Making Combustible Revolver Cartridges, by Hugh T. Knight, Jr.

I am excited to announce that I have just published a new book entitled Making Combustible Revolver Cartridges.  The book is not a historical survey of revolver cartridges—for that Roundball to Rimfire remains the critical work—but rather a “how to” guide showing how to make ammunition for cap and ball revolvers and the packaging for it.  In it, I demonstrate how to recreate five different kinds of historically accurate combustible cartridges for cap and ball revolvers, including nitrated paper cartridges, skin cartridges, and compressed powder cartridges.  I also show how to make a variety of different kinds of cartridge packets for carrying those cartridges, just as it was done during the nineteenth century.  In addition, the book explores casting bullets, black powder choices and measurement, bullet grease, and more!  Lavishly illustrated with almost 200 pictures and with highly detailed, step-by-step directions, this book is a must for any reenactor or black powder enthusiast.

The book is perfect bound soft cover in an 8.5x11 inch format.  It is 146 pages in length and has many full-color photographs.  It has been published through Lulu.com, an on-demand publisher, but will shortly also be available from many online retailers such as Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and others after it has had time to work through their procurement process, but that will be several weeks after the date of this announcement.

The book can be purchased immediately from Lulu.com (my preferred vendor since I make a bit more from them) by clicking on the following link:
https://www.lulu.com/shop/hugh-knight/making-combustible-revolver-cartridges/paperback/product-w4evg2r.html?page=1&pageSize=4

As an independent author not affiliated with any of the major publishing houses, I would really appreciate it if anyone who reads and finds value in this book would please leave a review about it, that really helps with books like this.

Here is a preview of some of the pages from the book to give a sense of what it’s like.

Range Report 21SEP2024: Testing Hazard-Style Compressed Powder Cartridges

I took my shiny new Hazard compressed-powder cartridges to the range today intending to do a deep-dive analysis of their ballistics.  Unfortunately, a strong gust of wind lifted my chronograph off the ground and broke the tripod, so I couldn’t do much muzzle velocity testing.  I got five good readings before the tripod died, as shown below.  These are Hazard compressed-powder charges with .44-caliber Johnston & Dow bullets and varnished with two heavy coats of a 2:1 mixture of acetone and nitrocellulose glue.  They were made with 25 grains of Swiss 3F powder.  Compare this to my previous results with paper cartridges using a comparable load, which had an average MV of over 800 fps.

1. 499
2. 429
3. 440
4. 313
5. 477
Average: 2,158/5= 432 fps with a spread of 186 fps.

My current thinking is that the heavy layer of varnish may have slowed the combustion and thus reduced the MV, or else the compression of the powder means that the individual grains can’t deflagrate as fast as loose powder, again, thus reducing the MV.  I also made a batch using precisely the same load but varnished with two thinner layers of clear nail polish, which isn’t as thick as the nitrocellulose mixture, and had hoped to see if that made any difference in MV, but obviously the equipment prevented me from being able to determine that.  I shot those in Table of Fire Two.

Next time, I will take three sets, one with the nitrocellulose varnish, one with the clear nail polish, and one with no varnish at all.  By comparing them with a fresh batch of paper cartridges the answer should be clear.

Both batches shot fairly well given that the revolver is an Uberti Colt New Model Army, which is significantly less accurate than my Pietta Remington NMA, but I usually get a string test of around 2 to 2.5 in./rd. with a similar load in paper cartridges.  All rounds were shot standing offhand at 15 yards using a 6:00 hold.  There are only five shots in Table of Fire Two because one of the cartridges was damaged.  Note:  Ubertis suck.

The cartridges were a joy to load since they don’t put any material on the heel of the bullet and thus fit better into the chambers than paper cartridges which have a layer of paper on the heel.

Table of Fire One: Nitrocellulose Varnish
String: 13.25 in.
Rounds: 6
String Test: 2.21 in./rd.
(The blue tape marks hits from a range neighbor who wasn’t paying attention.)

Table of Fire Two: Clear Nail Polish
String: 15.5 in.
Rounds: 5
String Test: 3.1 in./rd.
(Note the red X—that was a burn mark from an unknown source, not a bullet hole.)

I also tested both .44- and .36-caliber skin cartridges, but honestly, they performed no differently from paper cartridges. I will write more about them when I can include MV results, but suffice it to say they are also very easy to load and fire.

Using a Stadiometer to Estimate Distance

Introduction
The most important factors in military long-distance marksmanship, after learning to load and fire a rifle, were aiming and judging distance.  If a soldier didn’t know how to use and adjust his sights he would never hit his target, but as or more importantly, if he didn’t know how to judge the distance to his target he wouldn’t be able to set his sights correctly no matter how well he understood the mechanics of doing so, and at any range past 200 yards he was very likely to miss no matter how perfect his sight picture.

