Nessler Balle cartridges, getting ready to try them out

Ok, today I hot dipped 24 of the North Carolina Nessler balls in SPG blackpowder lube, and pushed them through my .680 sizer with a wooden dowel just to get the excess lube off them.

I rolled them into 1863 pattern paper cartridges, with 70 gr of Old Eynsford 2f. I figured if 70 gr of 2f was nearly the same as the Ordnance loading for the .69 Minie, it should be fine for a .69 Nessler. It's probably what the charge they used in the 1860s.

I used what seems like a light brown paper bag paper, I don't know I dug these out from a Jefferson Arsenal. 69 Minie kit. They are just thick enough to be easy to work with. Masking paper worked horribly, too thin and since the Nessler has a solid base , there is no Minie "cavity" for the pig tail of the 2nd tube to go into.

I also tried these cheesy Revolutionary War reenactor blank papers with newspaper print on them, they're made from the same paper as sticky notes and don't work well. I got them cheap off Ebay , they work great for blanks but that's it. They look cool in a cartridge box otherwise but not made for live rounds.


My Revolutionary era repro 24-Hole cartridge box, filled with Nessler cartridges. Hopefully these actually do something good out of my 1816 Springfield repro.

I plan to just load them like a Minie, at .680 they should bump up. I get usable accuracy "bare balling" with .648 balls with wadding on top.

I'm hesitant to use "wadding" on top of a bullet, given the tighter constriction it may become an obstruction. A loose round ball has a little more give to it than a .680 bullet in a fouled bore.

Given that pulled Nesslers have been found in encampment sites, presumably from being pulled after sentry duty, I imagine that the Nesslers were simply loaded normally.

A few firm thumps from the rod may bump the base out a little.

We'll see how these do, I'm also bringing some round balls in case these shoot terribly , so I don't waste a range trip.

I'm certainly looking forward to seeing the results that you get with the Nessler. I'm curious as to how well they will perform, especially for the first few shots, before the barrel fouls enough to diminish the windage between bore and bullet sizes. While I certainly see the wisdom of using lube, some NSS-A shooters might say the putting lube in the compression ring will prevent the base of the bullet from bumping up, in a manner similar to the Wilkinson minie. Good luck with your shooting!!

I had been doing a lot of reading about these and it seems that isn't a lubricating ring , it's a compression ring like you said , but when I hot dipped them, the tongs got in the way so many of them have a ring that's "weakly" lubed.

One theory states that ramrod tamping bumps them up a little.

No way am I dropping dry bullets in, that big .69 tube gets crusty quick , got to have something on there.

The experts say, the North Carolina Nessler would have been issued in a Pritchett-style tube, and a lubed paper patch would have been used to lubricate it.

But also, the .680 diameter makes paper patching almost impossible unless you do one wrap and even that is dicey. The Pritchett bullet originally was .568 and that was found to be a bit big for a .577 , so I'm not trying to stuff a patched .680 bullet down a .69 bore.

I figure if I have fired hundreds of .533 Minies through my .54 Mississippi and they haven't "slid back out" I think a .680 bullet in a .69 will pretty much act like a Minie.

My first experiment in a clean bore, will be to load the first bullet and then tip the barrel down, and with the barrel horizontal , gently put the ram rod in to see if it moved up.

I'm looking forward to seeing what happens, if they tumble out of the barrel then I'm going to stop shooting them. I'm not expecting rifle like accuracy and in fact, accuracy is supposed to be less than round balls until you hit 200-300 yards. I may have to set up on the rifle range and shoot at 100 and 200 yard steel, and look for dirt splashes to see where I'm hitting. Maybe try to get it on paper at 100. I'm probably going to spend the first few shots just getting the elevation right.

