Range Report 18OCT2026: Remington Rolling Block Workup

My Rolling Block along with loose cartridges, packages of ammunition, and a period-correct tool.

I was fortunate enough recently to acquire a New York State Militia Remington Rolling Block rifle in .50-70 Government, so I took it to the range today to do a preliminary workup.

Original .50-70-450 Government cartridge.  Note the Bénet-primed case.

The original cartridges had a .50-caliber bullet weighing 450 grains over 70 grains of rifle powder in a copper Bénet-primed case.  (These look like rim fires, but are not.)  Unfortunately, the modern Starline brass I acquired will not take 70 grains of powder without the use of a powder compression die, and there are currently none available (although I am having one made at this time).  I therefore loaded my cartridges with only 60 grains, and even with that reduced load the bullet noses were somewhat squashed when I loaded them.  I made two batches of cartridges, one using Swiss 1.5F and one using Swiss 2F.  The bullets I used come from a Lee mold which produces a nearly perfect match for the originals in size, shape, and weight.

The original 1871 Springfield Rolling Block made for the U.S. Army (which is slightly different in design from those bought by the New York State Militia, although they used the same ammunition) had a muzzle velocity recorded by the U.S. Ordnance Department as 1,240 f.p.s. (1873 Ord. Dept. Report pp. 392-393.).

I shot two tables of fire today.  Table of Fire One was fired using cartridges with 60 grains of Swiss 1.5F powder, and Table of Fire Two was fired using cartridges that were identical except for being loaded with 60 grains of Swiss 2F powder.

Shooting Conditions: Heavily overcast, 66 degrees, wind from 11:00 at 20+ m.p.h., humidity 29.97inHg.

All shots were done from a rest at 100 yards.  The Point of Aim was at the very top of the center block on the target (i.e., a 12:00 hold) with a full sight.  I elected to use a 12:00 hold and a full sight when I discovered in preliminary firing that the shots were hitting extremely low, but even that extreme combination was insufficient, as the pictures below will make plain.

Table of Fire One: 60 grains Swiss 1.5F.
Muzzle Velocity: 1,268 f.p.s.
String Test: 5.5 in./rd.
Figure of Merit: 3.73 in.

ToF One, 60 gr. Swiss 1.5F.

Figure of Merit Grouping Diagram, ToF One.

Table of Fire Two: 60 grains Swiss 2F.
Muzzle Velocity: 1,286 f.p.s.
String Test: 5.2 in./rd.
Figure of Merit: 2.72 in.

ToF Two, 60 gr. Swiss 2F.

Figure of Merit Grouping Diagram, ToF Two.

Conclusions
My goal, as always, was to make ammunition which functioned just as the original did, and I have obviously not succeeded here.  Not only did both batches have higher muzzle velocities than the Ordnance Department records, despite using light 60-grain loads, but even with these higher MVs the rifle did not shoot to the sights.  If my ammunition matched the original ammo, at 100 yards the Mean Point of Impact should have been on the bullseye (see the Figure of Merit Diagrams above), but in both cases the Mean Point of Impact was well below the Intended Mean Point of impact (about 5 and 7 inches respectively).  Since the Muzzle Velocities for both batches were higher than the original, the Mean Points of Impact for both tables of fire should have been higher than that, but, instead, they were still lower.

These results leave me with a complex problem:  Was the MV the same for the NY Militia Rolling Blocks as for the Springfield government Rolling Blocks?  Why were the muzzle velocities higher than the original ammo despite being lighter loads?  And why were the Mean Points of Impact so low despite the MVS being higher than the originals?  As to the MV, my suspicion is that the volume of the copper Bénet-primed cases were significantly different from (i.e., larger) my Starline brass, so even with only 60 grains the heavy compression in my cartridges drove up the MV.  Again, however, this does not explain the ridiculously low Mean Points of Impact.

