P53 Enfield vs 1863 Springfield - Loading Time

[Specster]

Was there a significant differnce in loading and cleaning times for the 2 weapons. I had recent read that the P53 could use paperless loads, which I would think might increase or decrease loading times. I beleive this would also change cleaning rates.

Opinions???

 

[D.H. Hill]

The two weapons functioned the same and contrary to what some say were both bored out to .58 caliber. The difference is in the ammunition, which is actually interchangeable, given that they are the same caliber.

The American cartridges were based off the original Minie pattern, viz. a paper wrapper containing a grooved and lubricated .577 ball with a powder case pasted (wartime US rounds were not pasted) into the base. The end was torn off, the powder dumped in, followed by the ball. The paper wrapper was not loaded.

The English cartridges, which the Confederacy also adopted in 1864, used a smooth sided .55 Pritchett ball placed in the cartridge backwords over a powder case. The end was torn off, the powder dumped in, and the cartridge reversed so the point of the ball faced up. The ball was placed into the muzzle with the paper wrapper (which was waxed on the ball end) still attached. The powder case and unwaxed part of the wrapper could then be easily broken off and discarded. On a fouled musket the smaller ball could still be loaded without the paper, but this also accelerated fouling because the lubrication was on the paper rather than the ball.

Notice that at no point for EITHER is the ball placed in the mouth. This is a common misconception which oddly enough also led to the Indian Mutiny (at that point the wrapper was lubricated with a mix of beeswax and tallow; the latter was later found to encourage corrosion so was dropped by the 60s).

For cleaning the Springfield has a narrow wiper (worm) to be used with patches; the Enfield has a wide wiper which is used with tow.

I hope this helps.
D.H.

 

[jekct1212]

With the Pritchett bullets are there any records of men loading them upside down and what would be the result if any?

 

[D.H. Hill]

An excellent graphic, but it doesn't mention that the powder case above the ball is broken off before ramming.

Minie-type cartridge. The US changed the papers slightly in 1861, but the loading sequence is the same.

As to loading Pritchett balls backwards, that was a problem frequently encountered in the CS army when the new cartridges were adopted. The gun wouldn't blow up or anything, but of course accuracy would be totally ruined, so the Ordnance Dept. published this circular to straighten things out:


C.S. Central Laboratory, (Ordn.)

Macon, Ga., Feb. 9, 1864.

[CIRCULAR]

It has been recently ordered by the Chief of Ordnance that the only pattern of cartridge to be hereafter used with muzzle loading rifled small arms shall be that known as the English pattern of Enfield cartridge.
It is important that the troops should be taught to load this cartridge properly - the following instructions upon the subject are therefore published - Ordnance Officers on field service will endeavour to secure their observance, and to correct any irregularities which they may notice.
1. - If the powder end of the cartridge has been "pinched" or folded straighten out the folded portion of the paper - if it has been twisted (as is the case with the cartridges made in England) untwist the end with the finger and thumb.
2. - Tear off the part of the paper at the powder end beyond the stiff inside cylinder, taking advantage of leverage upon the edge of this stiff cylinder, and tearing off as close as possible to the edge.
3. - Pour the powder from the end of the cartridge thus opened into the barrel of the gun, taking care not to lose or scatter any of the powder - Hold the barrel vertically, so that but few grains may remain adherent to the inside surface.
4. - Invert the cartridge, and insert the lubricated end into the muzzle of the piece (without tearing off any of the paper from the ball).
5. - Press the bullet end of the cartridge down into the barrel until the top of the cylindrical portion of the ball is just flush with the muzzle taking care that the axis of the bullet coincides with that of the barrel, and that the cartridge is pressed directly down - not twisted.
6. - Break off the empty powder cylinder from the bullet, taking advantage of leverage against the edge of the muzzle, and being careful not to twist or pull the bullet out of its place.
7. - Ram the ball steadily down, using no more pressure than is necessary, and avoid twisting the ramrod. Settle the bullet in its place by one or two light taps.
8. - Cap the gun, which is then ready to be discharged.
In case of the gun becoming excessively foul, so as to prevent easy loading in the proper way, as above detailed, the paper of the cartridge may be torn off from the bullet, and the latter loaded naked. As the lubricant is upon the outside of the paper and not upon the bullet this practice is not to be recommended unless it be rendered necessary by the cause mentioned.

J. W. Mallet, Maj.
Supt. C.S. Laboratories

Approved:
J. Gorgas, Col.
Chief of Ordnance
Richmond, Va., Feb. 15, 1864.

 

[D.H. Hill]

I should also mention that the original Enfield cartridge used a .577 ball, but was found to be difficult to ram with the paper, so some time in the 50s they switched to .55

 

[Ralph Heinz]

Four Actual Pritchett molds I own have cavities that mic .565 to .569. One that is stamped 24 (allegedly for the "Spanish Contract" P.53) mics .568. While books list these molds as .577 -- this is in error. The smaller actual cast size would account for the lubricated paper that stayed with the bullet when it was inserted in the bore.

 

[Ralph Heinz]

The middle mold in the photos is identical to one recovered from the wreck of the blockade runner, the Minho, in about 1985 and shown in Pritchard's and Huey's The English Connection. It casts a bullet that is 1.07" in length. The bottom mold appears to have been made by the same maker as the "Minho" mold but casts a shorter bullet (.761") which may have been intended for the artillery or cavalry Enfield carbines. In the later 1870's, US Ordnance switched .45/70 ammunition for cavalry carbines to .45/55 caliber rounds which used a lighter weight bullet (405 grain) and powder charge because the heavier bullets (500 grain) and powder charges produced an objectionable recoil making it uncomfortable to shoot.

It makes sense that a lighter bullet for Enfield artillery carbines would have been more comfortable to shoot and would use a lower powder charge though at this time no official information on this subject is known to me.

Original 10 round packs of dated cartridges dated 1860 through 1864 list the bullet diameter as .55 and one late war pack by Ludlow Brothers lists the bullet diameter as .568. Cast bullets shrink a tiny amount as they cool.

 

[Tin cup]

Loading and shooting the Enfield style cartridge is a bit quicker than the US type cartridge. You don't worry about peeling/pushing the bullet out of the paper like you do with the US type when loading. The Enfield cartridge requires more paper, more work, and quality control in manufacture than the US type.

Kevin Dally

 

[yulzari]

With a well made English style cartridge you really can fire all day without cleaning. The Union style does build up fouling. Hence the cleaning rounds. I have fired 50 of the English style in one session and the last loaded as well as the first.