CS Richmond usage

[Parault]

I hope this is in the right place. Ok, I called myself looking here in the search and in other places for a brief histroy of the CS Richmond. What units were issued the Richmond? How long the rifle was in use? What areas the rifle was used in?
This goes with me wanting to have one in my possession, however, I know it will not be carried much out here West of the Mississippi, or coastal areas of Louisiana and Mississippi for events, or will it?

I am trying to convience myself I need one to add to my collection.

[Iceman]

Re: CS Richmond usage

I know Richmond Rifles were shipped out to, and used by Hindman's army during the Prairie Grove, Arkansas Campaign of 1862.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: CS Richmond usage

Hallo!

I can reocmmend some of the books such as Davies' "C.S. Armory Richmond," or Murphy and Madaus' "Confederate Rifles & Muskets," or
the older Hill & Anthony's "Confederate Longarms and Pistols" to name a few...

But, in brief and to over generalize...

IMHO...

Numbers, of the no-called TYpe I, II, and II CS Richmond RM's, by using production estimates and where possible actual document forms are given by Davies at 31,014 between October 1861 when the production shifted from VA to the CS and April 1865 when Richmond fell. (That leaves out a small number of VA assembled the late model M1855 RM's as well as "VA Richmonds" when (some) parts started running out.

Who got them is more complicated.

While we would want, as we often in error do for the Federals, to think that the units most physically close to the source got their weapons from those arsenals or armories, in fact, they were sometimes shipped where needed based upon the decision(s) as to who had what and where it should be shipped from and to.

Such as:

Charles F. Hubert of the 50th IL Infantry. writing from Ft. Donelson"

"Details were made and placed around enclosures, inside of which were thousands of prisoners. We were especially fortunate in being allowed to exchange our arms for excellent guns made at Richmond, Va., after the Springfield pattern, the most of them had not been unpacked."

Or Lt. Col. Flavel Barber, 3rd Tennessee Infantry, speaking about Richmond R's' (short "rifles"):

"At length on the evening of the seventh of October [1862] our regiment received their arms and started up the railroad toward Holly Springs [Mississippi]. Immediately upon taking command of my company [after my arrival in camp on December 11th, 1862] I commenced drilling the recruits...[my] company and Captain Matthews' [A and K] were furnished with new rifles, mine made in Richmond, and supplied with the saber bayonet, and the others made at Liege, in Belgium. The men were all very proud of their new guns."

At any rate, due to laxness in Period "recording," and the combination of the destruction of CS records in 1865 AND the lack of compiliation and stoarge of what was not lost, actual, detailed "Richmond" references are scarce (and muddied by arguments or what were RM's or R's) such as the 16th Va Cavalry getting RM's and the 21st MS and the 36th BTN VA Cavalry getting R's.

IMHO, as with anything, what research and documentation shows for what
unit, time, and place is being portrayed should be the deciding factor. BUT, with "Richmonds" the lack of R & D can be a curse.
Or force one to over-look the obvious or create a fiction as to how such a gun got into one's hands.

IMHO, there is a "hobby bias" against them for being "Richmonds" regardless of the "fiction." Meaning, it is just "as wrong" to put an M1864 Springfield into an 1862 unit. Or to put an M1861 Springfield or even worse an M1842 Springfield into a P1853 Enfield RM armed unit. But, "we" seem to pick at the "Richmonds' even when the form (typology) of the Richmond is correct for the year of the portrayal even if the R & D for that gun in that unit at that time and place is absent.

On the other hand, depending upon one's Mental Picture and segment of the CW Community, a any "Richmond" might be viewed as just "another M1861Springfield" for all of the attention or gets, real or imagined.
Or for that matter the Boogerman fears of EBUFU/"Authentic" events barring a newcomer who has one (even when the event guidelines do not ban them...)

But those are political statements... ;) :)

Curt
Former builder of custom "Richmonds" Mess

[Craig L Barry]

Re: CS Richmond usage

Speaking of the 1861, there were at least 150,000 US Model 1861s captured and used by Confederate troops, including those gleaned frrom the battlefields, repaired and put back into service. There were (by Paul Davies month-to-month count in the CS Armory book) less than 35,000 "Richmonds" produced through late 1864, and not all of these were rifle-muskets. They were somewhat scarce, in other words.

Another point, the Armi Sport CS Richmond dated 1862 is not a particularly good reproduction, and the Euroarms is a little better but dated 1863 on the lock plate. So one is not unconditionally recommended and the other is a mid-to-late war only type weapon. I think I'd go with the "kissin' cousin" US 1861.

[Jimmayo]

Re: CS Richmond usage

Are you talking original or repro? IMO the reproduction Richmond is one of the poorest repro copies made. Aside from the standard shortcomings of most reproductions, the butt plate and nose cap are plated with a copperish substance to look like a Richmond but the plating wears off pretty quickly. Aside from the lock those are the most visible parts that say "Richmond". I have never looked at the repro bands or lock beside an original but I wouldn't be surprised if they were not correct either. Just FYI take a good look before you buy.

