How accurate is a Civil War rifle musket at 100 yards?

[@BrandonF]

Very interesting test, thank you for the video!

[@papercartridges6705]

Let me know if you ever venture east into the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, we should do some shooting!

[@titanscerw]

@@papercartridges6705 I would love to see video of that as I watch both channels :)

[@rolandweitbrecht3860]

The Enfield P1853 was very beloved on both sides.....

[@drewschumann1]

Actually it was cursed, since it's slightly tighter bore and style of rifling led to harder loading during follow-up shots. Lots of civil war myths out there

[@1799to1815]

I am so glad you make such great rifled musket videos, very informative and entertaining. I especially like content focusing on 1840s-1860s muzzle loaders! I'm new to muzzle loading, especially rifled muskets and have benefited greatly from your detailed videos. I appreciate the way you blend history and technical knowledge. I know you shoot mostly (or exclusively?) antiques, and was hoping that you, may at some point, provide insights into the differences and problems one might run into when one, such as myself, adapts the historical cartridges you feature in your videos to modern reproductions... I've been at it a few months and feel somewhat discouraged because I don't feel like I'm getting the accuracy my rifle should be capable of... I'm happy I can hit a torso sized target within 100 yards... I'd love to get to point where I can begin to reliably hit targets at distances the originals were designed to hit. Perhaps I'm just no good, but I can hit the target I'm aiming at (with acceptable reliability (for me)) when I shoot a modern lever gun... So I don't feel my frustration is completely my ineptitude with regards to aiming and such. Could it be that the Pedersoli made rifled musket is incapable of achieving the accuracy that the originals were capable of? What do you think? Any helpful hits or suggestions would be appreciated! Apologies for the ramble.

[@papercartridges6705]

The Pedersoli should be capable of very good accuracy. The crucial factors are the size of your bullets compared to the actual size of the bore and the powder charge. Sometimes a little trial and error is needed to figure out what your rifle likes. For instance, sometimes a rifle will shoot very poorly with 3F powder, but group nicely with 1.5F Powder. Make sure the bullets are absolutely pure soft lead. If possible, size them 1 or 2 thousandths of an inch below bore size. Lube them with a generous amount, this will keep the fouling soft and prevent it from becoming hard and filling the rifling grooves. Try different powder charges in 2 grain increments. Start with around 50 grains and work up 2 grains at a time.

[@1799to1815]

Hey, Thanks Robert for the reply. An outside perspective and support is always very helpful. I'm kinda figuring this out by myself and youtube... I really appreciate the feedback! I'll keep working at it! @robertstallard7836

[@1799to1815]

Thanks Paper Cartridges for the reply. I'll keep working at it... At the moment I"ve got 3 different bullets, sized, lubed and ready for trial I haven't tried different grains yet... Thanks for the input and suggestions. I keep working at it. @@papercartridges6705

[@SteveAubrey1762]

These guys got it right. There are too many variables to effectively create a comparison. Still, there is no reason one can't get the Pedersoli to shoot very well. While it does not have the progressive rifling, it is a Match Grade barrel. My careful experimentation with available materials, one should be able to wring some serious accuracy from these guns.

[@1799to1815]

Again, thanks for the tips y'all. I've done all you've suggested and have greatly improved. I'm hitting 100 yards with consistency and started working on 150 yards today. Thanks for the encouragement.

[@notsosilentmajority1]

The funny thing is that it looked like you took more time aiming with the rifle musket than you did with the smoothbore. At the end of the day, most people wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of someone firing these muskets at them, especially someone with real experience firing them.

[@laughingdog6010]

Thanks for the very good demonstration on the civil war rifles and ammunition.

[@eVVigilance]

Lol I got in as far as seeing you use US cartridges, and went "If he doesnt compare the Pritchett too..." I should have had faith.

[@warwolf416]

I really need to get an Enfield so I can stop being so primitive! But really, I acknowledge the Pritchett cartridge is way better, but there is just something pleasing about the Burton cartridge and the Springfield. The Springfield rifle is just beautiful.

[@helland846]

The straighter stock of an Enfield is a pain in the neck to me.

[@sweepsp8468]

I find these posts interesting to see just what the ammo/ gun can deliver. but, there is always a but. When you are in war with a hundred balls/ bullets coming at you something is going to hit you unless you are lucky

[@Lemonjellow]

What I took away from this is the Burton is clearly superior because with its extra vertical and horizontal spread you can keep the same hold and kill the tall guy, and the short guy to his left or right all with the same point of aim. 🧐

[@rackbites]

Loving these video. Any chance of Napoleonic era musket comparison? French versus English?

[@papercartridges6705]

I did a video a few years ago with Brown Bess, and the Sharpe “tap loading” method. It has more dislikes than any other video on my channel.

[@ScottMaurer-g2b]

I had always understood that the point of a minie out of a rifle musket was to get some of the terminal ballistic improvements that a rifle provides and approximate the rate of fire you could get from a smooth bore musket. They had and used very accurate rifles prior to the minie ball but they were quite tight in the bore and slow to load and fire. Anyone who has shot patched round ball out of a rifle musket knows what I mean. The 61 springfield loaded with period correct cartridges was always a compromise weapon and definitely provided a range advantage over smoothbores, this is entirely evident reading the accounts from the war but obviously the advantage is greatly exaggerated in the public consciousness.

[@Treblaine]

I've seen both Minie ball and round ball shot into ballistics gel, neither expands. They lack both the velocity and the nose profile to expand, the terminal ballistics should hardly vary between Minie and round ball. The effect is about on par with a modern JHP 9x19mm round that also expands to about 0.58-inch, the Muskets will penetrate about 30 inches rather than only 14. The distinction minie not only to allow faster loading but also greater accuracy than even round ball as the cannelures (grease groves) act like the feathers on a shuttlecock keeping the bullet pointing in line with its path through the air. By contrast a round ball will start its trajectory at an upwards angle with the axis of rotation pointing up but as the trajectory arcs down the axis of rotation keeps pointing upward. This causes more turbulence and a slight magnus effect that can be counterintuitive to correct for. This is why the most accurate rifles have rifling just barely enough to stabilize the round, too much then on the descending arc the bullet is slipstreaming sideways through the airflow.

