Enfield Cavity Poll.

D

DANNY SPENCER

Established Users
Hi Ya’ll
If you would participate I am interested to know how many of you have dug standard .577 caliber lip, side, heel or nose cast Enfield’s with conical cavities that exceed .400 in depth. Quantity and geographic areas are key issues. Thanks Danny
 
Happy to participate, Danny. : )

I fear, though, that you've asked a question on a subject which few of even bullet-collectors have paid deep-enough (no pun intended) attention to. "Enfield Cone-cavities deeper than .4-inch." For example, I myself have bothered to actually MEASURE a con-cavity's depth only very recently. I suspect that the great majority of folks just think "hey, that's an uncommonly deep cone" and let it go at that.

Anyway, doing some checking at your behest, I do have a few cone-cavity Enfields that are deeper than .4-inch. I think their "few-ness" in my collection is significant, due to the fact that ever since I got my start in relic-hunting in the Atlanta Campaign area (where Enfields are by far the most common CS bullet), I've been noticing and collecting CS-CAST Enfield variants. Thus, I've accumulated a good number of some really odd CS-Enfield cavities ...but few that are deeper-than-.4-inch cones.

I should mention that (at least among my specimens) they tend to have an unusually thin "skirt."

For whatever it's worth, I can testify that they are found in "noticeable" - but not large - numbers in the Atlanta Campaign trenches. (From Dalton to Atlanta, not just around the city itself.) I should also mention that a large percentage of the Enfields we "North-Georgia" diggers found had a plug-cavity (meaning, British-made) - which seems a bit surprising for a mid-1864 Western-Theater campaign. I can only suppose they were coming in from the port of Wilmington NC (one of the few blockade-runner ports still open at that point of the war - Savannah and Charleston, though uncaptured, were quite effectively bottled-up). Also, perhaps not coincidentally in regard to Wilmington imports, there were a lot of North Carolina regiments in Joe Johnston's Army of Tennessee in 1864.

I suspect that if the Atalanta Campaign plug-cavity Enfields were coming in from the port of Mobile, we'd have found significantly more Selma Arsenal minies also. But the Selmas were few and far between.

I've also lived and dug extensively in the Richmond area and the Fredericksburg/Spotsylvania area. In those places, the Enfield minies you're interested in are found far less often than in the Atlanta Campaign ...probably due to Richmond's situation as the greatly-predominant producer of Gardner minies.

Danny, I hope this info is at least somewhat helpful.

Regards,
Pete [PCGeorge]
 
Hi Pete
I quite agree with your easement of the importing of Enfields but disagree with imported plug based Enfields be the predominate configuration found in northern Georgia at leas from my digging experience. But actually you have hit the reason for the question square on the head about cast Enfields found in the Atlanta Campaign trenches, “from Dalton to Atlanta”. The majority of the specimens that I have are from that region and I am interested in establishing if this could be considered a northern Georgia phenomenon unique to the Atlanta, Macon and Augusta Arsenals perhaps. As a side note to readers as I was not able to edit the original posting I do not include any conical cavity with air pocket, “pin & cone” defects in them, only correctly cast fully formed pointed. As to measurement I record all of them as to be able to search the data for similarities to new additions.
In my collection of 360 slicks 230, 64% are .577 / .58 caliber. Of this section 54, 23% have cavities of .400 through .490 in depth. Of the 54; 33 are #2 pointed conical, 3 are #4 rounded conical, 9 are #5 plug, 1 is #10 ogival, 4 are #11 parabolic, 1 is #15 stepped 1, 3 are #16 stepped2.
Note that this depth is not unusual for #5 plug cavity but notice the absence of the #3 flat tipped conical cavities. All of these were dug in northern Georgia with the exceptions of 1 from Shiloh, 2 from Virginia, 3 from Mississippi, “includes 1 deep cavity MTE”; an additional 11 came from Chattanooga Tennessee but could be attributed to Georgia manufacture I believe. Thanks a bunch for your good input, it was a big help!
 
Umm... Danny... please re-read my post. I didn't say plug-base Enfields were predominant. I said Enfields (meaning generically, Enfield-patterns) were predominant. I said plug-cavity Enfields were "a large percentage" of the Enfields we diggers found. I did not mean they were the majority. I see I should have been more specific. In my Atlanta Campaign digging, somewhere between 25-to-40% of the Enfields I dug had a plug-cavity - depending on the site I was at.

By the way... when you said conical-cavity, I figured you didn't mean cone-&-pin. But I did think you meant the simple ordinary cone-cavity only (#2 in the Mason-&-McKee book) ...so that's the only one I checked for your poll. If you'd like, I'll check my Enfield collection for the other cone-variations you mentioned in your reply.