As to function, and setting aside ballistics for the moment, the Remington Rolling Block is a superb rifle.  Loading was easy, the rifle is comfortable to shoot, and the trigger is excellent.  The rifle does not eject as well as a Springfield Trapdoor, and obviously has a much more curved trajectory than the .45-70 rifle but that is to be expected.  I will say, however, that contrary to people's claims, I didn't find the manual of arms to really be any better than that of the Trapdoor.

New Release: Historical Shooting with the Martini-Henry Rifle

I am excited to announce that I have just published the next book in my Historical Shooting series, entitled Historical Shooting with the Martini-Henry Rifle.  As with the other books in the series, this is not about the history of the rifle, (although I do cover the subject at a high level for context) nor a military history of the period, but is, rather, a book about shooting the weapon as authentically as possible.  I have to emphasize this point: this book is about shooting the rifle as it was done in period, not about collecting Martini-Henry rifles.

In this book the reader will learn how to make and package ammunition for the Martini-Henry rifle, how to load, fire, strip, clean, maintain the rifle, and how to shoot it according to the military manuals of the period. The book also contains brief over-views of the rifle, ammunition, and equipment of a British soldier of the 1880s to help historical shooters assemble a kit for the hobby.

The book is perfect-bound soft cover in an 8.5x11 inch format.  It is 192 pages in length and has many full-color photographs along with dozens of charts and diagrams.  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 a month or more 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/historical-shooting-with-the-martini-henry-rifle/paperback/product-w48kp4j.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 (click on the pictures for larger views):

Range Report 14JUN2026: Comparing the Smith and Burnside Carbines

I spent my Sunday at the Church of the Holy Black Powder.  Among other things, today saw a head-to-head comparison between my Burnside and Smith carbines.

Shooting Conditions: Sunny and clear.  80 degrees, wind from 5:00 at ~5-10 mph. Humidity 37%.

Range: 50 yards
Position: Rest
Sighting: Full sight, 6:00 hold.
For reference, the black disk on the targets is 3 inches in diameter.

Burnside Load: 45 grains of Swiss 2F under a card wad and a .563-caliber bullet weighing 365 grains in a nylon case.

Smith Load: 35 grains of Schuetzen 3F powder (I found some older cartridges—nowadays I only shoot Swiss, but wanted to use these up) with a nitrated paper base and a Smith reproduction bullet from Eras Gone Bullet Molds in a nylon case.

Table of Fire One: Burnside
String: 27.0 in.
Rounds: 10
String Test: 2.7 in./rd.

ToF One: Burnside.

Table of Fire Two: Smith
String: 23.25 in.
Rounds: 10
String Test: 2.3 in./rd.

ToF Two: Smith.

Observations
Although I maintain my opinion that the Smith carbine was the best carbine of the Civil War, there is but little to choose between it and the Burnside.  Actually, the Burnside does an even better job of preventing gas release than the Smith (which is one of the best for that), but it is a bit more “finicky” about loading cartridges and removing the spent cases.  The Smith is simply easier to load, operate, and remove the spent case.

I am at a loss to explain the vertical stringing in ToF One.  The first round fired is the highest hit on the paper, so we can ignore that and call it a fouling shot, maybe, but even so, half the shots went high and half went right into the black.  Nor was that me adjusting the aim and working my way down:  I aimed the same way every time, and the hits were random.  I honestly don’t know if I was doing something weird or if maybe the loads were off somehow (e.g., bullets not seated correctly).  Still, that spread is only about 8 inches, with no horizontal deviation, so that’s excellent.  I really think that when I get this worked out, this carbine will be able to give my Smith a run for its money.

I absolutely love these new Burnside bullets.  Not only are they the most historically correct of the various styles I have tried, but they shoot the best.  As a result, I actually bought the SAECO mold for them from Buffalo Arms.  It was hideously expensive, but worth it, I think.