[@ScottMaurer-g2b]

@@Treblaine a rifle delivers more energy to the target over a smoothbore owing to the higher velocities involved. that's going to mean a rifle has better terminal ballistics. Not that it means that the bullet will expand or something. The point was that a Minie gets the rifle's advantages in accuracy and energy delivered to the target without sacrificing rate of fire the way that rifles had previously.

[@Treblaine]

@@ScottMaurer-g2b The greater velocity doesn't increase the wound diameter, only the depth. Projectiles with a smooth rounded nose (or ogive) are very inefficient at using kinetic energy to cut chemical bonds in tissue. Consider cutting a long slab of beef in half using a sharp knife, how little force you need to separate it into two cuts, contrast that with hitting the same spot with a sledgehammer until you've crushed the beef at the point of impact. Far more energy for the same effect. Remember, lots of people survived being shot by minie balls and even walked to aid stations only to die from infection. This was Florence Nightingale's huge contribution to the war effort in Crimea, if you just could prevent infection using aseptic technique the injuries of Minie ball were often survivable even with minimal surgery.

[@ScottMaurer-g2b]

@@Treblaine a fair point and well argued. However, the superior wounding capabilities of the Minie ball over the round ball are often cited, perhaps erroneously, by both period and modern sources as to reasons for adopting the Minie. so regardless of whether this was the case or not, the perception of this effect was almost certainly a factor in the use of the minie over the round ball. which goes to my earlier point. It is however difficult to get period data about the wounding characteristics of each type of shot though I know it was tested.

[@Treblaine]

​@@ScottMaurer-g2b The same sources that claim the Minie ball was more deadly also cite many other supposed phenomena that were later debunked, like the conjecture that the rifled muskets increased the range of combat. Paper Cartridges argues against that decisively in one of his videos. What many historians did notice was that the casualties were massive and they struggled to explain it, so when they saw rifled muskets had just been introduced they declared "well that must be it." The reality is far more a matter of logistics: steam ships and steam locomotives just allowed far larger armies to be used at greater concentration. Industrialization allowed armies to be equipped far faster than they could be trained. The battles were simply larger. The huge increase in the size of armies also lead to less sophisticated strategy which meant things weren't as decisive. The reason for the Minie ball taking over was industrial inertia. Rifles were being mass produced and minie ammunition was being mass produced. Some units still had Smoothbore muskets at Gettysberg but they had to trade in for Rifled Muskets as they were going to be resupplied with ammunition that wasn't even the correct caliber for their smoothbore muskets. Colonel Fackler did extensive research to develop the "Ballistics gelatin" standard, it is more or less accurate for wound size and penetration and expansion. I think we can be quite confident in such ballistics-gel tests. Yeah, .58-cal minie ball is bad, but probably more or less the same as other piercing weapons that had been on the battlefield and has been seen since.

[@sejembalm]

You're a better shot than I am, Gunga Din. I make up for this by shooting reproduction matchlock smoothbore muskets (cutting edge military technology from the 1590s) and have a perfectly believable excuse for not even hitting the paper.

[@nickf9392]

I will also mention, if people are not aware, the North South Skirmishers Association holds several National matches just about 5-10 miles north of Winchester VA, I believe it is Gainesboro (Fort Shenandoah) You will see hundreds of target shooters shooting clay targets with period style Civil War weaponry. Its a great experience, and Winchester is a nice area to visit. If this is your thing, you really should go check it out.

[@kevingooley9628]

A long time ago I was part of the CWSA before it disbanded, we shot at 50 & 100 yards with rifle muskets at clay pigeons or 4" sq bathroom tiles, they were pretty accurate.

[@1stminnsharpshooters341]

been following NSSA for years pars ... would love to attend some day, participate on the range and visit around the camp fire --LT

[@nickf9392]

@@1stminnsharpshooters341 For a short time I was a member of Company C 2nd Regiment USSS out of PA. They didn't attend NSSA events, but were big into the living history aspect. Which was also very interesting, I really enjoyed interacting with the public and answering any questions they had. As far as Winchester, the Fall match is always the better time to go, and its coming up in the next month or so. Taylors firearms is also in Winchester on the North end, not far from the match.....check their hours first, I believe if you want to hit Taylors it will have to be on a week day. The reason I mention this above, is the NSSA events seems to have become somewhat smaller, and I am hoping people here can go and show their support for what they do. Its an experience, and you can walk the camp sites and bunk areas and everyone is happy to talk to you. And "The Virginia Farm Market" has the best pies on the planet, look them up too!

[@nickf9392]

@@kevingooley9628 The cannon matches are a real eye opener. When they retrieve the target from 200 yards, some of the best teams had a one hole clover leaf cut in the target! These guys could literally take your head off at 200 yrds, with a Civil War cannon!

[@williewonka6694]

​@@nickf9392Reminded of Leonidas Polk.

[@carlgomm9699]

Years ago I had an Enfield and loved it, I still have the 575213 Lyman mold I made bullets with, it shot it's best with 60 gr charges and was very accurate at 100 yds

[@derekbotha9508]

Watched your videos and find them interesting just a question should you not be firing these weapons from a rest to remove shooter error, and only focus on the weapons inherent accuracy or lack thereof? What would happen if we improved the trigger and the sights? So is it then the weapon or the sighting system lots of questions I know but it would be very interesting to see how well we could get the weapon to perform. Be

[@papercartridges6705]

At the end of the video I explain why I choose to shoot standing rather than from a bench. Basically, it’s because that’s how Civil War soldiers shot them, and these rifles were never designed or intended to be shot from a bench, or the prone.

[@Ivan-ge7xb]

Love the videos. Can I recommend "The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat" be Earl J Hess. It is an excellent book that uses historical data to back up your claims and expand upon the topic. Also, taking my kid to go shoot your Enfield cartridges out of my original Bently and Playfair this weekend.

