Ammo A tale of two Miniés

KHyatt

Corporal
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
I have recently unpacked some boxes and came upon one Minié ball that I acquired when I was at Vicksburg some years ago. I am NOT a collector - I have exactly THREE Miniés that I purchased or were given to me. Sooooo, I'm probably going to rely on those of you who do have extensive collections to answer the following. Here's the setup: I have been casting Lyman 575213OS (nominal 460 gr, 0.575") Miniés to shoot in several muskets. So far I've had varying success - still experimenting, but that's not the reason for posting. I took a typical Minié from a recent pour and measured it: 454 gr, 0.577" x 0.925" long. Out of curiosity, I compared it to the ONE relic Minié that I pulled out of my box the other day: 513 gr, 0.574" x 1.07"+/- long. The differences triggered some questions. Below are pics of each.

My questions are: (1) How consistently do the found Minié balls meet the original specifications? As I recall, in 1855 the specs for a "58 caliber" round were 500 gr, 0.5775". (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about these numbers.) (2) I assume that there are differences between Union-made, Confederate-made, and imported Miniés. Does anyone know how significant the differences were? (3) How much did the military specs evolve, if at all, during the war? Finally, (4) How were the Miniés molded? I can see and feel the joint marks but there's no evidence of a significant sprue as on the top of the Lyman bullet. I'm limiting my questions to the common three-cannelure bullet. (Don't be impressed - I had to look that up.)

I guess I do have one more question: It seems difficult for modern mold makers to match the historic 500 grain, 0.577" (0.5775" per original spec), conical cavity bullet, even the expensive custom mold makers. Why is that? I see that "old style" Minié molds are all over the map.

Of course, all insights are welcome - I'm a novice.

Minies.jpg
 
(1) How consistently do the found Minié balls meet the original specifications? As I recall, in 1855 the specs for a "58 caliber" round were 500 gr, 0.5775". (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about these numbers.)
Manufacturing tolerances vary then as now. Found minies are over 150 years old. No telling how much they've lost from handling.

(2) I assume that there are differences between Union-made, Confederate-made, and imported Miniés. Does anyone know how significant the differences were?
Imported minies for the Enfield were "slick" sided and designed for use as a paper patch bullet. IRRC, many of the minies produced up north were swaged from lead wire others were cast. It depended on who was making them.

(3) How much did the military specs evolve, if at all, during the war?
There was experimentation going on all through the War. Minie collecting can be a subject unto itself.

(4) How were the Miniés molded? I can see and feel the joint marks but there's no evidence of a significant sprue as on the top of the Lyman bullet. I'm limiting my questions to the common three-cannelure bullet. (Don't be impressed - I had to look that up.)
Minies were both swaged and cast during the War.

I guess I do have one more question: It seems difficult for modern mold makers to match the historic 500 grain, 0.577" (0.5775" per original spec), conical cavity bullet, even the expensive custom mold makers. Why is that? I see that "old style" Minié molds are all over the map.
That's because there was a wide variation in minie design although the "Burton" is probably the most common. As for mold makers, casting lead is not an exact science. The way molds are made- first a tool called a "cherry" is made. It's used to cut the cavities in the mold for any given design. That tool wears leading to variance in the cavity during a production run of molds, hence not all ".577" molds cast at .577. Also affecting this is mold material, alloy of lead, casting temp and other variables. So your question shouldn't be "why can't the mold makers produce X mold?" It should be how can I use my mold to achieve X desired result of this design.

Another comment here, don't get hung up on .577 being a spec during the War if you plan on shooting live with any hope of accuracy. Most of the repops from spaghetti land have bores that measure as large as .580 and I've seen a couple well north of that. If you want the musket to shoot minies accurately, start with as pure lead as you can get. Wheel weights are a nonstarter. Cast your minie a tad larger than the bore and then swage it down to .001-2 under bore size. Use only real black powder and quality caps and start with a moderate charge and work upwards. Use a natural based lube. These are the basics, work from there and most rifle muskets are capable of pretty decent accuracy.
 