Regards,
Pete [PCGeorge]
 
Hi Pete
Your point about your recovered Enfields is better understood now but a 25 to 40% ratio of import plug base to conical base is high in comparison to my recovery recollections. I am quite sure that you had access to many more hunting areas than I did so this fact is interesting to me.
My original question was about pointed conical cavities only. As I went back to get an accurate count I included the alternate cavity patterns as a side line matter of interest only.

In a previous discussion involving John Morrow about the battle of Pickett’s Mill, John brought up these comments about the 10th.Texas.

So you would have found them at Pickett's Mill wearing Richmond pattern jackets & clothes, while actually members of the Army of Tennessee, but carrying outdated muskets; at least until they destroyed the enemy massed columns at Pickett's Mill; then they were carrying captured Enfields afterward. After their defense and later night counter attack at Pickett's Mill they were carrying captured Enfields from then on. They got them from the heaps of enemy slain lying around their positions. I'm pretty certain about this.

This begs the question of Union equipped Enfields? The question being; were they using the standard three groove minie in them or using imported plug based slicks?
I would assume that they were using their standard three grooves?
Any opinions on this as it might account for plug based minie’s if you can recall anything about recovery sites?
 
Enfields

Danny,

The Federals did import Enfield Rifle Muskets but never did import any ammunition. They used conventional 3 ring bullets in the Enfields.

TomH
 
Hi Danny.

This is an interesting topic, thanks for posting.

I went back and reviewed the Enfield bullets that I have recovered here in Georgia. I only have one that meets your needs. It's a 0.577 caliber with conical cavity with a depth over 0.40 inches. I am no expert in the casting methods, so cannot determine how it is cast.

This is a slightly deformed, fired bullet. The base is not uniform and may be missing a portion of the base due to the firing.

This bullet has the "thin skirt" that Pete discusses in his reply. Very thin. As a matter of fact the depth varies from about 0.45 to about 0.48 depending on where the "skirt" (base) is measured.

This bullet was found on my property, about a mile due South of Pine Mountain. I am about 700 yards north of the Lost Mountain line trenches.

I can post photos, once the site is fixed. Hope this helps your quest.

Rodney
 
Thanks Rodney
Sometimes it can be hard to tell about a fired bullet. The cavity often stretches out from biting into the rifling. A lot of the deep cavities I found near your area and above to Paulding County. This is getting frustrating not being able to post pictures but Chuck is doing a far more important job right now.
 
Danny,

I went through all my Enfield pattern bullets today that I have found in south Arkansas... well, all that I could dig out and find that were non-fired. I didn't find a single cone cavity that measured over the .400 that you asked about. (Darn it, I was hoping for an exceptionally long cavity MTE).

However, I do have a question that presented itself during my examination, if you would not mind? You know that I am only beginning to learn a bit about the bullets I have found..... and time and again I find myself relying on you folks that have been at it for quite some time. I cleaned the dirt out of several of the cavities ( I have a habit of not fully cleaning the bullets I find.... often leaving the cavity full of dirt/clay), and I found two of the Enfields with something I had never noticed before. (Yet, you may have alluded to this above). Two of the Enfields had a cone cavity as listed in the T & T Appendix 5, except for the fact that a very small diameter hole extended deeper into the body of the bullet. I don't know how deep, but the toothpick I was using to clean the cavity went into the cavity until the taper of the toothpick stopped its penetration.

One of these measures L 1.000 : W .5188: and weight 431 gn

The other measures L 1.000 ; W .5688 ; and weighs 506 gn

I don't have a digital set of calipers.... just a manual slide caliper, so these may be off a bit. I did use a set of digital scales that a buddy let me use.

Is it too stupid a question to ask about these two bullets? Are they the pin and cone you mentioned in a post above? And, are they a rather common occurrence?


Thanks,

Kim
 
Hi Ya Kim
Yes that is what they call a pin & cone cavity. Caused by some air not being able to vent out when the lead was poured into the mold. I refer to them as casting flaw holes, sometimes small and sometimes a gaping pit.
The flat tipped, plug, tiny cone, dish and Lovell cavities are usually typical to cold compressed formed bullet manufacture whereas the other variations of the basic conical cavities I believe were attempts to eliminate the trapping of air in casting. And yes these are common enough to find.
Thanks for taking the time to go through your Enfields; it really is helping me get a grip on these deep pattern guys.
Always clean out your cavities, it’s the first thing I check out. I’m glad you remembered what I said about the MTE’s!
Later gator.
 
Kim, just for clarification:
Sometimes a cone-&-pin cavity is the result of a casting-flaw (as Danny astutely described). But a "true" cone-&-pin cavity also exists. A particularly good example of it is the .58-caliber yankee Williams Regulation minie (MM352 and MM353, and TT156a and b), formerly known as "Pistol-Carbine minies" or "Harper's Ferry" minies. A tip of the ol' kepi to Dean & Jim Thomas for providing the historically-correct identification in their book.

