19th century bullets

[The Elderly Kid]

Generously lubed bullets are now favored for CAS because of the long strings required. How were 19th century bullets lubed, primarily the large-caliber pistol bullets? Most people would never fire more than a cylinder full, but the military must have anticipated situations where a trooper would have to fire several cylinders full without a chance for cleaning. Did they make use of a lot of lube?

[Montana Slim]

A few brief comments. Old bullets generally have 2 lube grooves. Similar moulds are available from Lyman. Pistols designed for BP (as originals certainly were) could generally fire 18+ rounds (some significantly more) before they got sluggish. The heat generated by firing fast can cause a problem quicker than the fouling. Having relatively short barrels, pistols do not foul-out quickly as rifles.

Hope this helps.
Slim

[Dick Dastardly]

I have gotten some original Winchester 45-70 Cal bullets from a pard good enough to share them.  He had an old original mold made by Winchester.  Here's what I saw.

The bullets were 390 grains on my scale.  They have three good size lube groves remenisiant of our modern Big Lube™ groves, only not as large.  The Winchester bullets hauled a LOT of lube.  They were a logical developement right at the end of the BP era.  Had black powder hung on longer, Winchester would have pioneered Big Lube™ bullets.  As it is, they did make one fine design that set the trend that didn't happen.  Heathen smokeyless fad powder pushed Holy Black off the market.  Only now is Genuine Powder again coming into it's own.

The new DD/PRS 45-70 RNFP 390 grain bullet is the closest thing in existance to the great Winchester design.  Sadly, the winchester bullets were cast from a mold that had a faulty heal.  The bullets don't fly well because the heals are flawed.  As we all know, the heal is more important than the nose when it comes to making little holes all in one place a long ways away.

Sometime this spring I'll publish photos and data of the fine Winchester development.  FWIW, it never was a six cavity design. . . .

DD-DLoS

[Advertising]

[The Elderly Kid]

Thanks, DD:
Did pistol bullets have likewise generous lube grooves? And what were they using for lube back then? As you might gather, I'm historically minded and trying to duplicate as closely as possible the historical experience.

[Adirondack Jack]

I've pulled apart a few vintage pistol rounds, and lemme tell ya what, NO, they didn't carry enough lube to amount to squat by our CAS standards.  However, nobody with only a pistol likely ever lived long enough to fire a box of ammo through em if so needed in a hurry (who even had that much ammo immediately available?)

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

The other thing to understand is that some of the Black Powder used in the 19th Century was of a better grade than what we commonly use today. Some of it produced less smoke and fouling than modern Goex and Elephant. That is why some precision long range shooters only shoot Swiss today. It produces less fouling and smoke and therefor is less likely to destroy accuracy with fouling.

It's all in the charcoal.

[TAkaho kid]

Elderly Kid,

You don't specify what caliber your shooting. However I can tell you (given a good bp lube) that the old BP bullet designs work just fine wether your hunting, plinking or CAS'ing. Others, Iam sure will disagree. Fortunately several old BP designs are still with us today:

44 WCF: Layman 427098 (200 gr.)

45 Colt: Lyman 454190 (250 gr.)

45-70: Lyman 457124 (405 gr.), 457125 (500 gr.) and the Saco 1881 (500 gr.)

All are multi-grooved and hold sufficient lube and in the case of the 500 gr. the grooves are many and big to boot.

All these designs are as old as dirt and are a near exact copy to those offered in the day. Yes, if you look back at the old records you will find that such bullets as the 500 gr. round nose used in the trapdoor springfield were tested to extreme. Troopers were expected to fire lots of rounds fast and accurately - it was a matter of survival.

If you think that it was all because the powders were superiour back in the day - think again. There is a wonderful letter written by Col. Buffington of the Frankfort Asenal lamenting the fact that even after being given samples of high grade european powders to anylyze and duplicate the leading powder mills of the era (Laflin & Rand, American etc. - all owned by Dupont at the time) still could only produce a mediocre powder at best. His frustration was very apparent.