I was going to suggest a paper patch but then I realized the same thing as you did. .680 is too big. I've always used the ramrod tap for minies in my rifled muskets in a clean bore, especially if I'm hunting with one. Keep in mind though that the hollow base can flare into the rifling and get a grip. I'll be interested to hear if that works with the Nessler in a smoothbore. I gave up shooting my original 1816 without a rear sight. I never shot it enough get consistent with my head/eye position for proper elevation. I always shot low with that "no comb" stock. I put a temporary tang sight on it, held down by the tang screw and the problem went away. I"ve always used patched balls, too.

Instead of lube, try dipping your bullets in hot, pure bee's wax. I've had good luck with that, (although with an entirely different type of bullet, and caliber) as it seems to take up the windage when the bore is clean, and then as the bore is fouled, it just shaves off the excess wax. The pure wax also seems to (I'm sure it does) clean and lubricate the bore to some extent.

I just dip the base of mine, (in my case up to the nose) not the whole bullet. On your bullet it looks like you could "dip it" just a hair above the compression ring. ??

Anyhow good luck sounds like a good experiment. Wonder how one of those (in the appropriate size) would work in my Bess. That would be one heck of a big chunk of lead!

By the way, to control the thickness of the layer of wax when dipping, the warmer the bullet is, the thinner the layer of wax will be. But again, any excess will shave off when loading, and the force required to ram the bullet down seems to stay about the same. (little force required) And also by the way, I find lunch bag paper bag paper to be ideal for cartridges.

I had my local gun shop solder a Harper's Ferry rear sight on to my Pedersoli 1816, hoping that it's somewhat close to point of aim.....probably no closer than the originals , i.e. "good enough to point with"

Some 1816's that were unable to be rifled still received Long Range sights when they were converted, probably because they had them and usually soldered them on because it was easier....... and I thought making this a "sighted smoothbore " would be fun.

I know it shoots with round ball , so if the Nesslers work it will be a bonus.

Hope the rifle range isn't packed tomorrow or I may be limited to 100 yards at the multi pit. Or just shoot at steel or spots on the berm at 200.

I think past 100 is being optimistic anyway, when the tests showed Nesslers to be "more effective" at 200 and 300 yards they showed something like a 30% hit rate on a man target at 300 vs 0% with round ball. It's not like this thing is gonna be grouping.

Rat said:

Anyhow good luck sounds like a good experiment. Wonder how one of those (in the appropriate size) would work in my Bess. That would be one heck of a big chunk of lead!

Click to expand...

They existed, since the British used Nesslers in the 1839 Tower Muskets in the Crimean War, probably something a custom mold would be made for. Those, I assume would have to be in Pritchett type tubes with a paper patch.

Stantheman86 said:

They existed, since the British used Nesslers in the 1839 Tower Muskets in the Crimean War, probably something a custom mold would be made for. Those, I assume would have to be in Pritchett type tubes with a paper patch.

Click to expand...

The British army never used Nesslers and the only long arms used in the Crimean campaign were Pattern 1842 muskets which were rapidly replaced by the Pattern 1851 rifle musket with a smooth sided Minie bullet with an iron cup in the cavity. The loading of the muskets was a normal musket paper cartridge. The rifle muskets used the same as the well known 'Pritchett' type as later used on the Pattern 1853 following the French practice.

In the Crimea the Balle Nessler was used by the French, Russians and Sardinians. However, as mentioned in earlier threads on the mould in this thread, the actual Balle Nessler is not the type made in this mould and operates on a very different principle and came in a 'Pritchett' type cartridge for their muskets. I eagerly await the results of Stan's trials.

BTW moulds do exist for the Pattern 1851 rifle musket bullet.

I'll have to fire up my lead smelter furnace on Sunday and see if I can't make enough of these for some comparative results. I expect that the so-called "Nessler" North Carolina slug may actually have better performance at 200 yards, but otherwise be relatively indistinguishable from the round ball... The proof is in the putting, pudding, what-have-you! Great pics of your procedure, although I'm probably going to try to make a British type cartridge for mine.

“GIVE ‘EM A ROUND OF NESSLERS, BOYS!!”

