Clean Rifles

[lukegilly13]

I have used the search function and found a few sort of related threads but not to the extent I wish to discuss this. I am known throughout my unit as having the cleanest and prettiest rifle amongs the brigade. Fathers buy their sons expensive rifles and then later come ask me if I could show their sons how to keep their rifles as clean as mine. They also ask, should they be that clean? So I started researching.

"Regulations": Article XIII:
Para. 93: "The utmost attention will be paid by commanders of companies to the cleanliness of their men, as to their persons, clothing, arms, accoutrements, and equipments, and also as to their quarters or tents."

Para. 99: "...The chiefs of squads will cause ... arms [to be] cleaned

Para. 101: "...that those who are to go on duty put their arms, accoutrements, dress, &c., in the best order..."

Para. 105: "All arms in the hands of the troops ... will be kept in the state in which they are issued ... Bright barrels will be kept clean and free from rust without polishing them; care should be taken in rubbing not to bruise or bend the barrel. After firing, wash out the bore; wipe it dry, and then pass a bit of cloth, slightly greased, to the bottom.... The barrel, when not in use, will be closed with a stopper. For exercise, each soldier should keep himself provided with a piece of sole-leather to fit the cup or countersink of the hammer "

But then, I found this:
Para. 102: "Commanders of companies and squads will see that the arms and accoutrements in possession of the men are always kept in good order, and that proper care be taken in cleaning them."

"Rules for the Management and Cleaning of the Rifle Musket, Model 1863" states that "In the inspection of arms, officers should attend to the qualities essential to service, rather than to a bright polish on the exterior of the arms."
So is it really "authentic" to have a rusty dirty gun? Or is it better to have a bright, shinning, gun with a newly issued look?

[ephraim_zook]

Re: Clean Rifles

"In the inspection of arms, officers should attend to the qualities essential to service, rather than to a bright polish on the exterior of the arms."

Luke,

I wouldn't read more into that statement than is really there. Of course the rifle must be clean AND functional, but not clean and shiny to the point of dysfunction. We've all seen modern colour guards wearing chrome helmets and highly polished, glistening M-1 rifles. Do they look good? Yep, but neither are functional from the combat standpoint. But, is a dirty, rusty rifle authentic? Hmmm. Think on this: Your very life may have depended on that rifle working properly, and I sure wouldn't take a chance on a misfire or the hammer hanging up because I failed to clean it.

Ron Myzie

[Secesh]

Re: Clean Rifles

I personally have found that there is a bit of difference between field cleaning my Enfield and having the luxury of breaking it down and cleaning it within the home....

[AZReenactor]

Re: Clean Rifles

While regulations are one thing, inspection reports show that the ideal was frequently missed as well. Thise xcerpt from an 1863 Confederate Cavalry report isn't necessarily typical of all brigades but was near at hand on one of my websites and helps to illustrate that even hard fighting veteran units who relied on their firearms could have difficulty keeping arms in order at times.

The arms of the 8th Texas were in good condition and clean, accouterments also. Great complaint made of the caps issued to them for their Colts Army pistols.

Arms of the 3rd Confederate in very bad condition, dirty & rusty. Their guns & pistols would be serviceable if kept in good order.

Arms of the 14th Alabama, 1 musket & 1 shot gun unserviceable. The guns in good condition. Their Regiment is in want of an Ordnance wagon, having no place to put the arms etc. of sick men-

Arms of the 2d Georgia were in the very worst condition, I ever saw arms in the hands of soldiers, very dirty and rusty. 1 Enfield, one Belgian, 1 [???] R. & 6 shot guns unserviceable. Their Regiment is also in want of an Ordnance wagon -

These Regiments are much in want of ball screws & wipers. The men are not allowed to discharge their guns, and not having screws nor wipes, find it very difficult to keep their arms in good order -

Respectfully
Edward W. Rawls
Capt & A. Insp. of Ord for Cavalry

Shelbyville
April 1st, 1863

As with so many things related to the experience of Civil War soldiers, the cleanliness and maintenance of weapons is also tied to time, place, unit and individual circumstances so that one size fits all assertions regarding practices and experiences may not always fit. In this case a well oiled and maintained gun for a Spring 1863 1st Georgia Cavalry impression would quite likely be far from authentic.

I'm not suggesting we should deliberately allow weapons to rust and remain dirty in an unnatural fashion but neither should we be overly fretful at a marks, blemishes, or rust that arise from honest field use. There is a difference between field cleaning and home cleaning and it is important to keep in mind that soldiers in the field didn't have the luxury of the later.

