Hello all;
I seem to have a problem. The dowel and minie I normally use to make my 'authentic blank cartridges with has  grown legs and taken a walk (disappeared)   . Anybody know where i can buy an authentic minie(s) in .58?  Let me explain;
What I normally do is drill a small down the center, and attach it to a dowel of similar size and sand the dowel down to the same exact diameter as the minie.
I prefer to use this method, because the minie leaves sort of an imprint in the paper once I wrap the cartridge paper around it. I use the Columbia Rifles Compendium method of rolling authentic cartridges.
Your help and suggestions is greatly appreciated.
kindest regards;

Hey Man,

Are you wanting an authentic minie as in one from the war? Or are you seeking an accurate repro? I am assuming a repro since you plan on drilling a hole in it.

I think most any mainstream (fall creek, Blockade Runner, Brigade Sutler) vendor keeps .58 minies in stock. These are cheap and easy to hand out to the kiddies wanting a souvenier.

If not them then try Dixie, and James river is making them now http://www.jamesriverarmory.com/Shop%20service.htm

Only problem with the above companies is they sell in bulk of 100+.
If I had one to send you I would, all I have at the moment is a bunch of round balls in .54.

Hey Joey;
Hope all is well;
Thanks for the response. I'm looking for an authentic repro. 1 or 2 would be fine, but I will hit up those sources if I run out of ideas.
Kindest Regards;

  Hallo!

 Did you ever get your "Minie?"

 IF not, while I know of NO "authentic reproductions," I have a bunch of them lying abut and would be happy to send you a few.

 ...Typically, "Minies" were swedged (squeezed from lead).  Reproduction "Minies" are nose cast (as were some CS ones).  The problem with nose casting is that the sprue cutter slices off the "point" leaving a noticeably flat nose tip.  Some lads take the time to sand the tip back to a point, but mostly we have come to "live with" the flat tips.  ;)  

  Curt Schmidt

Quote :

Curt Schmidt wrote :   Hallo!  ...Typically, "Minies" were swedged (squeezed from lead).  Reproduction "Minies" are nose cast (as were some CS ones).  The problem with nose casting is that the sprue cutter slices off the "point" leaving a noticeably flat nose tip.     Curt Schmidt

Curt,

Welcome to the Forum. We need more "Gun Nuts" around here.


There's a worse problem then the flat tip associated with cast Minnie balls, air bubbles. A small air bubble can cause the bullet to fly eradicately. A large bubble may cause the nose of the bullet to blow out, leaving much of the round stuck in the barrel of the rifle. This was one of the reasons the Confederates stopped using the "Gardner Pattern" cartridge.  

--Last edited by Bill on 2008-05-02 10:07:32 --

Curt;
Its been awhile since I've visited the forums;
Thanks for the offer but I lucked out and got some. I recently was able to score a couple of Minies from friend of mine at work, who used to  shoot with the NSSA. And speaking of rounds I need to start rolling around 80 for New Hope Church.
Thanks again
Harold Adams

  Hallo!

 Gun Nut?  I'm more like a Loose Screw.  

 Glad you found some Minies...

  (I remember there were some lads in the N-SSA of the mid 1970's that built a bullet swedging machine to properly squeeze out Minies, but it never caught on.  One way to help with hidden air bubbles that some of the competitors use is to micro-weigh the Minie as deviances in weight can indicate air bubble voids- but not exclusively...)

  Curt

Curt,

While I have your attention. Do you have any idea what rocket paper might be? It was used to make the cylinder cases in rifle-musket cartridges. All I know is it's supposed to be stiff. (That's what it says in the ordnance manual) I figure the stuff must be oil resistant.    

  Hallo!

  That is a mystery I have never been able to research or solve...

