Enfield vs. Springfield bullets

[Kelly408]

I got into a discussion on another site with a gentleman who claims pretty high shooting credentials. Here are two of his comments that made me take notice.

"Both the Springfields and the Enfields used the same .577 miniball so ammo would not be the reason that different rifles could not be used within the same units. Both the Springfield and the P53 Enfield are bored to .58 caliber." The second quote was in response to me questioning his first quote.

I wondered if this was true, would it be because of different measuring standards, as in the Brits measured the actual diameter of the bullet and the Americans measured the actual bore of the rifle.

I'd love feedback on this.

 

[captaindrew]

Yes and no, there were some P53s made for the US that were bored in .58 but the .577 was more common. There was a difference in ammo for .577 and .58. You can use ammo for .577 in both but .58 not always in .577. I don't remember the exact numbers but I'm sure one of the gun experts will be along before long to elaborate in more detail.

 

[Kelly408]

Yes and no, there were some P53s made for the US that were bored in .58 but the .577 was more common. There was a difference in ammo for .577 and .58. You can use ammo for .577 in both but .58 not always in .577. I don't remember the exact numbers but I'm sure one of the gun experts will be along before long to elaborate in more detail.

Thank you. I didn't know P53's also came in .58. I assume the cartridge is a different color to distinguish the two?

 

[captaindrew]

Thank you. I didn't know P53's also came in .58. I assume the cartridge is a different color to distinguish the two?

Yes, if you look at some photos of original P53s some had a 25 stamped on the barrel meaning they were bored in .577 and some marked 24 for .58. The domestically made cartridges looked the same but were packaged in packs of 10 that were labeled. The Confederates made most of their ammo to .577 so they could be used for both. The US made both. The Confederates also imported some English made cartridges that were different from domestic cartridges. The paper was lubed on the English made cartridges and would be rammed down with the bullet. Domestic cartridges the bullet itself was lubed. I just have my phone handy or I'd send you a few links but if you use the search feature here there's been some good threads right here on the subject including photos. It's an interesting topic for sure.

 

[Don Dixon]

The Federal Army experienced problems with its cartridges for Springfield and Enfield rifle muskets. The diameter of the original design of the Federal Minié bullet for the Model 1855 Springfield rifle and rifle musket was .5775 inches [14.67mm]. Cartridges using these bullets could generally be used in a clean Enfield rifle musket. As the Enfield's bore fouled, however, the bullets from the Federal cartridges might not fit down the bore. Maintaining two sets of cartridges for Springfield and Enfield rifle muskets was a logistical burden, so by January 1862 the Federal Ordnance Office redesigned the .58 caliber cartridge to use a .574 inch [14.58 mm] diameter bullet. It was assumed that this cartridge would work in Springfields, Enfields, and Muster 1854 Austrian arms bored out to .58 caliber and re-rifled. With the change to the new bullet the Ordnance Office, not surprisingly, began to receive complaints regarding the accuracy of the new cartridge in Springfield rifle muskets. Experimentation indicated that the .574 inch [14.58 mm] bullets were too small for the Springfields and that the "force of the powder" was partially lost through blow-by around the bullet. As a result, the powder charge for cartridges using the .574-inch bullet was raised from 60 to 65 grains [3.89 to 4.21 grams] of musket powder in April 1864 with the expectation that the larger powder charge would better expand the bullet in the bore.

Regards,
Don Dixon

 

[MWood1841]

The Federal Army experienced problems with its cartridges for Springfield and Enfield rifle muskets. The diameter of the original design of the Federal Minié bullet for the Model 1855 Springfield rifle and rifle musket was .5775 inches [14.67mm]. Cartridges using these bullets could generally be used in a clean Enfield rifle musket. As the Enfield's bore fouled, however, the bullets from the Federal cartridges might not fit down the bore. Maintaining two sets of cartridges for Springfield and Enfield rifle muskets was a logistical burden, so by January 1862 the Federal Ordnance Office redesigned the .58 caliber cartridge to use a .574 inch [14.58 mm] diameter bullet. It was assumed that this cartridge would work in Springfields, Enfields, and Muster 1854 Austrian arms bored out to .58 caliber and re-rifled. With the change to the new bullet the Ordnance Office, not surprisingly, began to receive complaints regarding the accuracy of the new cartridge in Springfield rifle muskets. Experimentation indicated that the .574 inch [14.58 mm] bullets were too small for the Springfields and that the "force of the powder" was partially lost through blow-by around the bullet. As a result, the powder charge for cartridges using the .574-inch bullet was raised from 60 to 65 grains [3.89 to 4.21 grams] of musket powder in April 1864 with the expectation that the larger powder charge would better expand the bullet in the bore.