Soldiers spent a great deal of time training in distance estimation using techniques based on the appearance of targets at various distances, but in this article we will discuss a tool used in period for estimating distance using trigonometric principles called, among other things, a “stadium range finder,” or a “stadiometer.”

Trajectory
 In order to shoot well it is necessary to understand what bullets do. The slow speed of black powder rifle bullets and their heavy weights produced large, rainbow-like trajectories. With modern firearms we expect nearly flat trajectories, but black powder weapons had much more extreme parabolas. This means it is necessary to understand the bullet’s path and to judge the distance well in order to make a good hit.

The line of fire is a straight line extending through the centre of the barrel, indefinitely produced.  The line of sight is a straight line passing through the middle of the notch of the rear-sight and the top of the front-sight. A ball describes a curved line in its flight, which line is called the trajectory. When fired from a gun, the ball crosses above the line of sight after going a certain distance,—according to the arm used,—it crosses below the line of sight: this point is called the point-blank. Suppose the point-blank of your carbine to be one hundred yards: to hit an object at that distance, aim at it; if the object is closer, aim below it; if farther off, aim above it. (Congdon 1864 pp. 34-35.)

Every weapon, and every load used with that weapon, will have a different trajectory, so it is important to understand the specific trajectory of one’s own rifle and ammunition in order to learn to use the weapon well.

Point Blank
The idea of the point blank is important for good black powder shooting but is often misunderstood today; people mistakenly think “point blank” means “so close you can’t miss.”  As Congdon said, the bullet trajectory crosses the line of sight twice, once when it first leaves the muzzle and a second time when it drops down to cross the line of sight again at a farther point, and it is this second point that is the point blank.

Thus, when using adjustable sights, every sight setting will have a different point blank; “by the use of the hausse or raised sight, the number of points-blank are increased” (Heth 1862 p. 18), so when using the rear sight with the back sight folded down the point blank of many mid-nineteenth-century rifles is 100 yards, but if the slider on the back sight is set for, for example, 500 yards, then the point blank is 500 yards (assuming the use of government ammunition—changing the bullet or load will throw this off).  Understanding the point blank when shooting modern rifles is less important because of their flat trajectories, but it is far more so when shooting black-powder firearms with their highly curved trajectories. 

The Dangerous Space
The dangerous space (called the “margin” in British sources) is the area from “first catch” to “first graze” at any particular sight setting.  First catch is the range at which a bullet fired at a given sight setting will hit a standing man at the top of his head, and first graze is the range at which that same bullet would hit a man on his foot.  Thus, the dangerous space is the range over which a bullet would hit an enemy somewhere from the top of his head to his foot when aiming at his waist (which is where soldiers were taught to aim) with the back sight set to the correct range.

At normal rifle ranges the trajectory will pass over an average soldier’s head for quite some distance (e.g., when shooting the Pattern 1853 Enfield the apex of the trajectory when shooting at 600 yards was more than 25 feet from the ground), so knowing the dangerous space is quite important.  With black powder rifles dangerous spaces start very wide, but at longer ranges the space shrinks dramatically because of the parabolic nature of the bullet trajectories.  As this demonstrates, the ability to estimate range is critical for achieving hits at longer ranges.

With the Enfield musket’s back sight set for 600 yards and the weapon fired at a target 565 yards away the target would be hit in the head, whereas if the target was at 600 yards he would be hit at the waist (the point blank), while if the target was at 635 yards he would be hit on the feet.  If the target was closer than 565 yards or if he was farther than 635 yards, he would not be hit at all.  Thus, if the back sight on a P-53 Enfield is set for 600 yards, a target would be hit somewhere from his head to his feet within a 70-yard space; this is the “dangerous space” for that sight setting with that weapon.  At 300 yards the dangerous space for the P-53 was 145 yards, but at 600 yards it shrank to a mere 70 yards, meaning that to have any chance of hitting an enemy at that range the soldier had to be able to estimate the range to within 70 yards (Walker 1864 p. 131).  This demonstrates how critical was the need to be able to judge distance accurately.

After Walker 1864 p. 131.

Using a Stadiometer
The stadiometer or “stadium rangefinder” is a device used for estimating distances based upon the principle of similar triangles. This means that, for a triangle with a given angle, the ratio of opposite side length to adjacent side length (tangent) is constant. Thus, if you know the height of an object you can estimate the range to that object because the ratio of its height to the distance at which it lies (which form the horizontal and vertical legs of a right triangle) will be a constant.

After Walker 1864 p. 147.

