (.568" or .550" where the US bullet is .575" to .580")

OK, that said, In your Thomas Publications Round Ball to Rimfire Part 4, Mallet posted this on the subject of Cartridge Box tin size, and the size of Enfield cartridge, on Dec 7, 1863..."The length of the English pattern of Enfield cartridges may, with great care, be brought down from 3.2 or 3.3 to 2.8 or 2.9,but this reduction could not be relied upon on the large scale or with powder of varying density. If such reduction were effected, and the size of the cartridge box correspondingly reduced, it would still be necessary to break up and re-make all English made ammunition which we import, to conform to the change."
I have experimented with making the Enfield Cartridge SHORT like the one I have seen in your Thomas Part 4 book...I took an original dropped Confederate .565" Enfield style bullet, and did some experimenting.

I formed the Powder cylinder/Inner wrapper, just like it would be formed in the cartridge. I placed 60 grains of FFg BP in it, and then cut the powder cylinder down to the top level of the powder. I poured the powder out, measured the length of the cylinder, cut a new one to that length, and reformed a new cylinder with the inner wrapper wrapped around it.

I then placed the bullet under the powder cylinder/inner wrapper and rolled it up with the outer wrapper as they would. I poured in 60 grains of powder, and as the original, folded the tail to the OUTSIDE of the cartridge case like the one in the book...

My cartridge came out the same exact length as what was pictured. (2.45") This cartridge had no problem fitting in my 1861 Federal .58 cal Cartridge box.

Now, as I posted what Mallet said..."but this reduction could not be relied upon on the large scale or with powder of varying density."

I can see what problems exist here. I guess it’s why the whole thing of re manufacturing British cartridges makes no sense to me.
Am I wrong here?
Respectfully:

Kevin Dally
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas was kind enough to reply...

To Kevin Dally:

The BB posting is in error. The Augusta Arsenal did NOT "re manufacture" imported English cartridges. The reference to "Never for Want of Powder" by Gordon Blaker is out of context (or just plain wrong.) He actually said that the cartridges were "overhauled, refurbished, and repacked." (p. 139)
On Sept. 11, 1863, Capt. N.S. Finney wrote to Mallet: "We have just received a large quantity of Small arms Ammunition from Wilmington (English made cal. .58 & 54) which I am having overhauled, as a considerable portion of it has been damaged by salt water." (CALOD p. 136)
The total "Overhauled, rebundled, relabeled, caps added, & repacked" during the year 1863 was:
Enfield rifle -- 213,000
Rifle [AUSTRIAN] cal. 54 -- 347,000
Buck & Ball cal. 75 [Brown Bess] -- 40,000 (Confederate Arsenals, Laboratories, and Ordnance Depots" p. 141)
Does this help?
Best regards,
Dean Thomas

[maillemaker]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

What is your "source" for this "re-made into Confederate Enfield-style cartridges, but shorter."?

I don't remember now. I have read the Thomas books and online articles and BBS postings and it is now all a blur. It sounds like you have quoted parts that I am remembering.

But I'm confused by your post. OK, so the Augusta Arsenal did not re-manufacture the cartridges to the shorter length, but am I to assume from this:

"The length of the English pattern of Enfield cartridges may, with great care, be brought down from 3.2 or 3.3 to 2.8 or 2.9,but this reduction could not be relied upon on the large scale or with powder of varying density. If such reduction were effected, and the size of the cartridge box correspondingly reduced, it would still be necessary to break up and re-make all English made ammunition which we import, to conform to the change."

That they did, in fact, remanufacture British cartridges to a shorter length?

Also, how much powder did the British put in their cartridges? Were they British cartridges unnecessarily long? Or did they contain more powder?

Steve

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

Steve:

I can't find much of anything about how many actual "short" cartridges the Confederate laboratories/Arsenals made. I don't think Dean Thomas was any more knowledgeable on the Subject. I bet it wasn't many, as Mallet's comments showed they were not practicable.

The standard Brit Enfield cartridge was around 3-1/8" long, and I believe held 68 gr. of course grade powder. The Confederate versions usually held 75 grains, and were around the same length as the Brit's. The confederate's usually had good powder, but if they were not consistent in grain size, from one lot, to another, or differing manufacturers specs, you won't get the consistency needed. You would need plenty of space in the cartridge case to hold the varying sizes of powder granules.

