English .577 paper cartridges w/Pritchett bullts

I have long made and used paper cartridges for my CW type rifle muskets. But, I could never find any Pritchett balls or justify the cost of a mold:sos: (something like $500 I think they are if/when available at all) so had to load US style Minie balls.

Finally, I have found some Pritchett balls of the later .550 diameter complete with clay plugs and for a very reasonable price no less!:clap: (A link and info about/to the supplier will be farther down).

It turns out that, unlike the war years US cartridges, the English version was no mere ball & powder in a paper sack but a carefully manufactured and controlled loading system that was the high point of muzzle loading military rifles.

The big difference, for those that might not know, is that the US cartridges used a grooved and greased ball wrapped in paper nose outward with powder charge behind. The tail was bitten off (Lack of front teeth was an exemption to service.:yikes:), charge poured and the paper completely removed then the bullet was loaded and rammed. Fouling being a problem, a special cleaner bullet with a built in scraping washer was included in every pack of 10.
The English (and later Confederate standard) was smooth sided and loaded nose inward. The powder added and the tail twisted to close the cartridge which was stiffer than the US wartime cartridge.
The paper diameter was strictly controlled and had 3 slots put in the paper around the base of the ball which was then dipped in lube, predominantly beeswax with beef tallow. After the Sepoy rebellion, the lube was changed to plain beeswax and the cartridge tail was twisted free with the fingers instead of by biting.
The powder poured, the cartridge was reversed, the lubed paper end of the bullet inserted in the bore and then the remainder was torn loose and discarded. That left the Enfield loaded (once rammed home) with a lubed paper patch bullet.
Accuracy was proven to great range and fouling said to be no problem at all. I have read many accounts that stated the lack of fouling problem by both period and modern shooters. I will soon put it to the test myself. Maybe tomorrow.

One problem was length. English cartridges were about 3" long and would not fit in our cartridge boxes. Confederate cartridges were made shorter. I have found in making mine that the powder charge fell a good bit short of the chamber made by the stiff inner wrapper so have reduced it by 1/2"-5/8". You will notice a few shorter cartridges in the image. Also, I had not lube dipped these at the time of the photo but have since. One final note is that some CS cartridges of thee English style were still made closed with the folded tail instead of twisting as the English did and that is what I chose to do. Ohh, one MORE thing... The Confederates did not bother about the base plug and made their bullets with thinner side walls to guarantee the bullet base upsetting to the bore. The bullets I have are very thick walled. I have not had occasion to try any yet but I will try some w/out the plug to see how they do. They come with the plugs but they are easily removed. Some fall out on their own.

Here's a link to the supplier. He also has a number of very well written and informative web pages on this subject and is about as well informed on it as any I have yet read. Also, I get nothing for this recommendation, no compensation of any kind. I just personally found him prompt, courteous, downright friendly in fact. The bullets I received appear well cast and consistent. I weighed several and found them so. I haven't had a chance to shoot any yet but will soon and will report on it. I just want to recommend him because I was given good product and service and considerable friendly discussion and am that satisfied with him to make the recommendation.
<http://www.papercartridges.com/pritchett-bullets.html>


1st image L my Enfield cartridges with Pritichett balls (technically, a differently named improvement to the Prichett I forget)*, center left original Enfield cartridges, center R Confederate & English Prichett style cartridges in the lower row and US cartridges above. far R a package and loose original cartridges of the US style and 2 cartridges of the same style I made with .58 Minies.
* the loose bullets are examples of what I got. The cartridge lying across the front is one of a few he provided me (sent w/out powder) as an example.

Attachment 75705 Attachment 75706 Attachment 75707 Attachment 75708

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim

It turns out that, unlike the war years US cartridges, the English version was no mere ball & powder in a paper sack but a carefully manufactured and controlled loading system that was the high point of muzzle loading military rifles.

---

An overall excellent post Jim, and I have seen you post this elsewhere, but I do need to disagree with your assessment of the US .58 caliber cartridge. The US cartridge was far from a "ball & powder in a paper sack", it was a carefully manufactured, high quality and durable cartridge at least equal to the British (or French or Prussian, etc.) product, even during the pressure of wartime manufacture. The US cartridge simply reflected a slightly different loading procedure and was quite effective, both nations recommended to their soldiers that the paper be loaded as a patch while the bore was clean (or relatively so) and that all paper be stripped and tossed away as fouling built up in the bore with continued shooting. This was where the US (and standard CSA cartridge) had the advantage, the cartridge lube was in the grooves of the Burton bullet, not in/on the cartridge paper.

Thanks for the compliment. Perhaps I was a bit harsh about the Federal cartridges.

I see your point on one thing but call on the second. ("see you," "call," that's a joke:madsmile:) But I do mean what I say.
I do agree that the US cartridge was manufactured to high standards right down to swaging the bullets for form and uniformity. The paper used was of a quality uncommon today except from pricey stationary sets.
What I disagree with is the lube/fouling point. The Yank had to stand and peel his bullet out of the paper at least from the second or third shot. That, along with the quantity of .577 P1853 rifles in the ranks is why they reduced the bullet diameter.
Here is a link with primary source instructions on making and loading cartridges of the US pattern. <http://www.n-ssa.org/blog/2016/6/9/t...ball-cartridge>

But, the lube on the British cartridge with its lower windage could be fired almost indefinitely w/out cleaning or jamming the bore. Fallibility in the Confederate manufacturing system is why they included instructions to the troops to load the bare bullet if needed.
By example, one (modern) shooter wrote that he could; "With 550-caliber Pritchett bullets..., using straight beeswax for lube, a baked clay plug, and 13lb cotton rag paper, I can reliably... fire 40 rounds consecutively without any need to wipe the bore."
Another shooter wrote; "I shot 20-30 shots in a row without cleaning, and had no difficulties in loading any shots. The paper cartridges seem to shoot more cleanly than naked bullets; I suspect the paper patch scrubs the bore during loading and shooting."

Here are two forum threads that get very in-depth on this subject (Paper cartridges). <http://www.n-ssa.net/vbforum/showthr...range-tomorrow> And, <http://noebulletmolds.com/smf/index....owposts;u=1511>

As for testing my cartridges, Sunday was called on count of rain. I'll try them yet!