   While development of the new bullet and cartridge circa 1855 went on, Captain Dyer suggested improvements to the instructions in the SMALL ARMS 1856 guide for making the new elongated ball cartridges.  Dyer recommended painting one side of "rocket paper"
(later found sometimes listed as No. 4 Rocket Paper) sheets with gum arabic. From teh sheets disks were stamp cut. This "varnish" was them moistened, and the disks pressed in a hand press to form the powder cylinder.
  This was adopted with the modification that the varnish was moistened before the wrapper cylinder was put on due to complaints that ppowder was leaking out inside of the finished cartridge.
 Several of the arsenals designed presses for making the cylinders.  However, shortly after, Ramsey submitted a proposal by Lt. Benet to simplify production by making the powder cylinder from a trapeszoid shaped paper rolled on a former, and pasted on one end.  Benet also proposed using "No 4 rocket ppaper" as being a beter barrier to penetration of the powder by grease from the bullet.  (the so called "St. Louis Plan")
 Leaking powder was still a complaint if teh paste was not ample or the paer formed tightly.  Craig then proposed that to stop leakage, a tight "iner case" should have its end protrude as much as the outer wrapper and folded down with it.  That went into the 1861 Ordnance Manual.

  It would possible appear that that the treating of the powder cylinder paper did not continue into 1861 as  Henry Scott's
Military Dictionary 1861 talks about be careful that there is no grease beyond the bottom of the bullet which "...lest by coming in contact with the bottom of the case it penetrate the paper and injure the powder."

 From the original cartridges I have examined or owned, (a limited smaple to be sure), I have found that the cylinder paper is the same paper as the outer wrapper, and was not treated or for that matter any different paper.

 IMHO, so far, it appears that we are "missing" some history here both in definitions of Rocket Paper and  No. 4 rocket paper"
and who/when/where they went to the same trapezoid papers for the powder cylinder as well as the outer wrapper cylinder.

  I suspect in 1861, when someone determined that the War was not going to be over in a month or two, and that cartridges would be used up fast rather than spend years in storage where grease contamination would be a problem....

  Curt

Quote :

Curt Schmidt wrote :   Hallo!    IMHO, so far, it appears that we are "missing" some history here both in definitions of Rocket Paper and  No. 4 rocket paper" and who/when/where they went to the same trapezoid papers for the powder cylinder as well as the outer wrapper cylinder.     Curt

Thanks Curt,

I don't feel so bad. It's funny, it seems there ought to be QM or Ordnance spec that would tell you what one of the major components of a rifle-musket cartridge was made from. Of course, it's always interesting what they don't explain. In that same 1856 manual, they tell you to fold the tail of the cartridge in the "usual" manner, like everybody knew what the usual manner was. I guess in 1856, everybody also knew what Rocket Paper was.      

  Hallo!

  True.  Plus we should remember that in many ways, we "look at" the Ordnance Manuals incorrectly.  Meaning, the 1849 manual and the 1861 mamnual are actually more the "2nd Edition" and the "3rd Edition."  ;)  

  But yes, when it comes to "rocket paper," it may be like "zerox" paper or  desktop PC "printer" paper today.

  Curt

 

Quote :

Curt Schmidt wrote :   Hallo!      But yes, when it comes to "rocket paper," it may be like "zerox" paper or  desktop PC "printer" paper today.   Curt

Curt,

This is likely an example of over thinking on our part. In rereading a number of sources, I'm beginning to think that "Rocket Paper" was actually nothing more that what they called #4 paper; the heavest paper purchased by the Government at that time.  

  Hallo!

  And I would say you are likely 100% correct.

  (IMHO, in the absence of documentation, it would take a survey of original cartridges made after the St. Louis Plan for gum arabic varnished disks being pressed into "cups" (powder cylinders) and replaced by just another trapezoid of wrapper paper by or in 1861.  Soooo...  who wants to donate a representative sample pool of non St. Louis Arsenal 1859-1865 cartridges to have the powder cylinders removed for analysis??)  

   Curt

Quote :

Curt Schmidt wrote :     Soooo...  who wants to donate a representative sample pool of non St. Louis Arsenal 1859-1865 cartridges to have the powder cylinders removed for analysis??)

Curt,

The line forms on the right!  

One of the things I enjoy about this Hobby is there is so much we don't know for sure. It makes the research so interesting.

Curt, it's obvious you are extremely knowledgable about Civil War weapons. I've been reading your posts on various forums for years and have noticed you almost never say "always or never". To me, that's a perfect example of "The more I learn, the less I know." Welcome to the Common Ground Forum. You'll find that most of the folks who post here don't have all the answers either!    

  Hallo!

  Thanks, I have been guilty of lurking for a long time...

  Yes, I never say always or never, except to say never say always.  
  But I do like to caution against making the exception the rule, unless one is doing the exception..    
 
  Answers... shoot, I don't even have all of the questions down yet.


  Regards,

  Curt