-Unidentified Civil War officer

Hopefully this link works, made a rough video of myself loading and shooting a Nessler.



It's hard to see the exactly One (1) hit on this 100 yard target, but long story short, I fired 24 Nesslers today at 50 and 100, and accuracy was poor, to say the least. The 50 yard target had 3 hits on it. What you can't see are scattered hits on the target backboard. 70 gr. of Old Eynsford 2f was my charge. All the bullets loaded with ease, the lube did its job.

Some of the Nesslers destabilized, I saw some hitting the ground in front of the target and one hit a target stand 5 feet to the right......I don't know if.....the lube in the ring threw them off....they need to be paper patched.....or if I'm just confirming why these were never really successful and were more for Psychological feel-good for troops with obsolete weapons.

Theories state the NC Nessler was accepted without being tested, or that they're shotgun slugs repurposed into musket bullets. They may in fact fly farther than a ball, if they stay stable , and I'm sure if there were 10 of us shooting these at 300 yard targets we'd give those targets hell....but one man shooting these seems like kind of a waste. I have 30some odd of these left, next time I take my 1816 out I'll drop some of them in my range bag and try them dry, with different charges , etc. Maybe these need a lighter charge of 60 gr? Maybe a stout charge , 90 gr? I don't know. Ramming dry .680 lead down a fouled bore skeeves me out a little. These bullets may be great in a .69 Rifled Musket.




Rule #1, when trying new ammo, always bring proven ammo so you don't waste a range day. I had a "flask" with 30 balls, a bunch of wadding and a powder flask/measure.




50 yards , and 100 yards with the round balls, just to show that the musket can hit something. The rear sight helped immensely. I aimed center mass at 100 and still hit a little high. If I aimed "at the belt" most of them would be in there. There's a "group" on the target backer above the paper.

I think upping the charge would be the way to go. ?

Maybe the Round Ball charge, of 100 gr was used with the NC Nessler....

If it was loaded like a Minie, there's no way they were using these things dry. I'm thinking the lube is interfering with the "crush ring" on there.

Another option which isn't HC is to rub them with something like Alox .

Or like was said, dip the nose above the ring. I think keeping that ring free is critical.

I'd be glad to take some complimentary Nesslers from the man who makes them, for further research

For what it's worth, my first shot from a clean bore hit the 50 yard target, without tumbling , pretty much where I aimed......maybe the fouled bore "upsets" these.

I guess.....this is the reason rifled weapons were developed and as many smoothbored weapons as possible received rifling.......if these Nesslers worked they would have just kept using them.

There are no surviving cartridges so we'll never know, just original bullets.

That would be a nice thump, with 100 gr........70 gr with the Nessler was a decent dose of recoil but the Nessler is lighter than a .69 Minie, which used a 70 gr charge to get that shoulder fired cannon shell moving.

DaveC said:

I'll have to fire up my lead smelter furnace on Sunday and see if I can't make enough of these for some comparative results. I expect that the so-called "Nessler" North Carolina slug may actually have better performance at 200 yards, but otherwise be relatively indistinguishable from the round ball... The proof is in the putting, pudding, what-have-you! Great pics of your procedure, although I'm probably going to try to make a British type cartridge for mine.

Click to expand...

The more of us who shoot these, the more "collective knowledge " we have. Today I learned that whatever I was doing didn't seem to fully work. The bullets that hit the target weren't tumbling , which is encouraging.

I'm still a bit skeptical about the Nessie ever actually working, but this is very cool that you are experimenting with it.

I don't think lube in the ring is a problem. I would sure like to see you dip the base, up to just above the ring, in hot melted bee's wax. A thin coating will not fill the ring, just in case anything in the ring is a problem.

However, a good layer of bee's wax will center the bullet in the bore. As it becomes fouled, you will just shave off more wax when you load. That's how it has worked shooting .575" slugs in the .580" bore of my 1861 Springfield. Loading does not become more difficult with repeated shots, just takes off more wax.

