Nessler Balle cartridges, getting ready to try them out

The gentleman from Eras Gone had a good idea, that these may have been intended for a paper patched cartridge for use in .71 smoothbore muskets.

If I get bored this fall I may try some .678 Foster Slugs in a paper tube, since those are more Nessler-like than these NC bullets. Other people have tried this but it's something to do, I guess.

Stantheman86 said:

TI 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.

Click to expand...

Would those tests be with the 'Balle Nessler' and not the type of this mould?

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/nessler-bullets.137119/#post-1607414

North Carolina infantry regiments (CSA) known to have used .69 cal. smooth bore muskets

4th North Carolina Infantry – ANV “The Bloody Fourth” 1861—central and western NC—April 1865

13th North Carolina Infantry – ANV May 1861— mostly Piedmont and some eastern NC—April 1865

22nd North Carolina Infantry – ANV Raleigh July 1861—Piedmont and western NC—April 1865

38th North Carolina Infantry – ANV Raleigh Jan. 1862—Piedmont and eastern NC—April 1865

Source: Earl J. Coates and Dean S. Thomas, An Introduction to Civil War Small Arms (Gettysburg, PA: Thomas Publications, 1990), 86 and NPS Battle Unit Details online.

. Corréard, ed. Journal des armes spéciales et de l’etat-major (Paris: Librairie Militaire, Maritime et Polytechnique, 1866), pp. 271-73:

Model 1857 (rifle musket) Minié 32 gram/ 493-grain bullet backed by 4grams powder (approximately 60 grains, like the U.S. service charge). This rifle musket caliber measured 17.8mm/.71 caliber, a bit like the British Crimean War-era Pattern 1851 .702-in. rifle musket, which immediately preceded issue of the smaller caliber .577-in. Pattern 1853 Enfield.

1. Smooth bore (i.e. Mle. 1842 .70): Spherical 16.7mm/ .66 caliber lead ball, weight 27gram/ 415gr., powder charge 9grams/ 1/3rd of an ounce, or about 140 grains (U.S. flintlock muskets employed a charge of 120grains of coarse musket powder, part of which was used to prime the pan. Adoption of the percussion ignition system led to a reduction of the charge to 110grains).

2. Nessler conical ball for smooth bore arms, 16.7mm/ .66 caliber bullet weighing 30grams/ 464grains propelled by a 6gram/ 90grain powder charge. [Perhaps the charge for the North Carolina “Nesler” was similar, e.g. 100 grains, give or take, or perhaps it was reduced to 60 or 65 grains like the rifle musket charge? Certainly the compression on firing would seal the internal windage of the bore, increase the velocity, and scrape away some of the fouling?)Compared to the spherical ball of the infantry musket, that designed by M. Nessler for smooth bore arms displayed great superiority; see table below:

All shots taken with Voltigeur Mle. 1842 (e.g. 4ft. 8-in. long, 9lbs. 9oz., 17.8mm/.70 caliber)
At 200 meters, shooting at a 2m x 1m target, spherical ball scored 35% hits, while the original French Nessler scored 60% hits. The Model 1857 minnie was reportedly 78.33% at that range.
Another 100 meters out, using the same target, the spherical ball had 25% hits, while the Nessler (the one yulzari shows with the hollow base) was at 43.33% hits, and the minnie at 63.33%. At 400 meters, and a bigger target, 2m x 2m square,no record at all for the spherical ball, and 38.33% for the Nessler ball. The source lists 43.33% hits for the minnie at this range, but I think this is mistaken, and is an error where the number for the Nessler from the preceding column was that number. At 500 meters the minnie was still 51.67% and all the way out to 550m on a 2m x 3m target, the French test concluded 40% for the minnie.

3. Mle. 1854 Imperial Guard rifle musket—17.8mm/.70 cal. (1.42m/4ft. 7-in. long, with a 1.03m/3ft 4-1/2-in. barrel rifled with four progressive-depth grooves, typically loaded with 4.5grams/69 grains of powder backing a skirted 36gram/554-grain Minié ball).

I've got some lead and I'm ready to start casting some of the replica "Type II" NC state so-called "Neslers" I'll have to try different powder charges. My understanding is that the service charge for the .69 cal. conical bullet was 70 grains of powder, while the undersized .65 cal. spherical ball used 110 grains.

The French, Sardinian, Russian Nessler bullet has a hollow base, a bit like a Minié/Burton. The North Carolina version has a wilkinson-type or Lorenz-type collapsing or compacted base. I note the Lorenz-type had two such / \ deep grooves while the NC version has just a single one.

The info above is awesome, these tests were done with the real Nessler ball, it would seem. On a big 2 meter wide by y 1 meter high target, to approximate a group of men, those results are actually impressive.

Maybe we're just asking too much of these, they appear to do their job, to reach out to 300+ meters to hit massed enemy soldiers. You're just not going to be shooting tight target groups with them.

I just had a thought, maybe my enthusiastic thumping with the ramrod deformed the bullets?

If they rely on their shape to stay stable, I didn't even think about the fact that banging the heck out of them probably smashed them all up and they left the bore unevenly shaped. However I also couldn't expect soldiers in combat to be loading these gently, like a target rifle , either so who knows.


These look more like the actual Nessler ball but some guys on the forum here say they've tried these and they're just "OK" at best but they could be fun to play around with, I'm always looking for excuses to go to the range. The Foster slug is .678, might do well with a paper tube. Molds are easily obtained.