[lukegilly13]

Re: Clean Rifles

I agree with the above posts....there is a distinct difference between cleaning in the field and cleaning at home. Of course it is not practical to have your weapon spotless to an almost machine buffed look as one would do with a non-firing color guard weapon. But, shouldn't (unless there is documentation otherwise) we follow the above military regs and do our best using period field means to keep our weapons looking as issued?
Are there any accounts (if so I cannot find them) of soldiers being punished for not having clean weapons or soldiers being commended for having very clean weapons?

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Clean Rifles

Hallo!

"As with so many things related to the experience of Civil War soldiers, the cleanliness and maintenance of weapons is also tied to time, place, unit and individual circumstances so that one size fits all assertions regarding practices and experiences may not always fit. In this case a well oiled and maintained gun for a Spring 1863 1st Georgia Cavalry impression would quite likely be far from authentic.

I'm not suggesting we should deliberately allow weapons to rust and remain dirty in an unnatural fashion but neither should we be overly fretful at a marks, blemishes, or rust that arise from honest field use. There is a difference between field cleaning and home cleaning and it is important to keep in mind that soldiers in the field didn't have the luxury of the later.'

Exactly...

Plus, a Civil war soldier did not have access to the modern electric powered buffing wheels and/or buffing compounds used to make NIB reproduction arms have mirror-bright, unhistorical polished iron/steel or brass.
Nor did any of the soldier-done, field available methods sued to maintain and Period "polish" arms.
And again keeping the unit/time/place/circumstance caveat in place, nor were soldiers NUG allowed to dissect or disasemble their weapons for "ultra-cleaning" the way some Moderns do when they get home.

In brief and to over-generalize...

IMHO, the circumstances of the unit/time/place of the impression does effect the Believable Image as well as Suspending Disbelief if say, a unit's portrayal is at the end of a gruelling and murderous campaign and all of their arms glisten, gleam, and shine with the blinding modern mirror-bright factory finish of Italian repro's...

Curt

[unclefrank]

Re: Clean Rifles

I think allot of this depended on the unit's leadership. Every veteran soldier realized the importance of keeping his weapon in good shape while in the field, but not mirror polished. If the company commander insisted though, they would be polished as much as possible. Garrison duty though was very different. If a unit was stationed anywhere for any good length of time, muskets would be burnished, and uniforms repaired.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Clean Rifles

Hallo!

"As with so many things related to the experience of Civil War soldiers, the cleanliness and maintenance of weapons is also tied to time, place, unit and individual circumstances so that one size fits all assertions regarding practices and experiences may not always fit. In this case a well oiled and maintained gun for a Spring 1863 1st Georgia Cavalry impression would quite likely be far from authentic.

I'm not suggesting we should deliberately allow weapons to rust and remain dirty in an unnatural fashion but neither should we be overly fretful at a marks, blemishes, or rust that arise from honest field use. There is a difference between field cleaning and home cleaning and it is important to keep in mind that soldiers in the field didn't have the luxury of the later.'

Exactly...

Plus, a Civil war soldier did not have access to the modern electric powered buffing wheels and/or buffing compounds used to make NIB reproduction arms have mirror-bright, unhistorical polished iron/steel or brass.
Nor did any of the soldier-done, field available methods sued to maintain and Period "polish" arms.
And again keeping the unit/time/place/circumstance caveat in place, nor were soldiers NUG allowed to dissect or disasemble their weapons for "ultra-cleaning" the way some Moderns do when they get home.

In brief and to over-generalize...

IMHO, the circumstances of the unit/time/place of the impression does effect the Believable Image as well as Suspending Disbelief if say, a unit's portrayal is at the end of a gruelling and murderous campaign and all of their arms glisten, gleam, and shine with the blinding modern mirror-bright factory finish of Italian repro's...

Curt

I'll throw another "me too" log on the fire. To add to this, consider the following...
1) In my experience, the original weapons that I own/have owned will rust in a flash, much more quickly than the Italian repops I have owned. Not sure the reason for this, and my experience may not be representative, but its what I've seen. So, keeping an original arm (which is what they used, after all!) "bright" in the field would be quite a challenge!

2) Taking the experiences of the lads who recently completed the retracing of the march of the 6th Corps to Li'l Round Top, the volume of sweat generated by a soldier on the march takes a heavy toll not only on the metal, but also the wood! ...which is something I had not considered, but would have generated quite a bit of wear to stocks, if bumped, dropped, or scuffed while the wood was soaked with sweat.

[Jimmayo]

Re: Clean Rifles

I think allot of this depended on the unit's leadership. Every veteran soldier realized the importance of keeping his weapon in good shape while in the field, but not mirror polished. If the company commander insisted though, they would be polished as much as possible. Garrison duty though was very different. If a unit was stationed anywhere for any good length of time, muskets would be burnished, and uniforms repaired.