[@papercartridges6705]

There’s a copy of Hess on my shelf in the background! You may be interested in my book “The Destroying Angel” where I interact with Hess’s conclusions extensively and take a slightly different approach.

[@Ivan-ge7xb]

The Destroying Angel is excellent book. You present clear historical data to back your argument that when soldiers are well TRAINED with a rifle, they change the course of warfare. @@papercartridges6705

[@hobojakobo]

I appreciate you “getting your hands dirty” and actually demonstrating in the real world what others might only talk and speculate about.

[@jeffreyrobinson3555]

There were 666 likes when I watched this, oh my, I guess I had to give a like to save the world😊

[@josephwdutton]

I have been looking to get a civil war rifle. I know the confederate sharpshooters commonly used the 2 band enfield. However as a vermonter I am interested in getting a rifle that my ancestors used. I also know that the enfield was a very common weapon used by the union but I can not seem to find any information about union sharpshooters using the enfield. I think part of this is because so much press either now or during the war was paid to rifles like the sharps in use by federal sharpshooters, but if you look at the numbers it seem to be the case that many federal sharpshooters must have been stuck with a muzzle loading rifle. If I bought a 2 or 3 band enfield do you think that would be a realistic representation of a sharpshooter in the union army?

[@the_guitarcade]

It's amazing to me that 50 years after the 1861 was in service, John Moses Browning's 1911 was in service. This makes me want to go to the range to see how quickly I can get a similar sized group out of my 1991A1.

[@PrebleStreetRecords]

A person born in 1840 could have learned to shoot with a flintlock as a kid, and lived to buy a Colt Monitor machine gun as an old man.

[@thatsthewayitgoes9]

Good follow through in shooting. Head down continuing to aim after shot, steady

[@jquill6]

Great Channel, I wonder can you answer a question. I've seen a good few documentaries abut the arrival of metallic cartridge/repeating rifles that slowly made their way into the battlefield of the civil war like the Henry and Spencer rifles. Obviously these were a big step up in terms of firepower, but did they really make a difference ? Was there any battles or skirmishes where one side completely dominated over the other because they were armed with repeating rifles. My guess is that they were issued in too small a quantity to make a significant difference.

[@papercartridges6705]

Tactics, logistics, and maneuver really matter more than the actual guns. In 1870, using a gun designed in 1841, the Prussians defeated the French who were using the brand new small bore bold action Chassepot. It’s when you combine the good guns with effective tactics, good logistics, and effective maneuver, that you absolutely get to dominate the enemy. This is very rare historically.

[@matthewcharles5867]

At least one occasion where wilders brigade made a difference due to being armed with repeaters. And I suspect there was more then one occasion where union cavalry forces had the upper hand due to just simply having more breechloaders issued. It does make quite a difference in timed events and I think that would have been just as apparent in combat.

[@brucevaughn2886]

@@matthewcharles5867. Yep. Never saw any record of men on the ground wanting a slower firing weapon.

[@Pitchlock8251]

Just a thought. But as an experiment. What if the US had plugged the base of the bullet similar to an Enfield cartridge, just without the paper patching.

[@Flintlock85]

Enjoyed the video Brett!! Nice job, and thanks again for putting this one together!!

[@sherwoodforester4666]

It's good to see you aren't suffering from the percussion cap drought. Over here in England there isn't a cap to be had.

[@arronjameshook]

Your Ulster accent is a damn sight better than your Minnesota one!

[@papercartridges6705]

I sorve the Croyne, sorr.

[@johnfisk811]

​@@papercartridges6705 King Billy rules! Pauses for a quick chorus of ‘The Sash My Father Wore’………

[@davefellhoelter1343]

You Got Form! I shoot the very same Springfield system with my own papers, but You Have Much better Form, Style, and Speeds, way Better Ram Rod and Caping FORM! Love how you clear and cock the hammer in one hand seep. You shoot more! It Shows! "I am" a little Jealous. Thanks AGAIN for sparking it Up!

[@cphillips237]

Brett, I was excited and hoping that you were gonna fire the 2nd. Most imported and the 3rd. Most widely used rifle during the war and that was the “fine” Austrian Lorenz that was on the table. The test isn’t complete

[@papercartridges6705]

I have more Lorenz videos coming!

[@cphillips237]

@@papercartridges6705 I have 3 type I Lorenz rifles, I would like to compare a type I to a type II on the range

[@NELLY-jg2rx]

I saw your poll, I would like to see "bench" shooting with standing as well, great content, Subbed first video!

[@haroldchase4120]

Very accurate! Been behind my 1847 rifle sighted musket over 20 years l . Y’all don’t want to be on the receiving end of that thing

[@maxpower6765]

Thanks for all you do for the shooting sports 🤙🏼🇨🇦

[@cycleboy8028]

Commented on your smoothbore vid just a couple min ago... just because our groupings got tighter doesn't mean a smoothbore won't put a hole in you. Rifle means kill shot percentage increased greatly. And modern rifles can reliably buzz through small port holes. Still doesn't mean I'll stand in the open against anything being tossed my way!

[@nuhrii3449]

i dont think it being rifled or not increases the lethality, tighter group just means theres a higher chance youre going to be hit

[@fdk7014]

How many times have you accidentally fired the ramrod?

[@papercartridges6705]

Never happened to me yet… knock on wood.

[@helland846]

Talk with some of the shooters of the North-South Skirmish Association. They can give some really good info on accuracy of rifled muskets and carbines.

[@mikevaldez7684]

It took "Paper Cartridges" here on average 40-45 seconds to load and accurately fire each shot. According to data, the infantry soldier could do this at the rate of 3 shots per minute; an average of 20 secs/shot! 🙋🙏

[@HaNsWiDjAjA]

He is taking his sweet time here. There is another video of him shooting as fast as possible, he did 4 shots in one minute. Furthermore, the three shots per minute expected of Civil War infantrymen was more of an ideal; in battle two volleys per minute was more realistic. Also their markmanship standard was simply atrocious, as they were barely given any ammo to practice with. So they wouldnt do much aiming during volleys. There were definitely skilled shots on both sides, who had been hunters before the war, but those would be concentrated in separate formations of skirmishers/sharpshooters.