Several texts of the period give detailed instructions for using stadiometers, including Busk, Heth, and Walker, among others.  In general, few individual soldiers probably would have had them (although Heth suggested giving silver ones as prizes in company shooting contests), so they would more than likely have belonged primarily to officers.

To use a stadiometer, put the attached string in your mouth (or at the eye, or on the tip of the nose, depending upon the source) and extend the device to the fullest extent of the string.  Busk said the string should be 25 inches long (p. 97), but you actually need to calibrate it by checking a partner at a known distance.  Look through the opening to see the target and hold the unit so that the upper edge of the opening is at the top of the target’s head, then move the slide (on models that have one) up until it is at the target’s feet; if the device doesn’t have a slider, you just find where the target fits in the gap. The approximate distance to the target can then be read from the scale engraved on the side of the stadiometer.

An extremely crude representation of a stadiometer.  This should not be taken as accurate, nor to scale, and is only intended to show how to use such devices.  Look through the opening and move the slider (when available, not all had them) until it just contains the target figure and read the range in yards from the sale.  In this case, the range is 100 yards.

After Walker 1864 p. 148.

Note that most original devices had two scales, one for infantry and one for cavalry. They were calibrated to assume that infantrymen are six feet in height while mounted cavalrymen are eight feet. Naturally, in real life the target may be taller or shorter than exactly this height, so this is only an approximation.

This example was taken from Busk (p. 97) and represents a fairly crude device which simply has a triangle cut into the plate with a scale engraved on it.

After Busk 1860 p. 97.

The next device is also pictured in Busk and shows a more sophisticated device with a slider for getting a more precise estimate.  It was manufactured by Holtzappfel & Co. in London and was also sold to the Frankford Arsenal in the U. S. for use in our Civil War (Huggett 2023 p. 163).

Drawing after Busk 1860 p. 97.

Photograph courtesy Jon Huggett; used by permission.

This next unit was manufactured by Geo. W. Simmons & Bro. of Philadelphia, PA. and is very similar to the drawing below it from Heth.

After Heth 1862 pl. 7.

The final device was made by Chadburn & Co., an optical maker in Liverpool, England and was patented in 1860.  It is different in having cut outs for each range and not having a slider.  Note that it has two holes; a right-handed person would put the string into the hole on the right, and vice-versa.

After Huggett 2023 p. 162; used by permission of the author.

Modern Reproductions
Stadiometers were ingenious tools, and we are very fortunate to have several good reproductions available today that shooters can experiment with in order to get a better feel for historical shooting.  There are three modern reproductions of which I am aware, although period texts showed more designs than this.

My Holztapffel-style stadiometer (see below) is a crude copy of the style shown in Busk and others sold by Cash Manufacturing (q.v.), but this one does not include a scale for cavalry.

The next reproduction is a copy of the style used during the Civil War as pictured by Heth and was purchased from Capandball.com (q.v.).  The chain and toggle was intended for attaching to the user’s button hole for carrying.

Finally, my Chadburn-style stadiometer is a faithful copy of the original shown above and was manufactured by Jon Huggett (q.v.).

Works Cited
Busk, Hans. Hand-Book for Hythe: Comprising a Familiar Explanation of the Laws of Projectiles, and an Introduction to the System of Musketry, now Adopted by all Military Powers. London: Routledge, Warne, and Routledge, 1860.

Congdon, James A. Congdon’s Cavalry Compendium. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Co., 1864.

Heth, Henry. A System of Target Practice for the Use of Troops When Armed with the Musket, Rifle-Musket, Rifle, or Carbine. New York: D. Van Norstrand, 1862.

Huggett, Jon.  Knowing The Enfield – Pattern 1853 to 1865. Volume 1.  United Kingdom, Privately Published, 2023.

Walker, Arthur. The Rifle; its Theory and Practice. Westminster: J. B. Nichols and Sons, 1864.

Sources
Ted Cash Mfg.: www.tdcmfg.com/product-page/range-finder

Capandball.com: www.etsy.com/listing/815854052/us-arsenal-stadia-19th-century-range

John Huggett stadiometer: www.curiouscasper.co.uk/product/chadburns-rifle-distance-gauge/

Judging Accuracy: Analyzing Shot Groups (Take 2!)

Introduction
Shooters often talk only about their group size when discussing the accuracy of a group of shots, but group size is a relatively unimportant factor for understanding accuracy.  I have written about this subject previously but have heard from several people vociferously insisting that “group size is king,” and nothing else matters, so this article is intended to try to help folks like that understand.  I jokingly entitled my last article on this subject “No One Cares About Your Group Size,” and I’ll admit that was somewhat unfair (as I tried to make plain in the article) and only intended as a humorous way of making my point, but hopefully this article will make things clearer.  Group size isn’t entirely valueless—in general, a small group is, of course, better than a large one—but it would be more fair to say that group size is the least important gauge of accuracy because it fails to take into account two more important factors:  Mean Radial Deviation and the distance from the Mean Point of Impact to the Intended Mean Point of Impact, so let’s explore those two factors.

