M 1842 Pistol rides again

[fouronesix]

Have had an original US contract M1842 54 cal smoothbore pistol made in 1854 by Johnson sitting in the safe for ever- probably hasn't been shot in over a hundred year. Also likely it saw action in the Civil War. Decided to see if it could be brought back to life. Spent an afternoon fighting with and finally getting the original nipple out and replaced. Then honed the bore to get the roughness out.

Took it to the range this morning. Loaded 25 grains of FF BP. Tried a Crisco soaked piece of paper as a patch to simulate a paper cartridge .520" roundball load. First shot worked fine but was way off POA at 10 yards. So much for the paper cartridge simulation. Then tried a regular .012" cloth patch, cut at the muzzle and lubed with moose milk, with the same 25 gr load FF BP and the .520" roundball. The fit was nice, not too tight and could seat the ball with just finger pressure. First shot hit within an inch of POA at 10 yards. Repeated that recipe for 5 more shots. All hit very close to POA and in a nice 2 1/2" cluster group.

I've heard some call these "Horse Pistols" but I'm not sure if that is correct. I think they were issued to troops to provide a "last ditch" close range weapon. I imagine most were carried simply tucked into the belt. After shooting this one today I think they would have been very handy for a close range, hand to hand combat situation. They also would have been a perfect compliment to the 54 cal M1841 Mississippi rifle where only one size ball/bullet need be carried for both.

[gnoahhh]

Nice going. I like seeing the old war horses fired from time to time.

You're right, I think too they were carried by more than just mounted troops. (Although a mounted soldier would likely have had a pair of them carried in saddle sockets. Note the swivel ramrod. It was intended to keep the rammer on the gun if bobbled by a trooper when trying to reload whilst mounted. Note too that pistols weren't the primary weapon of a cavalryman, pre-Civil War. That honor was held by the saber and/or lance. Carbines, if carried, were intended for use when dismounted.)

[Fly]

MAN I love you sharing this with us.I have always wanted a REAL shooting pistol from
that ero & be able to shoot it.I would not make it my main shooter, but to know what
a real one felt like & how one patterened.Thank you so much for sharing your post.

Fly

[Boerrancher]

I must agree with Fly. Thank you for sharing this little piece of history with us. It is nice to know that there are still a few of those old guns around and in good enough shape to be fired.

Best wishes,

Joe

[fouronesix]

noah,
Yes, I think that is right from what I have gathered about the arms many of the mounted soldiers carried. Also, much of the equipment used by both sides was non-issue stuff that happened to work well or was available. For the single shot pistols the one reference I've seen about holsters for these pistols for cavalry use was called the M 1842 holster or single shot pistol pommel holster (for the M 1842 pistol I guess). But, wowee are the original M 1842 holsters expensive!- fetching something like 800-1000 bucks.

Anyway, shooting some of these old originals is about the most enjoyable shooting I've been having the last few years. On this pistol the real bugger was getting the nipple out. It was just a nipple shaped lump of rust sitting on the bolster. Some repeated heat, kroil, tapping, drilling, cutting, filing and fitting a 1/4" square socket to it finally broke it loose. Smoothing the bore was fairly easy and about 45 minutes total. Used one of those shotgun bore hones mounted to a variable speed drill. Lots of oil, varied the speed both forward and reverse while moving it from muzzle to breech. Followed that up with some 1500 grit paper on a dowel. Didn't seem to change the bore diameter enough to worry about and the bore smoothed right up. Next time out I'll try loading some .535" RBs. I think the regulation load was about a .535" roundball over 30-35 gr FF. But will just stick with the 25 gr charge that worked so well.

Kind of as an aside. Never ceases to amaze me how well made some of these older guns are- compared to many of the new ones. The lock on this pistol was obviously made by a craftsman who took pride in his work and it works as well now as it did in 1854. Same holds true for many of the older pieces I've looked at.

[fouronesix]

Range session # 2 for M1842 smoothbore pistol.

Shot two, 4 shot groups at 10 yards with two different loads.

#1 (top group in photo)
.520" RB patched with .012 cloth patch lubed with moose milk with felt wad over 25 gr FF BP.
Group size was 2" and just above point of aim (POA)


#2 (bottom group in photo)
.530" RB wrapped in greased brown paper patch (to simulate a paper cartridge) over 25 gr FF BP.
Group size was 2" and just above POA

Results of this session mirror the first. This time was able to simulate the paper cartridge load by using a .530" ball instead of the .520" ball.

[I'll Make Mine]

Those groups and impact points are entirely acceptable for a smoothbore pistol a hundred and seventy years old. You should make up some real paper cartridges for it and see how you do loading from those as they'd have done before the Civil War.

[gnoahhh]

Indeed. I have gotten best results more often than not using paper cartridges in smooth bore martial arms. The trick is to work up a combo of paper thickness and ball diameter that reduces bore windage* to a minimum for best accuracy. Decreasing ball diameters makes for prolonged loading capability before a quick clean is necessary, but then accuracy goes to pot, so it's a compromise in the end. (That is assuming the correct loading technique of biting the tail off the cartridge and ramming the whole works as-is down the bore, with the ball still ensconced in its paper wrapper. Enough powder will spill out as you're doing it so as to be reliably ignited.)

All you old hands know this, but I'm aware that newbies are constantly coming along who may not!

*windage, in the parlance of 18th-19th century gunnies was a term used to describe the difference in diameters between a smooth bore and the ball fired in it.

[fouronesix]

gnoahh,

I think all that is right on the money. In this latest session, I loaded the .520" with the .012" cloth patch and added the felt wad. Since the fit was just right for quick loading I added the felt wad and swabbed between shots to see what accuracy potential the gun had-- 2" at 10 yards. Of course aiming these things is a misnomer in that with only the small front barley-corn sight it's more a matter of pointing consistently.

With the light weight brown paper bag material I was using, the .530" ball seemed to be just right, requiring just a rap on the rod to start and ram home. I did not swab between shots using the paper to see how the fouling would affect loading and the group. The ease of loading stayed about the same and again the group was 2" at 10 yards with the POI about the same as with the cloth patch tests. Now if I get really ambitious, I'll go all out and load up some complete paper cartridges and try them. But I think the paper patch simulation test was valid so would expect similar results using paper cartrdges with the same paper and the .530" ball.

These things are really pleasant to shoot. Very low recoil with a slow mild muzzle rise along with the low volume whumpf sound. Sooo much nicer than a full load 357 or 44Mag!

[I'll Make Mine]

These things are really pleasant to shoot. Very low recoil with a slow mild muzzle rise along with the low volume whumpf sound. Sooo much nicer than a full load 357 or 44Mag!

And yet that .530 ball (must weigh, what, around 200 grains?) should deliver some thump when it hits -- probably not as much energy as a .357 Mag, but it ought to compete fairly well with .38 S&W in original black powder loadings...

[gnoahhh]

That's true, but don't put all your eggs in the kinetic energy basket. That big fat ball will transmit its energy to the target more efficiently than a smaller more pointed projectile with the same foot-pounds of energy, but alas it's difficult to quantify.

[I'll Make Mine]

If the ball or bullet stops inside the target, the job is done. If it overpenetrates, it's throwing energy away. That .530 ball at short barrel BP velocity isn't likely to blow through; neither are the light hollow points I usually keep in my .357 (though the 158 gr cast SWC I have in the other box are likely to pass through, which is why I don't load them for home defense).

Given my choice, I'd as soon not be shot by either that 1842 or my Dan Wesson, regardless of bullet in the latter.