Do you know where the 56 in 56-.50 comes from?

[geo]

while cruising wikipedia on another shooting question i came across this fact: the spencer repeater was the first military weapon to describe its CHAMBER DIAMETER! hence the 56-whatever caliber; the 56 referring to the chamber diameter. i didn't know that!?! just check wikipedia under caliber. geo.

[St. George]

A word of advice.

Wikipedia is a do-it-yourself 'encyclopedia' - and facts aren't always as presented.

The 8th Edition of Barnes' 'Cartridges of the World' gives this information on the Spencer rounds.

Bullet diameter of the round as .540 - .555

Powder - 42-45 grains of BP

Bullet weight - 350-360 grains.

It could penetrate almost 1' of soft pine at 15 feet.

It was loaded by ammunition manufacturers and available as late as the 1920's.

A copy of this book is a good investment - even a used one.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Tuolumne Lawman]

The original Spencer round was initially designated the "No. 56 metallic cartridge for Army and Navy rifles."  The "56" is the .56" diameter of the case at the base.  The bullet was a healed nominally .54 caliber in the grooves.  It was sometimes refered to as a .52 caliber Spencer, as it was .52 across the lands. The rounder was later called 56-56 (as it was straight cased and .56" at base and mouth, or alternatively Old Model Spencer.

The 56-50 retains the .56" base, with a "50 caliber" bullet.  It was actually .515 to .520" in the grooves, but the bore was nominally .50 across the lands.  One one of my originals, the base is .56 and the mouth is crimped over the ogive and is about .50.

Calling a 56-56 a .52 and a 56-50 a .50 makes sense then when you consider at the time, a .58 caliber rifle musket used a .577 to .58 Minie ball as it was .58 across the lands, it expanded into the grooves to arounddd .60 in the grooves. At least that was an explination I was told.

[Mick Archer]

  Howdy Pards! 

  True, but it gets messy...    

   I think because the concept is different.  Meaning, a muzzleoading "Minie" or "Pritchett" type bullet (ball) is under-bore diamter, relying on an expanding shirt to flare and grip the rifling for spin.  While a breech-loader typically has an over-bore sized bullet that gets forced/squeezed' down into the smaller rifling to spin.

  Initially with the adoption of the .58 in 1855, the ball size was set at .5775 in a .580 bore.  (Although there is a range of sizes found in arsenal and contractor made Minies from .564 to .580.
   A problem arose in 1861 with the importation of large numbers of Enfield rifle-muskets wiht progressive depth .577 rifling where the "nominal" .5775 often would not load.    Ordnance folks had the Miie diameter decreased to a nonimal .574 (so-called at the time ".57" cartridges) so that the same cartridges would work in either "Springfield" or "Enfield" RM's.

  Spencers are a mess too.  The carbine and rifle are listed as a .52 because of the bore- the same as a Sharps.

  Spencer had gone up from .44 to be more appealing to the miliitary starting with the "No. 56 Army" later "No. 56 Navy & Infantry" and later the "Spenncer 56-56.  Altohugh the Ordnance Department was still looking at trials of the Spencer .44 in 1864.  (56-46)

   Some of the problem comes form where who measures the bullet.  The bullet has two grease grooves and measures, a nominal .540.  The copper cartridge case measures .56.
   Then there is the Spencer 56-50, for the .50 Spencers.  (as well as sporting 56-52 and 56-42) adopted in the fall of 1864.

    But then the modern Italians took the .52 Sharps with a nominal .540 bullet and made the BORE .540.  Sigh..

   Mick Archer

[Cooleemee Edd]

OK, Mick,

How does my Pedersoli Sharps carbine (paper-cartridge) "Minie ball" bullet compare to the correct bullet for the .56/50 Spencer?  I know that the Sharps is a hard-hitting weapon, and I've done a lot of damage with it since the early 80's. My first ever target was a rabbit. I just went out to a hillside to see how my new "find" was going to shoot, and up this guy popped, so I smacked him one. What a mess.  Poor bunny.  I've avoided shooting rabbits with it ever since!

I've about decided that i need to invest in a Spencer. It must wait until the balance sheet is in the black, though. Meanwhile, I can watch and wait for the right deal.

[Mick Archer]

  Howdy Pards! 

  Edd pard, I am not sure what you are asking?

  I look at it as... the  ".56 Spencer" initally refers to the cartridge NOT the bullet necessarily.

  In the Fall of 1864, the Ordnance Department decided to try to standardize carbine cartridges after a year of testing...    

  So, they ordered the Spencer Company to change the chamber and bore size of the carbines then being delivered under the May 1864 contract to be able to use the new Springfield .50 Carbine ammo (civilian .56-50 Spencer).    These were kind of hybrids as they were mostly mixed M1860's but not yet true M1865's.  The first of the new M1865's came out on April 3, 1865, although the batch of 1,000 was about 2/3's M1860's...

  The .56-56 Spencer round would not chamber in the new .56-50s, but the .56-50 would fire in the old M1860's  but bullet fit was loose and the velocity and trajectory was poor.

  Because the Italians made the NM 1859 and NM1863 Sharps in .54 instead of .52, I was using either a .542 or .545 bullet in my Sharps' carbines and rifle.

  Mick Archer

   

 

[Glenn]

Cooleeme...The original  56-56 used a Sharps barrel and the performance was very similar.  The Sharps had a bit more powder but leaked.  The 56-50 uses a slightly smaller bullet at about the same weight so I think you would find it very similar to your Sharps.  It sure does flatten into a huge wad of lead at range.

[Cooleemee Edd]

My Sharp's paper-cartridge carbine shoots a hollow-based, flat-nosed "Minie" type bullet with big grease grooves. What I was actually wondering was if I could load these same bullets into a Spencer cartridge case and it would be a good fit. I have always loved the performance of the Sharps. I've never suffered from much blow-back on it, either. It is a pretty tight carbine. If the Spencer would shoot as good as the Sharps, it would be a wonderful and effective hunting weapon as well as a lot of fun for CAS.

[Mick Archer]

  Howdy Pards!

   Beyond my experience....

   I would think/guess,err in thinking the bullet could be crimped in a .56 cartridge okay???

   However, in theory (or my head) a hollow based Sharps bullet would be what...  say 542-.545.  If the .56-56 bore is truely .52, it would still be squeezed down and not function as an "ideal" Minie being undersized and expanding to fill a slightly larger land-to-land bore diameter?

   Again, beyond my experience.

   Mick Archer