Mean Radial Deviation
Consider a group in which almost all of the hits are packed closely together with one flyer, and another group of the same overall size but in which the hits are much more widely spaced out: how tightly the hits are grouped in general is more telling than the mere overall size of the group.  We term this a question of the precision of the group, and it is measured by “mean radial deviation,” i.e., how far the shots average from the center of the group.  Look at groups X and Y below; here we see that Group X is obviously a better group because almost all the hits are packed tightly together, with just one flyer, and yet it has precisely the same group size as does Group Y.  Obviously, just knowing the group size does not tell us anything about the important difference between these two groups.

NB:  Precision, taken by itself, is a measure of the weapon and the load being used, not the shooter, and is usually tested from a rest to take the shooter out of the equation as much as possible, but it is also, when taken in context, an overall part of judging accuracy, or how well the shooter does with that specific weapon and load.

MPI vs. IMPI
In the target diagram below we see two groups of shots, A and B, each with five hits, numbered 1 to 5.  The small black circles indicate bullet hits, the red circles indicate the center of the group or its Mean Point of Impact (MPI), and the large black circle with the red cross indicates the bullseye, with the cross showing the exact center point (known as the Intended Mean Point of Impact, or IMPI).  The black lines show the distance of each hit from the IMPI, the red lines show the distance from the MPI’s to the IMPI, and the dashed rectangles show the group size of each group.  Note that Groups A and B are literally identical in all ways except one: Group B is farther from the bullseye than is Group A, with the distance from MPIa to the IMPI being 1.77 in. and the distance from MPIb to the IMPI being 2.72 in.

Looking at this comparison, we see that the group size of both groups is the identical, as is the mean radial deviation—again, the groups are identical.  The difference is that Group A is much closer to the bullseye, 0.95 inches closer, meaning it’s a better group, and the group size is not as important.  Someone pointed out that me that this is meaningless, all you need to know is the group size and then for the next group you just aim off to make up for the difference.  Unfortunately, that approach doesn't say anything about this group of shots.  If you were aiming at a deer’s heart and sent five bullets six inches over its withers but the group size of those five shots was only one square inch, that’s still five misses despite the excellent grouping—how close the MPI is to the IMPI obviously matters, and Group A is obviously better than Group B.

Conclusion
Ultimately, what matters is hitting the thing you’re trying to hit.  Look at the third diagram below.  Here we see two groups, Black and Red.  Group Red is obviously superb, and no measurement is needed to see how tight it is, it is obviously much better than Group Black in terms of group size.  But despite that, Group Black is still a better group because four of the five shots all hit the heart, the thing the shooter was trying to hit.

As this explanation should make obvious, to judge accuracy we need to examine two things:  How closely packed together the shots are in a given group relative to the center if that group (which is different from the group size), and how close the group is to what the shooter was actually trying to hit, with the latter being far more important, as the heart diagram should make plain.  Group size isn’t meaningless, but it runs a poor, weak third, and can actually be ignored for all practical purposes.

For those thinking that even if all this is true, figuring it all out is too complicated and it’s easier to just measure the group size, fear not, there is a simple, powerful tool that will do all of this very clearly and simply:  The String Test.  I have written about this at length, and even posted a video about it, so I won’t go over it again here except to say that all you have to do is measure the distance from the center of each hit to the IMPI and divide that total by the number of shots and the result will give you the important figure, since it takes both the mean radial deviation and the distance from the MPI to the IMPI into account in one simple number—that’s what the red line in the diagram above really is.  To learn more about this historically authentic method of calculating the String Test, read the article I have posted here:  https://historicalshooting.blogspot.com/2020/12/the-string-test-measure-for-historical.html

Loading Historically Accurate M-1881 .45-70-500 Cartridges for the Trapdoor Springfield

 

UPDATE 8-12-24
I tested the muzzle velocity of cartridges made as described below.  My goal was to exactly replicate the original M-1881 cartridge in both appearance and, more importantly, in performance.  According to the 1887 Rules of Management (pp. 44-46) cited below, the original M-1881 cartridge had a muzzle velocity of 1,341.7 f.p.s.  Using the 509-grain 17:1 bullets I cast and Swiss 2F powder, I achieved a muzzle velocity of 1,314 f.p.s., a perfect match for the original.  This is the most perfect match I have ever been able to achieve with any cartridge I have recreated.  When the muzzle velocity and bullet weight are correct, then the external and terminal ballistics should exactly match.