If you are talking original, be very careful. I think there are more fake Richmonds than there were real ones issued.

Good Luck

[Parault]

Re: CS Richmond usage

Gentlemen I do appreciate the amount of information that has been offered.

Iceman, it would work for me since I reside in Arkansas(for the moment).

Mr. Mayo, I was wanting a repro. I am a low grade collector who just want one to add to my collection of muskets.

Mr Schmidt, your vast knowledge is very much helpful for a serious participant in this hobby as with many others here on this forum.

Mr. Berry, your post does indeed make me rethink the purchase of a rifle that would have limited use
Again thank you gentlemen for enlightment on this subject.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: CS Richmond usage

Hallo!

The Italian repro's are a clever end-run where the Italians already had the M1861 Springfield and saw where there could offer a Richmond with a minimal amount of retooling expense.

Well, to be brutal there was very minimal retooling except for the the lockplate, and to save money they merely plated the M1861 steel buttplate and nose cap to make them appear to the correct brass.

As with the Italian M1861, yes, one can go down the street of so-called "de-farbing."
But that is complicated by the fact that reproduction original type "Richmond" parts such as brass butt plate, brass nose cap, and a more accurate lockplate (Rich Cross product for example) and a Richmond/M1855 type rather than a M1861 type hammer require some talent, skill, and tools to fit the oversized and slightly differently mortised Italian stock.

IMHO, the best sow's ear that can be made out of this sow's ear would be
a very early production Richmond BEFORE the Harper's Ferry iron buttplates and nosecaps ran out- say production between October 1861 to March of 1862 when the "high hump" (Type I) of the unmilled M1855 lock profile was reduced (Type II) by William Wentzel altering the machinery.

There are reproduction "Type I" or "high hump" Richmond and C.S. Richmond available that can be retrofitted to the Italian repro Richmond that allow with polishing off the thin "brass" plating on the butt and nose cap- along with the so-called "de-farb" work accepted as "okay" for the M1861 that will help the Italian Richmonds a little.

Curt

[Craig L Barry]

Re: CS Richmond usage

I was referring to Italian made CS Richmond repros as you would have to be insane to use an original CS Richmond in shooting condition for what we do. As Jim Mayo points out, the Italian made Richmonds are bottom feeders in the lackluster lot of reproduction muskets which we have available to us. Personally, for an oddball "Springfield" variant if you like the Richmond look, I am a big fan of the US 1855, of which the CS Richmond is a direct descendant.

I have made a few 1855s in my day, and not always successfully, but for "cool points" they top the Richmond every day of the week and twice on Sunday. For one thing, there were almost twice as many US 1855s around before the war as there were CS Richmonds produced en toto, so (conceivably) they were both more common and work for early war as well.

Feel free to disagree if you like.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: CS Richmond usage

Hallo!

Yup..

And one can still make a claim for Harpers Ferry marked M1855 RM's that were intially "liberated," and those assembled by Virginia from finished parts as being "CS" made.

Curt
Former builder of M1855's Mess

[Parault]

Re: CS Richmond usage

I own a "55" Springfield. So a CSR might not be nothing but a repeat of what I have.

[David Fox]

Re: CS Richmond usage

I occasionally trot-out an M.1855 cobbled together from all original parts, but for the old Yeck barrel. W/ original Richmond buttplate and original Richmond low-hump lockplate as drop-in swaps, it was a reasonably obtainable combo in the late 1960s. Also, wouldn't any replica M.1855 accept as drop in the same company's Richmond plate? S & S carries brass buttplates. A caveat on high-hump Richmond usage. I love high-humps. However, they are inconvenient to use w/ percussion caps. It's why Richmond went to the lower profile plate in March, '62 and why they crudely filed-down high-hump plates and some '55 plates on weapons otherwise sent back for R&R throughout the war thereafter.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: CS Richmond usage

Hallo!

"Also, wouldn't any replica M.1855 accept as drop in the same company's Richmond plate?"

As far as I know, because I have never played with them... they should, yes.
All the Italians did is take their M1861's and alter them where needed to be M1855 RM's or Richmond RM's.

"S & S carries brass buttplates."

And brass nose caps.
I would just add the caveat that they are "reproduction original" parts and require "work" to fit them to Italian repro stocks.

And yes, having seen original "Richmonds" going for between $12,000 and $25,000, I don't expect to see that many originals used in reenacting.
(Plus, with original Richmonds, one has to look for the salient features that make a Richmond a Richmond- as over the years clever lads with an original late model M1855 have been known to swap out the lock with an original Richmond lock or lockplate to inflate the vlaue.)

Curt

[Tom Ezell]

Re: CS Richmond usage

For what it's worth in the Trans-Mississippi district, the 26th Arkansas (my g-g-f's regiment) was issued Richmonds from the weapons that Hindman was able to obtain at War Eagle Creek, just before the Prairie Grove campaign. A friend had one in his private collection until he sold it a couple of years back that bore unit markings on the butt for Company B, 26th Arkansas...