Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shooting for the historical experience?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Shooting for the historical experience?

    Hallo!

    This will not be of interest to most lads, but comes in part from a longer discussion among lads who wanted to look at Civil War firearms closer to the way Civil War soldiers did. Meaning, rather than just being involved in blank "musket," carbine, or revolver firing... taking some time aside to make up Period cartridges with Period bullets and charges not only to "feel" what it was "like," but maybe to see how well or poorly they can shoot.

    :)

    In some cases, one can make up Period cartridges and simulate what it felt like, but it gets complicated when one wants to emulate the experiences. Why? I know a few who strive to shoot a Period cartridge in a Period bore (as far as possible) for the "more historic" rather than the blank fire of reenacting,, living history, and presentations.

    The Fly in the Ointment lies with the firearms. Obviously, originals in mint or excellent condition such mechanical sound and not having worn or shot out bores are best. But, most lads use Italian reproduction firearms and there lies the rub. It can get really complicated fast when it comes to Italian reproductions, and especially say Italian reproduction revolvers beyond just bore size. On can split hairs and ponder whether a .54 repro Sharps is the same as a .52 original when fired. Or a .54 repro Gallagher Carbine versus a .50 original.

    But, revolvers are the worst.

    Historically, the Italians started out the repro business in the face of a determined opposition or resistance from Civil War arms collectors, historians, and writers that reproducing again CW revolvers would lead to wide spread fakery and counterfeiting. So, one of the "compromises" was to changed the number of grooves and/or change the direction of the rifling twist to be a dead giveaway.

    Another was a matter of production costs and economics.... so even or straight button cut rifling replaced the gain twist brooch cut rifling of original Colt and Remington revolvers.

    AND, in the knowledge base and climate of the 1950's and 1960's, it seemed that folks did not realize that martial arms were fed with arsenal or contract made cartridge packs or packets made with conical bullets and not everybody "running round ball" home-making their own (kind of a "civilian' thing for folks too cheap or too far from stores to buy commercial ammunition).

    Say what?

    Original Colt and Remington revolvers were made with well-finished, brooch cut rifling that was deeper at the muzzle than it was at the breech. For example, original Remington M1863 New Model Army revolvers had a cylinder end rifling twist of 1:60 and 1:18 at the muzzle.
    So, they shot conicals fairly well or well enough for the 25 yard concept with 30 grains per Ordnance or sometimes in the mid to upper 20's...and setting aside Colt's flimsy rear sight notch on the hammer nose that disappears and eliminates one's sight picture when the trigger is pulled. Or, the slightly better 'groove' in the Remington's upper frame."

    BUT, with their uniform depth rifling, Pietta uses a 1:30 twist and Uberti a 1:32. Both shoot a round ball best, for the longer a conical is, the less stable it is in a faster twist (in general the opposite of a round ball in a fast twist).

    Lads I know will compromise on the conicals, by trying to cut the velocity by reducing the powder charge down from the Ordnance spec of 30, down to 25, 21, 18, or 15 for example.

    Yeah, somewhat of a "historical mess." Meaning, for the lads who want to shoot a historical cartridge with the Period charge, bullet, and cartridge form are largely defeated by Italian revolvers not being historical copies. Which either leaves the modern shooters unknowingly shooting round balls, or perhaps looking to be "competitive" and so they shoot a round ball that CW soldiers were not issued.

    And last.. I have not followed it as I do not shoot sight modified 'target' versions of CW revolvers. Anyways, sights aside, for the extra cost, one can buy "target revolvers" with gain twist rifling. Pedersoli now has released a new "Pedersoli Premium Match Grade" (PPMG) and/or 'Premium Match Grade" (PMG). barrel line that can be had on a Remington M1864 NM Army that is modified with action and sights as well, an dis finished in a matte black so as not to throw glare on sunny days...



    "Remington Pattern

    After the success obtained in the target shooting with Rogers & Spencer “Pedersoli” Target model and under specific requirements from shooters, we introduced this new target revolver, produced on the Remington model. The materials used are of the best quality, enhancing the ballistic characteristics of the barrel, of the cylinder and of the trigger set mechanism. The gun has been expressly “customized” by our crafts-workers and shooters, with the purpose to give the gun a good functionality with the very first use. The non-reflecting barrel, the anti-wear cylinder and the rifling twist have been designed to give the shooter the best chance."