INTRODUCTION
The .45-70 cartridge is very popular today in various configurations, but my intent here is to attempt to recreate the specific cartridge used by the U. S. Army in the 1880s for the so-called “Trapdoor” Springfield infantry rifle in .45 caliber.  The first .45-caliber Springfield rifle round developed in 1873 used a 405-grain bullet (as the carbine continued to), but they later switched to the M-1881 cartridge with a 500-grain bullet for rifles because it gave better external and terminal ballistics.  The first cartridge cases were made of copper, but were later changed to brass as we use today.

The picture above from the 1887 U. S. Ordnance Department Rules for the Management of the Springfield Rifle, Carbine, and Army Revolvers. Caliber .45 shows the cartridge I am trying to replicate.  It shows a center-primed “solid head” cartridge, meaning one formed as we do today (rather than using the earlier “folded” Benét-style primer), containing 70 grains of rifle powder with a 500-grain round nosed (not round nosed flat point as is commonly used today) bullet with three grease grooves.

The primary source for technical information is the U. S. Ordnance Department, which published reports every year including detailed information about ammunition.  My primary source for how to reload this cartridge comes from a book by J. S. and Pat Wolf entitled Loading Cartridges for the Original .45-70Springfield Rifle and Carbine (3rd edition), privately published, 2003.

My method differs from that described in Mr. Wolf’s book in several ways.  He suggested drilling out the primer pockets to ensure better ignition, the use of magnum primers, and making bullets which are sized to 0.459 in., but I do not do those things.  I found that regular primers ignite the powder perfectly well through unmodified flash holes, and that any slight advantage gained by Mr. Wolf’s method is not enough to affect my accuracy.  I was unable to find a bullet mold of the type he recommended, but the Lyman mold I found produces an excellent copy of the original bullet with which I am well satisfied even if it is only 0.457 in diameter, and this spares me from having to use a special plug in my neck expanding die as he recommended.  My bullet does have four grease grooves instead of the three seen in the diagram above, but I hold this difference to be insignificant as the amount of grease they hold is roughly the same.  Mr. Wolf had great success with his method, and I am not criticizing it, but the method described below is perfectly valid for my purposes.

Most metallic cartridges can be loaded with three dies: a resizing die, a case-mouth expanding die, and a bullet seating and crimping die.  With this cartridge, however, I find five dies to be necessary, as you will read below.  The only truly different die is the one for compression; 70 grains of powder simply will not fit into the case with a bullet of this length, and it is necessary to compress it substantially to make it fit.  I use an extra die for crimping because the extreme length of the cartridge (particularly before the bullet is fully seated), which means I would have to reset my seating/crimping die each time I used it.

Please note that I am not recommending that anyone should attempt to copy my method, I am simply showing the reader what I do to make ammunition for my rifle.  Use this material at your own risk.

Track of the Wolf has a page on their web site for loading ammunition using Mr. Wolf’s method, and I purchased much of my specific equipment for these cartridges (except the mold) from it.  Track of the Wolf is an excellent company, and I highly recommend them:
https://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/PartDetail.aspx/239/1/ammo-45-70

For a video showing the loading process, please go HERE:

TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT REQUIRED

1. .45-70 cartridge cases; I used Starline brand.
2. Black powder; I used Swiss 1.5F or 2F powder.
3. Large rifle primers; I used CCI brand.
4. A powder flask and volumetric powder measure.
5. A powder scale set to weigh in grains.
6. 500-grain .45-70 bullets cast in a 1:17 tin: lead alloy; I used the Lyman #457125 mold.
7. The Lee .45-70 die set, including a resizing die, a case-mouth expansion die, a bullet-seating/crimping die, and a case holder.
8. An extra Lee bullet-seating/crimping die.
9. An extra Lee case mouth expansion die.
10. A compression plug from Track of the Wolf.
11. .45-caliber card wads; I bought mine from Track of the Wolf, but they can be punched from waxed cardboard.
12. Black powder bullet grease; I used a mixture of beeswax and lamb tallow.
13. Case lube for resizing the brass.
14. A micrometer.
15. A loading press; a single-stage press works best because of the length of the cartridges, but I use a progressive press and just have to be careful when inserting the cartridges for bullet seating.

