Weird Enfield Bullet

[romeo-1]

Anyone ever find a bullet like this one? It looks like an Enfield except for the rounded tip...maybe carved?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[High Plains Digger]

I believe (more like suspect) that it is a double loaded bullet. I do have some problems with that theory, but if you put the cavity of another enfield on it, I'll bet it fits. To pretty well quote from the movie, Gettesburg, "Make sure they fire, Captian. The just load and load. Four, 5 bullets at a time but they never fire. Make sure they fire".

I have Williams III, several 3 ringers, and an enfield with similar marks and all fit the base of another bullet. I do have a couple with smaller marks that could have been left by the cup of the ramrod, but that is way different. I hope someone else will comfirm this, I have had some people refer to this thought as poopoo de toro, and yet I spoke with a man that had dug thousands of bullets, etc, including a war grave in the 1960's, and that is what he says. Smart guys?

 

[romeo-1]

I think you're right on the money. I just fitted another Enfield over this one and it is a perfect fit. The base of this particular bullet is shallow so I suspect the bullet that caused this damage had a similarly shallow base.

Any other theories or is this a "Green Check"?

 

[fyrffytr1]

I have also found different bullets that look like yours but i have a question about them. If they were loaded one on top of the other how were they removed from the barrel? They don't look fired and there is no worm hole where a puller was used.
Were there other ways of unloading?

 

[umrgolf]

I have an Enfield exactly like that one I always wondered about.. I think High Plains Digger is right on or very very close. cool stuff

 

[High Plains Digger]

That is one of the "weak" parts of my theory. Someone said something about removing the screw in part at the back of the barrel, but my Tibetan Enfield doesn't have anything that seems to be removeable. I also seem to have a marked bullet that seems not to be pulled, but I also have a pulled bullet that is marked. Perhaps the enfield came from a musked, but that doesn't explain my 3 ringers and Williams III. The other problem being, how many of these bullets were stuffed in the barrel with the paper on them after pouring out the powder? I have never had that answered. That would seem to not allow the "ring". But there is no way these are from the cup of the ramrod, although I am sure that in the heat of battle, I would be ramming those suckers in so hard that there would be serious markage.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

If it is a double-loaded bullet, and got fired into the base of the minie above it in the gunbarrel hard enough to impress the groove-like dent, your minie's nose would also be impressed/compressed into the shape of the "top" minie's cavity. Another Enfield may fit neatly onto the nose of yours, but no Enfield minie's cavity has such a rounded-bottom as to explain the rounded-ness of your Enfield minie's nose. You may have noticed that Enfield minies have either a cone-shaped cavity or a flat-bottomed cavity.)

So, it's not a double-loaded bullet ...it is a "hard-rammed" bullet. Actually, your Enfield's nose-curvature matches the interior curvature of a tulip-head ramrod's mouth. The "groove" below your Enfield's rounded nose was caused by the ramrod's lip.

Here's the explanation for the lack of rifling-marks on your Enfield minie. The need for "hard-ramming" is caused by the rifle's bore becoming thickly coated with blackpowder ash after multi-repeated firing without cleaning (as will happen in a day-long battle). The gunpowder-ash coating inside the gunbarrel can get thick enough to also fill up the rifling-grooves ...so when the minie gets fired it doesn't show rifling-marks.

As a fellow civil war relic-digger, I'm fairly sure you've occasionally dug at least a few other "definitely fired" minies which don't show any rifling-marks.

 

[timekiller]

If it is a double-loaded bullet, and got fired into the base of the minie above it in the gunbarrel hard enough to impress the groove-like dent, your minie's nose would also be impressed/compressed into the shape of the "top" minie's cavity. Another Enfield may fit neatly onto the nose of yours, but no Enfield minie's cavity has such a rounded-bottom as to explain the rounded-ness of your Enfield minie's nose. You may have noticed that Enfield minies have either a cone-shaped cavity or a flat-bottomed cavity.)

So, it's not a double-loaded bullet ...it is a "hard-rammed" bullet. Actually, your Enfield's nose-curvature matches the interior curvature of a tulip-head ramrod's mouth. The "groove" below your Enfield's rounded nose was caused by the ramrod's lip.

