Shooting black powder?

FiremarshalBill

Private
Joined
Feb 4, 2016
My experience with shooting black powder arms is very limited but I've heard musket barrels during the ACW could get very dirty after firing a few shots, making it harder and harder to ram home a minie or a ball with each shot. So how many shots would it actually take before a barrel became so fouled that it became difficult to load? Were these results affected by the type, quality, or dampness of the black powder being fired? I assume arsenal ammunition was more standardized and reliable, but was it any cleaner than "home-rolled" in the field ammunition? Was accuracy affected by a dirty barrel? Just curious.
 
I found that it can depend on the condition of the musket before you start firing. Some people I know are meticulous about cleaning, while others give the most cursory attention to keeping their weapon in good shape. I haven't live fired with black powder often, so can't really answer about fouling. I did find that I got more bang for the buck (bad pun intended) with a clean musket.
Adam
 
Depend on the exact model of musket and the powder used, and the type of bullet used and if you load with the paper or not. and how greased it all was. And yes how damp is was.

Sometimes in the late 1850ties the danish army tested a rifle musket (using the older Thouvenin system) and fired some 150 rounds over two days.
They fired 30, then took a break, fired some more, took a break, until the next day and the fired some more. The last 30 of them in a row, a shot every 35 seconds. The source tell us that the last shot was just as easy to load as the first shot... and that they could have fired 150 more with no issue.

So it do indicate that the specific model of gun and cartridges worked very well in each shot removing the fouling from the shot before it. But that don't mean that other combinations did so.

Personally I simply don't believe that modern military weapons had issues after 5-10 shots...
So I think many of the stories about fouling weapons was caused by wrong cartridges issued,(58cal for enfields)
bad weapons,(older weapons that had been rifled, where the cal was a bit small to the bullet issued) and poorly trained soldiers.
But this is just by feeling... not something I got any great evidence for.

Would be interesting to see some statistics on how often stories about the issue show up and if there are more of them early in the war than later.
 
Ammunition came to the soldier already rolled and packaged. They didn't roll their own cartridges. You can start to feel the effect of fouling in the barrel after the 3rd shot. You can feel the ball scraping along the now-narrowed barrel, and it takes a little more force to push the rammer down. It gets worse with each successive shot. There are stories of men pushing the rammer against a tree to push it down the barrel. I think a soldier would have been extremely fortunate to have his musket fire through a 40round box without fouling.
 
You can start to feel the effect of fouling in the barrel after the 3rd shot.
With original guns and original bullets? or replica guns and bullets?
Modern replica guns are way to different from the originals to be of any use in this question. The same goes with bullets, and powder...

The last time I read about soldiers using their ramrods against trees, it was a unit with enfields that was issued 58cal cartridges.
 
Were these results affected by the type, quality, or dampness of the black powder being fired?

I dont have any proof but i think that dampness as in humidity in the air can play a part. Shooting in the rain can cause problems if you get the powder wet. Not only that, pouring ckean, dry powder down a wet barrel can result in un-burnt powder residue.
However, I am also referring to high humidity that is typically found in places like Mississippi and some swampy areas around the South.

Another factor is suze of barrel bore and whether it is rifled or smooth bore. Amother factor is the design of the round. The round may be too small which will eventually jam as the residue builds. If too loose, the Minie will not clear out the residue as it expands when fired.
 
When live firing I have never really had any serious issues until getting close to that 40 round mark. The issues I have dealt with have resulted from a lack of lube, which was my own fault. With the proper amount of lube I don't really believe there was a real issue with fouling until getting close to that 40 round mark and then simply pouring water down the barrel and dumping it out went a long way in alleviating that problem.

Incorrect sized bullets have been mentioned as a cause for fouling, that is an apt point.

There is an enormous difference between firing live and firing blanks. Which is part of the problem when getting info from re-enactors who are all too often self styled experts that wouldn't know a land from a groove.
 
Fouling was why the Williams bullet was developed.

At first the standard package of 10 arsenal-issued cartridges contained eleven percussion caps in a separate tube and one Williams patent cartridge out of the 10 cartridges. Later this amount was increased to three of the 10 and then to six by August 1864. Originally Soldiers were instructed to use the special bullets as every tenth round fired.
 