INITIAL PREPARATIONS

1. Begin by casting the required number of bullets.
2. Weigh each bullet, discarding any which weigh less than 508 grains (my bullets normally come out at 509 grains) and any which are wrinkled or not crisp.
3. Put the cast bullets base-down in a pan and pour molten grease into the pan up to the driving band of the bullets.  Allow to cool and harden before removing.  Sizing is not required for these bullets.
4. Replace the neck size expansion plug on one of the neck sizing dies with the compression plug from Track of the Wolf and mark it as the compression die.
5. Remove the bullet seating plug and cap entirely from one of the bullet seating/crimping dies to make the crimping die.

CASE RESIZING AND PRIMING

1. Put the ram all the way up with just the shell holder in it (no case).
2. Screw the resizing die down until it touches the shell holder, then back it out two full turns because you don’t need the resize the entire case.
3. Tighten down the lock ring.
4. Grease each case very lightly with case lube then drive them into the die to size and de-prime.
5. If the cases have been fired use a tumbler to clean them.
6. Prime each cartridge case; I have an attachment which goes onto the ram of my loading press, but there are several styles available.  Make sure the primer does not sit proud of the case.

POWDER COMPRESSION

1. Fill all shells with 70 grains of powder and seat a card on top (off of the press).  Measure the powder using a flask and volumetric measure onto a powder scale, than gradually add a few granules of powder at a time until reaching exactly 70 grains.
2. Put the ram all the way up (no case).
3. Screw the compression die down until it touches the shell holder.
4. Back the die out 10 (ten) full turns.
5. Insert a filled shell into the shell holder and run it up inside the die.
6. Use a caliper to test the depth of the card.  It should be 0.63 in.; if not, lower the ram and screw the die in one half turn, then drive the shell up again, again measuring the depth.
7. Repeat, lowering the die less each time, until it is exactly 0.63 in.
8. Lock the die down and compress the remaining shells.

NB:  This must be done before expanding the case mouth or the compression die will reduce the neck flare.

CASE MOUTH EXPANSION

1. Use the original case mouth expansion die with the original plug—do not replace it with a larger Track of the Wolf expansion die unless using larger bullets.
2. Put the ram all the way up with just the shell holder (no case)
3. Screw the die down until it touches the shell holder
4. Back the die out 10 (ten) full turns.
5. Raise a case into the die and then lower it to inspect the mouth of the case to see whether a bullet will barely fit; do not expand it any more than the minimum necessary or the case may not fit into the bullet-seating die.
6. Screw the die down by 1/2 turn (or less) until the mouth is expanded sufficiently, re-ramming each time; make each adjustment smaller until the bullet will just fit.
7. Raise the case into the mouth again and then tighten down the locking ring.
8. Size all of the remaining case mouths.

BULLET SEATING

1. Back the seating plug cap out until no more than two or three threads hold it in place.
2. Insert the die body into the press and screw it in so that only about two or three threads engage.
3. Insert a bullet into a case and seat the case in the case holder.
4. Raise the ram gently until the bullet touches the seating plug, then press it in very slightly.
5. Lower the case, then inspect to see how far it has gone in.  Note that the driving band of the bullet should be just below the rim of the case mouth as a general guide for when it is getting close. Push the case up again, pushing the bullet slightly lower, then check the depth.
6. Repeat until the overall cartridge length is exactly 2.79 in. using a micrometer, making smaller adjustments each time.
7. If the ram is all the way up but the bullet is not seated deeply enough, screw the die body in slightly and try again.
8. When one full stroke of the ram seats the bullet to exactly the right depth, tighten the locking ring, then seat the bullets on the remaining cartridges.

CRIMPING

1. Loosen the locking ring of the crimping die.
2. Lift the ram fully (with a cartridge in place) and screw the die body down until it just touches the case.
3. Lower the ram then rotate the die body in one-half of a turn.
4. Raise the ram fully and drive it into the die, then check the crimp.
5. If it’s not crimped enough, lower the ram and screw the die body down slightly.
6. Ram the cartridge into the die body again and check the crimp, repeating these steps until the crimp is sufficient.
7. When the crimp is sufficient, raise the ram fully and lock the die body in place.
8. Crimp the remaining cartridges.
9. When the cartridges are completed wipe them down carefully with a dry rag to remove any remaining grease. 

Formed cartridges.

My replica cartridge packet.

The original cartridge packet I copied.

Range Report 29JUN2024: First Shots with the 1884 Trapdoor Springfield

 

My 1884 Trapdoor Springfield.

I recently acquired an 1884 Trapdoor Springfield rifle.  There will probably be a later blog post writing about the specifics of this particular rifle, which is somewhat interesting in its own right, but today we will just discuss the results of my first attempt to shoot it.