Here's the explanation for the lack of rifling-marks on your Enfield minie. The need for "hard-ramming" is caused by the rifle's bore becoming thickly coated with blackpowder ash after multi-repeated firing without cleaning (as will happen in a day-long battle). The gunpowder-ash coating inside the gunbarrel can get thick enough to also fill up the rifling-grooves ...so when the minie gets fired it doesn't show rifling-marks.

As a fellow civil war relic-digger, I'm fairly sure you've occasionally dug at least a few other "definitely fired" minies which don't show any rifling-marks.

Well stated, One I have same deal different bullet.And one from a web site.
http://sgtriker.com/bullets.htm

 

[High Plains Digger]

CBG: I know I am going to loose this debate, but I also know I will learn from the discussion. First, show me the ramrod tip that would make that impression. Second, as they say, name that tune! Make an impression. Agreed, the subject bullet is rather extreme, but the size is a big deal. That would have to be a big nose on the ramrod to leave these kind of marks. Almost big enough that one would have to pay close attention to get it in. And I suspect it would take A LOT to mark a bullet like these are marked. I do have a bullet that maybe has a ramrod mark because the ring is much smaller. But it is different. And the one noted above with the little teat on the end of it, what is the likelyhood that it wouldn't be pushed down by the cup with all the other damage.

Now, I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying that we are missing some puzzle parts on both sides of the arguement. I am glad you chimed in. You can answer: were the bullets loaded with the paper still on? I think I remember reading that the enfields were. The paper torn, powder dumped in, and the bullet had to be reversed and the closed end went in the gun. That makes sense. But back to my Williams III and 3 ringers. Share with us, oh vast storehouse of knowledge, and I do mean that respectfully! This will be a great discussion!

 

[timekiller]

Maybe this will help some as many were made alot alike.

 

[aquachigger]

CBG: I know I am going to loose this debate, but I also know I will learn from the discussion. First, show me the ramrod tip that would make that impression. Second, as they say, name that tune! Make an impression. Agreed, the subject bullet is rather extreme, but the size is a big deal. That would have to be a big nose on the ramrod to leave these kind of marks. Almost big enough that one would have to pay close attention to get it in. And I suspect it would take A LOT to mark a bullet like these are marked. I do have a bullet that maybe has a ramrod mark because the ring is much smaller. But it is different. And the one noted above with the little teat on the end of it, what is the likelyhood that it wouldn't be pushed down by the cup with all the other damage.

Now, I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying that we are missing some puzzle parts on both sides of the arguement. I am glad you chimed in. You can answer: were the bullets loaded with the paper still on? I think I remember reading that the enfields were. The paper torn, powder dumped in, and the bullet had to be reversed and the closed end went in the gun. That makes sense. But back to my Williams III and 3 ringers. Share with us, oh vast storehouse of knowledge, and I do mean that respectfully! This will be a great discussion!

Long time digger here... I'm firmly in the hard rammed camp. In order to "accidentally" load two bullets, you would pour the powder in first, load a bullet, try to fire, load another charge of powder and THEN another bullet. It will be separated from the other bullet by a load of powder. I have fired MANY civil war reproduction muskets and if you don't clean them often, it is very difficult to ram a minie home after they become fouled. I have used a piece of wood on occasion as a hammer to pound a bullet home when hunting. Ask any musket shooter about the bore becoming fouled and the gun becoming hard to load.

 

[High Plains Digger]

Not you, too, aquachigger. I feel like a mental midget around you and CBG. But I gotta say a couple of things. First, I don't think the double loads were misfires, just non fires. Like the movie indicated, just panic, blind and simple. By the way, that was when they were on the far flank of Culp's hill I believe, and if the movie portrayed just half of what it was, then I say we need to have peace on earth. But...... And what you were saying about the powder, and I suppose making a little cushion there, seems plausable. Still want to know about the paper. But what would really help is if the computer genius out there that put the 3 Japanese bayonettes side by side from different photos is out there, could you put the subject bullet at the cup of the ramrod? Sorry, I forgot who it was that did a great job on that. BUT NO CHEATING. No downsizing to fit your personal theory, please. Unless you think it was a double load.......

