Thursday, February 17, 2022

Book Review: Making the Skin Cartridge by W. J. L. Schroeder


People who study the development of firearms sometimes pay scant attention to the development of ammunition, and yet the two are intrinsically linked.  Ammunition, especially that intended for military use, went through numerous iterations as people tried to find ways to make ammunition that was inexpensive, easy and fast to load, and accurate.  In addition, military ammunition needed to be durable enough to store, transport, and to be handled by soldiers in rough field conditions.

In the mid-nineteenth century flintlocks could still occasionally be seen, and breech-loading metallic cartridge weapons were starting to appear, but the majority of firearms of the period were cap locks.  Cap lock firearms have an external nipple or cone set into the chamber.  A percussion cap is placed onto the cone and a hammer strikes the cap, igniting the powder and discharging the weapon. 

Early cap loader ammunition for the military was little different from that used in flintlocks:  A paper cartridge held a greased bullet and loose powder; the paper was ripped open, the powder poured loose into the bore, and the bullet (still sometimes wrapped in paper) was forced down onto the powder with a ramrod.  This process was tedious and uncertain, but the introduction of combustible cartridges changed things for the better.  Typical combustible cartridges had an envelope of combustible material which was filled with powder and then glued to the rear of a bullet.  Combustible cartridges were significantly easier to use because the entire cartridge was placed in the breech of a weapon in a single unit before being rammed down. 

The majority of military combustible cartridges of this period were made from rag paper soaked in a solution of potassium nitrate to make it burn easily.  These were extremely effective, and the art of making them has resurfaced today among hobbyists interested in black-powder firearms.  Another material used for combustible cartridges was animal intestines, a process far less understood today.  Although somewhat tedious to make, skin cartridges had the advantage that they could be shellacked in order to make them somewhat waterproof.  This material was never common, but we know it was used, and now, thanks to Making the Skin Cartridge by W. J. L. Schroeder, we know how to do it. 

Mr. Schroeder has a lifetime of firearms experience, a fact his book demonstrates plainly.  In it, he gives detailed and insightful instructions for making skin cartridges which will enable a reader who already understands black powder firearms and combustible cartridges to recreate this fascinating style of ammunition.  He explains how to select, acquire, and prepare the intestines; how to form them into sheets of the correct size; how to form them into shells; how to fill them with powder and bullets; and how to shellac them for storage.  He provides numerous tips and tricks for making the process work and for correcting problems that arise during manufacture.  This book contains all the information needed to make skin cartridges that will work perfectly in cap lock rifles or pistols, resurrecting a fascinating lost art. 

It must be noted, however, that Making the Skin Cartridge was written for people who already have experience with black-powder firearms and with making paper cartridges; it is not a book for novices.  Mr. Schroeder does not give detailed instructions for making the formers needed to make skin cartridges (although he provides several pictures of the ones he uses), nor for the details of filling them, such as appropriate cartridge loads.  Other reviews I have read criticize this lack, but such criticisms reflect more upon the modern “do everything for me” attitude of the reviewer than on the value of Mr. Schroeder’s work.  Skin cartridges should be seen as an advanced skill, and the author makes that plain in his introduction. 

In addition to the information about making skin cartridges, Mr. Schroeder includes a number of small articles about various areas of interest, some related to firearms and some not, including cast bullets, lubrication, barrel problems, and cartridge loading issues.  He also includes a few brief articles about 19th-century areas of interest and a brief but amusing anecdote about a certain crow of his acquaintance.  In a way, these additions give the book something of the flavor of an old “commonplace book.” 

Although well written and engaging, Making the Skin Cartridge evinces some editing issues, including spelling and formatting errors, as well as a few noticeable malapropisms (e.g., “patients” for “patience” in a few places).  It lacks both a table of contents and an index.  Such problems are endemic among self-published books, but as the author points out, he is not a writer, and this is not set forth as a work of high literature.  Rather, the author’s intention was to give those interested in historical ammunition the benefit of his wealth of knowledge and skill acquired over a lifetime of study and practice, and for that, the book serves well—even admirably.  Perhaps its only substantive failing is that it lacks detailed historical documentation about its subject since Mr. Schroeder only addresses the mechanical process of cartridge making. 

This book is self-published by the author.  It is perfect bound, with the binding being well done and serviceable, in a six- by nine-inch format, and is seventy-six pages in length.  The printing is clean and the font is sized well.  The numerous diagrams are easy to understand, and the photographs are fairly small but clear.  It is available from Amazon and from the author.

I heartily recommend this excellent book to anyone with an interest in historical ammunition or firearms, even those who have no intention of attempting to replicate skin cartridges. 

This review is copyright © 2022 by Hugh T. Knight, Jr.  Permission is granted to freely copy and/or redistribute this review provided it is done in whole and includes proper attribution.