Trapdoor ammunition went through several iterations, starting with the 52-caliber Alin conversions, but after 1873 all of them were designed for .45-70 ammunition.   The first cartridges were .45-70-405, meaning .45 caliber, 70 grains of rifle powder, and a ball weighing 405 grains.  Later they switched to a 500-grain bullet because it gave better long-range ballistics, and since I have a later model of rifle, it is this .45-70-500 cartridge I have sought to replicate.

There will be a very detailed blog post later about loading ammunition for the Trapdoor, as it is, by far, the most complex to load I have ever attempted.  For now, I will just say that I used Starline .45-70 brass, Swiss 1.5F and Schuetzen 2F powders (see below), and 500-grain bullets cast from 1:20 tin:lead using a Lee mold.  The bullet is a nearly perfect replica of the original.

.45-70-500 Ammunition.

Conditions
Lytle Creek, Sunny, 69 deg., wind 4 mph from 3-4:00, humidity 37%, barometer 29.84 inHg and rising.  Range:  100 yards.  All shots fired from a seated unsupported position using a full hold sight picture.

I shot two tables of fire, the first with ten rounds of Schuetzen 2F powder and the second with 15 rounds of Swiss 1.5F powder.

The results were gauged using the String Test system.  If you are a historical shooter and aren’t using it, you are uncivilized—go to historicalshooting.blogspot.com/2020/12/the-string-test-measure-for-historical.html and educate yourself, then come back.

Later I will do a much deeper dive to study the ballistics of this cartridge, and will work out the figure of merit along with other important data, but for now I was primarily interested in muzzle velocity, so I shot unsupported and didn’t bother with the complicated Figure of Merit.

Table One:  70 grains of Schuetzen 2F
Rounds: 10
String: 27.25
String Test: 2.7 in./rd.
Average muzzle velocity: 1,094 fps.
Muzzle energy: 1,329 ft.-lbs.

Table One: Schuetzen 2F.

Table Two: 70 grains of Swiss 1.5F
Rounds: 15
String: 56.0
String Test: 3.7 in./rd.
Average muzzle velocity: 1,220 fps.
Muzzle energy: 1,652 ft.-lbs.

Table Two: Swiss 1.5F.

Conclusions
Schuetzen is filthy, almost as bad as Goex, and I will never buy it again.  Moreover, it produced a MV that was 126 fps slower than the Swiss!  According to the Ordnance Department records, the .45-70-500 cartridge should have a muzzle velocity of 1,315 fps, however, so even the Swiss is somewhat slow; perhaps I need Swiss 2F.

The rifle shot beautifully, and very well—I think that when I really buckle down to learn it, it should be extremely accurate.  I was pulling to the right when I shot the second table of fire, and I don’t know why; without that, the score would have been better than the first ToF.

Note that the two hits on the upper side of the target for ToF One are clearly keyholed.  I cannot figure out what could have caused this.

Recoil was very significant.  Not bad, but very significant.  The rounds chambered perfectly, without any hitches at all, and ejected just as well.  This rifle is superb.

Range Report 04May2024: Comparing Colt and Remington New Model Army Revolvers

 

Today's shooting conditions.

Today’s range session was supposed to be dedicated to doing some ballistic testing of a handful of recreated Sharps Federal cartridges, but as the first picture on this article shows, we were entirely socked in with rain and fog.  As a result, I could barely even see the 25-yard range, let alone the 100-yard one, so instead I decided to do a head-to-head comparison of my Pietta New Model Army and my Uberti Colt New Model Army (often called an “1860”).  Short version:  The Remington is a far better weapon.  Long version:  There’s a lot to unpack, so let’s get started.

As I said, today was cold (for May), rainy, and foggy, and I believe this had a significant effect on shooting.  Conditions:  49 degrees, humidity 88%, barometric pressure 29.84 inHg., wind 4 mph from 5:30.

Both of my revolvers were very significantly modified by Gary Barnes (cartridgeconversion.com).  Both had their loading ports expanded to make loading paper cartridges easier, both had their rammers reshaped for conical balls, both had their forcing cones adjusted to 11 degrees, both had the chambers reamed to make them consistent, both had their nipples replaced with Slix-Shot nipples, and both had action and trigger jobs, among other minor changes.  The Uberti was also modified to correct the typical Uberti “short arbor” problem.

The cartridges for the day were all identical:  25 grains of Schuetzen 3F powder in a nitrated filter paper shell with a Kerr bullet made from an Eras Gone mold.

I began by firing 12 rounds from each revolver over the chronograph, with startling results.  I had previously tested my Remington and got an average 850.7 fps muzzle velocity with Kerr bullets, which was a close match to a test by Balázs Németh of CapandBall who got an average of 856 fps with a J&D bullet from an original Remington NMA.  In that test I had used Swiss 3F powder, while in today’s test I used Schuetzen 3F powder.