[@versal339]

You didn't try with the Springfield. And you know it.

[@papercartridges6705]

Well I did try… don’t really know how else to convince you. It shoots much, much better with the .5775 bullet that was used from 1856 to 1861. If you look closely, you can even see that some of the holes in the paper are oblong slightly keyholed, because the .574 bullets didn’t quite expand enough to fully stabilize.

[@atomicfrijole7542]

I really enjoyed your video. Subscribed! Thanks for sharing your insights. :)

[@IvanhoeWolfe-zn6fc]

Depends on what you mean by accurate. Do you mean the sights line up and at 100 yards it right on? If so this is very rare But I did have a .41 cal Dillinger black powder that was dead on accurate and lethal at 75 yard. Beyond that. It's about knowing you fire stick. Knowing the right charge and bullet weight . A black powder long arm ( brown Bess) which is a smooth bore. Can be lethal and hit the target at 400 yards. The myth a black powder is useless past 50 yards is made by people that don't know how to shoot. Shooting of anything requires knowing. The charge - amount of powder, draw of bow. Projectile weight - bullet/ ball, arrow head. Barrel - rifling, smooth bore, length of arrow. Not even going to get into Sheppard slings. Side note, you can shot arrows from a bow with no fletchings and be very strait. It's a matter of finding the right length of shaft. Now I can't get a bow / crossbow to hit 300 yards. But I'm sure someone can. But I can get a smooth bore long arm to hit 400 yards. And I can get a Sheppard sling to hit 400 yards Both legal. The huge difference is the smooth bore I can get in inches of were I want it to hit. The sling if I hit a 4x8 piece of plywood I'm happy. So accurate it is not Lol but hearing that whistle that has a artillery sound has to be a WTF moment.

[@davidbaldwin9830]

Short Answer. VERY! I should show you my 1855 with 45 grains of 3f off the bench. 3.5 inch shot groups and it is not a accurate as some. i have seen people shooting .54 ca; Mississippies hooting the Wilkinson Bullet

[@joshuagibson2520]

Good shit man. Very well put together video. Much appreciated.

[@miked9383]

Very informative. I am struggling with my Springfield at 100 yards. W 50 grains i got 7/9 on paper similar you but i was sitting on a bench w rifle supported. Where is your point of aim? Once i get better i will try standing. I was thinking the heavy trigger causes thecrifle to rise. Thank you.

[@SeaDawgJR]

Enjoyed the video but how about using a .5775 or .578 diameter bullet that the U.S. rifle-muskets were designed for, that may have been a bit fairer in a heads up against the Endfield. Granted, you did explain at the end of the video, perhaps a subject to cover in a future video.

[@papercartridges6705]

Maybe I’ll do a video comparing the .574 to the .5775

[@virginiastanley8178]

Why would they size the bullet to an English made rifle? Didnt most US CW troops carry Springfields? What are the sights like? can they be zeroed. Umm the bullet fits the Enfield,used by the CSA.

[@lionheartedlux]

so there are many variables when it comes to accuracy even by modern standards. Ammunition, powder and the quality of rifling being the man factors over the rifles mechanics, not even touching upon the shooter themselves. Sights may also play a factor to some degree. Rifling is hard to perform in this time period, meaning the quality of the rifling varied. This is why the Whitworth's hexagonal rifling was an impressively accurate gone. It was easier to do and made for excellent barrels combined with their projectile made an MOA capable rifle in the 1800s.

[@kennethreese2193]

Id buy a mug with "certified KZbin pseudo expert"

[@M1903a4]

Given the dispersion on your target, and in your previous shooting of the 1842 musket, I have to say I think the two weapons are considerably more accurate than you are. 😀 You were, of course correct that the 1842 can reliably hit a man sized target at 100 yds.

[@IvanhoeWolfe-zn6fc]

@ paper cartridge. I'm looking for a grey hat like yours with the castle. ( Engineer) You know where I can find one?

[@GreenMosin93]

I really shouldn't watch this video. It's just gonna make me cry because i can't afford a P53 Enfield 😅

[@ivanafterfive]

7:33 Nice Monty Python reference. 😃😃😃

[@johnwiese4007]

Great coparison. May I suggest shooting the Enfield with Burton bullet ammo. Imagine Billy Yank. He has an Enfield rifle, but now he only gets ammo with an undrsize bullet. His only way to get English cartridges is to rummage through the cartridge boxes of dead Confederates on the battlefield. Let's assume he can shoot well enough to notice the difference in ammo.

[@Matzah1982]

The Springfield 1861 was the best rifled musket ever made and Pedersoli makes the best reproduction of it but the British Enfield Pritchett bullet was better and it fit both the Springfield and the Enfield

[@Guntank214]

Would love to see you do the same experiment with Williams bullets to see how much if any improvement they make over the Burtons.

[@mike03a3]

The Williams bullets were not intended to be a more accurate bullet, they were designed to scrape out the accumulation of burnt powder in a bore to facilitate loading. With properly lubricated Burton bullets one can shoot a lot before the bore needs to be cleaned.

[@Guntank214]

@@mike03a3 I am going to link a video Brett did on the Ministry for History KZbin channel a few years ago that does a deep dive on the history of the Williams Bullet. You will find you have it almost perfectly backwards. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mHLHl36bZrJnqM0

[@Guntank214]

@@mike03a3 wow, I missed this comment by a long shot but you literally could not be more wrong. All you need to do is look up the original patent on the Williams bullet. It's not hard to find. It was 100% designed to be a more accurate bullet.

[@benrobertson7855]

Always enjoyable,many thanks,regards from nz.

[@robertschweppenhauser9891]

I really love the muzzle loader and the history that goes with it.😅 In those days if you miss the guy you aiming at you'll hit the guy next to him or behind him 😅😂😅🤭🤪🤣😂😅

[@ramcharger9449]

Good shooting, been wanting to get a muzzle loader for a while now. Would be interesting to see how fast you could reload the musket and how accurate you would be off hand with your heart rate up.

