+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The bullet that killed Lincoln (/thread-1882.html)
RE: The bullet that killed Lincoln - PaigeBooth - 12-13-2014 07:12 PM
(12-12-2014 07:09 PM)Jim Garrett Wrote:(12-12-2014 02:18 PM)RJNorton Wrote:I believe that is incorrect. Not that I, have had an opportunity to measure it, but the .42 would make sense with the wadding.(12-12-2014 10:37 AM)Jim Garrett Wrote: It is a .42 calibre handmade lead ball.
Jim, I can't find the current page, but Ford's Theatre used to have a page in which it was claimed the bullet was .44 calibre. Is this incorrect?
Please see the first sentence here. Thanks.
I have to agree with, Jim. It has been my understanding the bullet was a .42 caliber and the gun was a .44. Page 449 of American Brutus says the following quote:
"The ball was often described as .41 caliber.......It is now too corroded for an accurate measurement, but a recent examination by the FBI laboratory showed it to be consistent with a .41 caliber ball typically used in the .44 caliber weapon."
RE: The bullet that killed Lincoln - Wesley Harris - 12-13-2014 08:18 PM
(12-12-2014 07:37 PM)L Verge Wrote: Wes Harris has done extensive studies on the weapons, etc. He's the expert to clarify this.
Jim's explanation is correct. Modern ammunition is made to fit modern weapons. In the 1860s, if you attempted to load a .44 ball in a .44 pistol, you'd have to use a hammer to pound it in. The ball had to be smaller than the barrel and since each ball was made individually by hand, sizes varied slightly. The smaller size also had to account for cloth or paper wadding that went in with every ball.
Since the ball was misshapen by striking Lincoln's head, an exact measurement of its original size is impossible. It has also corroded and oxidized over time so it's actually slightly smaller now than in 1865.
I think Dr. Lattimer was relying on earlier reports that it was Britannia metal. It was tested in the 70s by the Air Force--it's 98% lead.
RE: The bullet that killed Lincoln - LincolnMan - 12-14-2014 09:18 AM
(12-13-2014 08:18 PM)Wesley Harris Wrote:(12-12-2014 07:37 PM)L Verge Wrote: Wes Harris has done extensive studies on the weapons, etc. He's the expert to clarify this.
Jim's explanation is correct. Modern ammunition is made to fit modern weapons. In the 1860s, if you attempted to load a .44 ball in a .44 pistol, you'd have to use a hammer to pound it in. The ball had to be smaller than the barrel and since each ball was made individually by hand, sizes varied slightly. The smaller size also had to account for cloth or paper wadding that went in with every ball.
Since the ball was misshapen by striking Lincoln's head, an exact measurement of its original size is impossible. It has also corroded and oxidized over time so it's actually slightly smaller now than in 1865.
I think Dr. Lattimer was relying on earlier reports that it was Britannia metal. It was tested in the 70s by the Air Force--it's 98% lead.
Wes: thanks for that clarification regarding Dr. Lattimer. I've certainly enjoyed his work over the years.
RE: The bullet that killed Lincoln - Jim Garrett - 12-14-2014 10:34 AM
For the first 50 years of my life, I thought it was a .44 made of Brittania. I think what we see here is really good research that has taken place over the last 15 years or so and that we no longer rely on what has been the status quo.
RE: The bullet that killed Lincoln - Wesley Harris - 12-17-2014 09:54 PM
(12-14-2014 09:18 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:(12-13-2014 08:18 PM)Wesley Harris Wrote:(12-12-2014 07:37 PM)L Verge Wrote: Wes Harris has done extensive studies on the weapons, etc. He's the expert to clarify this.
Wes: thanks for that clarification regarding Dr. Lattimer. I've certainly enjoyed his work over the years.
I admire Dr. Lattimer's zeal for study of the assassination. As a high school student, I corresponded with him about the Kennedy assassination and he graciously sent me material summarizing his research. However, many of his conclusions and "facts" regarding the Lincoln assassination have been called into question.
RE: The bullet that killed Lincoln - Gene C - 12-17-2014 10:08 PM
Can you tell us more about the conclusions called into ?
RE: The bullet that killed Lincoln - Wesley Harris - 12-17-2014 10:23 PM
(12-17-2014 10:08 PM)Gene C Wrote: Can you tell us more about the conclusions called into ?
For one, he concluded Booth could not have shot himself in Garrett's barn. While I don't think he did, others have shown that he could have physically done it.
For another, he possessed a knife that he believed to be Lewis Powell's. He was unaware that Powell's knife is in the Huntington Library in California.
For another, his conclusions on why Lewis Powell's pistol failed to fire are incorrect.
RE: The bullet that killed Lincoln - Gene C - 12-17-2014 10:25 PM
Why did it fail to fire?
RE: The bullet that killed Lincoln - Wesley Harris - 12-17-2014 10:37 PM
(12-17-2014 10:25 PM)Gene C Wrote: Why did it fail to fire?
Gene, that would take a lengthy explanation. There's a number of things that could have happened. What Dr. Lattimer did was simplify the sequence of events and conclude that all Powell had to do was pull the trigger again at any point during the assassination attempt. My explanation of why the pistol failed to fire appeared in an issue of the Surratt Courier, either late 2011 or early 2012, if you have copies. I don't have my files to get the specific issue tonight.
