Ammunition Crates

[markj]

Re: Ammunition Crates

Interesting pics, John. Compare your box with the one shown in the Petersburg image and you will immediately note significant differences, particularly in the placement of the carrying handles on the side and the stenciling.

Logic suggests that the external appearance of ammo boxes varied somewhat depending on the maker but, as long as they met the "specs," and did their assigned job, nobody really cared since such items were "made to be destroyed" anyway.

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[Spongebucket]

Re: Ammunition Crates

Thanks fellows. John, that is a beautiful piece. I find it interesting that it is not marked according to the Ord. manual. That and the fact that the overall weight of the crate is also marked.

Joe Blunt

[John E. Tobey]

Re: Ammunition Crates

Joe,

In addition to the advice already given, I'd offer the following...

I'm not sure whether you're asking about US or CS boxes, but my comments apply (as far as I know) to Federal-issue ammunition crates.

You asked about how the size of the cartridges were called out. The answer, I believe, is both by the caliber of the piece and by the actual diameter of the bullets, depending on who made them. Some makers would mark the box "Cal. .58" while others would mark the same box "Cal. .577" because the diameter of the rounds for .58 arms was actually .5775 inch. As a more specific example, Frankford arsenal made rounds for ".58 caliber arms" and marked those boxes ".577". They also made smaller rounds that were intended for both the smaller caliber Enfields as well as the US standard .58 pieces...these boxes are marked ".574".

This brings up another point. Because the actual details of various makers' boxes vary so much, Will Eichler made an excellent point when he suggested that you copy a specific box. I don't know how anal you want to get with the markings on your ammo box, but after you choose a specific box to copy you may want to research its time frame. Again, using Frankford Arsenal as the example, they made both .577 and .574 caliber ammunition. They stopped making the .577 stuff in 1863 (I think...Dean Thomas's book will give you the exact dates on this. I'm working from memory) and only started making the .574 stuff at the very end of 1862. The implications are obvious. You probably wouldn't want a .574 Frankford box for a program that portrays troops in 1861 or the first half of 1862.

John Tobey

[Fod]

Re: Ammunition Crates

Mr Eichler noted the different joint styles in the Thomas book. The book actually has a good enough sample of photos that you can assign a rough correlation between joint style and year by Arsenal.

(Sorry don't ask exactly what the correlation is, that was lost in a hard drive crash long ago - any one willing to repeat the study?)

[1stMaine]

Re: Ammunition Crates

Mr Eichler noted the different joint styles in the Thomas book. The book actually has a good enough sample of photos that you can assign a rough correlation between joint style and year by Arsenal.

(Sorry don't ask exactly what the correlation is, that was lost in a hard drive crash long ago - any one willing to repeat the study?)

Joe, et al...
Another good source is Thomas' earlier book "Ready, Aim, Fire.." In the appendix, he transcribes a letter from a Major at the Watervliet Arsenal to a Capt of US regulars stationed in New York. the Captain had returned a box of ammunition stencilled .58 caliber because he had examined some rounds and found them to be only .57 caliber. The Major informs him that Watervliet only produces rounds of .57 caliber in order to service both .577 and .58 weapons. He then offers to RESTENCIL the box as .57 and return them to him if he so desires.
This is interesting on a couple of levels. First, it shows that smaller caliber rounds, in this case, .57 are being produced for economy of materials and time, and thuis then leads directly to the apparent discrepency in accuracy commented upon by soldiers vis-a-vis Enfield versus Springfield. The general comment was that the Enfield was more accurate, but fouled faster.
Secondly, this shows how anal some of the regular officers might be. Can you imagine taking the time to open a sealed box of ammunition to insoect the contents, and UNWRAPPING and MEASURING a sample round? This guy either takes his job WAY too seriously, or has a heck of a lot of time on his hands.
Regardless, the book is very informative and has numerous illustrations.
As to specific weapon stencils on boxes, the only time I have seen such a marking was on pistol ammunition, and it was marked for "Colt's Revolver" , and was a commercial contract production. Some other's like that were weapon-specific, such as Sharp's, Burnside. Maynard, etc, but in each case, they were a commercial maker selling to the military as well as civilian markets.
Trusting this is of some small use, I remain, sir, respectfully,
Tim Kindred

[Will Eichler]

Re: Ammunition Crates

Daniel,

In a way to avoid the work of the 21st Century, I accepted your challenge (although in a brief time-frame) this evening. I've re-done the charting of all the Ammunition boxes in Thomas' work.

Like I said, quick, down and dirty but here are the results I have.
1st. I ignored the Williams Bullet Ammunition box as a contract made item.

There were 18 boxes shown in the book. 8 had dovetail joints, 6 had half-lap and 4 were made with butt joints. In short, a plurality of the examples shown had the specified dovetail joints. If you remove the 4 examples from State Arsenals, the ratio raises to 50% having Dovetail joints.

Early war, late war? Good question. I'm not as comfortable drawing a conclusion on this subject. Butt joints (the simplest way to construct) appear from Federal arsenals on boxes dated '61, '62 and '64. This does show there wasn't a trend to move to and easier construction method as the war progressed. This just isn't a good enough sample to draw good conclusions on when what joints were used.

Sorry this is so quick, but I've gotta time-warp back to some work. Hope it helps.