Regards,
Pete [PCGeorge]
 
Cone and Pin Cavity

PCGeorge,

I respectfully disagree about the William Regulation Bullet. It was designed with a conventional cone cavity but, like any nose poured bullet, voids tended to be created at the apex of the cavity plug in the mold, causing what has been interpreted as the cone and pin cavity.

I have never seen any information supporting the design of any bullet with a cone and pin cavity, and believe that any examples are just anomolies caused by the formation of air bubbles during casting.

Just a humble opinion,
TomH
 
Hey folks,

Since I first asked about the "pin & cone" cavity Enfields I have found another..... this one fired, but low impact. I also asked a relic hunting buddy this morning about them, and he said he had 3 or 4 of them.... all Enfields. I'm going to ask him if he'll dig them out for me to look at because, the ones I have seem to have a rather uniform "pin" at the tip of the cone. Can they all be casting flaws? Thanks again to each of you who have taken the time to help this ole country boy out.

Take care,

Kim
 
Tom H wrote:
>I respectfully disagree about the William Regulation Bullet. It was designed with a conventional cone cavity
>but, like any nose poured bullet, voids tended to be created at the apex of the cavity plug in the mold, causing what has
>been interpreted as the cone and pin cavity.
I have never seen any information supporting the design of any bullet with
>a cone and pin cavity, and believe that any examples are just anomalies
>caused by the formation of air bubbles during casting.
>Just a humble opinion,

Pardon my delay in replying. I've spent several days locating (and then checking the cavity of) every Williams .58 Regulation minie in my house. I also checked all the dealers' bullet lists that I could find - looking for anyone selling a "variant MM352/353 with a standard cone cavity instead of M&M's cone-&-pin cavity."

I could find no-one listing a non-c&p-cavity variant Williams .56 Regulation minie ...either in many years of old mail-order lists, or nowadays on the Internet.

Also, not one of the hundreds of MM352 or 353 Williams .58 Regulation minies I've dug (or owned) has a standard cone cavity. By the way... yes, I've checked every cavity on every minie I've ever dug - or bought. I was advised on my very first relic-digging trip (1974) to check every cavity because it might show something rare & valuable.

Therefore, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your apparent contention that no bullet was designed with a cone-&-pin cavity ...all cone-&-pin cavity minies are merely anomalies due to casting-flaws. You are implying that the mold failed to fill properly, creating a void/bubble at the top of the cone, EVERY TIME a Williams .58 Regulation minie was cast.

Those minies are so commonly dug that almost every digger realizes they were made and issued in the hundreds-of-thousands. One would think that if the Willaims .58 Regulation's mold had a cone cavity, at least one out of two minies it produced would have a "proper" cone-cavity. But, no. How about one out of the four? No. 10%? No. 5%? No. Do even ONE PERCENT of the Williams .58 Regulation minies we dig up have a cone-cavity? Apparently not.

A final point:
We all know that a casting-flaw void at the top of the cavity causes a high likelihood of a "blow-through" when the minie is fired. Yet, blow-through Williams .58 Regulation minies are super-duper-rare ...correct? (I've seen exactly ONE in all my years of bullet-dealing and collecting.)

Therefore, in view of all the evidence-points listed above, I find it hard to believe that there's no such thing as a "genuine" (intentional, designed) cone-&-pin cavity minie.

Regards,
Pete [PCGeorge]
 
MM352/353

PCGeorge,

If you go to http://www.baymediapro.com/collection/bullet_search.asp and select 352 from the Mason and McKee pulldown box you can see three Williams regulation bullets in my collection. The first is as designed, a truncated cone cavity. The second two are casting flaws.

It is a fact that a flat tipped cavity can cause the formation of air bubbles in nose poured bullets. The larger the flat area, the larger the bubble. This is what contributed to the number of voids in Gardner bullets. The Gardner cavity was not flat, but was in fact flat enough and large enough area to cause this phenominon.

The Williams was designed as a truncated cone cavity bullet, with a small flat area at the apex of the cone. When pouring this bullet, if the temperatures of the molten lead and mould were too far apart a bubble would almost invariably form at the apex of the cavity.

When casting bullets for contemporary shooters care is taken to insure that the mould is heated properly and the temperature of the lead is consistant. In 19th century manufactories the stress of needing to complete as many bullets per day as humanly possible created a situation where it was unlikely that "quality control" standards were stringently maintained, resulting in the excessive number of flawed bullets that we find today.

Again, just a humble opinion based on patent info,
TomH
 
enfields

Danny,
I looked through the enfields that I have dug in North Ms and don't have any deep cavity bullets. Most that have been found have been fired and it's hard to tell. If I do I will keep ya in mind.
Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top