Lee OS .54 Minie in '63

[Todd Birch]

I just loaded up my first batch of .54 Minies cast from a Lee .54 OS HB Minie mould. I used pure lead to make sure I got obturation, although in the past, I've used the same alloy mix that I use with my brass cartridge arms in my '63s with no problems.
I got 95 grs FFg behind them in the heavy onion skin tubes with a double thickness paper towel base. Lube was softened beeswax compound and I filled the HB cavity as well the grooves.
I put a hard .060 wad between powder and the ball to prevent contamination and migration of the lube, not likely as it is so stiff.

I also loaded up some tubes using the traditional 'Christmas Tree' bullet with the same powder charge. Up to now, I've only shot the rifle with 75 grs, a pretty anemic load for a .54 Sharps.

Stay tuned for the range report .....

Todd

[dm3280]

I am curious as to how they work out. I recall reading somewhere about mini's and too much powder will cause the skirt to blow apart after leaving the barrel. The author said accuracy went to hell until he designed a mini where the skirt was a lot thicker. Sam Fadala (sp) may have been the author to what I refer.
Keep us posted. The 1863 section tends to be way too quiet. I do not see to much posted on this section of the forum

[1stregtengr]

Todd, I use 65 gr 3F Swiss in a charlie Hahn tube, with a Raphine ringtail, get 2 to 2 1/2" groups at 200 yds. 95 grns, wow!

[Todd Birch]

That is phenomenal accuracy at 200 yds, especially for a '63! Is it the tubes or the man behind the trigger?

Greg is right about the possibility of blowing the skirt on a Minie with too much powder. I've done it in my Enfields. The skirt on the Lee design is pretty thick for the diameter of the ball. In fact, I was wondering if it would do the job at all.
If I start having that as a problem, I'll reduce the charge. Another problem I might have is the hard wad getting blown into the HB and causing erratic flight.

I expect recoil to be right up there, but I've got a leather lace on butt pad from BA with a gel insert, so it won't rattle my teeth. I'm thinking it'll be much like shooting my 50-70.

I've often wondered how many '63s made it onto the buffalo range post Civil War? Seems to me that paper rounds would have been pretty convenient to make up when brass would have been pretty scarce and hard to come by. Caps would have been very common and easily acquired from the Army.

Todd

[dm3280]

I was thinking about the wad problem. Have you ever tried a disc of wax paper over the HB between the powder and lube. My guess is the wax paper would burn away and if not there would be so little that accuracy would not be effected. The other thing about a card wad is it might help seal the bore. During the Civil war soldiers were issued a Williams clean out bullet for every 10 rounds or so. They could tell it was a clean out because it was wrapped in blue paper instead of the tan. The bullet had a zinc base and it was attached to the lead bullet by a small post about 1/8 inch long. When the gun was fired the zinc base pushed forward and created a scrapping against the barrel to help clean out the residue. At least that is what I have read. I had one of those complete cartridges in my collection at one time. Just wondering what a card wad would do when fired behind a mini filled with lube. I would guess it would hurt accuracy more than anything else.

[Todd Birch]

Well, I guess there's only one way we're going to learn the answers to these questions - put some lead downrange! I will, next week, if the temp isn't much below 0C.

The wax paper makes good sense and would allow for a tad more powder as well.
The rounds with the 95 grs come right to the end of the chamber just shy of the shear plate when I close the breech. This leads me to suspect that the rifles were intended to be shot with such a load.
I expect ignition to be faultless due to the proximity of the cartridge base to the flash hole.

My cartridges are bullet diameter which leaves lots of clearance around them when chambered. Looking at examples of original rounds in books, some of them were much under bullet diameter, so you gotta wonder why the chambers were so large.

I don't regard my '63s as more than 200 yard guns, but on the other hand, I restrict myself to 200 yards with my pet .308, so what's the sweat?
I wouldn't shoot much past that on game with my 45-70s either.
I like seeing game drop when I hit it. Tracking a hit animal isn't high on my list of favourite things to do.