Saturday, February 12, 2022

Range Report 12FEB2022: Improved Remington New Model Army

I sent my Pietta replica Remington New Model Army revolver out to a highly skilled gunsmith by the name of Gary Barnes.  Mr. Barnes stripped the nasty plastic finish off the grips, refinished them, did an action job, opened up the loading port to make it easier to load paper cartridges, changed the profile of the end of the rammer to conform to the shape of the conical bullets, adjusted the forcing cone, and reamed the chambers to make them consistent and to get the correct size.  He then re-blued the entire frame and barrel.  It looks fantastic, and the trigger feels amazing.

Upgraded Pietta Remington New Model Army.

I took the piece to the range today to see how it loaded and how it shot.  First, the load.  I use paper cartridges that I make myself.  I cast my own bullets from 100% lead using a historically correct Kerr bullet mold from Eras Gone Bullet Molds, and I make the shells from unbleached coffee filters which have been treated with a super-saturated solution of potassium nitrate.  For more information about how I make and package historically correct ammunition, see here.

A sample Kerr cartridge and the cartridge packages I make to carry them (I don't have Kerr labels yet, unfortunately).

I initially choose the Kerr bullet because of the fact that, among the historically correct bullets currently available, it fits best in reproduction revolvers.  It has worked well for me, but it must be admitted that loading paper cartridges into the revolver was still somewhat difficult--that's the primary reason I sent my piece off to be reworked.  I am pleased to say that after the work Mr. Barnes did loading paper cartridges is now as easy as loading metallic cartridges in a modern revolver.  It is remarkable--they slip straight in with no effort at all.  Moreover, despite the fact that he reamed the chambers slightly, ramming the bullet home still leaves a respectable ring of lead that gets cut off, ensuring that there will be no chain fires.  I cannot express how happy I am with this improvement--paper cartridges are now an order of magnitude easier to use, and I hate using round balls.

Unfortunately, my shooting results are somewhat less thrilling.  I love the trigger now that it has been reworked--it is clean and as smooth as silk without being too light.  Despite this, my scores today were not as good as I had been getting before I sent the piece off.  I do NOT attribute this to the work that Mr. Barnes did; rather, it's been about six months since I last took this pistol to the range, and I think I have gotten a bit sloppy.  My average String Test measurement previously was around 3.4 in./rd., and I had been starting to get measurements in the 1.7-2.2 inches/round range, so today's results represented some unfortunate backsliding on my part.

The String Test:  This is a 19th-century method for determining accuracy.  It is vastly superior to simply determining group size because it takes into account both the group size and the distance of the Mean Point of Impact from the Intended Mean Point of Impact (the bullseye) in a single number which is easy to compare from shooting session to shooting session.  In essence, it gives the average distance of each impact from the bullseye.  For more information about the String Test, see here.

Bullet Energy:  The Kerr bullets come out of the mold at a remarkably consistent 225-grain average.  My chronograph readings were not as consistent as I'd like, but I had a mix of powders being used, including Pyrodex 'P' and Swiss and Schuetzen 3F.  I got a range of bullet velocities from 740 fps to 830 fps., with an average of 783 fps.  This gives an average bullet energy of 306 foot pounds, which is very respectable.

Conditions:
Wind, variable from 12:00 to 4:00, speed light to moderate.  67 degrees and sunny.  All shots made offhand.  Sight picture and alignment:  Full sight, 6:00 hold.  Range:  15 yards.

Table One:
25 grains Pyrodex P.
6 rounds, 22.0 inches.
Sting Test = 3.7 in./rd.

Table One: 3.7 in./rd.

Table Two:
25 grains Schuetzen 3F.
6 rounds, 28.5 inches.
String Test = 4.7 in./rd.

Table Two: 4.7 in./rd.
Table Three:
25 grains Swiss 3F.
6 rounds, 18.0 inches.
String Test:  3.0 in. rd.

Table Three: 3.0 in./rd.

Table Four:
20 grains Pyrodex P.
6 rounds, 24.5 inches.
String Test:  4.1 in. rd.
Table 4: 4.1 in./rd. (NB: The marks on the upper left are not from the revolver.)

To say that I am dissatisfied with these String Test measurements is a gross understatement; I am appalled.  My best shooting to date saw an all-time best score of 1.7 in./rd. (see here) back in April of 2021.  I am unsure of what happened (other than the fact that it's been a long time since I got to do any practicing, which is no excuse).  I will also note that Table Four was shot using cartridges with only 20 grains of powder, and I have noticed in the past that my revolver does not like this load (I had old packages to use up).  Perhaps I just got sloppy.  Still, I wouldn't call these results bad shooting--3-4 inches/round at 15 yards is certainly sufficient for Civil War combat marksmanship.  Having said that, I am ecstatic about the handling of my reworked revolver.  It really would be difficult to express just how much nicer it is to load and to shoot since Mr. Barnes worked his magic on it, and now I just have to buckle down, practice, and get my numbers where they should be.

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 recrea...