Regards,
Don Dixon

Some things never change. Even my modern CVA muzzleloader that I deer hunt with, gets harder to load after a couple shots and fouling in the barrel. This also differs depending on what type of powder you use as well. Some foul more than others. Same thing with accuracy. I typically run a cleaning patch down the barrel after each shot when target practicing and ensuring my scope sights are still good before each season. I can only imagine the array of differences that presented themselves back in mid 19th century.

 

[frontrank2]

This also differs depending on what type of powder you use as well. Some foul more than others.

I have found that FFF is slightly cleaner than FF. I can get a few more rounds in with the FFF before having to swab out the barrel. And I would imagine that back in the day, the soldiers were shooting FF.

 

[Kelly408]

Yes, if you look at some photos of original P53s some had a 25 stamped on the barrel meaning they were bored in .577 and some marked 24 for .58. The domestically made cartridges looked the same but were packaged in packs of 10 that were labeled. The Confederates made most of their ammo to .577 so they could be used for both. The US made both. The Confederates also imported some English made cartridges that were different from domestic cartridges. The paper was lubed on the English made cartridges and would be rammed down with the bullet. Domestic cartridges the bullet itself was lubed. I just have my phone handy or I'd send you a few links but if you use the search feature here there's been some good threads right here on the subject including photos. It's an interesting topic for sure.

The Federal Army experienced problems with its cartridges for Springfield and Enfield rifle muskets. The diameter of the original design of the Federal Minié bullet for the Model 1855 Springfield rifle and rifle musket was .5775 inches [14.67mm]. Cartridges using these bullets could generally be used in a clean Enfield rifle musket. As the Enfield's bore fouled, however, the bullets from the Federal cartridges might not fit down the bore. Maintaining two sets of cartridges for Springfield and Enfield rifle muskets was a logistical burden, so by January 1862 the Federal Ordnance Office redesigned the .58 caliber cartridge to use a .574 inch [14.58 mm] diameter bullet. It was assumed that this cartridge would work in Springfields, Enfields, and Muster 1854 Austrian arms bored out to .58 caliber and re-rifled. With the change to the new bullet the Ordnance Office, not surprisingly, began to receive complaints regarding the accuracy of the new cartridge in Springfield rifle muskets. Experimentation indicated that the .574 inch [14.58 mm] bullets were too small for the Springfields and that the "force of the powder" was partially lost through blow-by around the bullet. As a result, the powder charge for cartridges using the .574-inch bullet was raised from 60 to 65 grains [3.89 to 4.21 grams] of musket powder in April 1864 with the expectation that the larger powder charge would better expand the bullet in the bore.

Regards,
Don Dixon

Thanks for this info. I had no idea.

Yes, if you look at some photos of original P53s some had a 25 stamped on the barrel meaning they were bored in .577 and some marked 24 for .58. The domestically made cartridges looked the same but were packaged in packs of 10 that were labeled. The Confederates made most of their ammo to .577 so they could be used for both. The US made both. The Confederates also imported some English made cartridges that were different from domestic cartridges. The paper was lubed on the English made cartridges and would be rammed down with the bullet. Domestic cartridges the bullet itself was lubed. I just have my phone handy or I'd send you a few links but if you use the search feature here there's been some good threads right here on the subject including photos. It's an interesting topic for sure.

 

[Booner]

I have found that FFF is slightly cleaner than FF. I can get a few more rounds in with the FFF before having to swab out the barrel. And I would imagine that back in the day, the soldiers were shooting FF.

I think in general I would agree with your statement, in addition to FFF burning a little cleaner, it also can give a little higher velocity, perhaps due to a more complete burn which would result in less fowling.

I think we have to keep in mind that we shouldn't assume that the black powder we have today is the same powder that was used 150 years ago. I have a complete cartridge for a Springfield musket and the granular size of the powder is larger than what we would today call FF but are smaller than F. (so is it 1.5 F by today's standards? The F size is based off of Goex Powder). I also think the powder made 150 years ago had a higher moisture content than what we have available to us today. The advantage of a higher moisture content of the powder is that the fowling would remain soft for a longer period of shots fired.

 

[Old Soldier]

Some P53s had been bored to .577 initially (25) and then finished to .58 (24) so the proof would read X 24 X 25 BP. Here is an example of a Birmingham proof and explanation (This is a 100% .58)

Ammunition wise, remember that the Minie was sub-calibre and was expanded to fit the barrel/rifling. The biggest problem is. as Booner states, that the powder used was of varying quality, especially Confederate powder.