I'm interested in your mold design, be glad to help you get working on making actual cartridges if you need.
I have made plenty of Enfield cartridges for when we live fire. They are labor intensive, and take time, but well worth the effort, and fun to load-shoot!

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

Steve:

I also have some great Enfield cartridge Arsenal Pack labels, British and Confederate styles you can have.

As to your question: "That they did, in fact, remanufacture British cartridges to a shorter length?" I doubt it, as they would have to take in to consideration the powder situation. I believe that if the "Short" Enfield Cartridge we are talking of, was in fact successful, we would be seeing more proof of them in the arsenal records. In the end, they adopted the US style cartridge.

[maillemaker]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

This is the mold I am getting:

http://noebulletmolds.com/smf/index.php/topic,918.15.html

In the end, they adopted the US style cartridge.

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. I believe the Confederacy adopted the Enfield style of cartridge in 1864.

I guess I'll make them to the last known pattern.

I'm thumbing through Volume 4 of Roundball to Rimfire now and see that the CSA manufactured Enfield cartridges seem to come in a variety of lengths.

Steve

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

This is the mold I am getting:

http://noebulletmolds.com/smf/index.php/topic,918.15.html

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. I believe the Confederacy adopted the Enfield style of cartridge in 1864.

I guess I'll make them to the last known pattern.

I'm thumbing through Volume 4 of Roundball to Rimfire now and see that the CSA manufactured Enfield cartridges seem to come in a variety of lengths.

Steve

Steve:

You will note on page 75 of your part 4 book, Mallet reports that if paper procurement isn't possible, the US pattern will need to be adopted. I know Gorgas stopped the manufacture of Enfield style cartridges, for the US type of ammo, for a while in 1863. Latter in the war when every port was finally blockaded, paper to make Enfield ammo was hard to get, and the Bath paper mill burned in 1863, was a major blow to the Confederacy: http://www.cw-chronicles.com/blog/bu...th-paper-mill/

I know from experience that if you make Enfield style ammo, you have to have paper that is consistent in thickness. We don't have that problem today, but in the Confederacy, it was an issue to be dealt with. You will read all kinds of issues with quality control that Mallet had to deal with in the Part 4 book. I'm amazed that Gorgus and Mallet accomplished as much as they did! You will note also in Part 4 book on pages 204-209 all the examples of US style 3-ring bullets. The Part 4 book is a wealth of info, just wait till you get into Thomas's series: http://www.amazon.com/Confederate-Ar...odnance+depots

I have the set, it's a lot of reading!

Kevin Dally

[maillemaker]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

Hi Kevin,

Great information on the books; I did not know there was a continuation of the Rimfire series.

It does appear that the adoption of the Enfield cartridge by the Confederacy was fitful. I see the quote you are mentioning in 1863 about the paper problem. Still, in February of 1864 the Enfield-style cartridge was officially adopted. See page 136 of volume 4. This is the missive I was remembering.

However in March, two months later, it was suspended (see page 143). However, Mallet advised against changing horses mid stream and instead suggested modifying the cartridge box tins to more securely accommodate the larger Enfield-style cartridges. It appears that the reason for the suspension was the "suffer[ing] of imperfect protection from the weather in the cartridge boxes", evidently because the cartridges were too big for the tins in the current cartridge boxes.

It's not clear to me in skimming forward if the reversion back to the US-style of cartridge stuck or whether Mallet's suggestion to keep using the Enfield cartridge with modified cartridge box tins stuck.

In any case it seems safe to say that the Enfield-style cartridge as manufactured by the British, and, evidently, the Confederacy, varied somewhat in overall length, and this did cause problems with the standard-issue .58 cartridge box.

I'm still curious as to what caused this inconsistency in length - it must be a result of different volumes of powder. Since my cartridges will be almost certainly loaded with a much smaller load than was used in combat, I could probably make them as short as US expanding ball cartridges if I desired. However, I will probably just make them to the measurements of the final British specifications.

