Regimental Armorer Tools

[OldKingCrow]

You want to make this personal instead of supporting your position. That is too bad, but expected.

Originally Posted by Johan Steele

Chris, it is apparent you have failed to read the links provided by Mr Watts.

Is it ? Show us which of those links contains primary support of your traveling gunsmith on the fly impression ?

I'm not replying to your questions because it is you asking them and I am all too familiar w/ your vitriol and why you've been banned from other boards.

You're not answering my questions cause you have no answer and you are deflecting. You, Schnapps and others in this thread would gleefully counter if you could


There are other sources available than those of the internet and I created this thread in an effort to learn more.

Not really, you came on and detailed your lengths to build an unsupported impression and asked how to make it better.

"Your only mention of learning was to make your tool kit better and where to get a brace...seems like you had the impression already decided and acted on".


Johann Steele posted: "What I'm looking for are any constructive suggestions to improve my tool kit. A suggestion of a source for an affordable period brace would be appreciated."

the answer as Todd Watts also alluded is "very little if any support of the impression" that doesnt make you mad, just me ?



I didn't begin the thread to deal w/ you. Judging from my experiance with you in the past your demand for period sources stretches hypocricy to new levels.

Please give an example of hypocracy in my posts and where I promote or undertake in the unsupported ?


I'll stick to receiving my schooling from legitimate historians & researchers who have actually done the research instead of those who typed Regimental Armorer into google and claimed that's all that exists.

No you'll stick to: kewl impressions, conjecture and what you think it must have been like...shall we go categorically though your posts and point out the pure unsupported speculation ?

[Todd Watts]

That early war impression of a hastily formed unit describes the exact reason that a gunsmith in any unit would have been a quick addition or at least accepted part of the ranks. There were some real junkers thrown into the hands of men and odds are great that these needed repair or alterations in the field. Springs, lost screws, broken hammers, splintered stocks, broken rammers and dented barrels woudl have been incredibly common for regiments on a campaign. Today, when we get 1000 muskets out for a weekend, there are going to be a dozen or so at least with broken springs, bent rammers, etc. While on the "mud march" with 20,000 men, or crossing the mts on the Tullahoma Campaign - oh yeah, there were a lot of damaged guns. There would be no way to return damaged guns to armories and replaced quickly on campaign. These gun-returns did happen, such as the MS (20th?) reg't at Stones River that had sent all their guns to an armory for repair just before the battle leaving them mostly disarmed as they attacked equipped with "cedar staves" (pieces of fences probably) to meet with disaster. But, a more likely general service repair would have been much as we do today, in camp. A large tool box like described above would have been on a wagon and the assigned armorer likely travelled near it and stayed close to it rather than haul it into camps. Then there would have been the companies' own gunsmiths or probably the "go-to" gun guy much as we have today that was just better at minor field repairs than the average private that would have had a few small tools in a haversack pouch to handle these repairs. These were working tools, and while there may have been an assigned "kit" I can attest with 100% certainty that none of the gunsmiths would have kept only the items in the kit without adding to the kit on his own based on what he needed. As soon as they left the service, they put those tools to work at home in shops or on farms, losing them to damage or later sellings or discradings after death. Surgeon tools on the other hand were very expenssive speacialty items usually in nice wooden boxes that had obvious value. Those kits survived in-tact much better than rusted old turnscrews, wooden mallets, hand-forged hammers, punches and chisels that a gunsmith may have carried. Just like cooks or teamsters, the mundane positions are known to have existed but there seems to be very little detail recorded about the position. I think the impression is easy enough to do since we know that these guys existed. You can't really get it "wrong" as long as you are using period-looking tools and are working on a period-correct gun. Just refrain from making up historical details without at least saying "propbably" somewhere along the way. We know it happened and we know that craftsmen just like today learn as they go and uses tools that work while discrading those that don't, so go with that and run with it.

[Todd Watts]

BTW, the John Spence diary from Murfreesboro, TN mentioned that the town's local gunsmith was turning out guns as fast as he could to equip the CS volunteers of the area. Jerry Smith at The Blockade Runner thinks he found one of thes guns recently. It is really cool! It was in a private local collection and has been a long time. It fits the description of a gunsmith-built military musket perfectly and being in the area odds are at least fair that it is from the M'boro smith. It appears to be an 1816 barrel, cut off at the breech about 1" with a drum-in-barrel percussion conversion. The barrel bands are from something, possibly another 1816 through which he drilled a hole on the side of each and put a nail in to hold the band in place. The front band May be off some European arm or home-made and is only held on by a very tight fit. The trigger guard is off a 1795 I think and turned around backwards. There is no doubt it was made for military use because he filed a flat on the side of the barrel near the home-made front sight and had soldered on a bayone lug which is now gone. The flat is there as well as a little lead solder. The stock is probably walnut and is a wierd contour almost looking like a thin matchlock design, and there is no buttplate. The butt is literally carved into the contour of a buttplate! The whole thing only weighs about 6 lbs I think and with the slick thin butt, I bet it was hateful to shoot. I see things like that and marvel that these guys gleefully marched off to war with them and understand why they replaced guns ASAP once in action. If you ever happen by BRi by all means ask to see the Murfreesboro gunsmith gun on Jerry's rack behind the register. Careful though, I think it is loaded.

[OldKingCrow]

Lets leave it like this Todd, you and I are about at opposite ends of the historical research spectrum as you can get and have very different degrees of what is supported, PEC and should be portrayed to the public.

I would go through your lengthy paragraph which contains as many suppositions as JS but it doest matter and this website just aint what it once was. I am sorry for hoping there might be a few left who apply this same approach.

[Todd Watts]

Sorry, don't know you Chris. I do what I do as does everyone else here. I do what works and figure things out as best as I can which is not easy on something like the armorer position. Just enjoying things as best as possible is all.

One other thing to add to an accurate armorer's kit would need to be flax. Flax was the common "cleaning brush" back then used by all sorts of craftsmen, including gunsmiths. The cleaning rods were normally just hickory rods split on the end. Some flax was pinched into the split. It is rough in the packing form and was a very common item then, used for packing just about everything. Finding the stuff today is extremely difficult. There is some similar stuff for sale at hobby shops. It is tan and sort of looks like straw or spanish moss. Pictures of the stuff I have seen from the 1800s show it was sometimes kept in little bundles about fist-sized and wrapped with string to hold it together. Place a couple of these into the "kit" and it adds another bit of authenticity. You can get a hickory rammer from Dixie Gun works and then cut an 1" long split on 1 end to demonstrate the technique. I have done this before playing around and don't recomend it much simply because the stuff doesn't clean all that great compared to modern brushes and pulls off in the barrel some. This won't cause loading or firing problems, but in our hobby having anything that might come back out of a barrel at an in-opportune moment is a no-no.

Lard was a common lubricant and also can be easily put into a kit. It can go into a little wooden bowl, or kept in a jar and can be used to grease a part or prevent rust. Again, I'd rather not use it exept to demonstrate. The odor of bacon will fill the air as the barrel heats up.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Moderator hat on...

This thread has drifted back and forth between the historical of what we know, what we do not know, what we do in reenacting/living history, and Mental Picture and personal differences.

As a result, it tips the scales away from what we should be seeing on the AC Forum, and as a result is closed.

Curt
Former modern reenacted company armorer Mess