Obviously, the Smith did best today.  The Smith always does best.  It’s the only historical firearm I own that I know, without any doubts, will have zero mishaps at the range and will always have a String Test of less than 2.5 in./rd.  Actually, although not shown here, I got a String Test of only 1.75 in./rd. in a later Table of Fire because I was adjusting my aim, which I did not want to do for the above ToF in order to gauge precision, not accuracy.  I need to take two, maybe three, more file strokes to the front sight blade and I think it will start putting all ten in the black.  I think the reason it’s shooting slightly right is that the front sight may be slightly bent, so I’ll mess with that a bit, too.

Regarding the powder used, I have stopped using Schuetzen because it’s almost as weak and dirty as Goex, but when preparing to go today I found some old cartridge packs of Smith ammo loaded with Schuetzen, so I decided to shoot them to get rid of them.  As you can see, they shot well, but the difference in how fouled the carbines were was stark.

Range Report 24MAY2026: Comparing Boxer Cartridges

I was recently talking to someone about shooting my version of the English Boxer cartridge, often incorrectly called a "Pritchett" cartridge.  Our discussion touched upon the functional difference between cast and compressed (sometimes called "swaged") bullets, on the importance of the paper, on why historical ammunition loads don't work for unhistorical fantasy shooting sports, and on why modern replica P-53 rifles, or, more precisely the bores of those rifles, don't shoot well with historical ammunition.  It's a huge and fairly complex subject, and worse, is clouded by vast amounts of false redneck lore that has been repeated as gospel for decades, so today's range session looks at several of those questions.

I am not going to go into the complicated question of why modern reproduction rifles are purposefully designed for people doing modern fantasy shooting sports and why that means they don't work with historical loads since that subject has already been covered in depth by Brett Gibbons here:
https://youtu.be/KHC7c1UeNX0
Suffice to say, although my rifle started out as a cheap Euroarms reproduction, it has been as carefully modified to function like an original as I have been able to arrange.  Tod Watts has defarbed the stock and shaved it down to match the shape of an original better, and Whitacre Machine Works made me a new barrel with the historically correct progressive depth rifling and installed a new, better-made rear sight.  Mr. Watts also installed a new front sight (which is what drove today's shooting--I wanted to try it out).

When I make English cartridges, I make the Boxer style, which was the last of the three main types.  These had .550 in. bullets with clay plugs.  To learn how I make them, get a copy of my book, Historical Shooting with the P-53 Enfield or go HERE.  I load them with 68 grains of Swiss 1.5F powder, and my bullets are cast with a mold from NOE.

Today, I pitted my fairly crude cartridges against those made by Brett Gibbons at Paper Cartridges LLC.  Mr. Gibbons' cartridges use compressed bullets, not cast, and are perfect matches for those used in period.  In addition, he wraps them much better than I can, a point that becomes instantly obvious during loading.  I loaded them, also, with 68 grains of Swiss 1.5F.

I fired 30 rounds of each type, for a total of 60 shots, today.  Every single cartridge loaded perfectly and rammed without any force required at all, except for a couple of my cartridges which were tied off clumsily so they were a bit hard to start into the muzzle.  In fact, one problem I had today was that Mr. Gibbons' bullets started to fall down the bore on their own, so I had to be careful to maintain my hold on the paper when I was breaking the powder tube off or else the whole thing would have fallen down the bore without even ramming.  You will never have that "problem" with a Springfield rifle musket and those abominable Civil War Burton-ball cartridges!

I shot all tables of fire from a rest, as you should when gauging the precision of the rifle and ammunition rather than the accuracy of the shooter, and shot all of them at 75 yards.  Shooting conditions: Bright and sunny 70 degrees, wind 10 mph from 5:00, humidity 48%.    I used a fine sight picture with a 6:00 hold on the Center for all shots.  The targets are my reproduction of the 1864 3rd-class targets for 300 yards scaled down to use at 100 yards.

Table of Fire Two: My Cartridges

ToF 2: My cartridges.

Rounds: 10
String: 32.0 in.
String Test: 3.2 in./rd.