Again, you can control the thickness of the layer depending on if the bullet is cold, warm, or hot when you dip it.

I realize this is a smooth bore to rifled bore comparison, but the slug I have would hardly hit the back stop, as is, filling the base and wax coating them now puts them in a 4" or less group at 100.

C'mon...try the wax!

Edit: and yes, 100 grains of powder at least, if you want the bullet to "bump up".

I happen to have a Pyrex dish full of hardened Beeswax from the last time I used it.

I have about 35 left, I'll dip some in the wax and leave a few "dry", bring them loose to the range and try different charges at 50 yards.

If any of the charges shows the least but of promise I'll save a few and go to the 100 yard range.

A heavy charge may be the answer , to get that thing moving. There's no hollow base to upset like a Minie.

I won't want to much higher than 100, but yeah 70 gr seems like it could have used a bit more pop.

Rat said:

I think upping the charge would be the way to go. ?

Click to expand...

IMHO, the Nessler would be too small in a rifled musket, given the rule of thumb is .001-.002 under bore size. My original rifled 1842 has a .687 bore and I use a .686 minie in it.

The man himself, who made the molds for these says he couldn't get them to do anything notable past 25 yards.

I read that the testing done originally on Nesslers was done by shooting at targets 200-350 meters that were 1 meter high and 2 meters wide at longer ranges and any hit on the target was counted. Obviously Minie bullets out of rifled weapons had the highest hit percentage vs smoothbore round balls and Nesslers.

These were stopgap bullets to make obsolete smoothbore weapons shoot farther until those units could be refit with other weapons, pretty much. They're a neat historical oddity to shooters and people like us who enjoy this stuff.

I love my big bore .69 muskets and honestly for the same amount of effort I could roll .69 Minie cartridges and just buy an Armi Sport 1842 Rifled Musket and shoot lubed and sized Minies, and actually put the huge holes where I want them.

I'm going back to round balls in my Smoothbores, I'll shoot up my remaining Nesslers with varying charges just to see if I missed something but I think my testing has concluded for the most part

Stantheman86 said:

View attachment 16410

Ok, today I hot dipped 24 of the North Carolina Nessler balls in SPG blackpowder lube, and pushed them through my .680 sizer with a wooden dowel just to get the excess lube off them.

I rolled them into 1863 pattern paper cartridges, with 70 gr of Old Eynsford 2f. I figured if 70 gr of 2f was nearly the same as the Ordnance loading for the .69 Minie, it should be fine for a .69 Nessler. It's probably what the charge they used in the 1860s.

I used what seems like a light brown paper bag paper, I don't know I dug these out from a Jefferson Arsenal. 69 Minie kit. They are just thick enough to be easy to work with. Masking paper worked horribly, too thin and since the Nessler has a solid base , there is no Minie "cavity" for the pig tail of the 2nd tube to go into.

I also tried these cheesy Revolutionary War reenactor blank papers with newspaper print on them, they're made from the same paper as sticky notes and don't work well. I got them cheap off Ebay , they work great for blanks but that's it. They look cool in a cartridge box otherwise but not made for live rounds.

View attachment 16411
My Revolutionary era repro 24-Hole cartridge box, filled with Nessler cartridges. Hopefully these actually do something good out of my 1816 Springfield repro.

I plan to just load them like a Minie, at .680 they should bump up. I get usable accuracy "bare balling" with .648 balls with wadding on top.

I'm hesitant to use "wadding" on top of a bullet, given the tighter constriction it may become an obstruction. A loose round ball has a little more give to it than a .680 bullet in a fouled bore.

Given that pulled Nesslers have been found in encampment sites, presumably from being pulled after sentry duty, I imagine that the Nesslers were simply loaded normally.

A few firm thumps from the rod may bump the base out a little.

We'll see how these do, I'm also bringing some round balls in case these shoot terribly , so I don't waste a range trip.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect a solid based bullet to bump out any at all.