    Once Upon a Time I was listening to a presentation from two Berdan Sharpshooter reenactors at Antietam instructing the crowd. One said that the Sharps NM1859 Rifle fired a six inch bullet. And with their Sharps NM1859 Rifles, Berdans could hit targets out to one (1) mile. It seemed to me that the reenactor had never live fired his repro Sharps to see what they actually could do...

    :)

    Curt
    Curt Schmidt
    In gleichem Schritt und Tritt, Curt Schmidt

    -Hard and sharp as flint...secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster.
    -Haplogroup R1b M343 (Subclade R1b1a2 M269)
    -Pointless Folksy Wisdom Mess, Oblio Lodge #1
    -Vastly Ignorant
    -Often incorrect, technically, historically, factually.

  • #2
    Re: Shooting for the historical experience?

    Thanks Curt. I find it hard to fathom that folks would go through all the effort and expense to aquire a firearm ...just to shoot blanks through it.
    I met a chap awhile back, who represented himself as a big-time reenactor with loads of experience and campaigns and big talk about maneuvers and staff and events, etc. Yet the guy hardly new how to shoot his guns. He could load them with coco puffs till the cows came home, tho.:tounge_sm
    --Mark Jacobsen

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Shooting for the historical experience?

      I have found that when ever I ask about live fireing CW firearms, that most re-enactors don't have a clue about the "real" use of their firearms. I know this is a "blanket statement", but it is largely true in my experience. I have found people who are familiar with the actual "live firing" of CW firearms, but they are usually not re-enactors.
      Kevin Spangler

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Shooting for the historical experience?

        I reenacted for more than 15 years and fired a total of 10 live rounds at a demonstration once. At that event, there were no cartridges produced. They were loaded like you would load a civilian hunting rifle.
        Not in a military manner at all. About six years ago, I joined a group of guys that live fire original and reproduction CW arms. since then, I have learned to make, pour and mold the minnies, make the paper
        cartridges and fire US and English cartridges for the Enfield. It really gives you better insight into how the average soldiers loaded and fired their weapons when you actually live fire. It's a lot different from
        firing blanks at a reenactment. One of a few things that I notice is different is you get much dirtier when dealing with a lubricated minnie. My uniform acquired some added grime that it never did from blanks.
        I also make and fire cartridges for my .36 Navy. (not that often because pistol cartridges are harder to make).

        Gordon Morey
        Gordon Morey
        4th U.S. Infantry, Co. E
        AK Living History Battalion
        Queen City #761

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Shooting for the historical experience?

          The other thing about firing live rounds through your rifled musket is that after about 10 rounds with the the build-up of black powder residue from each shot it becomes a real chore trying to ram home the minnie. Hence the development of the Williams Cleaner round back than. Of course the Williams was not entirely effective and many of the boys did not like using them.

          Firing 30...40...50 rounds without having to clean your musket is not correct in that regard. That is why soldiers mention running water down the barrel to clean them during battle.
          Louis Zenti

          Pvt. Albert R. Cumpston (Company B, 12th Illinois Vol. Inf.-W.I.A. February 15, 1862)
          Pvt. William H. Cumpston (Company B, 12th Illinois Vol. Inf.-K.I.A. February 15, 1862 Ft. Donelson)
          Pvt. Simon Sams (Co. C, 18th Iowa Inf.-K.I.A. January 8, 1863 Springfield, MO)
          Pvt. Elisha Cox (Co. C, 26th North Carolina Inf.-W.I.A. July 3, 1863 Gettysburg)

          "...in the hottest of the fight, some of the rebs yelled out...them must be Iowa boys". Charles O. Musser 29th Iowa Infantry

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Shooting for the historical experience?

            Hallo!

            Oddly enough, historically, Elijah Williams' patent was for a device to improve musket or any projectile's accuracy not to help clean it. He did not invent a bullet or projectile as such, he just invented what he called a "wad" (I don't know why he called it that..) that consisted of two or more disks with slits that could be attached to any form of (muzzleloading) projectile to completely eliminate "windage."

            Ordnance's first trial was less than impressive.

            Williams' regrouped, and came at it again with the musket ball angle. Gathering a endorsement or two, one from Hiram Berdan, he secured a second trial where the results of using a "Williams' ball' in a Remington and a Springfield with 40 shots reported a 169% increase in the "Remington" and 73% in the Springfield RM in accuracy at 200 yards.
            It was enough to convince Ripley to order another trial.

