Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

[mason dixie]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

Mark, Thanks for the info on the stamps

[rd72]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

Kevin, I agree, Bruce did a fantastic job in writing this. Kudos to him.

Steve, sure thing. If you can confirm your email, I'll send it along... Yes the article is by Bruce Carins. I can send you his email when I send you the article... In the mean time, if you want to try him on the Victorian Wars Forum he is "colsjt65" there.

As for the clips that were posted by Richard, they are mine.... I realize that "farby plastic" isn't what most here would want to see, but they function completely historically. I consider what I do as "historical shooting" and therefore the "function" is what I am after. I shoot a lot, and making proper historical cartridges (the second and third patterns) is not in any way economical in labour or materials as no part can be reused. My "version" is most like the "first pattern" and the cylinder can be reused with no effect on function. Anyway, not to dwell. Hope they provide some degree of information, at least on how they were used.

In Armies of the British Empire (including Dominions) they were used like this...

Had the Trent Affair kicked off in the North it's what would have been facing those south of the border...



Rob Deans

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

Kudos. This is a helluva thread, I thought I knew a little bit about Enfield cartridges and I learned a lot here.

[maillemaker]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

OK, I ordered some 9# onion paper and it makes a great outer wrapper with the .566 Pritchet. The inner powder chamber pieces are made from regular printer paper.

Here are my first two Pattern 1855 Enfield cartridges. Since I already had a tin of SPG lube, I used that to dip them in. I find SPG has a very similar texture to 1:8 tallow:beeswax.

These fit easily down my Pedersoli P58 and P53, which like .578-sized minies, and fit more firmly in my Hoyt and Whitacre Richmond Carbine and P53 barrels, which like .576-sized minies.

After lubing, these measure .576-.578.

I did not install base plugs in these. Nor are they charged. This was mostly an exercise to make sure I could paper-patch and lube the .566 diameter bullet and end up with a final size that was loadable. The 9# onion paper is about .001" thick.

Picture:

http://i.imgur.com/SFSVFjh.jpg

Steve

[maillemaker]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

I have made up some 1855 Enfield cartridges tonight. Ready for charging.

http://imgur.com/a/rlhGQ

Steve

[maillemaker]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

Here is a video I have made on my attempt at creating 1855 British Enfield cartridges:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzA9aXEyT-c

Steve

[maillemaker]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

Looking through Volume 4 of Dean S. Thomas' Round Ball to Rimfire, it appears that of the few CSA manufactured Enfield cartridges, all styles are represented. Some appear to be made with .550 diameter bullets, and some are made with .566 or so diameter bullets. Some appear to be made using the 1855 pattern, and some appear to be made using later patterns.

Does anyone have contact information for Dean Thomas?

Steve

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

http://www.thomaspublications.com/contact.html

I have actually called, and Dean answered the phone, and was glad to answer questions! I have used the email, too.

[maillemaker]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

Thanks!

Steve

[erik]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

This is a wonderful thread. The different modes of firing and the references are valuable.
The QOR display is important as it shows the different modes of firing in a half company strength.
One point should be made, in the timings for firing on the march, while the QOR were not firing live they also did not have ball bags and had to draw their cartridges from their 50 round pouches.

Erik Simundson
More to follow.

[erik]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

The over riding point of contention seems to be the over heating of the barrel. When firing rapidly to win the fire fight the barrel will get hot rapidly to the point where touching it becomes painful.
I have found that this occurs after about 30 rounds.
In the videos provided there is much to do about steadying the rifle under the arm and the sling.
What is not understood is that the QOR are a Rifle Regiment and ordered to do the drill for the short rifle though issued the long rifle.
I commanded this detachment in 1984 and the Riflemen were ordered to grasp the sling and lock the rifle to the body with their elbow.
As you can see this enabled them to fire and reload rapidly with no injury.

Erik Simundson

[maillemaker]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

Replicas of CSA manufactured copy of British Enfield cartridge, 1855 pattern. Based on extant example #540, "Round Ball to Rimfire Volume 4", Dean .S Thomas. .550" diameter Pritchett bullet with no base plug. Cartridges need to be lubricated and charged.



Original:


Lubed. On the right is pre-heated. Pre-heating allows the wax to stay liquid too long and soak into the brown paper. In the future I will not pre-heat.

