I have three different bullets for my Burnside carbine: 350-grain flat-nosed bullets at .553 in. I bought from S&S Firearms; those I make with a mold from Accurate Molds which come out at .563 in and weigh 390 grains; and some new ones I just got from Buffalo Arms which are a near-perfect match for the originals and are .553 in. and weigh 365 grains. I will refer to these as the S&S, the Accurate, and the Buffalo bullets, respectively, below.
 |
| Left, S&S bullets; Right, Accurate Molds bullets (just the far right four). |
 |
| Left, Buffalo bullets; Right, Accurate bullets. |
I had already done a test firing of the S&S bullets and the results were quite poor, so today's project was to compare the Accurate and Buffalo Arms bullets to that original test firing of the S&S bullets to see which worked best.
All of the cartridges were made up in roughly the same way, however, as the pictures above will show, I recently acquired a batch of nylon cases (which are no longer being made, incidentally), and since I was out of the brass ones, I elected to use these for the Buffalo bullets. All cartridges were loaded with 45 grain of Swiss 2F powder under a card wad.
Shooting Conditions
65 degrees, wind 5 mph from 3:00, humidity 40%.
Range: 25 yards.
Firing Position: Seated rest.
Aiming: A half-sight 6:00 hold (but see below).
For reference, the black dots on the targets are 3 in. in diameter.
Results
Previous Results with the S&S bullets:
 |
| The results from the previous session with S&S bullets. |
String: 27.5 in.
String Test: 5.5 in./rd.
Table One: Accurate Mold
 |
| Table One: Accurate Mold. |
String: 30 in.
String Test: 3.75 in./rd.
Table Two: Buffalo Arms bullets
 |
| Table Two: Buffalo Arms bullets. |
String: 37.25 in.
String Test: 2.48 in./rd.
Conclusions
As should be obvious, the bullets I bought from S&S firearms performed abysmally. Yes, that was the first time I had ever fired my Burnside, but that is not a valid explanation. As a result, let's compare the other two.
First, let me start by saying I cheated. I fired all eight of the Accurate cartridges using the same aiming point--6:00 on the black disk; I only fired 8 rounds because although I brought ten, two simply refused to chamber. That is because of the brass cases, not the bullets; the brass cases are notorious for not fitting. I have about 30 brass cases, and have had to set aside ten of them as not fitting at all, even without a bullet inserted. I thought these two fit, but when I tried to load them they didn't, so I'll have to work on shaping the bad brass to make it useable.
But when I started firing the Buffalo Arms cartridges I saw the first one hit very high, so I adjusted my Point of Aim slightly lower for the next batch of shots, which you can clearly see bunched in the middle of the group. Seeing that these were still slightly high, I aimed slightly lower still for the last batch of shots, which, as you can see, are almost all in the same hole right on the aiming disk except for the one flyer to the left, and that was me--I felt my hands shake as I fired.
Had I tried aiming off, I believe the Accurate Molds cartridges would have achieved a String Test much closer to that of the Buffalo Arms cartridges, but looking at the tightness of the groups, I think the latter would still have gotten a better score.
I purchased the Accurate Molds mold because someone I respect greatly told me I needed a bullet that was at least .56 in. diameter for accurate shooting, and I think that when I start working on the right Point of Aim for this carbine these bullets will work beautifully. The fact is, however, that with this carbine, at least, the .553 Buffalo Arms bullets are superior. I suspect that my friend--who really is an expert, with a lot of experience--is accustomed to other carbines that may be a bit worn, whereas I am lucky in that the bore on my carbine, while not bright, has solid, crisp, sharp rifling that indicates it is not much worn.
I am thrilled with today's results. My personal goal is to achieve sub-3 in. String Test results, which the Buffalo bullets did, and the Accurate ones probably would have had I aimed off. I believe that with practice I may be able to approach the sub-1 in. String Tests I get with my Smith carbine.
I was pleased, too, with the nylon shells, particularly given how rare the brass ones are and how poor their quality is. There were no misfires, they seemed perfectly fine after shooting, and they cleaned up very easily after shooting with just soap and water. We shall have to see if they changed shape when I try reloading them.
The Buffalo Arms bullets seem to me to be the best possible choice for this weapon. I am extremely unhappy that the S&S and Accurate bullets have the wrong shape, whereas the Buffalo Arms bullets are near-perfect analogs of the originals (the cannelures are different, but can't be seen when loaded), which matters a lot to me, and they shoot so well there is no reason not to prefer them.
This carbine is interesting to shoot. It is not as simple nor as fast to operate as my Smith, and the fussiness about accepting cartridges is a very serious problem. It is, regardless, quite easy to use, handy, well-balanced, and accurate. I certainly prefer it to the Sharps.
The next thing is to work up detailed ballistic information, aiming points, etc., and then I believe a head-to-head shoot off against my beloved Smith carbine will be called for. I am pretty sure that the Smith is still the best carbine of the War, but I am impressed with the Burnside and think it will be very close. The biggest difference I see right now is that it is much easier to remove spent cases from the Smith because of the way they protrude from the breech, whereas removing the spent Burnside brass is significantly more finicky. Note, however, that even after 23 rounds, without any cleaning or oiling, I experienced zero stuck cases despite claims I have read that they become hard to remove. Another problem is that the loading lever sometimes needs to be struck gently to close, another problem the Smith never has.