The next question would be, what do you think the first bullet of a double load (first in the gun) would look like?

My problem is, I am a rank amature when it comes to this. I have only had 4 trips to the South, and have only found 100 bullets and balls, no buttons, but I have really appreciated the history and significance of it all. Hard to argue with ya'll when you have actually been hands on. I just related well with the old guy that suggested that to me. It rang so true. But then, he is the guy that dumped 6 shells into the river because they were leaking greasy stuff down his garage wall. But then, he found six shells (and then some) to have leaked nasty stuff down the walls.......

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

High Plains Digger wrote:
> I know I am going to lose this debate, but I also know I will learn from the discussion.

Got to say, that is an excellent attitude! With it, you will grow in knowledge and wisdom, young Jedi.

> First, show me the ramrod tip that would make that impression.

Scroll down to the end of this post to view a photo of "the ramrod tip that would make this impression."

Unfortunately, people who sell civil war era ramrods almost never include a close-up photo showing the shape of the "inside" of a ramrod's mouth. This photo is the best I could locate. I own a specimen of that same model of ramrod tip, but I don't currently have a "working" digital camera. When I get one, I'll shoot a photo which shows beyond any doubt that this IS "the ramrod tip that would make that [exact] impression."

> Second, as they say, name that tune!

Its name is the Enfield model P-1853 ramrod. The inside of the "mouth" on its tip is shaped like a shallow cup. Its shape matches perfectly with the imprint on the nose of Romeo-1's fired Enfield minie.

> That would have to be a big nose on the ramrod to leave these kind of marks.

Yes. It was deliberately "big," because you don't want a small tip for pushing a lead (soft-metal) bullet down a rifle's ash-clogged bore. A wide tip works better for that than a narrow tip does.

> Almost big enough that one would have to pay close attention to get it in.

Yes, that was a frequent problem, especially for new recruits, and even for experienced soldiers in the heat of full-on battle. The problem is shown in the movie "Glory." Recall the scene where Col. Shaw is supervising instruction of the recruits in loading their muzzle-loading rifles. Shaw is yelling "Faster! Faster!" and the recruit has trouble getting the ramrod's tip into the rifle's muzzle.

> And I suspect it would take A LOT to mark a bullet like these are marked.

As my fellow blackpowder rifle shooter Aquachigger's reply indicates, with a badly "fouled" gunbarrel, you do indeed have to use a LOT of force. He uses a block of wood. Original civil war eyewitness reports mention soldiers having to use a rock to pound the ramrod down the badly-fouled gunbarrel.

> The next question would be, what do you think the first bullet of a double load (first in the gun) would look like?

That depends on how much more-or-less-empty space is between the bullets. If they are actually touching each other, or very-very nearly so, there would be almost no "compression-damage" at all. Think of it this way: Pull your car right up behind another car so that your bumper touches the other bumper, and stomp the gas pedal. There is no actual impact. Just some strong shoving. But if the car in front is even one car-length away, there's time for your car to build up some speed, resulting in impact-damage (your front bumper will re-shape the other car's rear bumper).

> And the one noted above with the little teat on the end of it, what is the likelyhood
> that it wouldn't be pushed down by the cup with all the other damage.

The one with the "little teat on the end" was produced by hard-ramming with a different version of tulip-head ramrod. Unlike the Enfield ramrod's mouth, which is a shallow cup-shape, the other tulip-head ramrod's mouth had a tiny deep depression in the center of its shallow bowl-shaped mouth. That tiny depression (which caused the "little teat" on the minie's nose) is a result of the ramrod manufacturing process. That ramrod's mouth was created by cutting it in with a lathe-tool. You begin that process by drilling a very small "pilot hole" in the center of the ramrod's wide FLAT tip, and use the lathe-tool to enlarge the tiny hole into a cone or bowl or cup shape.