If I get the groups I expect at 100 and 200, the next thing is a set of good sights. I've settled on the MVA #130 and probably their globe or the Lyman 17 which I've got on my '74 45-70 and other rifles.
The #130 has the elevation lead screw which may not be historically correct for a '63 whereas the #131 does not. I'm a lazy sort when it comes to that so I'm willing to compromise.

What sights are others using?

Todd

[1stregtengr]

Todd, Being that I shoot fixed distances with the N-SSA, I have two brass inserts made out of heavy brass sheet material, I use with the factory sights. One of them is for 50 & 100 yds, 50 yd peep at one end flip it for the 100 peep, the other is only drilled for 200. I would like to use a tang sight, but they are not approved as CW issue, so no can do.

[Todd Birch]

Well, my fellow Sapper, I'm a little confused about the NSSA rules ....

Seems to me that allowing such sight mods is contrary to the historical side of shooting period rifles. Is there historical precedent for such mods?

I take it you are shooting the Military Rifle. I have one in .50 and it does well by me out to 200 yds with 'as issue' sights. I've taken 3rd with it against modern iron sighted rifles in competition at 50, 100 and 150 yds.
A little more practice and I'd have done better.

My Military Rifle in 50-70 is drilled and tapped for a tang, and I might consider it. Then I'd have to modify the front sight and I wouldn't have an 'as issue' rifle any more.
Mike Venturino scoped his and turned it into his 'sniper rifle'. Maybe when my eyes go .....

Todd

[Todd Birch]

Yesterday the sun came out and the temp climbed above freezing so I went to the range ....

My long rounds were perfect chamber length. I could push them ahead enough to clear the shear plate or let the shear plate cut off the paper base.
Those that predicted accuracy would suffer with that much powder behind a skirted Minie will be happy to know they were right. I'd get 3 rounds in a reasonable group at 50 yds (from the bench, forgot my x-sticks) and then a couple of flyers. No tumbling, just out of the group. Recoil was right up there.
The same charge behind the 'Xmas Tree' bullet grouped better, but was still a disappointement. We have a pig sil at 150 yds so I upped the ladder sight and using the 200 yd position, perched the pig with the feet on top of the sight bar - "Bang-clang!" Did it several times in a row.
I've no idea what the velocity is, but they sure got there in a hurry!

I had some ring tail loads with 70 grs and tried grouping at 50 yds. Three rounds obliterated the 'X' ring of the target.
Obviously, this is telling me something. Next time I try some of the .54 Minies with 70-75 grs.

All shooting was done with no bore cleaning, but I blew down the barrel with my 50-70 blow tube betrween shots. This helped to chamber the next round. The action worked perfectly every time, never binding up.

This rifle has a really sweet DST trigger and deserves better sights. Cleaning the breech block was a snap since HvyMtl talked me into trying a hand held steam cleaner. It blasts the crud away; a few swipes with a tooth brush, pipe cleaner in the flash hole and nipple, oil, reassemble.

Todd

[1stregtengr]

Todd,

"Seems to me that allowing such sight mods is contrary to the historical side of shooting period rifles. Is there historical precedent for such mods?"


NSSA has strict rules about mods , but they allow some changes as long as it doesn't modify position, look etc. You can change out a rear leaf sight on a Springfield with one that has a peep drilled etc.The insert into the open space of the slide doesn't really change anything, except give me a peep sight, without which I would have trouble hitting the backstop! The original slide is still on the sight. I would love to find a historical precedent that would allow me to use a tang shight.

[Todd Birch]

The rules is the rules .....

I've never quite understood how some rules come to be. SASS has it's "no external mods" rule but allows you to modify the hell out of the innards in ways unknown in the old west.
Worse yet is the proliferation of 'powder puff' loads.

As for historic rifles, I feel something is lost by not shooting them 'as issue'. Of course, that would discriminate against some and the idea of shooting sports is inclusionary rather than exclusionary. I'd rather bend a little on this if it keeps people in the game.

