cynthialee said:
There is a difference between something being developed and being actually used.
The electric car dates to the 1830s-40s. The patent for an electrified rail for electric railroads dates to 1840 in England. But I doubt a Chevy Volt is acceptable at a rendezvous to run ice to the campers...
If you read my posts you will understand this.
The Picket requires a starter. It was pretty popular with LR target shooters until faster twists and PP bullets were developed but the best of these used a 2-3 strip patch that required a false muzzle equipped with a guide starter ( or piston starter they are also called) AND a piece of carefully fitted steel that holds the strips of paper in place. Not something for hunting. The fact that the rifles were very heavy is a factor too. The False Muzzle was actually developed for the picket because its so hard to load. This difficulty makes it a major PITA as a hunting bullet, no matter what Ned Roberts wrote. If you damage or loose any of the accessories then the gun is a round ball gun until the necessary parts are replaced. So Picket rifles generally used BOTH the RB and the Picket so the owner could hunt with it too. The picket hung on with with the 200 yard offhand shooters in "Schuetzen" after it died out with a longrange shooters.
"Naked bullets" were not used because its difficult to keep it on the powder since it has no bore friction to speak of. Load a 54 maxi in a rifle and the drop it muzzle down on a pine board just one inch of drop should move the slug off the powder. At the very least this will cause a flier on the target. At worst barrel damage.
This is not as important today if the shooter does not ride a horse or carry the rifle muzzle down. But they will slide off the powder if the rifle is carried muzzle down a friend has told me. Don't believe me? Do some testing.
Does anyone not wonder why the Civil War Cavalry was not equipped with a Minie ball carbine? It was found to be unworkable. This is all written down, from the time, if people want to look for it. BTW the smoothbore carbines would also unload themselves in a few miles when used by the cavalry. At least according to the officer who wrote the letter quoted in "Firearms of the American West 1803-1865". Yes folks there was a reason the Hall then the Sharps, then the various breechloaders were favored for cavalry use. They tried to make that minie ball shooting Pistol Carbine work but it failed in field tests in the late 1850s.http://firearmprofessionals.com/2011/12/springfield-1855-pistol-carbine/
They did make more of these than the experimental Carbine.
What about inlines?
There were inline flintlocks made for Royalty and as "Master Piece" guns in Europe in the 18th century. So if you put a wood stock and a patchbox on a Knight inline does this make it traditional? Breechloading flintlock rifles were EXTREMELY common, almost the norm in England circa the 1730s. Virtually identical rifles were used in very limited numbers in the American Revolution. But find one in 1812 or 1830. They did not work all that well and the disadvantages outweighed the advantages so the design died out.
The disadvantages of the conical outweighed its advantages for all but target shooters. The Flintlock and percussion rifle was still in use in America into the 1920s-30s in some areas for matches and hunting. The ML rifle never went out of use in America. With the Round Ball. Why? Given the sights and the velocities obtainable the round ball was all that was needed. Further it would kill game on 1/2 or less the lead and maybe 2/3s the powder. The Picket shoots best with powder charges that would give many here the "vapors" the rifle I pu together to test oickets in and play with now and then seems to like 80 gr of FF. Its a 40 btw. 80 is significantly more accurate than 70.
So, assuming you attend ML matches, would your match director allow an inline flintlock in matches? Or would it be considered to be too far outside the norm? Not typical of the era.
Should a 1720 breech loader design be allowed in ML matches? People had them in England and they were used here contemporary with the MLs. But are they typical? No.
A traditional ML is something one would expect to see at the time frame MLs were in their heyday in America. The ammunition should meet the same criteria. Was it in use? Was it practical? BTW we have a Picket rifle match at Cody once a year. This year is was won by round ball rifles. Both made by me. The winner beat me out by just over 1/16" on a 20 shot string measure match. The closest picket was a couple of inches behind me. This was 100 yards benchrest and I was shooting a flintlock with barrel sights against peeps and I think a scope of two. What does this indicate? Perhaps a reason the RB was more "typical"?
I try to post stuff that is well thought out and based on fact or historical documentation. I have valid reasons for the things I post. I did not just wake up a few days ago with some dreamed up opinion on ML projectiles.
I have considerable experience and I know others who are long time ML shooters and builders.
You want to look at picket rifles and rifles that later shot "naked bullets" look at "The American Percussion Schuetzen Rifle".
Here is a set of photos, the starter, the bullet swage and the bullets I have shot in the 40 cal I shoot pickets from. I only use the flat point/flatbase design the other does not shoot well. There is a nearly identical bullet to the FP design in the book on Schuetzens. The muzzle has to be turned round to accept the starter with minimum clearance.
Without the starter the picket bullets will not stay on a paper plate at 40 yards. Even with a loading rod fit to the bore to center it.
These things are REALLY finicky.
I have thought about shooting a deer with the Picket bullet just to do it. But would have to use the RB for any followup shots got too much work in the starter to pack it out in the field.
And its less accurate then my RB rifles.
So while there were rifles using elongated projectiles in pre-Civil War America the Minie was, as near as I can see, used only by the military, the picket rifle could have been used for almost anything but it is very finicky about how its loaded and uses more powder and lead to do the same thing for the hunter a RB would do. If I showed up at a ML match with a guide starter and a box of picket bullets they probably would not let me shoot in the match even though its far more traditional than the modern naked bullets.
I never used bullets in MLs except as noted. I was shooting a traditional ML before the Maxi and the others hit the market. Being something of a traditionalist I saw no use for them.
Its also amusing to me that NOW with the advent of the inlines and such the T/C Hawken and its various progeny is considered a "traditional" ML. They were considered to be less than that when they were introduced. So the definition of "traditional" changes with time.
One more thing.
The inline dating to the 18th century is one reason the ML seasons need to have their rules rewritten for firearms and projectiles.
I would have no objection to a hunter using a cloth patched picket bullet. I do not consider it "typical" for the reasons stated but its OK if people want to go to that much trouble, noting that the starter costs more than many here would pay for a rifle. Just buying the brass or bronze is going to run 100-150 bucks. I guess if someone wanted to hunt with a Springfield Rifle Musket or a Pattern 1853 Enfield with a Minie this would be OK too. But these and a very few other military rifles were the only place the minie was used in the 19th century that I know of.
But this bullet has so many disadvantages, the traditional design, for the hunter I can't see anyone using it.
But it would be better for the regulation to stipulate the rifle be typical of the era and use a cloth patched round ball.
Then the traditional ML hunters could get their seasons back from the inlines.
Dan
ff