Best,

Will

[1stMaine]

Re: Ammunition Crates

Comrades,
I'll throw out another thought on the construction question. It seems to me that the butt-joint represents an expedient method of construction, one used when quantity was more important than quality, or perhaps where less-skilled labor might have been utilised.
Now, it occurs to me that although ammunition production proceeded throughout the war, the winter months would have been well suited towards replenishing stocks expended during campaigns. Arsenals had to consider the campaign months and stock up for those, see that not only sufficient inventory was produced and shipped to the various departments, but that sufficient packing and shipping material was procured/produced as well.
During the "off-season" dovetailed joints would have been easy to produce, and in fact was the prescribed method of contruction. This was probably the normal method of construction year round. What would have changed that? A series of protracted engagements or large-scale battles that expended significant amounts of ammunition that needed to be rapidly replaced. Butt-joints would certainly save time on production.
Perhaps the answer, and this is pure speculation, has more to do with an increased demand and a time-critical situation. Finding boxes dated 1861, 1862, and 1864 with butt-joints vice dovetails is certainly rationalised by looking at what the armies were doing during those times.
1861 saw a meteoric rise in the size of the Federal Army. It rose on a scale unheard of in the country, rivaling the size of Napoleon's Grande Armee that marched into Russia. Certainly just the simple step of going from dove-tailed to butt-joints would save a significant amount of time and labor, especially considering a million rounds requires 1,000 boxes and we are talking about providing 100 rounds each for 200,000 men.
1862 brings the massive battles of Shiloh, the Penninsula Campaign, 2nd Bull Run and Antietam plus many other engagements. Those months of April to September, especially in the eastern theatre saw a number of engagements falling close together and requiring a near constant replenishment of ammunition stores.
1864, of course, sees the Overland Campaign in the East, and the Atlanta Campaign and March to the Sea. Again, large scale and near continuous contact resulting in the expenditure of massive amounts of small arms ammunition that needs to be replaced.
As I said, it would have been the norm to use dovetailing throughout these periods, especially in the winter months, but butt-joints could easily have been introduced as a time-saving device when demand outpaced production and the arsenals needed to ramp up production.
Of course, this is, as I said, mere spreculation on my part, but it seems to me to be a very plausible explanation for the use of non-standard, or non-regulation construction techniques. This is especially true given the proportions Will Eichler points out above. True enough, it's a small sample, but it's the only one at present we have access to. Someone needs to poll museums and collections and perhaps do a study of existing ammunition boxes. Sounds like thesis material to me:)
respects to all,

[AZReenactor]

Quick Question

I was trying to remember how much a box loaded with 1000 .58 rounds weighs. I suppose I could go home and make up the rounds and pack my box but asking seemed quicker. ;-)

Any one have the info handy?

[1stMaine]

Re: Ammunition Crates

Troy,

98 Pounds. More for the .69 cartridges.

Respects,

[AZReenactor]

Re: Ammunition Crates

Tim,
Thanks, that is right about what I had calculated but wanted to double check and couldn't find the info in the ordnance manuals.

[1stMaine]

Re: Ammunition Crates

Troy,

You can find the various weights listed in the chart that has all the domensions, etc, for small arms cartridges. It also lists the dimensions for the boxes, etc.

Respects,

[Bill]

Re: Ammunition Crates

Troy,

You can find the various weights listed in the chart that has all the domensions, etc, for small arms cartridges. It also lists the dimensions for the boxes, etc.

Respects,

Strange, the 1863 Ordnance Manual doesn't have specs for the .69 cal "Buck & Ball" Cartridge. There are specs for .69 Minnies, round balls, and buck shot, but no Buck and Ball.

[Johan Steele]

Re: Ammunition Crates

In an effort to revive an old thread and praise the search function I'll pose my question here. Where can I find specific information on a .54 Cal Ammo Crate from the St Louis, or other US Arsenal? In particular the color of the box and proper markings.

While I know US crates in .577/.58 were typically a shade of green & .69 were blue, sky blue/gray or red depending on the bullet I have failed dismally to find any info for the .54 crate as would have been issued to troops issued w/ M1814, M1817 or M1841/45.

Any information or avenues of research would be appreciated.

[Bill]

Re: Ammunition Crates

In an effort to revive an old thread and praise the search function I'll pose my question here. Where can I find specific information on a .54 Cal Ammo Crate from the St Louis, or other US Arsenal? In particular the color of the box and proper markings.


Any information or avenues of research would be appreciated.

Johan,

Very interesting question. I have never seen a surviving .54 Cal Ammo Box and don't remember ever seeing a photo of one. The 1863 Ordnance Manual has no specs for .54 cal ammunition. You would have to assume (There I go assuming again!) that the .54 box would be slightly smaller than a .58 box. How much smaller is the question.

Does anyone have access to a Mexican War period ordnance manual? Since all rifles were .54 cal, at that time, the book may have the specs for Ammo Box.

[FTrooper]

Re: Ammunition Crates

Somewhere I have the 1850 Ordnance Manual Specs for the ammo boxes for rifles. It would seem that the "color" coding was an ACW thing, so my information wouldn't help there...if I can find the specs I will post them however.

Chris Fischer
Fort McKavett
&
F-Troop