 

[Don Dixon]

I think we have to keep in mind that we shouldn't assume that the black powder we have today is the same powder that was used 150 years ago. I have a complete cartridge for a Springfield musket and the granular size of the powder is larger than what we would today call FF but are smaller than F. (so is it 1.5 F by today's standards? The F size is based off of Goex Powder). I also think the powder made 150 years ago had a higher moisture content than what we have available to us today. The advantage of a higher moisture content of the powder is that the fowling would remain soft for a longer period of shots fired.

If one looks at the sizing of the holes in the screens used to grade powder, as specified by the Federal and Confederate ordnance manuals, the grain size for musket powder equated to modern 1.5F Swiss or Goex rather than to FFg or FFg.

It has been claimed that period powder had a higher moisture content, although how one would evaluate that I'm not sure. Modern testing of 150 year old samples wouldn't prove the case.

These problems are of consequence when one is attempting to run modern ballistics tests to evaluate the performance of old weapons. We don't have the swaged bullets from the period nor period powder, so one ends up with educated quesswork.

 

[thomas aagaard]

These problems are of consequence when one is attempting to run modern ballistics tests to evaluate the performance of old weapons. We don't have the swaged bullets from the period nor period powder, so one ends up with educated quesswork.

Brett Gibbons makes both swaged 0.550 and 0.568 enfield bullets.

And he have made small quantities of powder himself that combined did give him velocities that match what British tests show.

 

[Booner]

If one looks at the sizing of the holes in the screens used to grade powder, as specified by the Federal and Confederate ordnance manuals, the grain size for musket powder equated to modern 1.5F Swiss or Goex rather than to FFg or FFg.

It has been claimed that period powder had a higher moisture content, although how one would evaluate that I'm not sure. Modern testing of 150 year old samples wouldn't prove the case.

These problems are of consequence when one is attempting to run modern ballistics tests to evaluate the performance of old weapons. We don't have the swaged bullets from the period nor period powder, so one ends up with educated quesswork.

And it occurred to me we don't know how "hot" (briskness) their primers (percussion caps) were either. A hot primer compound that has a long flame front would surely affect the ballistics.

 

[67th Tigers]

I got into a discussion on another site with a gentleman who claims pretty high shooting credentials. Here are two of his comments that made me take notice.

"Both the Springfields and the Enfields used the same .577 miniball so ammo would not be the reason that different rifles could not be used within the same units. Both the Springfield and the P53 Enfield are bored to .58 caliber." The second quote was in response to me questioning his first quote.

I wondered if this was true, would it be because of different measuring standards, as in the Brits measured the actual diameter of the bullet and the Americans measured the actual bore of the rifle.

I'd love feedback on this.

The US Burton ball for the .58 Springfield was nominally 0.5775" in diameter, but they also manufactured 0.574" (for Enfields), 0.685" (for converted smoothbores) and .535" (for Mississippi's and Lorenz's). Whilst government manufactured balls had tight tolerances, many commercial balls were oversized.

The original British Prichett ball for the .577 Enfield was 0.568" in diameter, and ca. 1858 the British adopted a 0.55" which shot essentially identically but was much quicker to load. Modern British ammunition (.55", boxwood plug and J2 powder propellant*) by far outperformed US ammunition, and was prized.

It was common in the later war for the US to issue .574" (i.e. Enfield size) for both Springfields and Enfields, and the preferred combination was a .58 Springfield with Enfield sized .574" ammunition. It shot as well, jammed less and was easier to load.

* aka RFG with the current issue cartridge, the British Enfield got ca. 1,250 fps vs the Springfields 950. Essentially the US stopped making improvements after the adoption of the 1855 cartridge, which was of similar performance to the then issue British cartridge, but the British continued to improve the round.

 

[Saphroneth]

Tolerances assuming all balls made according to the nominal sizes:

Burton Ball in Springfield: 0.0025
Burton ball in Enfield: will not fit by .0075 but if you hammer it down you've got a massive problem
US Enfield in Enfield: 0.003
US Enfied in Springfield: 0.006

Pritchett in Enfield: 0.009
1858 British in Enfield: 0.027

The thing that immediately jumps out is that US windage is much less, even the US Enfield round in the Springfield has less windage than the original Pritchett ball did in the Enfield. Since my understanding is that the boxwood plug promoted expansion (and meant that the loading windage could be smaller as the ball would expand into the grooves more reliably) it actually makes me wonder the extent to which US rifle-muskets simply didn't live up to the theoretical point of a rifle-musket which is rifle accuracy at something close to smoothbore reload rate.