The theory that the NC "Nessler" was in a lubricated paper tube for .71 Muskets is looking more sound but I think they were probably still put into some kind of greased or lubed paper cartridge. They would still fit in .69 muskets so as far as wartime ammo they probably worked ok.

Food for thought.......

.660 1 oz slugs for 50 cents a piece, pure lead.....

Find some paper that's .005, triple wrap to .675, lube the paper.

Could be a winner, especially for people who can't own anything rifled.

I'm willing to buy some and do the research.

The 'Balle Nessler' cartridge is the same as the French Minie as below. Ideally put the powder in a separate powder tube (with a dent for bullet nose) all wrapped together in an outer wrapper. Dip the bullet end in molten wax or wax/tallow. Tear open the twisted or folded powder end of the cartridge and por the powder down the barrel. Then reverse the cartridge and put the bullet end down the muzzle until the (waxed) bullet end is level with the muzzle then snap off the excess paper and discard. Finally run the waxed paper wrapped bullet down the barrel with the rod.

I'm going to try that with the .660 slugs, I just ordered 100 of them. Good prices from that company for oddball stuff, 50 cents per bullet is less than some places charge for big round balls.

If they work , when I decide to maybe set up for casting I'll just get a 16 Gauge Foster slug mold.

I'm going to go with masking paper since it's tough enough to survive being rammed down the bore and it's thin, and it retains wax and lube well. I would think with the hollow base of the slug I can get away with about a .685 total thickness, kind of like how a Pritchett bullet is a little below bore size with the wrap.

Thanks for the image of the French Minie bullet cartridge. One issue, of course, is that there is no such image for the type of North Carolina smooth-bore bullet. Presumably it was similar, but we do not really know? Both the French Minie and the French Nessler bullets were hollow base, while the North Carolina version--which may be a shotgun slug for use in a 12-gauge or "12 to a pound" fowler or double gun brought from home and carried to war, as well as a munition that at least "looked modern" for the very, very many .69 smoothbores in inventories--is a solid type like the Wilkinson. The Enfield type cartridge--which was the preferred kind by the C.S.A. during the American Civil War--uses three pieces of paper. I've made the British-type cartridges in .570/.565" with entirely ungrooved Pritchett bullets and a clay plug in the hollow. I've also made it where the outer wrap is first tucked into the hollow and then dipped in the tallow/wax to hold it. With the so-called Nessler made in Raleigh, NC, I think I'd have to past the ends together underneath the bullet.

For people wanting to just load a paper-patched so-called Nessler from NC, rather than make up a cartridge/paper patch, this technique for the Austrian Lorenz .54 might be of some use:


Personally, I think I'd have an easier time just making up paper cartridges!

That's an interesting concept with the paper patching , but I just don't have that kind of time or patience I'm willing to make period correct cartridges for shooting enjoyment and to be historical but once something passes from "fun and relaxing" over into "labor intensive " I'm done with it

I think those .660 slugs would work nicely in paper tube cartridges similar to how they would be used originally. They also have nice smooth sides which will play nicely with paper.

If they wanted a dollar a piece for those slugs I wouldn't have bought as many , so for people who don't/can't cast or are thinking of starting, I hope this company keeps making these 16 Gauge slugs if they at least shoot as well as round balls. I bet this small company has no idea we're interested in their slugs for use in Muskets, and they're going to wonder why they suddenly can't keep 16 gauge slugs in stock.


I just noticed that the measurement for the Nessler in the data DaveC posted is .660 and just a few grain weight off from the 16 gauge slug. Interesting that they list the muskets as ".70" and not .69.

what type of weapon was used to shoot a 71 CAL. projectile?

toot said:

what type of weapon was used to shoot a 71 CAL. projectile?

Click to expand...

Small arm

A .71 bullet or round ball?

The Brown Bess is a .75 and could have used a .71 round ball.

Actually the issued ball for a King's musket would have been a 0.690 ball in a paper cartridge. The bore was 0.750 to almost 0.800 so a 0.710 will certainly fit. So will 0.735 ball wadded or thinly patched.

I think he found some of those "Nepalese Cache" round balls that are .710 I think , I'm thinking in the almost 200 year service life of the Brown Bess with countless countries there might have been some variance . I think some Brown Besses were made in Nepal.

Or he saw a musket with a .71 bore.

I often wonder if somewhere, maybe numerous places, there are unknown caches of musket ball lost or forgotten.
What a handy find that would make us types!

They claim they "looked under a floor" in the Nepal cache and found barrels of roundballs and flints. You can get 5 of the roundballs or flints off Ebay for a few bucks.

So you can put a flint from , at the latest, the 1860s in your musket.

It is thought that Nepal made indigenous production Brown Bess, 1839 Tower muskets and P53 Enfields and used them into the 1890s or beyond, at least in "guard duty" capacity.

I always thought it would be cooler to have a "barn find" and find a barrel of 1" flints someone bought as surplus 150 years ago. In PA barn finds are common, dude came in a gun shop years ago and was like "I moved some boxes in my grandparents barn and found this" and it's what looks like a '61 Springfield that has been left to quietly rust away for 100 years. Probably had a short career as a "rat and crow getter" after the War.

Stantheman86. thanks for the reply to my query. now I know the rest of the story.