As for bullet lube: Most bullets in the day were lubed with mixtures comprised of a base of bees wax with either Japan Wax, Bayberry wax or Sperm whale oil modifiers. (Japan & bayberry wax are actually not waxes but fats) Various form of Tallow were popular with those making home made lubes. Unfortunatly some, such as those using sperm whale oil had the habit of drying out over time. (The idea is to keep moisture in the lube so it mixes with the fouling after discharge.)

As for powders: Yes there were good powders (Curtis & Harvey, Oriental, etc.) however there was also a lot of low grade canister powders which were very popular due to the low price. Today we are not so fortunate in our choices. Swiss is the only true sporting grade powder available. Schuetzen is graded as a rifle powder while GOEX and Elephant waver between a musket grade and rifle grade.

As for the fouling they produce: the important issue is the type of wood used and how the charcoal is made and the purity of the ingrediants. If the manufacture sources it from the same supplier who made the charcoal for your grill then I wouldn't expect much. This is the big diffrence between todays powders (with the exception of Swiss & Schuetzen) and those of yesterday.

Today, in spite of the hype, only Swiss releases moisture during combustion. Moisture = soft fouling = accuracy over long strings.

It all comes down to what YOU like and what your firearms like.

Best regards (and yes I am gonna say it) Have a merry Christmas!

T.K.

[Fox Creek Kid]

Takaho Kid took the words right out of my mouth.  This is the very reason that S&W had four, that's right 4, successive gas ring manufacturing elongations culminating in the 3rd Model Russian due to fouling problems. Between 1865 & 1873 only one repeating rifle as well as all pistol cartridges even used inside lubed bullets: the Spencer 56-50. The .44 Russian used outside lubed bullets until the 1880's. The 44-40 came out in 1873 as did the .45 Colt. UMC, C.D. Leet, etc. were in the business of making money and they had to compete with other manufacturers who used cheaper "musket grade" powder as most people then (as now) shopped by price and only discriminating buffalo hunters and serious rifle shooters demanded fine English powders such as C&H.

[Cuts Crooked]

...and in the 1800s, just like today, the pistol generally a last ditch weapon. It was used when nothing else was available or the fighting had come down to hand to hand distances. So no, the military probably didn't much concern itself with the ability to fire multiple cylinders full in battle. 18 rounds would be a an extrordinary number to fire through a Colt in the heat of battle.

[TAkaho kid]

Of the 4,033 cases, cartriges and bullets recovered (1984/1985 excavation and the existing museum collection) at the Bighorn battle site. (Custer and the Benteen/Reno sites combined)

44 Henry and 44 WCF = 27%

1873 Springfield 45-55 = 54%

The remaining 19% were a mixed bag ranging from 44 Colt, 45 S&W, Ballard, Wesson, Enfield etc. to muskets.

Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle Of the Little Bighorn
University of Oklahoma Press 1989

[Delmonico]

Most times a Cavelry trooped was isued 100 rounds for the carbine and 24 for the Colt.  So if ya got 4 cylinders full out of it ya was out anyway.

[Cuts Crooked]

Of the 4,033 cases, cartriges and bullets recovered (1984/1985 excavation and the existing museum collection) at the Bighorn battle site. (Custer and the Benteen/Reno sites combined)

44 Henry and 44 WCF = 27%

1873 Springfield 45-55 = 54%

The remaining 19% were a mixed bag ranging from 44 Colt, 45 S&W, Ballard, Wesson, Enfield etc. to muskets.

Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle Of the Little Bighorn
University of Oklahoma Press 1989

Like I said "extrordinary". Of course that particular battle was unusual in a lot of other ways too, now wasn't it? And very curious that no mention is made of 45-70 cases at all? That would be very odd in light of how the troopers were puportedly armed and the fact that known LBH carbines are currently in the Rock Island Arsenal collection. As I recall some matches have been made b'tween battle field pick ups of brass, after the big fire at the LBH site,  and some of those carbines VIA firing pin indents.

