Cartridge boxes and Enfield style rounds

G

Georgia Teat

Established Users
OK:

I'm new here, and I have a question I'm mighty curious about...

The South imported, and made lots of En field style ammo for its Soldiers. Now, the length this type of ammo is too tall/long for standard CS, US .58 cal cartridge boxes. I have an authentic repro .69 cal 1857, RB cartridge box, and a correct made Enfield style British cartridge box. The longer (repro) Enfield cartridges I make for LH, will fit those two boxes.
Now, the .58 cal box I have mirrors the dimensions of an original, but you cannot fit the longer Enfield style cartridge into the tin’s of that box.

I wonder what the Confederate did if he had a .58 cal box, and was issued Enfield style rounds?
Remove the tins?
Respectfully

Georgia Teat
 
Cartridge Lengths

Georgia Teat,

Welcome aboard, interesting thread.

I checked some sources and couldn't find any prescribed lengths for finished cartridges either for the US or British style cartridges. I also check a few examples and found that the American style cartridges averaged 2.5 inches (+/- .25) and the British style cartridges averaged 3 inches ( also +/- .25).

What are the depths of the tins on all three of your cartridge boxes?

Anybody else?
TomH
 
Yes, this was a problem. And yes, your Enfield cartridges don't fit in the "regulation" .58 cartridge box. The Confederates recognized this problem...especially when they decided to try to adopt the English pattern of cartridge as their standard. Dean said that in his research he's run across official circulars printed and distributed by the CS gov't regarding the matter. It seems that actual CS-made boxes were made with tins that were deep enough. The problem arose with the many captured US boxes in use. Attempts were made to fix the problem but it was appearently too much trouble to "fix" all the scattered US boxes in use and attempts at making shorter Enfield cartridges were not successful.

By early 1864 the idea of standardizing ammunition to the English pattern was dropped. So ended the problem.
 
"official circulars printed and distributed by the CS gov't regarding the matter"

"By early 1864 the idea of standardizing ammunition to the English pattern was dropped. So ended the problem. "

Jim T:

Your posting interests me, do you have (know of) documentation to go with the above quotes from your posting? If there is something in the OR's, I'd be much interested in looking them up.
I hate to come across as skeptical, it's the first time I've heard of this info!

Tom H:

Thanks for responding also:
The tin depth in my cartridge box tin compartments are as follows:
British en field box: 2-15/16"
1857 .69cal RB box: 2-3/4"
March of 1864 US .58cal box: 2"

I pride myself on my cartridges for LH, they measure the same as originals, give or take how tight I stuff and fold them. :lol:
Respectfully:

Georgia Teat
 
Hi Ga. Teat,

Dean lent me one of his binders of hand written notes from Vol. 4 of "Round Ball to Rimfire" that he's currently working on. So here's some of the documentation. Unfortunately, Dean's source notes are in a separate binder. Right now I'll give you the info. and tell you that it came from the National Archives in Washington. If you need to know the exact Record Groups or microfilm rolls that the info came from, that will have to wait.


First the tins:

Mallet had been charged with the task of determining the sizes of cartridge box tins and Enfield cartridges. On December 7, 1863, he filed a report to Gorgas that is quite detailed, but one of his statements pretty much sums things up, "There is a great discrepancy in the dimensions of the cartridge box tins made at the different Arsenals." Mallet goes on to suggest that the box for the .69 smoothbore be adopted as standard since that size will certainly fit all smaller caliber cartridges. And will even allow soldiers to carry "...52 instead of 40 rounds of the...Enfield cartridge." Mallet presented another possibility, that of reducing the length of the cartridges to fit the current tins: "the length of the Enfield cartridges may...be brought down from 3.2 or 3.3 to 2.8 or 2.9...." He also notes that if this course is followed, that for all English cartridges imported in the future it would "necessary to break up and re-make all the English-made ammunition which we import."

Gorgas immediately approved the use of the .69 cal. cartridge box. (See pic of circular dated 12/7/63).

Second, the adoption of the "English pattern cartridges:

Following the discontinuation of the Gardner cartridge, Gorgas, on Jan 21, 1864, issued a circular to all the Laboratories directing the immediate adoption of the English pattern of Enfield cartridge where ever it is not already made.

Third topic, quit making "English pattern cartridges:

A letter from Gorgas in Richmond to Mallet dated March 19, 1864, reverses his Jan 21 circular by ordering "The fabrication of the English "Enfield" cartridge will be suspended until the first of October 1864, and all small arm ammunition will be put up after the old U.S. pattern."

Ga. teat, this just skims the surface, but I'm already tired of typing, so you'll have to wait 'til "Part Four" comes out for all the details.

Later, JT
 

Attachments

  • circular.jpg
    circular.jpg
    63.9 KB · Views: 289
Jim T:

Awesome posting on your part! :up

Please, give your tired hand(s) a rest, you have given me more than I could have imagined, an answer to a question that has bugged me for a long time. I had no idea a Part 4 Cartridge book was in the works, that is good news, thanks for sharing it with me.

If you don't mind, I would love to use the info you gave me in a short article for the newsletter I put out for the Confederate Living History Group I associate with, this would be interesting to them as well. 8)
Respectfully:

Georgia Teat
 
GA,

Feel free to use the info in your newsletter. And yes, Dean has been working on "Part Four" for awhile. This volume of "Round Ball to Rimfire" will detail the Confederate ammunition production.
 
Hi Guys
Great topic of discussion and facts. Do any of you know off the top of your heads what the specified width of the US regulation waist belt is?
 
Simple Answer

Gawja Peach -

In your case "Skinny", and in my case "Fat"! Anything else you want to know?

And a cheery good afternoon to ya Danny!

Bill
 
Jim T.

Your post got me to thinking about what may be in the OR's, and I got to looking at the following web site:

Cornell University's MoA Journal Collection
http://moa.cit.cornell.edu/moa/moa_browse.html

Vol XXX
Chapter XLII
Part II- Reports...Pages 81-83

OFFICE OF CHIEF OF ORDNANCE, CHEATHAM’S DIVISION, POLK’S CORPS, ARMY OF TENNESSEE,
October 20, 1863…

“If all the guns taken from the field with balls clogged in
loading could be carefully unloaded and the balls examined and
measured, it [would] establish one of these points: First, at what arsenal the balls were made; because, as each arsenal has its own molds, its balls ought to be recognized with certainty. Second, whether or not the balls were originally too large, or whether used without sufficient grease. Third, whether the English system of having balls
Sufficiently small to be used with thick paper around them be not better than our plan of using the ball without paper.”

Interesting how he makes the last comment...ammunition change in the works? :idea

Georgia Teat
 
I would have to say that many soldiers would just have to deal with as best as possible and stuff as many bullets into the cartridge box tin. It doesn't really matter because the confederate infantrymen were really ragtag so they just went with the flow. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top