FYI, Noe Bullet Molds is also soon going to produce a .550" diameter Pritchet for those who want replicate the final, small diameter bullet. Also available is a plate for making plugs out of Bondo rather than boxwood.

Steve

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

Hi Kevin,

Great information on the books; I did not know there was a continuation of the Rimfire series.

It does appear that the adoption of the Enfield cartridge by the Confederacy was fitful. I see the quote you are mentioning in 1863 about the paper problem. Still, in February of 1864 the Enfield-style cartridge was officially adopted. See page 136 of volume 4. This is the missive I was remembering.

However in March, two months later, it was suspended (see page 143). However, Mallet advised against changing horses mid stream and instead suggested modifying the cartridge box tins to more securely accommodate the larger Enfield-style cartridges. It appears that the reason for the suspension was the "suffer[ing] of imperfect protection from the weather in the cartridge boxes", evidently because the cartridges were too big for the tins in the current cartridge boxes.

It's not clear to me in skimming forward if the reversion back to the US-style of cartridge stuck or whether Mallet's suggestion to keep using the Enfield cartridge with modified cartridge box tins stuck.

In any case it seems safe to say that the Enfield-style cartridge as manufactured by the British, and, evidently, the Confederacy, varied somewhat in overall length, and this did cause problems with the standard-issue .58 cartridge box.

I'm still curious as to what caused this inconsistency in length - it must be a result of different volumes of powder. Since my cartridges will be almost certainly loaded with a much smaller load than was used in combat, I could probably make them as short as US expanding ball cartridges if I desired. However, I will probably just make them to the measurements of the final British specifications.


Steve

Steve:

I'm not convinced that they found an answer with the shortened Enfield cartridge. I firmly believe it didn't work because I see no real evidence it was officially adopted because of powder varieties from different powder sources. Mallet described that problem. I need to see more evidence of wider distribution/use.

So many different folk in the confederacy were manufacturing so many different cartridge boxes, no one could keep up with consistent specs for matching length's of cartridges. Look at the length of the Enfield style bullet produced at the Marshall, TX. arsenal, compared to other confederate Arsenals in the confederacy. Bullet molds manufactured in, and for the confederate arsenals were variable in size. It makes for fascinating study.

You will also note in letters quoted how size varied in diameters of bullet examples sent to Mallet, a bullet 1-2 thousandth's too big, wrapped in paper will not load. I have a crudely cast .570" Confederate Enfield bullet I dug myself on private land in the Champion Hill battlefield area. I'd bet it wouldn't fit the soldiers rifle when it was wrapped in paper.

The Enfield style bullet was much easier to manufacture than the grooved US bullet. You had a lot less intricate machining to do. I know the gauging of the bullet diameters were a constant headache for Mallet. A matter of the gauges wearing out was a problem.

You will note that the .69 cal cartridge box was officially adopted, the 3" Enfield Cartridge will it in the top of my Serio made .69 box, just not so well in the bottom!

OK, shooting the Enfield cartridge...if you are using a modern repro like an Armisport, or a Euroarms like I have, you may find with the modern shallow rifling they will stabilize, but may not group well. I don't know what type of rifling the new Pedersoli made rifles have. If you have an older progressive depth rifled Parker Hale from the 70's-80's, the paper patched bullet should do great. I have a friend who has an original 1863 Springfield that loves my enfield cartridges. We have gone to FT. Chadbourne, TX, and shot off-hand with his Springfield at a full size silhouette of a buffalo at 475 yards, and consistently hit it with the Enfield style ammo I have made. That progressive depth rifling makes a big difference! Unfortunately, I have no experience in using a plug in the base of a bullet, looks like you will have all the fun there. I size the bullets I use like the Confederate's did, .562", wrapped in typing paper, lubed in beeswax/olive oil mix, and then the bullet end of the cartridge is pressed into a .577" sizing die that helps squeeze the lubed paper around the bullet to a more consistent size. We have no trouble loading them. If I don't size them, some of the paper wrapped bullets can be too hard to try to load, due to being too big in diameter. I mostly use 60 grains of FFg powder.

I can see how they had quality control problems with the Enfield Cartridge!

