Author Topic: Rifled musket questions. (Read 1071 times)

JS44 · « **on:** May 29, 2004, 06:44:56 PM »

I got to fire a repro 1853 Enfield today for the 1st time. The only ML rifle I have at the time is a Lyman GPR .50 so the Enfield was a lot different for me. Lately though I've been giving thought to getting a CW era rifled musket. The Enfield I shot today had a point of impact about 3-4" to the right and the target was only 50 yds away. The owner told me that nothing could be done to correct the windage problem. He also said that his rifle wasn't very accurate. I forgot who made his although he did tell me. I just don't remember.
The question is what, if anything, can be done with a rifle like this to correct a windage problem? That and what kind of accuracy should be expected from something like a repro Enfield, Springfield, or Zouave? Are there any brands to look for or to aviod?
Thanks.
JS

Ramrod · « **Reply #1 on:** May 30, 2004, 02:24:46 AM »

First off, these guns can be quite accurate with the right load. Usually light on the powder and tight on the minie. No more than .002 under bore size. After finding a satisfactory load, you work on the sights. There are a few ways to correct windage on these. I have an Enfield musketoon (24 inch barrel) and what I did was grind the front sight down to the square block, slotted it with a hacksaw and put a thick brass blade in its place. then I filed on it until the windage was right. I have heard of guys taking a propane torch to the range and melting the solder and moving the sight until they got it right. Not for me.
Here are some links to some real experts
http://www.civilwarguns.com/
http://www.researchpress.co.uk/targets/enfieldm01.htm

simonkenton · « **Reply #2 on:** May 30, 2004, 03:16:14 AM »

I had a Zouave and the windage was off. I filed off the sight. I took a silver ring that I had bought in Mexico. I took a piece of this ring and soldered it on to the front, that brought the rifle into line. This also helped with deer hunting, because it gave me a light colored front sight, this gave me contrast with the dark colored deer.
It was an accurate rifle, I can't tell you what groups I was getting, this was 20 years ago, but I shot deer with it at 100 yards.
Civil War rifles are beautiful and powerful guns, Ilove them. Sorry I can't help you as to which brands are the best etc but I am sure that others will chime in.
Get one you won't regret it.

filmokentucky · « **Reply #3 on:** May 30, 2004, 05:09:50 AM »

I've got a Parker-Hale 1853 rifle musket that will shoot into 2-3 inches consistently at 100 yards. I use a .575 minie over 70 grains of ffg powder.
Probably someone with better eyes could do better. This one of the rifles that was built in England using the original patterns so it's fairly old,but it still gets the job done. It will also shoot round ball with good accuracy, too.
It is one of my favorite rifles. Lots of range and power and minimal recoil.
Good target and hunting guns and I think they make a pretty good first muzzle loader, too.

JS44 · « **Reply #4 on:** May 30, 2004, 07:08:17 AM »

Thanks for the info. Although I don't remember the exact mfg name of the one one I shot yesterday I recognized it as one of the Italian companies at the time. The powder load was only 55 gr of 2F and I thought that was kinda light for such a big bullet. I use 90 gr of 2F with a .490 ball in my plains rifle. I could live with 3" at 100 yds as long as I can get the windage close enough.
JS

simonkenton · « **Reply #5 on:** May 30, 2004, 07:43:21 AM »

I had been puzzled as to why such a seemingly light charge of powder was recommended for these Civil War rifles.
The reason is that it is the light charge, 70 gr or so, that makes the minie ball work. The skirt of the minie ball must expand as the bullet travels down the barrel so that it will grip the rifling. Ninety or a hundred grains of powder seems right for a big .58 rifle, but if you use that much it is bye bye to accuracy because the minie ball will not grip the rifling.
With those big minie slugs, you still get lots of ft lbs of energy even with the apparent small charge of 70 grains.

crow_feather · « **Reply #6 on:** May 30, 2004, 09:10:20 AM »