To add to the above, I recently read a report (and I can't remember where), about the arms and accouterments of the CS forces around Petersburg in 64 and 65. It was written by a regular army officer and he was commenting on the poor condition of some of the NC troops arms. Basically he said where a regular army person was commanding the regiment, the arms and accouterments were better kept than then when an officer with little or no army experience was in command. I knew I should have copied this report when I read it but maybe some one else remembers it.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Clean Rifles

Hallo!

"I'll throw another "me too" log on the fire. To add to this, consider the following...
1) In my experience, the original weapons that I own/have owned will rust in a flash, much more quickly than the Italian repops I have owned. Not sure the reason for this, and my experience may not be representative, but its what I've seen. So, keeping an original arm (which is what they used, after all!) "bright" in the field would be quite a challenge!

2) Taking the experiences of the lads who recently completed the retracing of the march of the 6th Corps to Li'l Round Top, the volume of sweat generated by a soldier on the march takes a heavy toll not only on the metal, but also the wood! ...which is something I had not considered, but would have generated quite a bit of wear to stocks, if bumped, dropped, or scuffed while the wood was soaked with sweat."

Yes, in brief and to over-generalize... originals are made of "softer" iron/mild steel, while modern reproductions are made of cast steel or in teh case of the barrel- hard barrel steels.

But, stocks are more complicated. Original stocks were treated with "hard oil' or the Period from of "BLO" (Boiled Linseed Oil). We tend to modern stocks and give them a few coats of modern "BLO" which has had most of the
"hardening" impurities removed mkaing it not only softer but far less hygroscopic when it comes to moisture being able to penetrate the wood.
(However, many surviving originals have the opposite of an M & M hard candy shell because there is a fungus that feeds on BLO and makes the outer part of some stocks "soft" (and much more subject to dings, dents, scrapes, and gouges than originals when they were new or in use.)

And, as an aside... a Period weapon that has been maintained with grease or waxy grease, will resist "oranging" and "surface rusting" better than a modern repro that is not "maintained" but rather unhistorically "stripped" perfectly spotlessly clean by harsh solvents, chemicals, and super-cleaners down to bare metal all the time.

Curt
Who has made the Texas Brigade's march from the Black Horse tavern to Little Round Top, as well as the 2nd USSS' retreat from Plum Run up to Hell's Kitchen and up to the top of Big Round Top Mess

[Secesh]

Re: Clean Rifles

Luke,
In regards to your request, I recall a published letter from a Mississippi soldier who said that he was given extra fatigue duty for having a dirty weapon, and was ordered to have it clean upon completion of his punishment. The soldier said that he merely washed the outside of it down, and reported to his Captain, who declared the weapon "First rate!" The soldier said he laughed as he walked away, telling the officer that the gun was only "soaped over and not cleaned." This letter can be found in the book "The Confederate Reader". T.

[orngblsm]

Re: Clean Rifles

I think that this is one of those discussions that just will never have "just one answer". In all, the state of rifles during the period is situational. Take for example the 124th NY during the early spring of 1863. They had just come out of winter camp, still a green regiment, and the Colonel reduced 5 NCOs for being having dirty weapons at dress parade. One in particular is noted to have had excess rust on the nipple. Seems a little steep, but then again the colonel was a hard ass and also the regiment had been in winter camp for the past three months with plenty of down time to keep themselves neat. Fast forward one year and there is a letter stating that 10 men were ordered in an "under the table" sort of way to break their muskets because they'd become so dirty and fouled, that this was the only way to speed up the reissue of newer muskets.
All in all, It's a tough road to replicate the patina of a musket that's marched through rain, dust, snow, heat, humidity; been on trains and off; been issued, recalled, and reissued numerous times; has been subjected to being stacked, used as a tent pole, as a coffee grinder, as a hammer, as a weapon; sat through hours of boredom in winter camp, stood on Pickett, slept in the rain; and all the while it's been cleaned and scrubbed by simple corrosives and acids, having been polished solely by hand. And lets not forget individualism's play in this all; the messy blacksmith vs. the neat put together gentleman's views of cleanliness or the a 1st sergeant who puts cleanliness before all else. This one is an uphill battle gents

Sorry to mottle on,

[Blair]

Re: Clean Rifles

Gents,

You may want to check out the duties of the Ordenance Sgts. within a Company.
The cleaning of firearms relates more to the removal of black powder and cap residue from the firearm than it has to do with how pretty it looks. This foweling can cause more harm to a weapon and it function than anything I can think of.
The Government issued firearms to the rank and file for the most part during the War. When issued they were new Armory finished for that firearm. The Government does not supply use with fierarms today. Most of us will have to dig deep into our pockets to pay for our firearms.
With time, care and proper maintinance you can keep your firearm in good working order, and it will pick up that authentic patina most of us like.

Blair J. Taylor