[maillemaker]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

I'm not convinced that they found an answer with the shortened Enfield cartridge. I firmly believe it didn't work because I see no real evidence it was officially adopted because of powder varieties from different powder sources. Mallet described that problem. I need to see more evidence of wider distribution/use.

I'm not either, I just recall reading that the British Enfield cartridges were broken down and re-made. And, given the length problems, I assumed they were being broken down to somehow make them shorter. I'm still puzzled on exactly how they were made shorter because black powder was measured by volume. So regardless of the varying quality of various powder sources, once a set volume is agreed on it should be the same volume of powder regardless of the source. Which means if there was a set volume of powder specified in an Ordnance publication, then that should determine the length of the cartridge. And yet clearly from Thomas' book they are of all different kinds of lengths.

So many different folk in the confederacy were manufacturing so many different cartridge boxes, no one could keep up with consistent specs for matching length's of cartridges.

I was under the impression that the specifications for things like cartridge boxes and ammunition packs and such were fairly rigidly specified in ordnance manuals. One of the things I like about the 1855 US Expanding Ball cartridge design is regardless of how little powder you put in it (under 60 grains, of course) it will end up the same length due to the inner stiffener tube. In other words the paper construction of the cartridge itself determines the overall length of the cartridge, with some variation allowed for different bullets, of course. The 1862 US Expanding Ball cartridge, on the other hand, will have the tail fold wherever the powder level is, so the overall length is dictated by the volume of powder held within.

You will note that the .69 cal cartridge box was officially adopted, the 3" Enfield Cartridge will it in the top of my Serio made .69 box, just not so well in the bottom!

I did not know this. The Confederacy adopted the .69 box universally? Cool. This would suit me as I could have one cartridge box for all my guns. :)

OK, shooting the Enfield cartridge...if you are using a modern repro like an Armisport, or a Euroarms like I have, you may find with the modern shallow rifling they will stabilize, but may not group well. I don't know what type of rifling the new Pedersoli made rifles have. If you have an older progressive depth rifled Parker Hale from the 70's-80's, the paper patched bullet should do great. I have a friend who has an original 1863 Springfield that loves my enfield cartridges. We have gone to FT. Chadbourne, TX, and shot off-hand with his Springfield at a full size silhouette of a buffalo at 475 yards, and consistently hit it with the Enfield style ammo I have made. That progressive depth rifling makes a big difference! Unfortunately, I have no experience in using a plug in the base of a bullet, looks like you will have all the fun there. I size the bullets I use like the Confederate's did, .562", wrapped in typing paper, lubed in beeswax/olive oil mix, and then the bullet end of the cartridge is pressed into a .577" sizing die that helps squeeze the lubed paper around the bullet to a more consistent size. We have no trouble loading them. If I don't size them, some of the paper wrapped bullets can be too hard to try to load, due to being too big in diameter. I mostly use 60 grains of FFg powder.

I'm shooting a Euroarms P53 but it has a Whitacre barrel with progressive depth rifling. I also shoot a JRA Richmond Carbine with a Hoyt barrel; I'm not sure what the specs are on its rifling.

I also have a Pedersoli P58 and a Pedersoli P53 but they have standard button-pressed rifling. I have not found a load workup for either of these guns that matches my current competition guns. However, I understand the P58 requires a heavier bullet. I tried the 575213PH bullet but mine dropped at too small a diameter to be useful for my P58 which requires a .578 bullet (as does the Pedersoli P53). Thus far I've found the Pedersoli guns somewhat disappointing in accuracy.

Currently paper-patched bullets like the Enfield cartridge are not allowed in N-SSA competition, but I'm betting that changes. They are currently experimenting with US Expanding Ball cartridges for "Traditional Match" work, due to the fact that it is used with no paper going down the barrel.

I don't know how I'm going to size my Enfield cartridges. I have a Lyman Lubrisizer but it does not have a long enough stroke to put an entire cartridge through it. What kind of sizing equipment are you using?

Steve

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

"I'm shooting a Euroarms P53 but it has a Whitacre barrel with progressive depth rifling. I also shoot a JRA Richmond Carbine with a Hoyt barrel; I'm not sure what the specs are on its rifling."

I'm very jealous!

