The bullet that killed Lincoln

[Crowza]

(12-13-2014 09:18 PM)Wesley Harris Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 08:37 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