[Montana Slim]

I once used a LBH 1873 Winchester Carbine (RIA collection) to demonstrate how the extractor functioned, among other features of operation. Then instructed my "student" to see for himself....he didn't know I used a LBH gun until later that day. Also hands-on a number of early black rifles and some multi-shot grenade launchers that day. Too many guns, not enough time!

Slim

[Cuts Crooked]

1873 Springfield 45-55 = 54%

Well DUH!!! Now I'm feelin stoopid! Missed that completely! There's the 45-70 cases!

Slim do you mind iffin I envy ya a bit!?!?!

[sundance44`s]

 I read somewhere the army was complaining about the stout recoil of the 45/70 loaded with 70 grs of powder ...so they ordered theirs with the 55 grs . Thus they had a 45/55

[Dick Dastardly]

The "70" in the venerable 45-70 was a design "ideal" powder volume.  Different bullet designs, modern case designs, different reloading techniques, pretty soon the "70" get's lost.

I've loaded the very old original Winchester bullet now and I can't get 70grains of bp under it if I seat and crimp it.  I'm sure that all the original cartridges would have had a crimp to allow for rough handling.  Had they been loaded in Star Line 45-70 brass I'm thinkn' that they would have named the gun the 45-60 or something like it.

With the new DD 45-70 Mk II spire point 500 grain design I've been able to get 69 grains of powder in the case if I seat the bullet out to engage the rifling.  It graphs at 1360fps and is very accurate.  The barrel stays clean and has a nice wet muzzle.  Cleanup is so easy that I simply pull a moosemilk dampened boresnake thru and put the rifle in the rack.  This new bullet is different from the originals in several ways.  First, it's longer.  Second, it's a spire point and has a ballistic coefficent of near .5.  Third, it hauls way more lube than almost all the 19th century originals.

Results this coming season will tell if it is a true improvement over the old designs.

DD-DLoS

[w44wcf]

Driftwood Johnson,

The other thing to understand is that some of the Black Powder used in the 19th Century was of a better grade than what we commonly use today.

Takaho Kid,

If you think that it was all because the powders were superiour back in the day - think again.

I agree with Driftwood Johnson because he indicated that just some, and not all.......

There were a number of black powder mills  in the US back then and some of them did produce a superior product as compared to what is produced in the US today. 

Take, for example, some U.M.C. produced .45 Colt b.p. ammunition that I found and purchased a few years ago. I dissected most of those cartridges and the powder used had a polished appearance and was 5% denser than the Goex I have on hand.  It has been written that the Hazard Powder Company supplied much of the black powder that U.M.C. used. 

I annealed the cases and reprimed with fresh Remington 2 1/2 primers. I loaded the 40 gr. charges of the original b.p. back into the cases and reseated the original 250 gr. bullet after replacing the dried lubricant. 

These historic rounds averaged 1,241 f.p.s. in the 24" barrel of my Marlin Cowboy with good accuracy. By comparison, 40 grs. of Goex Cowboy was almost 100 f.p.s. short at 1,150 f.p.s.
Even 40 grs. by weight of Swiss FFG fell short by 30 f.p.s.! 

The fouling was minimal as well......similar to Swiss.

So there definitely were some superior b.p.'s that were produced in the U.S. back in the earlier days of balloon head cases and central fire priming.

Merry Christmas to all........and best wishes for a health, happy and prosperious 2007!
w44wcf   

[TAkaho kid]

Sundance44,

You are correct. The standard 45-70-405 load was considered a bit too stought for the Cav. boys shooting the lighter carbines so the charge was reduced to 55 grains behind the same 405 grain bullet. In fact, quite a few intact cartridges were recovered that when x-rayed showed quite clearly the thick wad used to make up the diffrence.

