Enfield Versus Springfield Ramrods

There was a serious debate at the Springfield Armory as to what type of ramrod was the best for service. The discussion centered around the management of the fouling in the bore to keep the musket serviceable in terms of both accuracy and being able to get rounds down the bore. The Enfield ramrod was developed to remove fouling as the rounds are loaded. This ramrod contains a hollow machined cut below the bullet ramming cone. This cut allows a piece of cloth to be placed through it so that the bore can be wiped. The British loading drill used in India incorporated wiping the bore between shots. This was accomplished by leaving a rag in the slot and when a round is loaded this rag will wipe the bore in the same motion as ramming the round.

As Springfield was developing the 1855 rifles and muskets, which had the same type of progressive rifling, they looked at the problem of black powder fouling in a broader context. They found that the British method was inefficient and potentially dangerous. Fouling buildup will occur to the point that the rag cleaning won't remove enough buildup as the number of rounds fired increases. This means that during a battle if enough rounds are fired the rounds will have to be forced or hammered down because of fouling buildup. Because of the variability of the heat treatments of that era and the sharp corners in the slot the ramrods would break at the slot. After such a failure the end of the ramrod forms a claw that will stick in the top of the slug thus disabling the piece. This known conditioned failure during stiff ramming of tight loads was the reason that the British style was rejected by Ordnance experts.

The American approach was to address the fouling directly and build a sturdy ramrod. The result was the tulip shaped ramrod so familiar on Springfields. This was much sturdier and was simpler to manufacture. It could handle the pounding of a tight load and with the other end threaded with a worm (same as the Enfield rod) it was efficient for cleaning.

Additionally, they developed cleaner rounds that had a bullet with a zinc washer on the base to scrape fouling out. These were designed to be fired through the barrel every ten to fifteen rounds. During the war there were enough cleaner rounds on hand that about one in ten could be fired as a cleaner. Unfortunately, these rounds would heavily erode the bores which is why so many Civil war barrels have weak rifling.

Another way of managing fouling was used simultaneously with the cleaner rounds and that was to lubricate the bullet with a soft grease that would maintain a soft uniform fouling in the barrel. This would allow ten rounds to be loaded before fouling became objectionable. Then a light swab could clean the barrel enough to continue firing. The writers experience with lubricants supports that the right mix will give extended firing between wiping and in some cases even eliminate the need as a balance can be maintained. In practice it is doubtful that much in the way of wiping can be done during combat. After battle reports utilizing battlefield pickups revealed that one way or another about a third of the arms were disabled during a battle whether by fouling or by not firing. Often muskets with multiple rounds loaded were found on the field after a battle.