Range Report 16 SEP2023: The 1859 Sharps Infantry Rifle

Pedersoli 1859 Sharps Infantry Rifle, cartridges, cartridge packs, and implementia.

Introduction
I had several goals for today:  First, I wanted to see how my new, slightly shorter, linen cartridges fit and fired in my Sharps.  Second, I wanted to compare and contrast my linen cartridges made with the Eras Gone Richmond Labs Sharps bullet with the historically inauthentic Hahn cardboard tube cartridges using the Lyman "Christmas Tree" ring-tailed bullet.  There is a lot of talk about the Hahn cartridges being more accurate at the short ranges used in certain kinds of competitive shooting, and while that kind of shooting has little relevance to what I do, it is still an interesting comparison.  To that end, I shot groups of both cartridges (far more than the results chronicled below) both over the chronograph and at targets to determine the String Test results for both.  For the impatient, the historically correct linen cartridges outperformed the Hahn modern cartridges in both respects, but that is a simplistic answer, and those interested should really read the detailed discussion which follows for a more nuanced answer.

New Cartridges and Cartridge Pack
The new, slightly shorter line tubes worked wonderfully.  I shortened the linen tubes by 0.2 inch, leaving all else the same; they had the same load, I just didn't use as much filler (see below), and they fit the chamber of the rifle better.  None of them got caught in the block when closing it the way the earlier pattern did, even when the chamber was heavily fouled.

I got a .54-caliber bore brush and used it to clean the chamber after every ten rounds, and this helped a lot with the problem of having the base of the cartridges stick out from the chamber to interfere with the rising block, too.  I also swabbed the bore with a wet followed by two dry patches every ten rounds.  I had absolutely no shooting problems while using this routine, which was a great relief after all of the problems I have had getting this rifle to shoot.

Because I shortened the cartridges I wanted to redesign the box I use for making cartridge packs (see the above picture), and since I was doing that I took the opportunity to also make a completely new box design based on one that my friend Barry Geipel designed for the Smith Carbine cartridge packs.  This design is easier to make and is a lot more secure since it has larger tabs to hold it together.   I will be using Barry's design for my Smith cartridge packs, too, once the ones I already made wear out.

Barry Geipel-Style cartridge pack box.

The Cartridges
The linen cartridges were made with linen shells and contained 65 grains of Schuetzen 2F powder, cornmeal filler, and a 530-grain soft lead bullet cast using the excellent Richmond Labs Sharps mold from Eras Gone Bullet Molds.  The bullets were dipped in my historically correct bullet lube recipe taken from the 1861 Ordnance Manual.  They are close to being perfect reproductions of cartridges used in period (although the North didn't use the R.L. bullets, no one offers a mold to reproduce the correct Federal style bullets).  For a detailed explanation of how I make and package these cartridges, read my blog post on the subject HERE.

My linen cartridges (ungreased).

The Hahn cartridges are made using the modern Lyman version of a ring-tailed Sharps bullet inserted in a cardboard tube for ease of manufacture, and are not at all authentic in design or construction.  They include 55 grains of Schuetzen 2F powder, and the bullet weighs about 490 grains.  The cardboard tubes are sold by Charlie Hahn.

Hahn cartridges.

Muzzle Velocity and Energy
Naturally, the results will be very different for these cartridges.  My linen cartridges have the standard government load of 65 grains of rifle powder under a bullet that weighs 530 grains, while the Hahn cartridges have 55 grains (ten less) with a bullet that weighs 490 grains (about 40 less).

The linen cartridges had an average muzzle velocity of 919.7 feet per second which yields a muzzle energy of 995 foot-pounds.  Unfortunately, I do not have any information about the muzzle velocity of the historical cartridges, so I can't make a comparison.

The Hahn cartridges had an average muzzle velocity of 762.7 feet per second, for a muzzle energy of 633 foot-pounds.

I used this calculator to determine muzzle energy:  http://ballistics101.com/muzzle_energy_calc.php

Accuracy
As always, when judging accuracy I use the String Test that was used during the 19th century.  To understand the String Test and why it is the superior method for determining accuracy read my blog post HERE.  In fact, however, what I should have been comparing was the precision of the shots, not the accuracy.  Accuracy is a gauge of the man and how well he shoots a given piece, whereas precision is a gauge of the weapon, with the man removed from the equation as much as possible.  For precision, the Figure of Merit is a better gauge and is what I should have used here, but I was feeling a bit lazy, and since I shot both sets of shots in exactly the same way I believe the accuracy score still gives me what I wanted to know.

Conditions:  Lytle Creek Range; bright and sunny; wind 2 mph from 4:00; humidity 52%; barometer 20 in.Hg.  Range: 100 yards.  Shooting position: Seated Unsupported.  Full sight.

Table One:  Hahn Cartridges
Rounds = 10
String measurement: 49.0 in.
String Test:  4.9 in./rd.

Table One: Hahn Cartridges.

Table Two:  Linen Cartridges
Rounds = 10
String measurement: 45.25 in.
String Test:  4.5 in./rd.

Table Two: Linen Cartridges.

Conclusions
Clearly, the linen cartridges have significantly better terminal ballistics, with 362 more foot-pounds of energy than the Hahn cartridges, which speaks volumes to the intended use of the Sharps Rifle as a weapon for skilled skirmishers and designated marksmen (although that term wasn't used in period) who routinely engaged targets in excess of 500 yards, and sometimes double that.  Not surprisingly, the Sharps has a muzzle velocity roughly comparable to that of the 1861 Springfield Rifle used in the war (despite having a shorter barrel), and a significantly slower muzzle velocity than the contemporary P-53 Enfield Rifle which had a muzzle velocity in excess of 1,200 fps.

The String Test numbers, however, are much closer, a mere 0.4 in./rd., which surprised me greatly.  The Hahn cartridge is widely held to be better for this kind of short-range shooting (which is why it is more popular with modern target shooting groups), a fact which I was sure wasn't correct, and although I was right, I expected the linen cartridges to actually outperform the Hahn cartridges by more than they did.  In truth, I should have fired from a rest, and I should have kept the same sight picture for every shot instead of trying to adjust fire for better accuracy because that would have given a more realistic analysis of the precision of the cartridges, and I think the Hahns would have fared worse in that comparison.  Regardless, I think these results are still clear, just not as definitive as they could be.