One trooper, Sgt. Ryan with Reno and Benteen brought along a Sharps chambered for 45 2-1/10" He traded his standard issued 45-55-405's to an infantryman for some 45-70-405's.(The infantry carried the full length rifle) Ryan used these to good effect to counter long range fire coming from sharpshooters ridge. Until recently Ryan's story was in doubt until the dig uncovered and identified 45 caliber bullets on the ridge bearing rifling marks of a Sharps. (The Springfield has seven grooves the Sharps has six)

44WCF:
Interestingly that same letter from Buffington also lamented the fact that due to the poor powder, a small bore rifle (30 cal.) was not feasable at that time even though all the elements had been worked out. In fact he also complained about the inability of the powder manufacturers to "penetrate the veil of secrecy that surrounds the manufacture abroad of smokeless powder..." and manufacture thier own smokeless powder.

The letter was dated August 1889 and addressed to the Chief of Ordnance and the Acting Secretary of War

This may have no doubt contributed to the old trapdoor hanging around as long as it did.

I took an old 45 Colt cartrdige sometime ago. Unfortunatly it had no headstamp. The powder charge was 35 grains by weight of a course 1F powder. It wasn't highly polished but it held minimal fines.

I also took apart a Frankfort Arsenal produced 45-70-405 round dating from March 1889. It has a tinned case and contained 63 grains of fine 3F? powder that was very dusty with little glaze. It surprised me. In fact both the 45 Colt and the 45-70 did. I expected a 3F or 2F in the 45 Colt and certainly a better powder in the 45-70.

These were only a couple of cartridges so I would not base any impression on what I found. I suspect your findings are more in keeping with ammo available to the general public while the military (true to the era) paid handsome prices for sub-standard components. Somethings never change!

I have both an original 44-77 and 45-75-550 cartridges. Both have no head stamp and are loaded with paper patched bullets. I am really reluctant to pull those apart to see how the powder looks!

Neat stuff!

[Fox Creek Kid]

I dissected a 44-90 BN long range round (520 gr. paper patch) and the powder had fines. I still have the powder in a pill bottle.  It was either a UMC or Sharps cartridge. It's impossible to tell as Sharps used UMC brass, however the bullet is swaged which inclines me to believe Sharps. Personally, I think there is a lot of wishful reflection by people today that somehow everything in the past was "Old World" crafstmanship & that's simply not true. The best BP was English and no American manufacturer used it for loading as it was double the cost of premium Curtiss & Harveys BP.

[w44wcf]

DD,
Some original U.M.C. .45-70 headstamped cartridges I dissected contained a 400 gr. bullet and an average of 70.5 grs. of powder.  The compression used by U.M.C. was .30".  By comparison, I loaded 70 grs of the same powder into a R-P .45-70 case and found the compression would increase to .34"....surprisingly not much more.  (Compression measurements taken on a settled powder charge.)

Takaho Kid,

I suspect your findings are more in keeping with ammo available to the general public while the military (true to the era) paid handsome prices for sub-standard components.

My thoughts as well.  It is known that the Gov't. did not want the troops to shoot many of the standard cartridges in practice, so they came up with lesser cost ammunition....45-5-140, .45-20-210, etc.  No doubt they would, most likely,  purchase less costly components as well.

....inability of the powder manufacturers to "penetrate the veil of secrecy that surrounds the manufacture abroad of smokeless powder..." and manufacture thier own smokeless powder.

Interesting history. At the time Buffington wrote that, US powder mfg'rs. were working on developing their own smokeless powder.  In the United States,  the first successful rifle smokeless powders were developed in the early 1890's.  In Santa Cruz, California,  the California Powder Works was developing their "Peyton" smokeless powder for testing by the U.S. Government and the DuPont Powder Company, located in Wilmington, Delaware, was busily working on their smokeless entry for the U.S. Army trials. As a result,  both the  Peyton  and the DuPont entry, ".30 Caliber Smokeless"  powders were adopted for early use in the .30-40.

As you said, "Neat stuff".

Fox Creek Kid,
As you indicated, Curtis & Harvey made the best b.p. in the world (Diamond Grain) back in those days. The evidence does suggest that there were some good quality black powders produced in the U.S. (better than those produced in the U.S. today)......excepting lower quality powders sold to the government.

w44wcf