            Using a Springfield RM, another run of shots at 150, 300, and 500 yards. Results were so poor for 500 yards that further shooting was dropped. For 150 yards, after a few practice rounds, 109 consecutive rounds were fired without having to clean. Testing also including firing Williams' bullets and then regulation ones, the results were "no difference."

            The last paragraph in Springfield Master Armorer E.S. Allin's report read: "The Williams bullet evidently keeps that part of the barrel through which it passes free from foul and lead."


            Yet another of tests, showed results of the Williams' bullet having an "absolute superiority of nearly 100 per cent."

            In the end, the additional cost of twenty-some cents per bullet (later countered by using a smaller bullet using less lead), and a general widespread dislike for them n the field, later followed by Williams death pretty much killed the idea.

            Curt
            Curt Schmidt
            In gleichem Schritt und Tritt, Curt Schmidt

            -Hard and sharp as flint...secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster.
            -Haplogroup R1b M343 (Subclade R1b1a2 M269)
            -Pointless Folksy Wisdom Mess, Oblio Lodge #1
            -Vastly Ignorant
            -Often incorrect, technically, historically, factually.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Shooting for the historical experience?

              Far from all CW infantrymen found it difficult to fire several packets of cartridges from their pieces w/o cleaning. I've a Harpers Ferry .54 Mississippi which, uncleaned, will handle minies all day and, contrary to the norm, is quite accurate. A Remington-Maynard rifled percussion conversion of an M.1822 is my most accurate military muzzleloader and refuses to foul with loads of common Goex powder. One experiences some mounting resistence when loading, then a round seems to clear the bore.This phenomenon appears to involve the happy convergence of smooth barrel innards, the right amount of the right lube, soft lead, and close bullet/bore fit. Conversely, I've an older Yeck M.1861 replacement barrel which, inexplicably, has always fouled towards the muzzle after eight or ten shots.

              And for an authentic shooting experience, try the government load of 70 grains of powder behind a 750 grain minie in a rifled .69. After a few rounds, it's not a fouled bore which will bring your shooting session to an end.
              Last edited by David Fox; 07-11-2014, 07:44 PM.
              David Fox

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Shooting for the historical experience?

                Originally posted by Cumpston1862 View Post
                The other thing about firing live rounds through your rifled musket is that after about 10 rounds with the the build-up of black powder residue from each shot it becomes a real chore trying to ram home the minnie. Hence the development of the Williams Cleaner round back than. Of course the Williams was not entirely effective and many of the boys did not like using them.

                Firing 30...40...50 rounds without having to clean your musket is not correct in that regard. That is why soldiers mention running water down the barrel to clean them during battle.
                I remember reading that the powder in the CW was better than our modern black powder. For one thing the quality of the powder depended on what type of tree the charcoal was derived from. I believe it was the Augusta Arsenal that was located near a good supply of the desired trees. The mixture was also a little different. I can't remember if I read this in one of the Round Ball to Rim Fire volumes or in another manual. Sorry I can't remember exactly where it was.
                Jim Mayo
                Portsmouth Rifles, Company G, 9th Va. Inf.

                CW Show and Tell Site
                http://www.angelfire.com/ma4/j_mayo/index.html

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Shooting for the historical experience?

                  Live firing in line of battle is a very interesting learning experience. I have live fired both .58 rifled muskets and .69 buck and ball quite a bit. I consider myself a pretty fair shot. However, 2 different times I have had the opportunity to stand in a company formation with silhouettes at 50 yards and fire as a company, and it was an eye opening experience. It is completely different in one respect to load, aim and fire on your own, with a good sight picture and breathing control than to load in a formation as fast as you can, and then at the commands squeeze the trigger off with the volley whether you have a good sight picture or not, your breathing is right or not, etc. Guys firing individually were pretty darned good as a group. When we did fire by company, we went down and counted the hits, and had about a 10% hit rate on the targets. That really made an impression on my understanding of Civil War combat.
                  Frank Siltman
                  24th Mo Vol Inf
                  Cannoneer, US Army FA Museum Gun Crew
                  Member, Oklahoma Civil War Sesquicentennial Commission
                  Company of Military Historians
                  Lawton/Fort Sill, OK

                  Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay -- and claims a halo for his dishonesty.— Robert A. Heinlein

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X