Earlier I was flipping through one of my books on the USSS. Their load was the .52 Christmas Tree bullet with 100 grs powder! These guys wanted to both hit and hurt what they shot at.

In H.C. Logan's book on cartridges, he mentions the shipment in 1857 of Sharps rifles into Kansas and the 102 "Beecher's Bibles" carbines captured in 1859 from John Brown at Harper's Ferry. I believe that Robert E. Lee was involved in this capture.

Logan states that as late as 1897, Sharps paper/linen cartridges were still listed in the Hartley & Graham catalog, well into the brass cartridge era.
It would be safe to surmise that these would be Civil War surplus rather than new manufacture.

Todd

[Rich Siegel]

Hi Todd,

I'm a member of the N-SSA but can't speak for the organization about the specific rules or why they were developed. However, the rifles, muskets, carbines, revolvers and breechloaders we shoot in target competition were never designed for target work. In one book I just read, Civil War vets commented that while the Sharps rifle was a fine, accurate gun, the carbine was only good for scaring horses and making noise.

Some guys in 1950 just came up with the idea for the N-SSA and the game caught on. The original guns were also never designed to be shot by old geezers like me (61 years old). Their sights are for young eyes, ages 16 to 25. In an attempt to allow us old guys to be somewhat competitive, the rules were made to allow modificatios to the sights as long as the size and general shape of the sight was not changed. You can drill a peep hole in a sight leaf but the leaf must be the same size and shape as the original. Just recently, a new rule was passed allowing the front sight to be dovetailed for windage adjustment but once sighted in, the sight must be soldered in place. I think this rule stretches the idea behind using original guns but then again, we are out to have fun, not pass a museums' inspection. I also often wonder why we are allowed to use modern Shiloh Sharps reproductions in 54 caliber. Best I can tell, original Sharps 1863 guns were 52 caliber while the 1859 guns were 52, 54 and 56 caliber. I guess we do have to make some exceptions for fine reproductions on the market today. If we didn't, we'd be stuck shooting Italian repros.

As to your reference about paper cartridges still being sold into the 1890's, I would guess that they might have actually been newly made cartridges for use in the old guns. Do you know what caliber they were in? Could it be that, like some companies today (Black Hills), cartridges for old obsolete guns were still being made?

Rich

[Todd Birch]

Rich

There will never be a consensus amongst shooters on the rules of any shooting sport!
The idea of allowing dovetailed sights and then soldering them in place is ludicrous, IMHO. Had I been involved in the rules committee, I would have suggested an 'as issue' category for those who wanted it.

We do this in our club Military Rifle matches as we want to know and appreciate what the rifles were capable of in the hands of the soldiers who carried them in battle.
For example, allowing NM sights on Garands would break those rules, but until we get enough guys shooting them against GI sights, it's not an issue. If and when it does arise, we'd accomodate them in a 'military target' rifle category. We already have guys shooting Swede '96 rifles with 'issue' micro sights and 29" barrels against Moisin-Nagants with steel case GI ammo. One of the guys with a M-N beats them.
Another has a hooded target front sight mounted on his No. 4 Mk1 .303.
It dosn't help him shoot any better, but he sees the sight better.

As for the accuracy potential of the '63 Sharps Carbine, talk to Gregg Martin who posts on this page. He did creditably well in the postal match organized by the late Bobby Bayles, and we shot out to 200 yds.

I have all kinds of pics and references on Civil War paper/linen cartridges and the variety is amazing. There were many suppliers and each had it's own oddities. The 'Christmas Tree' bullet was the only way to accomodate the variance in bore sizes.

Oh, and by the way "old geezer", I turned 65 yesterday. I celebrated with my usual exercise routine that culminates in hand stand push ups, did a x-country ski on the lake despite the -15C temp and spent the rest of the morning reloading 50-70 and 45-70 rounds.

Life is 'hell', and I expect it to get to get even 'worse'; meaning I intend to shoot my face off in my dotage years. Living well pisses off one's enemies like nothing else!

Todd