Carbines in the Civil War LOADS

[Tuolumne Lawman]

Has anyone else noticed that most Civil War carbines fired similar loads?  most were 52-54 caliber, with 40 to 50 grain powder charges.  My Smith uses the same bullet (Dakota Widowmaker mold) as the Spencer, and about 38-40 grains of BP.  Needless to say it thumps as well, just not as fast!

Does anyone know if there was a specification that Spencer and others had to follow when designing or submitting  a Carbine?  Or was it possibly just common knowledge that a relatively light (for that time) shoulder weapon would be abusive to shoot with a greater charge?

[Fox Creek Kid]

I think Spencer just wanted to compromise between power and magazine capacity. After all, probably 99% of the shooting was done within 100 yds.

[Tuolumne Lawman]

True, and anyone who shoots knows there is a balance between powder/powder and weight of weapon!

Three examples that come to mind from my personal experience are:  First one, was trying an M14 on full auto while in the service!

Second was the one and only shot I took from a .50 caliber (BMG) single shot bolt action McMillan sniper rifle.

The third  one I briefly owned a 45-120-650 Sharps!  120 grains of FG black and a 650 grain Postell bullet.  Even though the weapon weighed in at about 10 pounds, was brutal to shoot, especially with a bad back. 

I'm not small, but I found the last two instances a religious experience "OMG, I broke something and I hurt"

Imagine firing the Spencer with a 70 grain powder charge!  Even the Indian Wars army reduced the .45-70 to 45-55 for 1873 carbines!

[El Supremo]

Hello:

From reading Marcot's book and the extensive postings here, which seem to contain copies of all the available printed historical material, it appears that earlier versions (than the Model 1860) were in smaller bore sizes and had lighter frames.  I think that the 1860 was reengineered around the larger/longer #56 Federal cartridge(s).   

[Steel-eye Steve]

I believe the Sharps was the only carbine that varied from your observation, using a 60 grain charge. Early, paper Sharps rounds would lose a little powder when the action trimmed the tail off the cartridge, but the later linen, round was designed to insert entirely into the chamber. I do not know if the linen round was downloaded or if it maintained the 60 grain charge.

[Tuolumne Lawman]

I think they were downloaded to about 50 or 55 grains, if I remember right, because the base end of the cartridge had a little space between it and the breech block to allow for fouling build up.  I wish I could remember where I read that.

AN advantage in reenacting that both Spencer and Smith have over sharps is that the cartridges are sturdier and you don't have to blow the loose powder from the severed portion of the paper cartridge off the top of the breech block so you don't get that period correct soot face and singed right eyebrow when the cap goes off! 

All in all, Smith blanks are the easiest to make.  If I want live rounds, I stick the bullet in the case mouth seated on the compressed powder (under a 3/4" inventory dot, pressed in with a 1/2" Dowel).  56-50, you are pretty much stuck with Kennesaw Cannon Co. plastic blanks that only hold 10-15 grains of powder.  Sharps blanks are a real pain to make.

[Steel-eye Steve]

I started reenacting with an original Merrill, which like the Sharps is a paper cartridge weapon. Unlike the the Sharps, the cartridges must be made of a light paper such as cigarette paper because of side ignition. They were a real pain to make. My .45 SW blanks, for my Spencer, are much easier!

[Tuolumne Lawman]

Curler papers work well in Sharps, and might in the merril.  They are tougher than cigarette paper buit go "poof" when touched by a flame!  They are a pain in the B--T to work with, though.

[Steel-eye Steve]

They also worked for the Merrill but weren't that much better then cigarette papers. I pretty much stopped carrying the Merrill when I started riding, riding just beats a gun up to much to using originals. I pretty much use the repro Spencer and Smith now.

[Tuolumne Lawman]

I'm using the Smith this year, unless I can work that trade for ther 56-50 from the N-SSA guy.  Spencers are way out of my price range.  The prices of all the Italian made rifles are insane! They are pricing CAS out of existances for a lot of people.

I am in a dismounted cavalry unit now, as horses are a thing of the past for me.  After my slip in the mud crash and shoulder reconstruction, I am getting older, break easier, and heal slower!

[Steel-eye Steve]

I really like the Smith, pretty easy to maintain and blanks are quick to make. I have had the flash channel clog up with blank use, have you ever had this happen to yours. Residue can be cleared out with an appropriate sized drill bit-just be careful not to break the bit.

[Tuolumne Lawman]

Not yet on the Smith, but I did on a Sharps.  That was a PAIN!  Had to boil  the breech block and use drill bits and dental picks! I found I had to thouroughly clean the Sharps every night at a re-enactment.  That attracted me to a Smith; that, easier to make blanks, and easier on horseback.

[Arizona Trooper]

I really liked carrying a rifle on horseback. The carbine sling is a pain, especially at a full gallop. Rifles tend to catch on low branches if you aren't paying attention, but overall are very comfortable to ride with.

With Spencers, the powder charge was pretty much determined by case rim strength. If they went much over 45 grains, the rims would blow out, especially when chamber rim cuts were on the loose side. Hiram Berdan was almost blinded when a Spencer rifle he was shooting split a case rim. Smiths would split the India rubber cases with loads much over 45 grains. This is also true of the modern nylon cases. They will burn the crap out of your off hand when that happens (guess how I know). A lot of other carbine loads were determined by their rather feeble gas seals (Merrill, Union, Starr and so on). The first model Burnside held something like 60 grains, but the case was shortened in later production, probably to reduce recoil.

Before the war, the War Department insisted that all carbines be 54 caliber. As breechloaders came in, two schools of thought developed. Sharps, for instance, figured that the reason for 54 caliber was so that standard muzzle loading rifle ammo could be used in a pinch. Those bullets were about .535", so a 52 caliber breechloader would shoot that ammo if it had to. Hence 52 caliber Sharps carbines and rifles. The 56 caliber Sharps Navy rifles (and Colt 56 caliber revolving rifles, and oval bore Greenes) would shoot regular 58 caliber musket ammo in a pinch. The second school of thought was to do what the government ordered, and don't second guess the War Department. Thus we have 54 caliber Burnsides, Merrills, Starrs and so on. Finally, Smith and Maynard decided that 50 caliber was close enough, and the government apparently agreed. 

The 56-50 was developed in 1864 and all new carbines were to use it, so most of the late war carbines went to 50, such as the M-1865 Spencer, Ball, Remington Split Breech, Triplett & Scott and so on.