Remington 12-round average:  503.0 fps.
Colt 12-round average: 473.2 fps.

Obviously, my result today with the Remington was 350 fps slower than the old one, which is shocking.  I attribute this to two factors:  First, Swiss is significantly better than Schuetzen.  I have always known this, but this really accentuates it.  Perhaps as, or even more, important, however, was the moisture.  Some of the cartridges I used today have been on my shelf for several months, and we had an exceptionally wet winter this year with significant flooding.  In addition, it was very wet today, as I noted above, and we know that moisture reduces muzzle velocity.  Thus, I think these two factors explain the massive reduction in speed I got today; needless to say, I can’t do anything about moisture, but I won’t be buying anything except Swiss powder from now on, despite its higher cost.

All of the results below are expressed in terms of the String Test.  This test gauges both accuracy and grouping in a single number, and is the way all historical shooters should be judging their efforts.  To learn more, go here: https://historicalshooting.blogspot.com/2020/12/the-string-test-measure-for-historical.html

The first two tables of fire were fired from a rest using a full sight and a 6:00 hold with both revolvers.  All shots were at 15 yards.

Table One.

Table One:  Remington
Rounds: 12
String measure: 14.5 in.
String Test: 1.21 in./rd.
Note the single flyer:  My hands shake, and I had a shake at exactly the wrong moment.  Without this anomaly, the String test would have been below 1 in./rd., a truly amazing score.

Table Two.

Table Two: Colt
Rounds: 12
String measure: 25.0 in.
String Test: 2.0 in./rd. 

Tables Three through Eight were fired offhand, aiming off to adjust fire.

Table Three.

Table Three: Remington
Rounds: 6
String measure: 13.0
String Test: 2.2 in./rd. 

Table Four.

Table Four: Colt
Rounds: 5 (one misfire)
String measure: 12.5 in.
String Test: 2.5 in./rd. 

Table Five.

Table Five: Remington
Rounds: 6
String measure: 12.25 in.
String Test: 2.0 in./rd. 

Table Six.

Table Six: Colt
Rounds: 6
String measure: 19.75 in.
String Test: 3.3 in./rd. 

Table Seven.

Table Seven: Remington
Rounds: 6
String measure: 8.75 in.
String Test: 1.5 in./rd.

Table Eight.

Table Eight: Colt
Rounds: 6
String measure: 19.25 in.
String Test: 3.2 in./rd. 

Conclusion
The Remington had a Muzzle Velocity that was 50 fps faster than the Colt despite using exactly the same ammunition.  I cannot be sure why this is, but I suspect it relates to different bore sizes between the two models; it would be interesting to see how a Pietta Colt compared with the Uberti.

As the String Test results demonstrate conclusively, the Remington was significantly more accurate, both from the rest and offhand.  In fact, if all shots are averaged together in two groups, one for the Remington and one for the Colt, the Remington had an overall String Test of 1.62 in./rd., while the Colt’s was a far worse 2.64 in./rd. (still a respectable score, of course).  Having said that, it is clear from the results of the shots fired from rest that the work Mr. Barnes did on these revolvers was superb—it was actually very hard to get precise string measurements because so many of the hits touched or overlapped.

It wasn’t so much that the Colt’s groups were all that bad (although the Remington’s were better), but the Mean Points of Impact (the statistical center of each group) were farther from the Intended Mean Point of Impact (the bullseye).  This was true even when I aimed off to allow for the fact that Colts shoot higher. It is important to remember that when you do not have rings or marks on your target, aiming off is a matter of pure estimation, as it would be in combat.  This should silence forever those who mistakenly believe that group size is the only factor worth noting when gauging accuracy since it shows that even when the groups are similar, where that group lands is important, too.  It’s not enough to just say “I can just aim off,” because aiming off when there are no marks on the target is hard to do consistently, and inconsistent aiming off leads to bigger groups.

In addition to the purely numerical results above, other differences between these revolvers were very apparent during shooting.  First, Remingtons are just easier to load than Colts, even when both have the loading ports ground out to match original revolvers, because there’s simply more room.   Second, although I had no cap jams (Slix Shot nipples work marvelously), I did have some cap pieces catch in the works, and with the Remington these were child’s play to remove, whereas with the Colt a hammer had to be used to disassemble the entire revolver to get the cylinder out to remove them.  Third, Uberti springs are garbage; I had something like ten or twelve caps fail to go off on the first try with the Colt today, necessitating spinning the cylinder to try them again, and zero failures with the Remington.

The bottom line is that the Remington is just a better design than the Colt, and Ubertis, even when heavily reworked to eliminate most of the flaws from the factory, are still inferior to Piettas in function.