Actually, the skirt deforms with much over 70 grains of 2 f powder. The deformed skirt will cause the bullet to lose accuracy. There are minnies with stronger skirts that can handle more powder - but I do not know how much powder a military type rifle can safely burn. I had a 1853 and used 60 grains of 2f with an old style minnie to shoot through the head of a deer at 50 yards. (Don't ask where I was aiming)

C F

filmokentucky · « **Reply #7 on:** May 30, 2004, 09:42:19 AM »

The original charge for the Enfield is supposed to have been two and a half drams (68 grains). 70 grains seems close enough. The breech on an Enfield is pretty stout and due to the slow twist, you can get a R.B. scooting right along and still have excellent accuracy.
If I remember rightly, the minie weighs about 560 grains and probably
moves along at around 1000 f.p.s. or so. Given the level of accuracy, I'd
guess a good shot could take a whitetail at 150 yards with no trouble. And,
the slug may be going faster than that. Has anyone ever chronographed one of these rifles?

JS44 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 30, 2004, 02:31:02 PM »

Having it be able to shoot round balls accurately, in addition to minies, would be a plus for me. Just out of curiosity, do any of you make up the CW era paper cartridges to use?
JS

simonkenton · « **Reply #9 on:** May 31, 2004, 01:55:31 AM »

As to which make is better than the other, one of the posts has brought back to mind that my hunting buddy bought a Parker-Hale from Dixie. He liked the looks of my Zouave and thought he would do it one better. He did!
That Parker-Hale was in a different class from my Italian repro. The workmanship and the stock were just beautiful, and it was very accurate. That has got to be one of the best civil war guns out there. I also remember it was one of the most expensive.

maddmaxx · « **Reply #10 on:** June 02, 2004, 04:55:07 PM »

Navy Arms has some good looking stuff; you might give them the once-over. As to paper cartridges, I saw an article in "Muzzle Blasts" about rolling your own. They used a tapered wood base plug in a minnie full of grease. Claimed it really made the difference at longer ranges. Sorry I couldn't find the article, but maybe NMLRA could help.

JS44 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 04, 2004, 04:55:52 PM »

I've got a few articles somewhere here about how to make paper cartridges. I was wondering what kind of results could be had by using them as opposed to not using them.
JS

l.cutler · « **Reply #12 on:** June 04, 2004, 11:36:27 PM »

The only benefit to the paper cartridges is speed and convenience of reloading. You can also use the plastic tubes on the market for this purpose. Don't get your hopes up about shooting round balls, these rifles were designed for minies and that is generally what works best. I have had several, and presently shoot an Armisport 1861 Springfield. It is one of the cheaper ones, but I am quite happy with the way it performs.

1860 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 05, 2004, 09:55:11 AM »

Those three big touching holes in the middle of the dot were made by a Navy Arms Zouave, .570 balls over 90grs. of 2f Goex, roundballs work great!! I did pretty much the same thing as Ramrod did to his front sight, I used a quarter and just bent it a little..

60

Bowhunter57 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 04, 2004, 05:34:08 AM »

I'm curious. If you wanted to put a little more powder under a minie ball, couldn't you use a paper patch or shot card or an ox yoke wad to keep the skirt from deforming from the heat, yet allow the skirt to flare enough to seat itself for good accuracy?

A guy I used to hunt with used to shoot a .50 T/C Hawken and would put a couple shot cards under a 250gr. minie ball with 110 grains of 2F. That rifle would sound like a field cannon going off, but it had some serious knock down power and 3" groups at 100 yards.

Good hunting, Bowhunter57

fffffg · « **Reply #15 on:** July 04, 2004, 06:00:17 AM »

dont change sight utill you r absolutly certain about load your going to use. when you get the right load it may shoot dead on.. ive got a drilling right now and shooting lead bullets.. when it shoots on i know i have th e original load intended for the gun.. this may or may not be the case with your gun, but for a year i wouldnt change the sights.. this is my standard fixed sight gun advice, and it workd very welll for me.. dave.

crow_feather · « **Reply #16 on:** July 04, 2004, 06:03:55 AM »

I believe that the skirt flare is from pressure rather than just from heat.