RE: The bullet that killed Lincoln - Gene C - 12-17-2014 11:24 PM
Thanks....I remember the discussion about the possibility of Booth shooting himself, on another thread.
I'll look through my old Courier's
RE: The bullet that killed Lincoln - Crowza - 01-15-2015 05:25 AM
(12-13-2014 08:18 PM)Wesley Harris Wrote:(12-12-2014 07:37 PM)L Verge Wrote: Wes Harris has done extensive studies on the weapons, etc. He's the expert to clarify this.
Jim's explanation is correct. Modern ammunition is made to fit modern weapons. In the 1860s, if you attempted to load a .44 ball in a .44 pistol, you'd have to use a hammer to pound it in. The ball had to be smaller than the barrel and since each ball was made individually by hand, sizes varied slightly. The smaller size also had to account for cloth or paper wadding that went in with every ball.
Since the ball was misshapen by striking Lincoln's head, an exact measurement of its original size is impossible. It has also corroded and oxidized over time so it's actually slightly smaller now than in 1865.
I think Dr. Lattimer was relying on earlier reports that it was Britannia metal. It was tested in the 70s by the Air Force--it's 98% lead.
Wesley,
While I agree that would make sense with a smoothbore firearm, a rifled firearm would require the bullet to come into contact with all sides of the interior barrel in order to 'spin' the bullet due to the rifling. We know that Booth's Derringer had unique rifling since the twist is generally accepted as being created by a left handed gunsmith. Also, you can see the rifling from the photos in the Library of Congress.
Because of that, I would assume that the bullet mold that came with the gun would be .44 or .45 caliber to take advantage of the rifling. Sure, it would make it harder to load than a smaller caliber bullet, but certainly not impossible due to the soft nature of lead. As a side note, I have always read the bullet was round, so that would discount the use of a miniè style bullet that would seat the bullet into the rifling (which wouldn't make sense anyway).
The use of a patch is a great idea in a revolver like a 1860 Army Colt or a 1858 Remington, due to helping keep the gun clean and clear for your next shot. However, in a single shot pistol, it would not be an absolute requirement, since you have no follow up shots and no risk of chain fire. I agree that it certainly would make sense to use a wad if the caliber was smaller than the barrel, to help keep the bullet in place.
I'm not saying that any of the above is proof of the ball being any specific size (and is probably impossible to determine at this point). Whether or not he used a patch is impossible to say. I do believe the mold that came with the gun should have been .44 or .45 simply due to the rifling. Otherwise, the gun might as well be a smoothbore, because using a smaller caliber bullet would render the rifling a moot point. Of course, just because I believe the bullet should have been .44 or .45 does not mean that was the caliber he used.
I'm open to having my mind changed, but I don't see any inconsistency with any museum claiming was a .44 caliber bullet.
Ed
RE: The bullet that killed Lincoln - Jim Garrett - 01-15-2015 07:21 PM
I regularly tell visitor to Ford's that Booth's deringer is the most valuable gun in history. I think it may be fair to say that the small mis-shaped lead ball in Silver Spring is the most valuable bullet in history. per ounce, it's probably the most valuable piece of metal in history.
RE: The bullet that killed Lincoln - Wesley Harris - 01-19-2015 10:03 AM
The purpose of rifling is to put a spin on the bullet as it leaves the barrel to provide stability in flight. Think of a well-thrown spiral in football as compared to a "wounded duck."
According to L.D. Eberhart, the #1 Deringer expert in the world, Booth's pistol has no barrel rifling. I know that contradicts what the FBI said in their examination of the pistol, but Eberhart insists that the "rifling" appears only at the muzzle of the barrel for the sake of appearance. The barrel itself has no rifling but rather minute twist marks from the drill used to create the barrel. Rifling is cut much deeper into the barrel than what exists in the Deringer, Eberhart contends. Even if it did have rifling, it would be of little use since the barrel is only two inches long and the Deringer was rarely used in instances where the target was beyond six feet. There would be no need for stability for longer flight and two inches of rifling wouldn't provide it anyway.
I don't know for a fact the caliber of the barrel or of the bullet. Every official examination of the bullet has concluded it was roughly .41 caliber. As the FBI forensic report notes, .41 balls were typically used in .44 Deringers. The pistol is itself is about .44, although one measurement puts it specifically at .4375. That would necessitate the cloth patch to hold the ball in place and prevent escape of any gunpowder.
RE: The bullet that killed Lincoln - LincolnMan - 03-01-2015 08:25 AM
Speaking of Booth's weapon- if there any documentation that Booth practiced with it? It would seem logical to me that he would have- given his olanned use for it. Somewhere he obtained some knowledge of the weapon. For instance, he had to learn how much powder to use- a very critical element I would think. I woudn't suppose the weapon to be very accurate- even at the close range that Booth fired from- it wasn't a "sure shot."
RE: The bullet that killed Lincoln - L Verge - 03-01-2015 08:32 AM
Booth was known to have been a good marksman from an early age, I believe. There are mentions of him visiting shooting galleries, and we have also heard family stories from people descended from residents of the H Street neighborhood near the Surratt boardinghouse that Booth was supposedly known to take target practice in the backyard of the boardinghouse.
I guess no weapon is a sure shot (just ask Powell about his experience in the Sewards' hallway), but evidently Booth felt confident of both his ability and the derringer's to do bodily harm.