Table of Fire Three: Paper Cartridges LLC

ToF 3: Paper Cartridges LLC.

Rounds: 10
String: 27.0 in.
String Test: 2.7 in./rd.

Conclusion
This only shows 20 out of the 60 rounds I fired today.  The rest of the results were very close to those posted here, although these show the best table for each of the different cartridges.

Although it may be hard to see in the photograph, 7 out of the 10 rounds in ToF 3 (Paper Cartridges LLC) are bullseyes in almost the exact middle of the Center, with 2 in the Inner, and only one in the Outer.  That last is interesting because it clearly key-holed (you can see it on the upper left of the Outer right beside the numeral 3).  I have no idea what cause it to keyhole, unless in ramming it I somehow stripped the bullet out of the paper.  Regardless, I'll take getting 7 out of 10 rounds on the exact bullseye all through the same hole any day of the year!

While my bullets (ToF2) didn't shoot as well as those of Mr. Gibbons, a String Test of 3.2 in./rd. is very satisfying, and is better than I usually get, so I am quite pleased.  I use a very thin tracing paper for the bullet patch, but I will be switching to 9-lb. onionskin paper from now on as my cartridges were slightly harder to get started, if not any harder to ram, than those from Mr. Gibbons.  I will also forbear from casting my own bullets and simply switch to using the compression-formed bullets from Paper Cartridges LLC as they are clearly superior, since all other factors were the same today.

Another interesting note is that although the String Tests showed a distinct difference, using the scoring system for which these targets were designed, the scores were almost identical.  In the musketry instructions, a Center was worth 4 points, an Inner was worth 3 points, and an Outer was worth 2 points.  Using that system, my cartridges produces a score of 35 compared to the 36 for the Paper Cartridges LLC.

Pietta Remington vs. Uberti Colt: Who Will Win?

 

My Pietta Remington New Model Army with Johnston & Dow cartridges.

My Colt New Model Army with bullets cast from an original Colt mold!

Today was really just going to be a plinking day, and I don't usually write blog posts about plinking days, but the results were interesting and the day was just so enjoyable I thought I'd share.

I had originally had my Remington NMA modified to accept paper cartridges, but I was using Kerr bullets at the time.  I have since acquired a Johnston and Dow mold from Eras Gone Bullet Molds and I really love them because the heels make for very nice paper cartridges, so I sent my revolver off to Gary Barnes again to have it opened up a bit more to accept the taller J&D bullets.  He opened the loading port just slightly and cut out the sides of the rammer slightly and now they fit perfectly and are easy to load.

This made me think it was time for a shoot-off between my beloved Pietta Remington NMA and my less-loved Uberti Colt NMA using exactly the same ammunition.  I can't deny that I really enjoy the balance of the Colt, and since Mr. Barnes completely reworked it it shoots somewhat better, but it's still only an Uberti, so it isn't very reliable.

I shot nearly 100 rounds today, and won't bore my readers (if any) with all the results (which, by the way, support the results I show here), but I also shot off a few cylinders of Hazard compressed-powder cartridges from my Remington, and a few cylinders of paper cartridges using bullets cast from an original Colt bullet mold I got from my friend Keith Katschke, so I thought I'd post those as well.

Hazard compressed-power cartridges with 25 grain of Swiss 3F.

Cartridges made with bullets from an original Colt mold made into paper cartridges using the Colt one-piece pattern and packed in Colt split-style packages with 22 grains of Swiss 3F.

All shooting was done at 15 yards using a full sight with a 6:00 hold without aiming off.  For reference, the black disks are 3 inches in diameter.  The cartridges used in Tables of Fire 1 and 2 were identical: 25 grains of Swiss 3F with a Johnston and Dow bullet.  The loads for the other two tables of fire are as shown above.

Table of Fire 1: Remington.

Table of Fire One: Remington
Position: Fired from rest.
String; 17.5 in.
Rounds: 12
String Test: 1.46 in./rd.

