Richmond Rifle in US Hands

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

In this well-known image of the 2nd NY Heavy Artillery at Fort C.F. Smith in 1865, I noticed something a little odd. All of the other lockplates in the unit have the standard Springfield profile, but this one, without a discernible Maynard door, looks awfully like a Richmond. Any thoughts?

[Cumpston1862]

Re: Richmond Rifle in US Hands

That hump sure is a tell tale sign of that possibility. Is this a high resolution image that can be blown up a bit?

[JerseyMutt]

Re: Richmond Rifle in US Hands

Unfortunatley, using the 89.9 MB TIFF (largest scan the LOC has of the image) doesn't get us in much closer. From it though, I can definitely see that it is lacking the Maynard primer door that an M1855 would have.

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

Re: Richmond Rifle in US Hands

This crop is from the big'n. Darn them for not pulling this guy aside for a portrait!

[JerseyMutt]

Re: Richmond Rifle in US Hands

The other possible piece of "evidence" that this is indeed a Richmond rifle is the cap at the front of the stock. It's hard to be sure with the quality of the photo, but it does appear that the cap is a different color from the barrel and bands. This would be consistent with the Richmond rifle's brass cap. In the original photo, there is a grouping of 5 rifles to the right of this trio that are clearly Springfields (at least the 3 rifles to the right of the grouping). Looking at them, one can see that the cap is the same color as the barrel and the bands.

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

Re: Richmond Rifle in US Hands

So, the next question is did the crews who scoured battlefields for salvageable ordnance discriminate when it came to CS weaponry? We know that the 101st IL traded in their weapons for captured Enfields, but that's an en masse, on-the-spot instance; it stands to reason that a .58 caliber rifle-musket is a .58 caliber rifle-musket to Union authorities, and I doubt they'd specify the difference in any sort of arms report.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Richmond Rifle in US Hands

In my dim and fading memory, I seem to recall documentation of Richmond rifle-muskets being captured at either Ft. Henry or Donelson and being used by Union infantry.

Also, there is a thread over in Szabo's that talks about that topic a bit.

http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/showthread.php?29885-1862-Richmond-Rifle-Actual-War-Use

[AndrewGrim]

Re: Richmond Rifle in US Hands

There was a Richmond rifle carried by a member of the 55th Ohio from Gettysburg till re-enlisting in Chattanooga. An accidental discharge killed Colonel Gambee's horse. The whole story is in a Civil War Times Illustrated article titled The Rise and Fall of Luther Mesnard from the late '80s.

[Cumpston1862]

Re: Richmond Rifle in US Hands

I read an account by a Lieutenant in a New York Regiment that said one of the men in his unit killed a rebel picket that was carrying a Sharps rifle towards the end of the war. The soldier brought the Sharps back to camp with the intention of keeping it and the Lieutenant said he had to take the weapon from the man because enlisted men were not allowed to keep captured weapons. The soldier was a bit upset but complied as he knew the rules (or that was how the LT. explained it). The sympathetic Lt. put the weapon with his personal baggage and immeditely after they were mustered out he returned the Sharps to the soldier...who was greatly pleased. The Lt. went on to say that in his travels and keeping up with his former comrades he spoke to the son of this soldier many years after the war and even though his father had died the Sharps was still in the family and the story of its capture and return at the end of the war was a big family story.

Unfortunately I lent this book to a friend who lost it so I don't have the specifics. If this is true about an enlisted man not being able to keep a captured weapon than the only way the man in the picture above could have kept a "captured" Richmond rifle was to use it as his service rifle...would it not?

Were enlisted men not allowed to keep captured weapons?

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Richmond Rifle in US Hands

Hallo!

Yes.

There were two.

Ordnance folks on both sides "scrounged" battlefields for weapons, although we tend to think of that as more of a "Confederate" thing due to chromic shortages. But, Federal supply was a mixed bag through 1864 and 1865 when production of the M1861, M1863, and M1864 line hit its peak. Prior, the Feds used a mixed system of 'trickle down" based upon a number of factors both official and unofficial- such as "premier" units or more politically powerful generals possibly jumping the supply line.

The other side of the coin albeit on a smaller level, was individual units "jumping the line" or process and securing replacements for their own second or third rate, or even European junk. One example is:

At Gettysburg, July 2nd- Major Bodine of the Twenty-sixth Pennsylvania 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 processes... The brigade we opposed [Lang's Floridians] were all armed with the Springfield rifles. Many of them had gone through the renovating process, and bore the Richmond C.S. stamp."

Colonel David Lang's 742 4th Brigade (Perry's) was the 2nd, 5th, 8th Florida in Anderson's 1st Division, A.P. Hills III Corps

The 26th PA was in Carr's 1,718 man 1st Brigade of Humphrey's 2nd Division of Sickle's III Corps.

Carr was shot at the Peach Orchard on Day Two.

Anyways,, IMHO, I believe Bodine is not talking about the Richmond star recycle stamp marking on refurbished Springfields but rather actual Richmond made arms.

Curt

[brown]

Re: Richmond Rifle in US Hands

Didn't Whitney provide a number of arms that had unfinished Maynard locks?

[Daniel]

Re: Richmond Rifle in US Hands

"Details were made and placed around the 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." Hubert 50th Ill.- Fort Donelson

"Eyewitnesses at the Battle of Fort Donelson" edited by David R. Logsdon , page 93

Dan Stewart

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Richmond Rifle in US Hands

Thanks, Dan!!

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Richmond Rifle in US Hands

Hallo!

Yes, Whitney dabbled in a few M1855 RM's, but mostly did M1861 Contract RM's. It does not get much notice, but five other firms received contracts to make the M1855 but never did, their going to the M1861 instead.

There are two kinds. A more standard M1855, but with an iron Enfield type nose cap,, longer barrel band springs, and Enfield brass lock screw escutcheons. And the so-called 'Confederate Whitney"
(I don't know why other than for the unmilled primer less lockplate like on the Richmonds.) Anyways, they are the Whitney M1855 variation but with just an unmilled lock plate.

c

[Bill]

Re: Richmond Rifle in US Hands

The 20th. Maine swapped off their Enfields for Springfield rifles, after their fight on Little Round Top. I've often wondered if any of those "Springfields" were made in Richmond, VA.