Dropped or Spent bullets?

FiremarshalBill

Private
Joined
Feb 4, 2016
It seems to me that the vast majority of the ACW lead bullets I've ever found seemed to be in pretty good shape - with corrosion, of course, but with only minor dents or dings, some in almost pristine condition. It is also pretty obvious that when a fired bullet had struck something hard like a rock or a tree, it became severely deformed and misshapen. My question is - Do you think most found/dug bullets (that are in pretty good shape) were simply dropped or spilled cartridges, or were they bullets that were fired but never hit anything and simply ran out of velocity and bounced, skidded, or fell to the ground pretty much undamaged? Is there any sure way to tell the difference between the two?
 
In the case of Minnie balls, One way is to get a magnifying glass and check to see if there is rifling marks on it. Sometimes very pristine bullets appear dropped, but upon closer examination slight rifling can be detected.

Another way is to look around the nose to see if there is any indication the bullet had been "rammed" into a gun barrel. Sometimes those can be very slight but detectable too.
 
I used to relic hunt many years ago I'd have to say most nice minie balls found were dropped if it was fired you could tell lead is soft it don't take to much to mark or ding it. Most of the patinas that form on lead from years in the ground is harder than the lead itself.
 
Upton J. - I tend to agree, but that brings up the question - how many bullets were actually dropped (spilled, tossed away, discarded, etc.) vs. fired? I would think it would have been less than 2%-3% but that may be low. Has anyone ever done any research on this subject?
 
I don't have any research except for 45 years of relic hunting battlefields and camps both CS & US. As stated above all fired bullets will have some rifling marks. It has been my experience that you find more in the US camps than CS. In Union camps you will find a lot of them and a lot of melted ones in the fire pits as the Union soldiers would use the prepackaged bullet and powder to help start a fire. When we found Gen Wilson's camps in North Alabama during the winter of 64 - 65 I found boatloads of Maynard, Burnside's and Spencer's, as Wilson wanted his entire command outfitted with Spencer's so the other ammo went to the wayside.
 
Very interesting discussion. Not long ago I was given a Minie ball and it has obvious ramrod marks but not rifling marks that I can discern. It's not deformed in any way aside from the ramrod marks. The marks do not seem to be consistent with a removal bit. What say ye of great knowledge about such a specimen ? Fired ? If not, what about the ramrod marks ?
 
I would have too see some photos. If it has NO rifling marks it can't be fire, I would like to see the top on the Minnie to see if its in fact ram rod marks. A lot of 58's were made and packed in boxes for shipment to the place where they were being rolled with the powder and put in the paper, The shipping left a small ring on the nose of the bullet. Not a ramrod mark but a shipping mark.
 
Upton J. - I tend to agree, but that brings up the question - how many bullets were actually dropped (spilled, tossed away, discarded, etc.) vs. fired? I would think it would have been less than 2%-3% but that may be low. Has anyone ever done any research on this subject?
From my experience of detecting more than half of the lead I've found over the years has been drops. I think there would be a difference whether it was a camp (most drops) or a battlefield . Any where the soldiers were concentrated in a small area is where the most drops would be the fired bullets being scattered over a very large area.
 
From my experience of detecting more than half of the lead I've found over the years has been drops. I think there would be a difference whether it was a camp (most drops) or a battlefield . Any where the soldiers were concentrated in a small area is where the most drops would be the fired bullets being scattered over a very large area.

In my early teens I got my start relic hunting at Blakley Al and when you got between the lines all you would find were fired 58's, Enfields Selma lube grooved etc, Behind the lines you found tons of drops. I remember one night finding a whole box of dropped 58's at Murfreesboro that had either been dropped or abandoned.
 
Very interesting discussion. Not long ago I was given a Minie ball and it has obvious ramrod marks but not rifling marks that I can discern. It's not deformed in any way aside from the ramrod marks. The marks do not seem to be consistent with a removal bit. What say ye of great knowledge about such a specimen ? Fired ? If not, what about the ramrod marks ?
I've found ones and have some like that if the ramrod marks are easy to see it probably was fired from a smoothbore musket leaving no rifling marks and then dropped to the ground after it's charge was spent leaving it in a undamaged condition except for the ramrod mark.
 
I would have too see some photos. If it has NO rifling marks it can't be fire, I would like to see the top on the Minnie to see if its in fact ram rod marks. A lot of 58's were made and packed in boxes for shipment to the place where they were being rolled with the powder and put in the paper, The shipping left a small ring on the nose of the bullet. Not a ramrod mark but a shipping mark.

The wife is the real photographer with the good equipment. She says she'll get some photos tomorrow and I'll post them. The marks sure look to me to be from a ramrod but looking with a magnifying glass I don't see any rifling grooves. Curious.

See you tomorrow.
 