[@papercartridges6705]

Fastest I've done is 5 rounds in 1:18 kzbin.info/www/bejne/rWTCmHivi9N5lc0

[@johnf3f810]

I don't get the confusion between the UK .577 and the American .58 rifles. I have slugged a number of (original) Pattern 53 Snider conversions and they were all .581 to .582. In the UK we used to measure the lands rather than the grooves as you do in the US - possibly the difference? For example the 303, which is actually .311 to .312.Great video by the way.

[@papercartridges6705]

After 160+ years of wear, the barrels have enlarged. In the 1860s, if a rejecting-gauge of .580 was able to be inserted into the barrel, it was removed from service or classified as a lower-class arm, for the Militia or stores.

[@johnf3f810]

I won't disagree with you but the dimensions I quoted were from pretty much mint bores, with a smoother finish (after all that time) than some modern rifles. I would not waste your time with quoting the dimensions of some of the rust buckets I have tried to get to shoot! Was the .580 Gauge measured at the grooves or the lands? If a 580 Gauge slug would fit into a Pattern 53 then there would be no rifling left. I suspect it might be the same with the Springfield?

[@mattheide2775]

Thank you for protecting the free World. Your research and dedication to passing on your knowledge is awesome.

[@feraltweed]

So British muzzleloader set you straight. Nice vid thanks

[@Aaron-ts2nd]

Did you use balls? or the minie projectiles which were used with rifles back then? Being hollow at the back which allows them to expand and grip the rifling when fired. if this test was with balls, its still interesting, but not a great comparison of what would've been used.

[@michaelkamradt4700]

Never blame the weapon for poor shooting results. The rifle only goes where you point it.

[@papercartridges6705]

That’s generally true, but rifle muskets are inherently not the most accurate… in 1855 the US Government used a fixed iron rest to test the precision of the rifle, and they got a pretty significant dispersion. Military rifles do not put every bullet through the same hole even when locked in place and laser bore sighted.

[@michaelkamradt4700]

@@papercartridges6705 Using a vice was going to be my next move. Fair enough, thanks.

[@erikchristensen5735]

Intresting when you have also read Grossmen's Book "on killing"

[@danyael777]

Just to make it clear right from the start: I'm a complete layman when it comes to practical experience with any weapon (i'm German^^) But i've read quite often about the loading process of a smooth bore compared to a rifle which says that smooth bores were often preferred over rifles by infantry men for the quicker/ easier loading process. Now, i couldn't for the life of me find any differences in the two videos. Maybe bc Mr. PaperCartridge is so used to it? Idk really. So my question would be is there any difference at all?

[@herbertliedel7019]

Prior to the use of the expanding based minie (spelling) bullet the rifle was harder to load as you had to drive an oversized bullet down through the refiling. the new bullet was under sizeed and could be loaded as fast as the smoothbore.

[@danyael777]

@@herbertliedel7019 i see. Thx o7

[@PaulPadoan]

100 yards is a reasonable combat range for the era, 300 yards is something different. Rifled guns could do some damage, smoothbores not so much.

[@glenlivett78]

have you ever played around with Buck'n Ball loads? I know that was a common Yankee load in the War of Independence but I read that some units used smoothbores in favor over rifles all the way till the mid-civil war and used the BnB load to good effect... So I read.

[@papercartridges6705]

There’s a few videos on my channel where we shoot buck and ball. It’s pretty devastating at close range. It’s true that units in the civil war also preferred buck and ball, there’s a famous monument here in Gettysburg for the 12th New Jersey and they even put buck and ball on top of their monument.

[@glenlivett78]

@@papercartridges6705 My bad for not referring to the back catalog 1st. IDK why but the Buck and ball load fascinates me, I may be wrong but it seems to be mostly an Americanism and something a few privets came up with rather than the fancy lads with a commision.

[@markwarnberg9504]

Acuracy is always done at the bench so as to minimiz human error. Battlefield accuacy depends on the individual.

[@BlackPowderTherapist]

Great job showing them off, if you'd like to shoot your guns in some rapid fire competition check out the north south skirmish association. I'm the editor of our magazine and would love to have you out as a guest.

[@frederickacerra7766]

I was in the N.S.S.A for a few years and loved shooting . Glad i found your channel

[@frankeasterling3402]

I shoot matches with the North- South Skirmish Association. At 100 yards our targets are 6" ceramic tiles hung by a wire. I am using a Parker Hale 1858 Enfield, made about 1976 in Birmingham England, 2 band Naval Rifle or a Reproduction of a 1863 Springfield. The Enfield is sized .575 and the Springfield is sized .579. Both use 50 grains of 3f.

[@papercartridges6705]

Nice! Those English made Parker Hale rifles are the best reproductions ever made, in my opinion.

[@JamesJohnson-vy6ji]

This was a interesting comment but let me report as a once small arms instructor for the army and one that has fired many rounds from a 1861 springfield and m-14 if I can see you either will make you feel uncomfortable or worse the worst thing about a 61 springfield in formation is the fact you are firing from a standing which is a poor position with any firearm position

[@spudkidmandudebro]

YES! Oh my goodness if it’s a smooth bore then it’s literally a roulette table from the shoulder! 😂

[@kevingooley9628]

Did you see the earlier video he references in the opening? The smoothbores were surprisingly more accurate than expected.

[@southronjr1570]

These a whole lot of Skirmishers in the North-South Skirmish Assoc that will disagree, and yes, I'm one of them. At one time, I could consistently ring a 12 in gong at 250 yards with my 1842 Springfield.

[@dolsopolar]

@@southronjr1570150 yards maybe but 250 yards?? I need a vid for that!

[@spudkidmandudebro]

Wow, I see my comment went a MILE over the heads of you all… kind of like a round from a smooth bore! 🤭

[@jeffmcmillan6554]

If you are testing for accuracy, why aren't you shooting off of a bench rest?

[@johnfisk811]

They had no bench rests in the battles.