Muzzzleloading military weapons firing properly lubricated, properly sized bullets, can be very reliable, and do not foul. Between 5 August 1863 and 5 May 1866 the British conducted an endurance test on a Pattern 1853 rifle musket. This rifle musket was fired at the rate of 20 rounds per day, for a total of 16,000 rounds, without cleaning. In February 1859, the British had reduced the diameter of their bullet for the .577 caliber Enfield from .568 to .550 inches, and that bullet – 0.022 inches under nominal bore size – was used in the above test. However, like the Austro-Hungarian Army, the British used the lubricated paper wrapper of their cartridge to take up windage in the bore of the Enfield and to provide adequate lubrication. (Roads (British Soldiers Firearm), pp. 69 and 140)

What was critical -- then and now -- was a properly maintained firearm, properly sized ammunition, and properly lubricated ammunition. If you "start to feel the effects of fouling" at three rounds or 40, you have a failure of one or more of the above. While practicing for N-SSA matches I have regularly fired in excess of 100 rounds from my weapons with no signs whatever of fouling, and without doing any brushing or cleaning.

There is abundant evidence that during the War snuffy often did not properly maintain his firearm. Given the mythology of the southern soldier as a gaunt, ragged man who maintained his weapon with meticulous care, one of the things which I found interesting in my research in the Confederate Inspectors General reports at the National Archives was the number of occasions in which units’ arms were characterized by the inspecting officers as “dirty.” Keeping equipment serviceable requires constant supervision of troops by a unit’s noncommissioned officers and officers. Ill-trained or incompetent NCOs and officers are either not equipped to provide such supervision or unprepared to do so, and the condition of a unit’s equipment is a clear sign of the competence of its leadership. There is also abundant evidence that ammunition was often not manufactured to standard: too large. too small, etc. For information on that, I would refer you to Dean S. Thomas' excellent books on Federal and Confederate ordnance.

Regards,
Don Dixon
 
My experience with live ammo in black powder weapons is that there is considerable variation among the weapons. With repros the variation is considerable, even within the same model by the same manufacturer. With originals, I have found that there is less variation and that they are far less prone to fouling. I have an 1862 Enfield that just gobbles up rounds with nary a hiccup even when the barrel gets hot as blazes. The only times I have ever had to have pounded balls down the barrel have been with the repros, after maybe 20 shots or so. With breech loading carbines the only fouling I ever experienced that affected the ability to chamber a cartridge was with a Sharps, but that was a repro and there the modern manufacturer modified the original Sharps design.
 
I don't trust that wiki page.
For one thing 10 cartridges came with 12 percussion caps.. not 11.
So I would like to see some primary sources for this.

Then you are more than welcome to spend the time and go do the additional research. We'll wait here for you.
 
As a clarification of what I consider "issues" I would say that under normal circumstances the weight of the ramrod is enough to push the bullet down to the charge followed by a couple sharp raps to seat the bullet. When I have to put some pressure on that ramrod to get the bullet all the way down I notice it. The experience I have had with fouling has been primarily due to a lack of lube, in my own case I misunderstood something a more experienced shooter said and I skimped on the lube... it resulted in a barrage of epic level cursing of the kind that would make a sailor or mechanic blush.

Weapons that I have noted what I consider legitimate fouling were those intended for patched round balls with rather deep rifling where I was firing a minnie bullet. The particular issue I dealt with was an original M1841. After a half dozen rounds there was notable buildup of fouling within the barrel, enough to note but not enough to create a problem.

In my own experience live firing I typically use alcohol to clean the barrel and I admit I likely use more than needed but it takes only a minute or so and a couple patches to quick clean the weapon.

Now watching those who use only blanks... most typically use hot water and upward to a dozen patches.

I believe a lot of the issues with fouling are just plain poor memories and outright invention. At Allatoona Pass the men of the 4th MN VI fired several hundred rounds each and I have read of no reference of them cleaning their arms until after the battle. The only reference to cleaning a weapon during the battle I have ever found reference several men witnessing an Iowa soldier urinating down down the barrel of his weapon to clean the fouling... something that certainly was noted. I know I would balk at putting something that sensitive close to a hot barrel. This was at the Star Fort well after the Iowa troops had withdrawn into it after having already fired quite a few rounds, likely over 100, and it is noted that it was an Enfield. So if in the heart of a hot fight soldiers did not likely have that much of an opportunity to traditionally clean their weapons and had few issues where do the statements about fouling weapons come from?

There are a variety of references to men using trees, wood blocks or rocks to help ram a bullet home due to fouling but in every one of those instances that I have been able to run down the reference has been to European arms such as the Enfield or Lorenz... the majority of which were hand made and bore size was not always consistent. The Lorenz was a .55 typically supplied with .54 US Arsenal ammo, other examples are wildly more dramatic with French/Belgian arms in .71 firing .69 bullets or even .58... not a recipe for accuracy but easily a recipe for excessive fouling.
 