Of course, I have been not quite in the ball park before.

C F

KING · « **Reply #17 on:** July 04, 2004, 07:59:17 AM »

Yuppers..............that skirt flare is caused by the pressure of the exploding powder pushing the projectile foreward. Upon detonation the front of the projo is more or less stationary for a couple of miliseconds. The push from behind caused that skirt to go foreward while the front is still in its stationary position,thus.......causing the skirt to flare. If the skirt kinda looks like a umbrella when you recover the slug either you have too much powder behind it,or...........attempt to use a thicker skirt on the projo. It has been awhile since I have shot some of these,but too much flare it not good for accuracy. You can make some paper cart. out of Zig-Zag papers(the large ones) available at any local stop and rob(er....quick type mart). Role em around a dowel and there ya have it. One word of caution..........when using.always make sure that there are not any burning embers left inna bbl upon reloading. Also remember,that big slug does not need a lot of speed to do its job. Stay safe...........King :roll:

S.S. · « **Reply #18 on:** July 13, 2004, 07:40:38 AM »

These guns don't need a lot of powder.
By all accounts I can find, the .577 / 58 cal.
paper cartridges used in the American Civil War
contained only 60 grains of powder, + or -
a few grains. I have heard several people
complain about their Zouave rifles not being accurate.
In almost every case I would blame the Projectile instead
of the Weapon. These type of weapons need soft projectiles
to expand reliably into the rifling. And some of the casting
was terrible on the bullets. One of the guys actually ran his
bullets through a sizing die and smeared the lead.
The bases of his bullets were no longer flat and the gas
was blowing out one side of the muzzle first before the bullet
left the gun. (Gas should blow out in a Donut shape around
the muzzle for good accuracy) He was going to sell me his gun
but told him what he was doing wrong and now he shoots that
rifle quite well.

JS44 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 13, 2004, 11:48:41 AM »

Cabela's has a Zouve for $419.99 but it says it has a 2 peice barrel. What's the story with the 2 piece barrel??? I've never heard of anything like that.
The link should work.
Thanks.
JS

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/product/horizontal-item.jhtml?id=0006801210036a&navAction=jump&navCount=3&indexId=cat20815&podId=0006801&catalogCode=XD&parentId=cat20815&parentType=index&rid=&cmCat=MainCatcat20712&_DARGS=%2Fcabelas%2Fen%2Fcommon%2Fcatalog%2Fitem-link.jhtml.2_A&_DAV=http%3A%2F%2Fa1460.g.akamai.net%2Ff%2F1460%2F1339%2F6h%2Fwww.cabelas.com%2Fcabelas%2Fen%2Fcontent%2FPod%2F00%2F68%2F01%2Fp006801ii01.jpg&hasJS=true[url][/url]

quickdtoo · « **Reply #20 on:** July 13, 2004, 12:27:56 PM »

I'd say they mean the bolster/breech plug is screwed into the barrel making it a 2 piece barrel, nothing unusual about that, strange that they would even mention it, it's the tradition way of making front loaders.

Ramrod · « **Reply #21 on:** July 13, 2004, 01:07:23 PM »

JS44, no they are not really 2 piece barrels. I think what Cabela's is trying to say is that they are replicas of the originals. On most sporting guns, you find a drum with a nipple protruding from it screwed into the side of the barrel, and the breachplug with tang attached is screwed into the end. Many military guns, on the other hand, were built with a one piece forged breech which included the tang, and the bolster, which the nipple was screwed into. The barrel was then attached to this rather long piece. This was considered a great technological improvement over the drum setup, which was really nothing more than a cheap way of converting flinters to percussion.

JS44 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 13, 2004, 01:22:39 PM »

That makes sense but I've never seen it discribed like that.
JS