[@jeffmcmillan6554]

That's not the point. If you are demonstrating the accuracy potential of any firearm, eliminating the human element as much as possible is necessary for accurate results.@@johnfisk811

[@jesseusgrantcanales]

One has to wonder if it would help if the bullet was .576 or .5755 at the smallest? Then it would fit both Enfield and Springfield and not have too much windage.

[@papercartridges6705]

Some of them would have been larger. The US bullets were made by compression (swaging) in steel dies, which would gradually wear larger as they stamped out tens of thousands of bullets. So the dies were made .574, and they would enlarge by wear to .575 or even .576 before they got replaced. So the soldier might be issued packs of ammo with some .574 and some .576 and some in between.

[@thetruthseeker5549]

"Have all been sacked" will always conjure that one scene from that one film by that one group of comic geniuses!

[@papercartridges6705]

Møøse

[@jessejames7757]

Sad this man needs a new hobby maybe collecting Barbie dolls would be a good hobby for him.

[@brosefmalkovitch3121]

Hell even at 20 MOA I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a half-inch lead ball flying at me.

[@donbalduf572]

Thanks for a very interesting presentation. I appreciate your efforts to test the old arms the way they were actually used more than 100 years ago. It's interesting to have an idea of what could be expected from the men and the equipment, which helps us distinguish truth from fiction or exaggeration in historical accounts. You are correct that the practical accuracy was probably good enough for the tactics in use at the time. While the exploration of practical accuracy is valuable and interesting, I'm also interested in a test of potential accuracy. How would the U.S. Springfield rifles do with a correctly sized bullet had the need to accommodate the Enfields not muddied the logistics? This is all unknown to me as my only experience with muzzleloaders is with cap and ball revolvers and patched ball rifles. I also wanted to compliment you on your pronunciation of German. It's really quite good, far better than I hear on many shows, including outfits with a much bigger budget than you have! Wie weiss ich? Weil ich ein Jahr bei der Uni Salzburg studiert habe. So eine schoene Stadt!

[@BrettBaker-uk4te]

You were SUPPOSED to get cartridges for either the Springfield or Enfield. As you can imagine, the wrong cartridges were occasionally sent to units.

[@donbalduf572]

@@BrettBaker-uk4te what? The U.S. Army fouled up logistics? I can’t imagine ….

[@John-di2ki]

I am just curious, why don't you shoot them off the bench? I'm not criticizing, just curious. From Iowa .................John

[@papercartridges6705]

Personal preference, really. I like shooting unsupported. There’s probably 100 other videos in YT of people shooting these from benches, and that’s not how they were shot historically, as military muzzleloaders. I think the more useful data is roughly how accurate an average shooter (I’m definitely no expert) can shoot them unsupported.

[@Altair885]

Nah, this is fake! He missed every single shot, then ran down range and poked holes in the targets just for the camera! 😁

[@lawnchairgaming]

Sum guys just shove the whole darn thing in there and it looks like it works fine, is there an advantage to your method?

[@bastionblackperformance3804]

My dude, no accuracy test with any legitimacy is conducted standing unsupported.

[@papercartridges6705]

People say the same thing when I shoot a Civil War rifle from the bench (see my earlier videos)… they say no practical accuracy test with legitimacy can be done from the bench when Civil War rifles, as muzzleloaders, were designed and shot standing unsupported. So I take it from both sides, every video I make it seems!

[@bastionblackperformance3804]

@@papercartridges6705 there is testing the rifle and testing the shooter, this is the latter.

[@CathodeRayNipplez]

@@bastionblackperformance3804 Or both at the same time.

[@johnfisk811]

@@bastionblackperformance3804 No, it is testing the whole system of rifle and soldier as used in period.

[@bastionblackperformance3804]

@@johnfisk811 it's not. Accuracy of a tool or system is never tested with the of the human operation...the word you're thinking of is 'effective.' 'How EFFECTIVE is a civil war musket at 100yds in the hands of standing, average soldier.'

[@1rwjwith]

The Confederates had more Enfields correct? Does that account for their better shooters reputation?

[@thatsthewayitgoes9]

Yeh, but three of the Burton Minnie look like they’re sideways through the target !

[@longyx321]

Why don't you bench rest ?

[@CathodeRayNipplez]

13:23 Has your answer

[@chickensandwich1589]

That's wild it is so inaccurate for mid 19th century technology... My .40 caliber flintlock, modeled after an example from the 1820s, shoots six shot groups inside a 3x5" at 100 yards. (55gr fff, .020 patch, .395 roundball)

[@chickensandwich1589]

@robertstallard7836 I watched the video. I zeroed at 50 actually.

[@DRay-or4tc]

Enjoyed your vid. However, would prefer a BENCHED effort which weeds out shooter ability to some degree. I’m interested in the Mechanical Precision/Accuracy of these old Rifles.

[@improvisedsurvival5967]

Takes way too long to reload. A cap and ball 44 is a much better weapon.

[@DanDan-fu6sd]

It's painful to see you load. Nice job on this vid.

[@alexparker4244]

Truly, a good gun with shitty ammunition is an Army tradition

[@Schlachtschule]

Biting is for barbarians. I note that you used the more accurate Hay cartridges rather than the later Boxer cartridges with the P-53--very wise for an accuracy comparison. Seeing that, and knowing how little training American troops had with musketry, it's so clear we lucked out a *lot* over the Trent Affair.

[@helland846]

A man who had no teeth to bite the cartridge was not acceptable for service in that time.

[@Schlachtschule]

​@@helland846Maybe, although I have yet to find anyone who can supply a government rule about that. Do you have one, or are you repeating hearsay you haven't actually researched? But setting that aside, you misunderstood the point of my comment. The British cartridges for the P-53 rifle were *not* bitten, they were torn. Brett usually shoots the British cartridges (as do I) because they are so incredibly superior to the Burton-ball cartridges (what people mistakenly call Minié balls) used in the 1861 Springfield. Thus, my comment was actually a tease about him using the inferior cartridge that required biting. I hope this helps you understand.