Last edited:
As a humorous side bar to the above post where the soldier urinated into the barrel of his fouled musket, I recall most of a story about one of the private gun manufacturers right after our Civil War trying to peddle an order to the Ottoman Government. I cannot recall whether the arm was a Sharps, Spencer, early Winchester (model 1866) , but some post war weapon. The Turkish government, foreseeing problems with any cartridge arm mechanism and fouling insisted in its specifications, that no matter how fouled or dirty the gun became, the ordinary soldier could clean it and make it functional with nothing special that an ordinary soldier would not have always with him. The American arms merchant felt confident that, whatever the weapon was, it would pass muster. After firing a few rounds the Turkish officer in charge of the tests grabbed the rifle, threw it onto the ground, stomped on it, kicked it over the ground, picked it up, dumped a handful of dirt down the barrel and demanded that the American show how the ordinary soldier could make it work. Looking about in desperation, the arms merchant suddenly realized that both he all Turkish soldiers had the usual equipment and having had a few cups of strong Turkish coffee that morning, proceeded to use it to clean the gun. It worked.
 
As a humorous side bar to the above post where the soldier urinated into the barrel of his fouled musket, I recall most of a story about one of the private gun manufacturers right after our Civil War trying to peddle an order to the Ottoman Government. I cannot recall whether the arm was a Sharps, Spencer, early Winchester (model 1866) , but some post war weapon. The Turkish government, foreseeing problems with any cartridge arm mechanism and fouling insisted in its specifications, that no matter how fouled or dirty the gun became, the ordinary soldier could clean it and make it functional with nothing special that an ordinary soldier would not have always with him. The American arms merchant felt confident that, whatever the weapon was, it would pass muster. After firing a few rounds the Turkish officer in charge of the tests grabbed the rifle, threw it onto the ground, stomped on it, kicked it over the ground, picked it up, dumped a handful of dirt down the barrel and demanded that the American show how the ordinary soldier could make it work. Looking about in desperation, the arms merchant suddenly realized that both he all Turkish soldiers had the usual equipment and having had a few cups of strong Turkish coffee that morning, proceeded to use it to clean the gun. It worked.
The Turks were using Henry Rifles for their Cav and the Peabody... so it could have been either.
 
Looking about in desperation, the arms merchant suddenly realized that both he all Turkish soldiers had the usual equipment and having had a few cups of strong Turkish coffee that morning, proceeded to use it to clean the gun. It worked.

If you've ever used WOLF brand (Russian) cartridges made in the late 20th/early 21st century, a cup of McDonald's coffee will have the same effect on a pistol slide after running a box of their ammo through it.

Jus' sayin'. :whistling:
 
The ONE thing that was drilled into my head in the US Army was "KEEP YOUR WEAPON CLEAN" especially the Mattel made M-16. The one saying Ive always remembered is "This is my weapon and this is my gun, one is for killing and one is for fun"
 
I do remember one time I went to the range, with 40 rounds of .580" Rapine old style 480 grain bullets, with 60 grains of FFg BP, shooting my reproduction Armi 61. The lube I was using was a mix of pure beeswax, and olive oil, (don't remember the mix ratio), and it was a warm day.

I shot all 40 with no problem with fouling on THAT particular day.

In the picture posted, is the Rapine OS 480 grain bullet on the left. The bullet on the right is the (late) Tony Bagdon 405 grain, .580" Hodgdon bullet design. As you can see, it holds a LOT of lube, and generally uses a load of 38.8 grains of FFFg black powder. It can be a wonderfully accurate bullet out to 100 yards. The extra lube, and less powder makes for a design to handle a lot of shooting before fowling becomes a problem.

Actually the Armi 61, and the Hodgdon bullet I purchased from Tony Bagdon himself in 1999. He gave me a lot of pointers about his design, what he said of it's design sure proved true. My Brother in Law borrowed the rifle, I handed him a bunch of pre-made Bagdon bullet/cartridges, and he got two deer with that combination!

Kevin Dally
Minnie designs.jpg
 
Last edited:
I know that the question was asked in terms of 1860s black powder rifles. Yet, even using a modern .50 sabot, muzzle loader., and lubricating that round with "Bore Butter" it will be harder and harder to seat the round to the point that after 10 shots or more, it is difficult to seat the round without me puncturing my hand. I dont doubt the accounts given in the foregoing posts. What I am wondering is whether, in order to shoot 40 reounds or more without fouling, the round is by design smaller than the bore of the barrel., and/or that the lubricattion was used much more liberally in the 1860s. I have had a local gunshop owner tell me that I should clean my muzzle loader after eevery shpoot. . (Patch and solvent).
 
Back
Top