Thanks for all the information! Mostly I was just interested in the specs and practices during the war. I've got a lot to go on (thanks to you and others) for my own casting/shooting. I finally thought to look in the Ordnance Manual for answers. The description of the swaging process explains why bullets that don't appear to be cast still have a mold mark such as those that are cast in a mold. The manual even explains how the excess lead forced from the swaging die was to be trimmed by HAND! Wouldn't want that job.

The manual gives the bullet size but does not state tolerances. Does anyone know more about what tolerances might have been allowed?
 
I'm not sure if you posted this topic simply out of historical interest or because you are trying to get better accuracy from your muskets....maybe its a bit of both.

If it's in regards to accuracy, your bore diameter may be larger than the original specs due to wear. For example, the .577 bore in my original Pattern 1853 Enfield is actual closer to .585, this despite the fact I still have rifling. I can't get any accuracy using .575 Minies. I need a larger mould diameter and moulds in the .583 range are harder to find than an original musket! Just a few thousands of an inch make a real difference. There are some threads on the Forum re the topic of moulds and/or accuracy, so do a search and see if there is any useful information in those. Here's a thread I started a few months back:

 
I'm not sure if you posted this topic simply out of historical interest or because you are trying to get better accuracy from your muskets....maybe its a bit of both.

If it's in regards to accuracy, your bore diameter may be larger than the original specs due to wear. For example, the .577 bore in my original Pattern 1853 Enfield is actual closer to .585, this despite the fact I still have rifling. I can't get any accuracy using .575 Minies. I need a larger mould diameter and moulds in the .583 range are harder to find than an original musket! Just a few thousands of an inch make a real difference. There are some threads on the Forum re the topic of moulds and/or accuracy, so do a search and see if there is any useful information in those. Here's a thread I started a few months back:


Thanks, I do appreciate this information and I read your thread. I've got all this great information too, just very little time to experiment. I'll go to the range tonight and see what happens.

But this time I'm more interested in the history. I just haven't yet found answers to most of these questions in reading the Ordnance Manual or other sources. So, still hoping someone out there knows (and I've added a couple of things):
  • Period manufacturing tolerances?
  • Did both North and South import the English Pritchett ball cartridges?
  • Were any Burton "Miniés" manufactured in England or elsewhere in Europe for the North?
Thanks again to all you smart guys!
 
Another comment here, don't get hung up on .577 being a spec during the War if you plan on shooting live with any hope of accuracy. Most of the repops from spaghetti land have bores that measure as large as .580 and I've seen a couple well north of that. If you want the musket to shoot minies accurately, start with as pure lead as you can get. Wheel weights are a nonstarter. Cast your minie a tad larger than the bore and then swage it down to .001-2 under bore size. Use only real black powder and quality caps and start with a moderate charge and work upwards. Use a natural-based lube. These are the basics, work from there and most rifle muskets are capable of pretty decent accuracy.


Lube is extremely important to shooting black powder. That's what keeps the fouling soft to allow easier loading. A lube made of a 50/50 mix of lard and beeswax (with a splash of liquid soap) has been my go-to for years. Cleaning involves hot soapy water, nothing more to remove the fouling. I've been using barrels from Whitacre's Machine Shop for Civil War period weapons. They're accurate and if he says it's .577, it's .577, period. Yes, use pure lead. Wheel weights are fine for smokeless reloads but don't function well with black powder. The "shove" from black powder isn't like the "smack" from smokeless powder when it's ignited.
 
Last edited:
Lube is extremely important to shooting black powder. That's what keeps the fouling soft to allow easier loading. A lube made of a 50/50 mix of lard and beeswax (with a splash of liquid soap) has been my go-to for years. Cleaning involves hot soapy water, nothing more to remove the fouling. I've been using barrels from Whitacre's Machine Shop for Civil War period weapons. They're accurate and if he says it's .577, it's .577, period. Yes, use pure lead. Wheel weights are fine for smokeless reloads but don't function well with black powder. The "shove" from black powder isn't like the "smack" from smokeless powder when it's ignited.

Lube is extremely important to accuracy as it minie size. I've found that the combo of beeswax/lard to be quite a bit better than using crisco and that was through actual head to head testing changing only the lube.

Ditto on Whitacre's barrels. I have one and it's on the money and just plain shoots.
 
Back
Top