"I understand the P58 requires a heavier bullet. I tried the 575213PH bullet but mine dropped at too small a diameter to be useful for my P58 which requires a .578 bullet (as does the Pedersoli P53)."

I believe the Brits used the same bullet for all .577" Enfield in their inventory.

"I don't know how I'm going to size my Enfield cartridges. I have a Lyman Lubrisizer but it does not have a long enough stroke to put an entire cartridge through it. What kind of sizing equipment are you using?'

I have 3 sizing dies I got from the Rapine Mold company years back: .577", .578", and .580". Now, I needed a die made up for sizing bullets down to around .565" to make Enfield cartridges with. I found a 17/32" drill bit would drill a hole at .562", exactly what the confederate arsenals settled on. I had a machinist take that drill bit and bore me out a piece of round stock ,and ream it down to the size of my other rapine sizing dies. See the attachment photo.

[maillemaker]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

That looks useful for sizing the bullets, but what about completed cartridges? There does not appear to be enough room for the cartridge to exit out the bottom.

I'm guessing to size finished cartridges (or perhaps pre-charged cartridges) you would insert them into the die "paper end first", since the bullet's nose is pointed in that direction, and you could bear against the flat end of the cartridge (and bullet) to push it through the sizing die, paper and all.

I'm guessing it would make sense to lubricate the cartridge prior to sizing to help ease it through the die and to knock off excess lube and to make sure that if the paper swells any from absorbing lube that the entire shebang is sized to the proper finished size?

I have not read any period instructions on the order of operations for the manufacture though. It may be that they finished the cartridges complete including charging before lubing and sizing. Just seems safer to me to lube and size prior to charging.

Steve

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

Steve:

You figured it right, After lubing the bullet end of the cartridge, I stick the forming rod back into the cartridge, and press the bullet end only, down into the .577" sizing die, to true-up the lubed paper around the bullet. I made the mistake of trying to do this BEFORE lubing, and the bullet tore off the rest of the cartridge when I tried to take it back out! you can see how I keep the forming rod up against the bullet nose. After I pull the cartridge out, I then remove the forming rod carefully so I don't pull out the card-stock powder cylinder out with it! After that I take a razor knife and gently cut one, to three vertical slits around the bullet end, so when the bullet fires out of the barrel, the paper strips off the bullet.

[maillemaker]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

That's interesting. I envisioned pushing the cartridge through the sizer open-end first, and pushing against the back of the bullet. I figured the shoulder of the bullet will ease the cartridge into the die, and any excess lube will be scraped towards the lube-end of the cartridge and not foul the rest of the cartridge body.

I will have to make a fixture to hold my sizing die as you did.

Steve

[rd72]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

HI there. Just wanted to say that I read through the thread and you have been having an interesting conversation, for sure. I especially was interested in the "remanufacturing" aspect/myth... I shoot Pritchetts a lot and I thought that I might add a few details based on my experience... (Steve, I think we have talked lots over at the N-SSA board)... The issue British cartridge, freshly dipped and still warm was pushed through a heated "sizer"... This was .582 in diameter and was for the regulating of the amount of wax on the cartridge, not for "sizing" the bullet and paper. After 1859, the lubricant on the .55 service round was straight beeswax. I wonder, for your endeavours, if the bullet size is an issue, that you might size the bullet first and then make up the cartridge? I shoot a .564 bullet with .003 paper in both a .577 and a .579 bore... same bullet, different loads. Never sized the bullets, and never a problem loading.. Now, I have a high quality Brooks mould that casts remarkably consistent bullets.. As always, everybody does things differently. Sorry to have jumped in on your conversation.... I have a great interest in the arcane art that is the Pritchett cartridge, saw your thread, and was impressed by your (Kevin) efforts to replicate a trade cartridge, down to the green gummed strip... Well done. There is a great article on the Enfield Cartridge by a New Zealander Bruce Cairns that I can direct you to if you like. Cheers.

Dear Mr. Deans,
Although you've had an account for three years, this is your first post. It is a cardinal rule of the forum that all posts be signed with the member's full name. Please take this edit as an opportunity to review this rule and other rules of the forum which are linked here : http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...tic-Campaigner - Silas Tackitt, one of the moderators