[maillemaker]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

OK, I have been experimenting with the 1855, 1859, and 1860 patterns of the Enfield cartridge.

Strangely, with the exception of the 3 slits cut into the latter two patterns to ease the shedding of the wrapper from the bullet, I am convinced that the 1855 pattern is actually the best pattern! The 1859 and 1860 patterns seem to be regressions, not improvements of the design.

The 1855 design is quite simple, with an internal powder chamber, and an outer wrapper that forms both the paper wrapping of the bullet and the excess on the opposite end of the cartridge being twisted to seal in the charge.

The 1859 design, for some reason that is not clear to me, lengthened the powder chamber wrapper to match the length of the outer wrapper, which resulted in a double-thickness of paper to tear off during loading.

This was discarded in the final design, which kept the inner tube long, but shortened the outer paper back to close to its original length. To keep the powder chamber from being pulled out of the outer wrapper, the two were joined by a gummed band. But if that gummed band gives way while you are trying to tear the tail off of the cartridge, then the entire inner powder chamber will be pulled out of the cartridge, leaving you with an unopened bag of powder in one hand and the paper-patched bullet with excess paper in the other!

I am glad to see that at least one extant Confederate-made copy exists made on the 1855 pattern, because that is the pattern I want to use!

Anyway, I digress.

The reason I am posting is that I cannot find primary sources for the final 1860 pattern of Enfield Cartridge.

I am referencing Bruce Carin's article here:

http://4thla.weebly.com/uploads/3/7/9/6/37969349/enfield_cartridges_by_bruce_carins.pdf

But I am convinced that his assembly instructions for the final pattern are incorrect.

In the 1855 and 1859 cartridges, the wide end of the trapezoid always is positioned at the end of the mandrel or bullet - the end that gets twisted off. This is done no doubt because the "long" end of the trapezoid, once anchored by twisting, serves to prevents the completed cartridge from unrolling.

But in Mr. Carins' depiction of the 1860 pattern, he is showing the wide end of the trapezoid at the opposite end of the mandrel. Having tried this, I don't think that is correct. I think he has the inner chamber and inner wrapper backwards.

I have tried contacting Mr. Carins subsequent to getting permission to post his article on our web site but have not heard back; I just sent another email so hopefully he will respond.

I have received a copy of The British Soldiers Firearm 1850 - 1864 by Dr. C.H. Roads, and while it has an illustration of the 1860 pattern components, his assembly instructions are unclear.

Does anyone know the primary source for the final 1860 pattern of the Enfield cartridge?

Thanks,
Steve

[erik]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

Steve,
I can't believe how long I have missed referencing a reprinted text from Thomas Publications PO Box 3031, Gettysburg Pa. 17325.
The title is;
"Rifle Ammunition.
Being
Notes on the manufactures connected therewith.
As Conducted in
The Royal Arsenal, Woolich."
By Arthur B. Hawes
London, 1859
The book also contains a suppliment on Confederate arsenal manufacture along with a photographic suppliment on Civil War cartridges.
A slim volume but packed with data.
I also have an original copy of "Instructions For Musketry, 1860". This contains a page on cartridge manufacture by the soldier.

Erik Simundson

[maillemaker]

Re: Difference between Confederate and British Enfield cartridges?

Hi Erik,

The Hawes book is available online for free:

https://books.google.com/books?id=xVIBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR10&lpg=PR10&dq=hawes+rifle+ammunition&source=bl&ots=Ls27ezT2iN&sig=crRrwV9EDOHBpeqJ0r_uHap_AFE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAmoVChMInOPwqK6LyQIVyiQmCh3HYwsb#v=onepage&q&f=false

But his instructions are for the 1859 pattern, which has the inner and outer envelope of the same tail length, resulting in the double-thickness of tear-off tail that the 1860 pattern was designed to address.

The book also contains a suppliment on Confederate arsenal manufacture along with a photographic suppliment on Civil War cartridges.
A slim volume but packed with data.

That is in the Hawes work? Can you point out the passage to me? Or is that something added to the reprint by Thomas Publications?

Do any of the above works you cite provide instruction on the final 1860 version of the cartridge?

Thanks,

Steve