On a past forum I started a commentary to get the members opinions on the bullets in the most recent McKee and Mason Civil War Projectiles II with Supplement book. We got some ways into it before running out of steam. Unfortunately, the dialog was lost as far as I know.
After prodding from ETEX, however, I went into my old files and pulled up one of the starting posts, in this case for #s 16-70. We can do 1-15 next and then 71 through the end of the book later.
There has been a lot of new information since McKee and Mason did their great job and there are doubles and mistakes to correct in addition to information to add.
Here is the post I did before. We know more than we did even a few years ago such as the CS shotgun slugs are from the NC Institute for Dumb and Deaf and Blind in Raleigh, not Fayetteville as I speculated so please feel free to jump on it and add your opinions.
* * * * *
OK, thanks guys for the input. I’ll conclude the first round by saying also that I am very skeptical about MM#1.
On to the rest of the bullets on page 22 of the most recent edition of McKee and Mason, bullet #s 16-37.
I’ve been busy lately and unable to give this posting as much time or thought as I would have liked to have. Either that or it may be a bit of avoidance as I find “Picket” bullets to be almost as mind numbingly frustrating as collecting Enfield bullet types. The varieties are almost as endless as grains of sand in the sea, but they are cool if one does not get too picky about the minor differences.
Early in the war, many soldiers brought their long arms (e.g., KY or PA rifles) from home. These were famous for their accuracy, but also their owners were more experienced with them and thus better than average shots so these are associated with “sharpshooters.” I suppose as a result of being tagged for long-range accuracy, all these pre-war bullets get lumped into the category of “Picket” bullets.
Also, is it just me, but do most of the ones being offered for sale lately seem to be smaller on average than the ones in the book? I guess modern metal detectors pick up the little buggers better than the detectors of yesterday, but also the smaller caliber ones are probably less popular as they are under-represented in McKee and Mason.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand…
MM16 and 17 look like they came from the same source, albeit in different sizes. #17 looks like a CS pistol bullet, and it would not surprise me if they both are CS pistol bullets. M&M just call them “unknown.”
Unless you want to parse quarks, in my opinion and as noted on Tom Stelma’s “Some Bullets” CD, 22 & 23 & 32 are the same, and 27 & 28 are the same. (in the first 2 M&M editions (the cerlox bound and green covered ones), by the way, #27 is listed amongst far fewer Picket bullets as a pistol bullet) Now that I look at them more closely, 19 looks like an 18 that had its nose cut shorter. T&T say #26 is fired and I have no reason to object to that.
I find it strange that M&M picked so many that were very close in size and appearance to one another when I can find bunches of ones that don’t come anywhere close to any of the ones in their books!
Not sure I understand why Tom S. has #37 as being the same as #15 unless it is just that they are described in M&M as both being Plants Cup fire revolvers. Maybe Tom has info on them coming in different calibers, but above we called #15 probably fired or carved. T&T cross reference #37 to their #8 which looks like one of the many Colt bullets to me.
By the way, I think I found one bullet in McKee and Mason 4 times, but we haven’t gotten to it yet so for now the 22/23/32 one sets the standard for redundancy.
20, 24, and 25 seem unique, with #25 being distinct in very nearly resembling an Isosceles triangle. I don’t recall having handled an MM25 in real life.
#29 looks like it could’ve been fired as well, but I am not aware of anyone having stated that in print. 30 is a stubby looking oddball and #31 and 33 are among the most common types in my opinion. 35 looks like yet another revolver bullet
Phew, glad to have those little devils mostly behind us (a few more will rear their heads later, however, if we make it through the other numbers in McKee and Mason).
I’d love to hear some opinions on these – I know from a few comments that there are lurkers out there! And I also know that a couple of you think Picket bullets are the cat’s pajamas. So, lets hear it.
While, awaiting all your input I got inspired and pushed forward a tad.
Continuing, like Don Quixote tilting at windmills solo without his trusted sidekick…
MM38. Love it and have one. Jim and Skip say it was only brought over here very rarely if at all. Well, there is an NSTCW issue back a few years where some guy found one in Charleston. They are rare, and probably more frequent overseas.
Bill Ewing and I have Brunswick belted balls (MM553) from Beaufort, SC, but my MM39 is from Sevastopol. Charge of the Light Brigade and all that. These started showing up at relic shows en masse a couple years ago. The guy I talked to fessed up (if asked) that he got them from some Russian dude, but a lot of the early buyers forked over $200 without asking too many questions. Now that the cat is out of the bag on these, they go for $25. Does anyone know of anyone who has dug one of these or MM40 in an American Civil War site? MM40 – I don’t have it and in my book alarm bells start ringing when the godfathers of bullets, M&M themselves, can’t find any better a specimen than a shiny, newly cast one for their book. Same goes for MM41.
MM42 is a mega Sharps for the .56 cal. version, not .577 cal. as stated in M&M. Need we revisit the oft told comment about “breechloaders being larger in diameter than the barrel and muzzle loaders being smaller…” Seems like M&M themselves even got this notion down on the next two. MM43 is the most common of all the Sharps bullets, rivaling the ubiquitous three ringer in some places. MM45 is fired.