I hope the explanation is clear enough for all you readers to visualize. High Plains Digger, the main difference between you and me is that in my 37 years in the civil war relic digging-and-collecting field, I've closely examined these objects in real-life. In your reply to Aquachigger, you said "I feel like a mental midget around you and CBG." Please don't! I do not think I am any smarter (or bigger-brained) than you. it's just that I've got several decades of hands-on experience in closely examining the relics, and lots of book-learning about them too. That is what you are seeing in my posts.

Also, you may have noticed that I very rarely speak up in a What-Is-It? discussion unless I've got some pretty darned strong evidence about what the mystery-object is. I very rarely yield to the temptation to make a WAG (Wild A__ Guess.) I knew that the shape of the nose of Romeo-1's fired Enfield minie-bullet was made by an Enfield Rifle ramrod because I've done extra-close eyeball examination of the shape of the inside of the mouth of various civil war ramrods. Call me crazy, but because I am so "into" civil war projectiles, I wanted to learn (with certainty) what caused the shape of some strange-looking fired bullets I'd dug.

 

[High Plains Digger]

Good dissertation, and I feel like I have something to ponder, master, and become a better grasshopper. To quote someone on a road to somewhere, "Thou hath almost convinced me". I will look at the measly few bullets I have and see if the marks seem to confirm what you have said. Not having ever pounded home a ramrod (I can still barely get the ramrod out of my Tibetan P-1853 after a year of ez off and other offensive chemicals), I am at the mercy of your experiece. Or perhaps it was Nepalese. See--legal drug usage also kills brain cells.

 

[romeo-1]

Wow...that was an extremely interesting and well thought debate...CBG has convinced me...but when you know very little to begin with it isn't hard to be convinced...

...my cursor is moving towards the "Green Check" icon...

 

[d2]

CBG is dead on and a great explanation. Also Romeo-1, was this bullet found in the waterd2

 

[romeo-1]

d2: Yes, and salt water to boot.

 

[Monty]

Do you have any measurements you could share.......unless I overlooked them? May be out in left field, but I once bought a box of pure lead, cast and "dry" lubricated .357" wadcutters for my .38 Spl and .357 mag handgun. Since they were pure lead they were very soft and and the white powdered lube didn't need grease grooves to adhere to the bullet. They weighed 148 grains if I remember correctly. Again, since they were pure lead they were very soft and could not be fired at much over 750 fps. to prevent leading of the bore. I used them strictly for plinking as they were cheap and cheap to shoot with very light powder charges. I don't see any evidence that the bullet pictured was fired as there was no rifling marks, or perhaps ther bore was already leaded over and smoothe due to lead fowling? If loaded into a black powder revolver the crimping rod on the frame of the revolver could have made the unique rounded nose impression on the bullet. Just second guessing now so until more info is available it's a possibility. Monty

 

[romeo-1]

Do you have any measurements you could share.......unless I overlooked them? May be out in left field, but I once bought a box of pure lead, cast and "dry" lubricated .357" wadcutters for my .38 Spl and .357 mag handgun. Since they were pure lead they were very soft and and the white powdered lube didn't need grease grooves to adhere to the bullet. They weighed 148 grains if I remember correctly. Again, since they were pure lead they were very soft and could not be fired at much over 750 fps. to prevent leading of the bore. I used them strictly for plinking as they were cheap and cheap to shoot with very light powder charges. I don't see any evidence that the bullet pictured was fired as there was no rifling marks, or perhaps ther bore was already leaded over and smoothe due to lead fowling? If loaded into a black powder revolver the crimping rod on the frame of the revolver could have made the unique rounded nose impression on the bullet. Just second guessing now so until more info is available it's a possibility. Monty

Thanks for your input Monty. I weighed it and it is exactly 31.3 grams. I weighed the numbered Enfield I found a couple weeks ago and it weighed 31.7 grams. The bases of the two bullets are also exactly the same.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

Timekiller, pardon me for neglecting to thank you (until now) for the time-&-effort you put into making (and posting in this discussion) the excellent close-up photos of your hard-rammed minie with the "small teat" on its nose. Much appreciated.