Parker Hale bullets

[jmoore]

As a point of information, original British bullets had no grease grooves. The bullets were just dipped in bees wax/grease.

British type Minie on the far right.

And measured about 0.556" IIRC! Have tried some of those with little success so far. Haven't added the wooden base plug/iron cup trick on 'em, yet, though.

My Circa 1860 Tower short/Sergeant's rifle likes about 45-50 grs. 60grs and over loads just don't shoot well enough with standard Minies to consider for hunting. (Have photos in the camera of said but haven't seen the camera in some time, BTW. Probably in the pine scented hunting clothes box...) Same goes for the US rifled muskets I've shot. The only reproduction rifled musket I've ever tried was hopelessly inaccurate no matter what!

[gsimmons]

The Pritchett balls were undersize because the cartridge acted as a patch. That's why the Enfield cartridge has the bullet reversed to that of the American cartridge. The end of the cartridge was dipped in pig or cow fat(depending on which side of the sepoy uprising you were on).

[gew8805]

Please let us know who is making swaged musket balls. The Enfield and Parker Hale muskets shoot best with 65 grains of ffg. Under loads will not seat the skirt in the barrel. Those under loads may be all right for 25-50 yards, but a hunting and target shooting load requires 65 gains. As a point of information, original British bullets had no grease grooves. The bullets were just dipped in bees wax/grease.

There are more than a majority of experience target shooters and holders of world records that will tell you that you are wrong with that opinion. But, don't take my word for it, check with the N-SSA, the Muzzle Loaders Association of Great Britain as well as the NMLRA to get real information.

[Jim]

As a point of information, original British bullets had no grease grooves. The bullets were just dipped in bees wax/grease.

That is not strictly accurate. The ends of the paper Cartridges were dipped in the lube blend. The bullets (most commonly the "Pritchett") were swaged to about .564 (That's off the top of my head and may not be exact but close enough to give you the idea.) dia. USA paper cartridges were rolled with the bullet nose forward.
English and most later CSA cartridges were rolled with the bullet nose pointed in. In practice the cartridge tail was bitten off and the powder poured in the barrel, the cartridge was then reversed and the lubed end inserted in the barrel. The remainder of the paper was then discarded. What was happening was they were effectively shooting paper patched bullets. Thus, no need for grease rings.
In the image, the bottom two are English cartridges (allegedly original) with lubed ends.

Attachment 47519

[A. F Medic]

The flyer sent with my bullets lists the maker as Patrick Kaboskey (Google it?) Civil War Era Custom Bullets. He lives in Mukwonago WI. 262-363-4625. Competition Grade Projectiles.

[Jim]

Please let us know who is making swaged musket balls. The Enfield and Parker Hale muskets shoot best with 65 grains of ffg. Under loads will not seat the skirt in the barrel. Those under loads may be all right for 25-50 yards, but a hunting and target shooting load requires 65 gains. As a point of information, original Britishicon bullets had no grease grooves. The bullets were just dipped in bees wax/grease.

There are more than a majority of experience target shooters and holders of world records that will tell you that you are wrong with that opinion. But, don't take my word for it, check with the N-SSA, the Muzzle Loaders Association of Great Britain as well as the NMLRA to get real information.

As for the accuracy of his opinion, you might reconsider the all inclusive nature of yours.
Oh, I agree great accuracy has been obtained by lesser loads and that frequently. But I must say that neither is it correct in all instances. You have to take into consideration the bullet designs, mold manufactures and quality of lead used in making such bullets. I can imagine many cases were skirt expansion could fail to consistently occur with reduced (from originally specified, ie 60-65gr) loads.

[gew8805]

As for the accuracy of his opinion, you might reconsider the all inclusive nature of yours.
Oh, I agree great accuracy has been obtained by lesser loads and that frequently. But I must say that neither is it correct in all instances. You have to take into consideration the bullet designs, mold manufactures and quality of lead used in making such bullets. I can imagine many cases were skirt expansion could fail to consistently occur with reduced (from originally specified, ie 60-65gr) loads.

Interesting. Do you mean in my statement - which I stand completely behind - or do you mean my use of the quote by musketshooter which is an opinion that I do not necessarily agree with but I simply posted in reference to others who do feel the same. And they are far better, more experienced shots - and hunters - than I.

[Jim]

What I was commenting on was your statement thus; "you are wrong with that opinion."* I actually do agree with you in the main but, your statement is all inclusive- ie, that means you're saying that the Enfield and Parker Hale muskets will never shoot best with 65 grains of ffg., and that light-loads will never fail to properly expand the bullet skirts.

There are simply too many variables, as I pointed out, for any one opinion to be all or even nearly so, all inclusive. It was that aspect that I disagreed with. Neither am I picking at grammar, Hardly. Mine's lousy enough as it is. My point is that it fails to allow even an instant under which musketshooter's opinion might hold true.

* This being the opinion, "The Enfield and Parker Hale muskets shoot best with 65 grains of ffg. Under loads will not seat the skirt in the barrel. Those under loads may be all right for 25-50 yards, but a hunting and target shooting load requires 65 gains." originally offered by musketshooter.

If I gave offense. I am very sorry. I certainly did not mean to do so.
Jim

[gew8805]

JIm, thanks for the clarification. You are correct, bullet weight, type and powder charge must be matched for best results. My all inclusive statement may well have been off the mark and, if so, I apologize.

[Jim]

hank you for your courtesy.
I have been on these forums for over 10 years and am a site moderator elsewhere. One thing I always try to keep in mind; While many of us here are well experienced with at least a sound base knowledge (and often far greater than that) on the subjects discussed, many who may read these lines, maybe years from now, may not have that foundation. Therefore I always try to make things as accurate and detailed as I can. When I make a response I am not just talking to 'you', I am posting a reply to all who may ever read it.

That sometimes results in my coming across as nit picking- well, I am but, that's the why of it.