[@birdsoup777]

Awesom video. Civil War History is Awesome. Thank you. Mom's dad is WW2 Marien Veteran. Lived in New Jersey, he went to Gettysburg frequently. Now I know why he loved it

[@jessejames7757]

Mine is very accurate but that's a lot to do with me.

[@mike03a3]

You are covering the muzzle with your hand when pouring the powder. That is extremely dangerous due to the chance of a cook-off.

[@papercartridges6705]

Using the historic ammunition comes with some risk. I’ve been flashed with powder before, and probably will be again. I just make sure to keep the barrel away from my face.

[@tomlodge1256]

I love civil war muskets... have several.

[@improvisedsurvival5967]

How many ft lbs energy on target you say. How many fps too

[@mike03a3]

I have extensive experience shooting a .58 US Rifle-Musket in competition in the North-South Skirmish Assn., an association devoted to firing Civil War weapons of all types from revolvers to artillery. All Rifle-Musket competitions are shoulder fired without a sling and timed. The Rifle-Muskets are teams of 8 lined up on a firing line with 60+ other teams shooting frangible targets. Typical 50 yard targets are clay pigeons or 4"ceramic tile, typical at 100 yards are 9" tile or milk jugs. With the exception of 32 pigeons on a 4'x8' cardboard all the targets are hanging from a frame. I use a Lyman 575213 bullet, a very good copy of the Burton Bullet. Many of my fellow shooters use other bullets, some even wadcutters. We have the added complication in matches of close to 500 shooters, basically shoulder to shoulder, generating an incredible amount of smoke. I personally shoot an original M1855 Rifle-Musket made in Harpers Ferry in 1858 because I prefer the sight picture of the long range sight. These days almost everyone shoots replicas, although when I started 50 years ago my whole team shot original 1861s except for me. Since I practice by shooting charcoal briquettes dangling on wires at 50yds I almost never miss a 50yd target in competition. Since the 100 yd targets are more than double the size of the 50 yard ones I sometimes miss. I attribute the misses to my tendency to rush the shot by neglecting to aim carefully in the firm belief I couldn't possibly miss anything that big 😀 Starting with a loaded musket I can get off 4 carefully aimed shots in less than 50 seconds. In competition we do not replace the ramrod, but instead lean it on a bayonet stuck in the ground.

[@herbertliedel7019]

Current National's targeting for the team rifled musket match is 50 yards: clay pigeons on a backer, 4" hanging tile, hanging pigeons, and 3" clay simulations of a flower pot. 100 yards are 6" hanging tile. 5 minute max time per event.

[@mike03a3]

@@herbertliedel7019 Thanks for the update, it’s been a while since I’ve been to the Nationals. What is it currently for smoothbore muskets?

[@iangarrett741]

I can’t speak for civil war situations but sticking the ramrod in the ground was discouraged as any change of position could end up leaving it behind. That would slow down the firing rate! Not a problem in competitions I imagine.

[@dutchyey1277]

rather you shoot from a rest to give a better result, that was woeful

[@mikehoare6093]

judging by the accent, you must have been impersonating some paddy boy.......

[@gyges5495]

Is that a real rifle or a reproduction? I have a Armi Sport repro and isn’t very accurate - the rifling inside is not the same as during the Civil War

[@papercartridges6705]

Reproduction with a Hoyt relined progressive depth barrel, so it is to the original rifling spec. You’re right about the Armi Sport rifling, they have such shallow grooves they don’t stabilize Minies very well at all.

[@hitomiuri4029]