Very interesting discussion. Not long ago I was given a Minie ball and it has obvious ramrod marks but not rifling marks that I can discern. It's not deformed in any way aside from the ramrod marks. The marks do not seem to be consistent with a removal bit. What say ye of great knowledge about such a specimen ? Fired ? If not, what about the ramrod marks ?
I'm certainly not a "ye of great knowledge" but will make an observation: I have come across, in field recoveries, bullets with no rifling marks but which appeared to have ramming indentions. In this manner, the team I was apart of, locating and then cataloging artifacts from a battlefield for future preservation in a museum, consulted such researchers of great knowledge. We learned with humility how many of these specimens contained certain casting sprues from the molding process that can easily be mistaken for ramrod impressions.

It was also fun to learn from folks of great knowledge how to compare actual fired .58 minie balls from the battle site. Some were fired by Springfield muskets (Yankee) and others by Enfield muskets (Rebels). The determining factor was examination of the ramrod impressions left on the bullet. The Springfield ramrod and the Enfield ramrod leave distinct and different fingerprints.
 
Last edited:
I'm certainly not a "ye of great knowledge" but will make an observation: I have come across, in field recoveries, bullets with no rifling marks but which appeared to have ramming indentions. In this manner, the team I was apart of, locating and then cataloging artifacts from a battlefield for future preservation in a museum, consulted such researchers of great knowledge. We learned with humility how many of these specimens contained certain casting sprues from the molding process that can easily be mistaken for ramrod impressions.

It was also fun to learn from folks of great knowledge how to compare actual fired .58 minie balls from the battle site. Some were fired by Springfield muskets (Yankee) and others by Enfield muskets (Rebels). The determining factor was examination of the ramrod impressions left on the bullet. The Springfield ramrod and the Enfield ramrod leave distinct and different fingerprints.

I hope you, too, will have a look when I post some good photos tomorrow. My thought is that what my specimen shows are not casting sprues but, as I have said, I'm not even a novice regarding analysis of Civil War artifacts. Hope to see you tomorrow.
 
From my experience of detecting more than half of the lead I've found over the years has been drops. I think there would be a difference whether it was a camp (most drops) or a battlefield . Any where the soldiers were concentrated in a small area is where the most drops would be the fired bullets being scattered over a very large area.

Good point. I'm sure there were drops on the battlefield, but the vast majority of the bullets on a battlefield site would be spread over a much larger area (sometimes several square miles). Most of my bullets (mostly from around Corinth, MS) appear to be drops, and later research showed the field we used was a camp for both US and CS troops during the war.
 
Good point. I'm sure there were drops on the battlefield, but the vast majority of the bullets on a battlefield site would be spread over a much larger area (sometimes several square miles). Most of my bullets (mostly from around Corinth, MS) appear to be drops, and later research showed the field we used was a camp for both US and CS troops during the war.

Your last sentence is what is very important! A lot of times, we relic hunters (I'm not saying "you"or "others", but stupid folks like me) will get consumed with trying to place a relic found at a certain spot with what is more famously known.

I found strange, fired 3 ringers on a battlefield site (private property) among other obvious relics from the war. I was convinced I had found rare ACW bullets fired from the battle. The experts told me that the bullets I'd found were not from the ACW, but were, nonetheless, rare. The bullets I'd found were actually manufactured for a gun manufactured in 1866, and these bullets were used in guns that had a brief life span. With a little research, I discovered the site I was hunting, where a Civil War battle had been fought, was also used as a campground for Reconstruction troops in post- war times (1866-1870).

Why Reconstruction troops- or someone else- fired these rounds is beyond me. But the point is, more than just one event might have happened at a singular place.
 
OK then. Here's the images of my Minie bullet. It sure looks to me that there are ramrod marks but I see no evidence of rifling marks which is curious. I suppose the 'ramrod marks' could be from something else but I can't imagine what that something would have been. The marks aren't consistent with the tool used to unload a musket.

So, @alan polk , @upton j. , @ucvrelics.com - what do y'all think ? If you click on an image you get a closer view and scroll through all the images.

And attention @48th Miss. : this is the one you gave me.

IMG_0240.jpg IMG_0241.jpg IMG_0242.jpg IMG_0243.jpg IMG_0245.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm not an expert at all on this. I can't wait for ucvrelics' and others' opinion on this. Here goes my theory.

First off, very great pictures!

Secondly, it does appear to be a ramrod mark. ( I'm just assuming it is a .58 caliber? ) It looks to have been rammed by a Springfield ramrod. Otherwise, it is carved.

I cannot see any rifling marks. I do see the mold seem, though.

Here is my theory. Since I think it was rammed into a rifled gun barrel, I am going to assume it was fired.

Usually, in my opinion, if you can't see rifling, but can determine a ramrod mark, it often meant the minie ball was fired from an unclean barrel, or fired during a battle, late in the contest.

Your specimen appears to show that the soldier who rammed it home had some resistance due to the inside of the barrel becoming fouled, perhaps because of intense combat. This is why yours has a very distinct ramming mark.

Now, there is a term called "leading of the bore." This is where remnants of lead residue (as well as powder) can fill in the rifling grooves after long and repeated use in combat (or poor maintenance) making, in essence, the rifled musket more like a smoothbore - but at the same time, a bit more difficult to ram a bullet into the fouled barrel (meaning the soldier had to apply more pressure and muscle power to get the bullet down the barrel).

Thanks for posting!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top