Table of Fire 2: Colt.

Table of Fire Two: Colt
Position: Fired from rest.
String: 25.5 in.
Rounds: 11 (I clumsily broke one before loading it)
String Test: 2.32 in./rd.

Table of Fire 4: Colt NMA with Colt cartridges.

Table of Fire Four: Colt with Colt cartridges
Position: Offhand
String: 23.75 in.
Rounds: 12
String Test: 1.98 in. rd.

Table of Fire 5: Remington with Hazard cartridges.

Table of Fire Five: Remington with Hazard cartridges
Position: Offhand
String: 22.25 in.
Rounds: 12
String Test: 1.85 in./rd.

Bottom line: Even ignoring the typical Uberti problems I have with this Colt, it is not as accurate as my Remington--1.5 inches/round versus 2.3 inches/round when fired from a rest to take the shooter out of the equation as much as possible, and the rest of my shooting today reinforced that conclusion.

That being said, the String Test with the Colt using the original Colt bullets was the best score I got with the Colt all day, despite being fired offhand--nearly as good as my Remington offhand results.  That is extremely interesting and worthy of deeper study.

Note for the Remington haters:  I fired around 48 rounds through the Remington today without having to clean the base pin and never experienced cylinder lock.  Personally, I find that criticism of Remingtons to be ridiculous since it is purely modern concern having nothing to do with the revolver's intended use, but regardless, it was absolutely not an issue.

New Release: 2nd Edition of Historical Shooting with Civil War Cavalry Arms

I am excited to announce that I have just published the next book in my Historical Shooting series, entitled Historical Shooting with Civil War Cavalry Arms, Second Edition.  As with the other books in the series, this is not about the history of the Civil War of Civil War firearms, (although I do cover the subject at a high level for context) nor a military history of the period, but is, rather, a book about shooting these weapons as authentically as possible.

The book is perfect-bound soft cover in an 8.5x11 inch format.  It is 344 pages in length and has many full-color photographs along with dozens of charts and diagrams.  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/historical-shooting-with-civil-war-cavalry-arms-second-edition/paperback/product-v87742z.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.

The first edition of this book was written in 2021-2022 and was my first attempt at writing a book about the hobby of historical shooting. Since then, I have learned a great deal about how to write these sorts of books. In addition, since 2022 several companies have introduced more tools and equipment for making cartridges, including historical bullet molds and cartridge-forming kits, which make it easier to make other kinds of ammunition. I have also learned better and/or more historically accurate ways to make and package that ammunition. All of this has led me to become increasingly dissatisfied with Historical Shooting with Civil War Cavalry Arms, so I decided it was time to prepare a second edition of the book that would expand and improve the first edition.

In the first edition I showed how to make only one kind of revolver cartridge and one kind of carbine cartridge, arguing that the book was primarily about shooting, not making ammunition, and those cartridges were just meant as exemplars. In reality, however, as I learned to make many other kinds of ammunition I came to realize that there is no historical shooting without the correct ammunition and that more was needed in a book like this.

In this book I briefly discuss some of the more important or interesting revolvers and carbines of the War, then I go on to give detailed, step-by-step instructions for making four different kinds of combustible revolver cartridges and their associated packaging; seven different kinds of cartridges for the Sharps, Burnside, Smith, and Maynard carbines, along with their associated packaging; a discussion of the appropriate equipment for historical shooting; information about the manuals of arms and loading methods for all the weapons covered; disassembly, cleaning and maintenance, and reassembly instructions for each weapon; and detailed information about the theory and practice of shooting in period.

All of these changes have made for a book that is dramatically different from the first edition. It is more than twice as long (and much more than half of it is new), is much better in format, is laid out better, many mistakes have been corrected, and it is both broader in subject and more focused in detail. I believe it to be a much better book, and that it has a lot to offer even to people who already have the first edition. If you are reading this, I hope you will agree.

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