At 3:05, you mention that the ball size was reduce "... load easier in the .5770 ..." Many early Civil War bullets were poorly formed causing many loading problems in .58 caliber muskets. This was a more import reason to reduce the size of the bullets. (see below) At 3:28 you mention that the charge was increased a mere 5 grains. However, the bullet was reduced 40 grains to 460 grains. I checking several original bullets I own. The two 500+ grains bullets are the fist one is .583 to .577 and the skirt averages .13" The second on is .577 to .562 with the same average skirt diameter. The 460 grain bullets are .565 to .570 with a average skirt thickness of .095. A bullet with a thinner skirt does not need more powder to expand. At 5:45, it appears that the lower left hit in the black is a double. Also, you said you think you shot once over the frame, so how can you have 5 (or 6) on paper, 3 off the paper and 1 over the frame with 8 rounds? At 6:29, you claim the "rifle musket (US Mode 1861) is not as accurate at 100 yards". This is highly subject to the shooter and not the firearm nor the ammunition. Also, your follow up shooting with the Enfield shows better what a rifled musket can do. That is why the Army tested the new Model 1855 with a firing sled to remove shooter error from the testing out to ranges of 1000 yards. At 12:29, that is a great target. A US 58 caliber rifled musket can also do that well with service ammunition. At 13:20, you mention "the correct historic ammunition". That is a very tall order. First, all bullets used by the US were cold pressed lead. Cast lead bullets can have flaws which effect accuracy. Second, there is no modern black powder that meets the Civil War standard. The Ordnance Manual (pg 226) states "... the charcoal has the greatest effect upon its quality ...Light, friable and porous charcoal ... is best adapted ..." Charcoal was made from willow or better black alder with the latter being "best". The charcoal "... heats and if in a heap of 30 lbs. or more, takes fire spontaneously." Also, on pg 230 "Inspection and Proof of Powder", "... when flashed in a quantities of 10 grains on a copper plate, it should leave no bead or foulness." No modern powder meets this standard, but Swiss is the best. At 13:54, you states "... the service cartridge was not an accuracy load by any standard by any means ..." This is debatable. There was extensive testing in 1855 to select the new rifle and ammunition for the US army. The English Enfield was know to the testers but not accepted. (see below) At 14:45, you state that an N-SSA shooter uses a bullet that is .001" undersized. That is laughable. I have been a member of the N-SSA for nearly 30 years and I know of no one that shoots that tight of a ball. Many shooters need a "fouling round" for best accuracy because it decreases the windage when you need to shoot 10 shots for score. Most shoot a .577" or a .575" (like me) in a rifle musket with no problems. We also shoot .007" to .010" undersized smooth bores without patches. Patches are not allowed by the rules. Lastly, at 15:08, by 1862 they were trying to FIX the problem with the earlier ammunition. Many of the bullets were badly molded and oval in shape. They met bore diameter measured across between the mold half perpendicular to the joint. However; the across the joint seams, they were oversized. Thus the stories of soldiers having to use trees to ram home bullets because they wouldn't seat properly. The bullet diameter changes had little to due with the Enfield. If they wanted to standardize ammunition, the US should have adopted the Enfield cartridge because it would work in the ALL US .58 caliber muzzle loading rifled firearms and the Fremont Halls carbines. Also, the paper patch is more forgiving on size than a solid lead bullet ----------------------- This information is taken directly from the "Report of Experiments with Small Arms for the Military Service" printed in 1856 of the 1855 testing at Harpers Ferry. On Page 109 of the Small Arms report of 1855, it call out the same ball diameters, ball weights and powder charges of in the Ordnance Manual (pg 257). The altered 69 caliber rifle cartridge was a .685" diameter, 730 grain ball with 70 grains of powder. The new Model 1855 rifle cartridge was a .5775" diameter, 500 grain ball with 60 grains of powder. The new Model 1855 pistol-carbine cartridge was a .5775" diameter, 450 grain ball with 40 grains of powder. The new preferred diameter of the .58 caliber ball would cause it to "foul out" quickly. This likely caused the development of the "Williams Cleaning Bullet" patented on May 30, 1861. There was also mentioned in 1863 of there being a .69 caliber version, but none were ever ordered. This is likely because none were ever needed because the bullet was properly sized and overly tight. Why? Note that the .69 rifled muskets ball is .005" under sized. This was used in converted Model 1816's (made after 1822) Model 1840's and Model 1842. At the same time, the allowance for an oversized bore for .69 caliber rifled muskets was .015 by both the Small Arms Report of 1855 (pg 94) and the Ordnance Report (pg 174). This could make the ball .020" undersized in a maximum allowable sized bore. I shoot a .575" ball from my Model 1855 with no accuracy problems nor fouling problems. However, the ball for the Model 1855 rifle musket and the Model 1855 pistol carbine was only .0025" or half as much. With a maximum sized bore, the ball was .005 under sized. A standard cartridge pack of 10 rounds included 1 Williams Cleaning Bullet with 60 grains of powder. Another problem with early bullets was that when they were swedged (not case) they were oval. That is to say the diameter across the seam was too large causing loading problems and f This amount of windage allows firing of up to 20 rounds (the top of a standard 40 round cartridge box) without needing the foul to be cleaned. I shoot a .575" ball from my Model 1855 with no accuracy problems nor fouling problems. For more information see below www.libertyrifles.org/research/uniforms-equipment/fouled-muskets-revisited

[@papercartridges6705]

I would have been very happy to engage with your comment, since you seem to know a great deal, although you are very close yet slightly wrong on several points… but you directly accused me of lying and misleading people, and that’s a non-starter. I don’t make these videos, and spend my precious time making them, just to have keyboard commentators accuse me of lying or misleading people. I shot 8 rounds. One clearly went over the top. The holes in the rubber target frame, those may or may not have been from me. I assumed they were. Maybe one or two were from previous shooting. Cheers.

[@hitomiuri4029]

@@papercartridges6705 I never "directly accused" you of anything. Except, maybe not being able to properly count your hits and misses. Whatever. I simply disagree with some of your points or when you made statements about bullet tolerance that N-SSA shooters prefer actually made me laugh. "Fouling out" (being unable to finish loading and ram home a follow up shot) in team completion is a something no one wants to happen. Use a bullet which is too tight, and you will be waiting for the Safety Team to come and blow out your stuck bullet (because of fouling) with compressed air. If that doesn't work, you and your weapon literally get carted away off the firing line to a safe area where maybe, the problem gets fixed. There are hundreds of members in the N-SSA. I've never heard of using a .001" or .002" tolerance. it is unnecessarily tight. If you want to test the accuracy of the weapon, it should be shot from a sled. This eliminates any error in accuracy do the the shooter's skill. A rifle musket that is inaccurate can be that because of many sources such as; the shooter, the trigger pull, the condition of the rifling and bore, the sights, the sight picture, the variation in the powder, ball, fire produced by the cap, the hardness of the lead used in the bullet, etc., etc., etc. In fact I know shooter that will get different performance and accuracy by atmospheric conditions like humidity and barometric pressure. The Enfield target was a very good target. There is no reason the Model 1861 can't do as well. However; you seem to be very biased against the Burton Ball and US cartridges construction in favor of the Enfield cartridge. The Small Arms Testing report of 1855 had a slightly different design. On page 115, they discuss the importance of paper. The Small Arms report state that No. 3 paper (used for blanks) was better for the outer cartridge than No. 1 paper which which was "too strong" and normally used is smooth bore cartridges. This is because the loading procedure stated in the Small Arms Report of 1855 states (pg 116) after tearing and pouring the powder in the the barrel "... then seize the ball end firmly between the thumb and fore finger of the right hand, and strike the cylinder (powder end) a smart blow across the muzzle of the piece; this BREAKS the cartridge and exposes the bottom of the ball; a slight pressure of the thumb and fore finger forces the ball into the bore clear of all the cartridge paper." It goes on too state the cartridge should be held at right angles to the muzzle otherwise the blow "... would only bent the cartridge without rupturing it." Your Enfield cartridge paper seems to tear (break) very nicely. You might want to make some US style cartridges using that paper.

[@jeffburnham6611]

Not sure how "accurate" this video demonstration is. How often did Civil War units spend time shooting at a paper target? In most instances they were not aimed shots with no one shooting back, or having all the time in the world to bring the rifle onto the target and get a good sight picture.

[@papercartridges6705]

I tried to get volunteers to stand out there and shoot back at me, but the PA State Game Commission said we couldn’t do that. So blame them.