MM46 is a tough one marked by the three rings (top one is not terribly visible in M&M – those of you working on new bullet books – I know you’re reading this -- please take advantage of the improvements in photography and get us armchair leadheads some good pictures). MM47 is listed as post war in T&T. Drat, because I bought one before I found that out. MM48 is an ultra tough Sharps bullet to find (hint, hint if anyone comes across an extra one in their travels to share with me!)
Ok, well you two started us down the garden path to some real rarities that happen to come next in M&M.
But before I go there, my MM48 has a carved gash into the back but the bottom does not show a similar sign of it being carved – smooth as can be. I realize this is not definitive but another piece of evidence.
Before we get into the high dollar bullets, we have to dispense with MM49 and 50, two variations on the Smith Carbine theme that are both for a 50 cal. carbine. I don’t think there was a .52 cal. Smith Carbine, but honestly I haven’t studied it. In my opinion, they are slight variants of the same bullet, although MM49 is the more common type.
Now, MM51. Yes, another rarity made famous in Bill’s NSTCW article. I only hope future articles make Hindman’s priceless. Anyway, MM51 is a tight one to get.
MM52 is listed in T&T as being the same bullet as MM625. I see the resemblence, but MM625 is decidedly longer. Jim T, I am going to assume from your comments above on the cartridges that this is not the same bullet. Is that your view, Jim?
MM53 – MM55 are for a Starr Carbine and revolvers. M&M say they come with little cavities sometimes. Like you Jim I have seen this on the big one MM53, but can’t recall seeing it on the little revolver ones. I have seen them with different heights of the band at the base.
Speaking of little revolver ones, there is a mini one at .36 cal. not shown in M&M but shown in other bullet sources. It’s a cute one, unless flying your way I suppose.
Ah the Popes, or in my church the “Bishops of Rome.”
I have read commentary on this from Tom Stelma and a few others, and am too lazy to verify it, that these were really early war grooved Picket bullets and cannot definitively be attributed to the Pope false muzzle rifle. Google the Pope false muzzle and you find an exquisite firearm that must have been ultra rare, highly accurate and very expensive. My hunch is most of these ringed “Picket” style bullets were for the same Kentucky and Pennsylvania rifles that the other “Picket” bullets were, but I am open to rebuttal. I see some from the gun auctions where these puppies go for $40k include bullet molds with the rifle, but I can’t get a close enough picture to gauge whether the bullets are similar to the ones in M&M.
Suffice to say, these are highly sought after and uncommon bullets. I only have MM61 and am not eager to pay the price that the rest of them command, but someday I probably will. I will take your word, Bill, from your comment above that MM56, 59 and 62 are the toughest of all to get. I have never seen MM56 or MM62, at least as far as I know. Because of this and the extreme pointy nose of the MM62 I would not be surprised if it is indeed carved. If anyone had one to examine, we might find out, but Bill & Jim don’t and I do not see one in the Some Bullets CD.
MM63, the Hanoverian, has been the subject of many posts on this board. The pillar and post firing mechanishm is interesting, but more concerning to CW bullet collectors is the prevalence of these bullets as hunting rifles in late 19th century Germany. Many are of smaller calibers than the .65” diameter one shown in M&M, but their presence casts a pall over the market for this otherwise cool and uncommon bullet.
I love MM64 – 66. These so-called shotgun slugs are associated with some NC troop positions including MM65s (the rarest of the types) found at Gettysburg. I am not sure these were all used in shotguns though and think they might have been .69 cal. bullets for use in the big bore rifles and muskets that CS troops carried. If they are indeed most commonly associated with NC troops, I would not be surprised to find they come from an arsenal (Fayeteville? Or what we called FayetteNam when I lived in NC) in that state seeing as how NC was a great provider to its, and mostly only its, troops.
EDIT: THANKS TO THE THOMAS BROTHERS, WE NOW KNOW THESE BULLETS TO BE MODELLED ON THE NESSLER PATTERN AND TO HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE NORTH CAROLINA INSTITUTE FOR DEAF AND DUMB AND BLIND IN RALEIGH
MM67, Richmond Arsenal bullet. What McKee and Mason said was for a Morse, is really for a CS Merrill carbine.
MM68 British Sharps. In Bill Ewing’s NSTCW article a variant of this is shown (maybe two one with a small cavity?) The variants have a wider band and look a bit like a funky Smith carbine which has enabled some folks, including yours truly, to find them in the bullet bargain bins. (I will say that in that case I fessed up but the dealer was very cool.)
EDIT: DANNY SPENCER REASONED IN ANOTHER LOST POST THAT THESE ARE SMITH BULLET VARIATIONS
MM69 is another nightmarishly tough bullet to find, fired or not. Yeah Bill, I know you have one ;-)
MM70 is a common enough bullet, but the numberless one below it in the book is a variant that it took a long time for me to get the nuances on. Lets call it MM70A, the Poultney for Gallager Carbine. It is .531 in diameter vs. 0.520 in diameter and .881” long vs. MM70’s 0.86” length. It has a more rounded nose and a narrower inset ring.
