Richmond Rifles & refurbished Springfields

[FloridaConscript]

Fellows,
I've been meaning to post this for awhile and just now got around to it. In reading Zack Waters' "A Small but Spartan Band" I came across the following accout from the 26th Pennsyvania following the action of July 2 1863.

"Major Bodine of the 26th Pa sent his men out with a specific purpose in mind."We were armed with the Austrian rifle of an inferior quality and I desired to change them for springfield rifles...without the red tape process...the brigade we opposed (Lang's Florida brigade) were all armed with the Springfield rifles. Many of them had gone through the renovating process and bore the Richmond C.S. stamp"

so my question to the "gun folk". I know the "guestimated" output of the Richmond armory was about 60,000 rifle muskets. Does that number just account for arms that were manufactured at the Richmond facility, or does that include US made Springfields that were picked up by the Johnnies and refitted/repaired as needed? Or is Maj. Bodine picking up CS made rifles and assuming them to be US made with CS stamps due to similar patterns?

something to talk about.

bryant

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Richmond Rifles & refurbished Springfields

Hallo!

I would want to say Bodine was just not familiar with Richmond Armory made guns (why would he be?), however...

If we look at the work/production records for Richmond:

July 1862: 916
Aug. 1862: 1209
Sep. 1862: 300
Oct. 1862: 2000
Nov. 1862: 331 M1855;s and 500
Dec. 1862: 600
Jan. 1863: 300
Jun. 1863: 500
Jul. 1863: 900
Aug. 1863: 300 M1855's
Sep. 1863: 300 (est)
Oct. 1863 500 (est)
Nov. 1863: 388 repaired
Aug. 1864: 2100 RM's repaired
Sep. 1864: 3120 RM's repaired
Oct. 1864: 3200 RM's repaired
Nov. 1864: 2300 RM's repaired
Dec. 1864: 1800 RM's repaired
Jan. 1865: 348

Except where noted, the number counts were for "old arms" repaired or refurbished in some way.

Looking at the numbers, one could say that there was sufficieint "recycling" to warrant a decent number of arms having been recycled. However, IMHO, the chances or odds that that many arms all had had their locks replaced would be too great of a stretch.

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt

[FloridaConscript]

Re: Richmond Rifles & refurbished Springfields

Curt,
I was leaning that, but I readily admit that i have not invested the time in the firearms research end of things. Lang's brigade would have had ample opportunites a Gaines Mill, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville to pick up Springfields. Issuing richmond made arms to those fellows who had yet to get a '61 makes sense.


good info to file away.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Richmond Rifles & refurbished Springfields

Paul Davie's book on the CS Richmond Armory/Arsenal is a good source for the production capacity information, too.
The output of Confederate "CS Richmond" 1855s was nowhere near 60,000. Closer to half that. Refurbished
or repaired US model rifle-muskets were not typically re-stamped CS Richmond. This reflected a misunderstanding
among some Union soldiers who did not realize Richmond was manufacturing the US 1855 clone in-house.

The quote from Maj Bodine of the 26th PA is widely cited as an example of that misunderstanding. Joe Bilby
references it in his 2001 article on the Austrian M-1854 Lorenz as well.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Richmond Rifles & refurbished Springfields

Hallo!

Knowing what we know today, versus what the Federal CW soldier knew back then...

I would question someone picking up a 1862/1863 "Richmond" and mistaking it for a M1861 although concede it could happen. (Granted the VA and later CSA assembled M1855's might could lead to such a Period mistake.)

I do not know anything about Bodine, but could it be that he is writing in the 1890's, 1900's, or even later and what we read is his (mis)remembering back and not quite getting it right? (..."the brigade we opposed (Lang's Florida brigade) were all armed with the Springfield rifles. Many of them had gone through the renovating process and bore the Richmond C.S. stamp". Saying that "all" had Springfields and "many of them" being Richmonds seems to imply he had "access" to Springfields and Richmonds and did not get it right.)

Curt

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Richmond Rifles & refurbished Springfields

I have always thought that details like this were likely to be "mis-remembered" when accounts
were written many years post-bellum. Hence, production records from the CS Richmond Armory
provide greater insight into how common or uncommon that particular weapon may have been.
"Richmond Springfields" were odd enough though that Union soldiers seem to take note of them
even when they did not know exactly what they were.

And some terms we use today are not what was used during the time period, it is collectors terminology.
The US 1816 and 1822 is a favorite example. Soldiers usually called these "muskets of the old style
converted to percussion" or less complimentary names. Point being, distinctions we make were not
made at the time in terms of classifying infantry arms. A US soldier picking up a CS Richmond 1855
clone off the battlefield may have concluded the whole company must have been issued them. However, that
was unlikely to have been the case. Any US Model rifle musket, whether made at Springfield Armory or
some other place, was often called a "Springfield."

[Mississippian]

Re: Richmond Rifles & refurbished Springfields

Bryant,

See my earlier thread about Ordnance records from Barksdale's Brigade:

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?30199-Ordnance-Records-of-Barksdale-s-Mississippi-Brigade

If you look closely, starting in early 1863 you can see men in the brigade were being issued both "Richmond Rifles" and "Spr." or "Spring." rifles, the issues of March 23 and 24 1863 being an example:

March 23rd 1863 (received from Div. Ord officer)

50 Richmond Rifles cal .58
50 Set Accouterments, complete
15 Screw Drivers
15 Ball Screws
15 Cones

March 24th 1863 (Issued to 21st MS)

12 Spring. Rifles cal .58
12 Cartridge Boxes
12 Waist Belts
12 Cap Pouches
12 Bayonet Scabbards
12 Cartridge Box Belts
4 Screwdrivers
4 Wipers
19 Haversacks (oiledcloth)

I'd like to think the Ordnance officer who wrote the reports knew what we was talking about. So we could be looking at those Mississippian's being issued C.S. made rifles and picked up/repaired U.S. made guns. Hope this helps a little.

Will MacDonald

[Bill]

Re: Richmond Rifles & refurbished Springfields

This is just a thought and I have no documentation, other than being a live shooter. The Springfield "style" weapons, whether Federal Government, Contract, or Confederate made. Have two advantages over the imported weapons, especially the Enfield. First, is the larger bore, which fouls less. Second, is the cast-off on the American made weapons, which is more comfortable to shoot in the side-standing stance, dictated by our drill manuals.

Perhaps the Federal soldiers picking up weapons from the battlefield didn't care who made the weapon, as long as it was American made????

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Richmond Rifles & refurbished Springfields

Hallo!

"Second, is the cast-off on the American made weapons, which is more comfortable to shoot in the side-standing stance, dictated by our drill manuals."

I think you mean the comb?

Cast-on and cast-off are NUG applied to the buttstock angling toward or away from the shooter along the central line of a gun?

The "Springfield" has a different comb than the "Enfield." Many lads, including myself, find that the comb of the Enfield bangs on the cheek bone, and the flattish buttplate is not as comfortable as the curved one of the Springfield.

Curt

[Bill]

Re: Richmond Rifles & refurbished Springfields

Curt,

No, I meant cast-off. My original Enfield's butt stock has almost no cast-off at all, while my original American made weapons all cast-off to the left. I find them more comfortable to aim, using our side standing stance. I notice the same thing with the repop's, but it might just be my imagination.

Note, I find the Enfield more comfortable to aim, using a front standing stance.