Rifling Conversion Muskets

[James Brenner]

Does anyone have/know where I can find the Ordnance Department's warning/injunction against rifling M1816/22 muskets or examples of burst barrels in service? I am aware of the concern about increased breech pressures, but I wonder if that may be something like a 19th century urban legend.

Here's why I am asking. Experiments with Small Arms for the Military Service by Officers of the Ordnance Department, U.S. Army (Washington: A.O.P. Nicholson, 1856) is the official report that resulted in adoption of the M1855 series of small arms. The experiments included not just the Maynard primer, but also rifling and ballistics. The test board's evaluation included rifling and the use of conical balls in the M1822 through M1842 muskets. There is no mention of burst barrels. (BTW, this report is available on line at archive.org).

In 1861, Ohio made an agreement with Miles Greenwood of Cincinnati to rifle the state's .69 caliber muskets, both the M1816/22 and M1842. The 23 May 1861 issue of the Cincinnati Daily Gazette reported, "Experiments are now being tried by some of our mechanics, at the order of state authorities, whether smooth bore muskets now in the possession of the state cannot (emphasis in newspaper) be rifled so as to make them a more efficient and valuable weapon." The following month, McClellan wrote BG Ripley (Chief of Ordnance) and requested permission to rifle the .69 caliber muskets sent to Ohio to arm the federal volunteers. Ripley made no objection to rifling them, only commenting that he doubted that rifling would "increase the efficiency of the troops who use them." (Ripley to McClellan, 5 June 1861, RG 156, Register of Letters Sent, E3, Vol. 53, NARA).

In August, Ohio's inspector selected a musket dated 1825, loaded it with 248 grains of powder and five balls, secured it in place inside a tube and discharged it. The recoil shattered the stock, but the barrel remained intact. (Ohio State Journal, 8 August 1861). Despite such reporting, there was apparently great concern among the volunteers about bursting barrels.

So, somehow, the belief that early conversion muskets were not safe to rifle got started and it would be interesting to track it down.

[Ken Cornett]

Re: Rifling Conversion Muskets

Jim you always seem to be doing the most interesting research. Is this Miles Greenwood the same one that was the first professional fire chief of Cincinnati? I'm aware of that group and they do have a website at http://www.milesgreenwood.org, but it may have been his son or grandson or there about's. Maybe they can help you out. BTW, Happy Birthday!

[James Brenner]

Re: Rifling Conversion Muskets

Hi, Ken.

Yes, it is the same Miles Greenwood. I've been in contact with MG group, but their interest is in his fire fighting equipment. Their site is very interesting, and maybe sometime I'll research his firefighting, cannon casting, and gunboat building activities, but for right now, his rifling activities is keeping me busy and making my hair hurt.


Thanks for the b'day wish. Tempus fugit, eh?


Jim

[Don Dixon]

Re: Rifling Conversion Muskets

Jim,

It depends on how you define "burst."

The cone in barrel transformation technique was fairly successful if one continued to use the weapon as a smoothbore because the windage between the bullet and the bore was large enough to keep chamber pressure at reasonable levels. Use of Minié bullets in transformed rifled muskets increased problems because the expansion of the base of the Minié ball sealed the bore much more efficiently than the paper patched round ball the arms had originally been designed to use, thus significantly increasing chamber pressure. The 1850 Ordnance Manual noted that “The screw thread of the cone [nipple] for altered muskets is a little shorter than that for the new [Model 1842] muskets, so that it may not project into the bore.” In fact, it had four threads, vice six in the Model 1842. The more limited engagement between the threads of the nipple and the threads of the cone seat made competent manufacture of the nipple and its installation in the barrel critical. New Jersey Quartermaster General Lewis Perrine observed in his 1859 report [cited in the Massachusetts Adjutant General's report for 1859] that the cone-in-barrel alteration had been found “much more liable to get out of order, from the impossibility of making the cone secure enough to stand much firing.” In June 1861 the 8th Pennsylvania Infantry refused to go to the field with Springfield cone-in-barrel conversions because the cones in the barrels or the plugs in the touch holes had been blowing out. The cone-in-barrel technique was the worst of the techniques used in transforming flintlock and tubelock weapons to percussion. (Ordnance Manual, 1850, 159; Massachusetts Adjutant General’s Report, 1859, 56; Moller, American Military Shoulder Arms, III, 35)

I would submit that many soldiers and officers who had a nipple or touch hole plug blow out would describe the musket as having "burst." Then there is the physical reformation of the breech of the barrel required to form a cone seat for the cone-in-barrel transformation. I would submit that in some instances this work hardened the wrought iron of the barrel to the point where it failed and burst.

Regards,
Don Dixon

[James Brenner]

Re: Rifling Conversion Muskets

Thank, Don.

From the time I asked the question until now, I've come across two other bits of information that I found interesting. The Belgian cone-in-barrel placement moved the flash hole forward 1/4 inch or so from the touch hole of the flint musket which meant that the flash from the cap may or may not hit the charge. To counter that, the Ordnance Department added an extension to the face of the original flint-configured plug so the percussion cap primer flash hit the base of the powder charge. See the attached pictures because I am probably not explaining this well. Also, Chris Warfel, who posts on this site, sent me a copy of a letter from Ripley to Ohio Adjutant General Buckingham dated 15 July 1861 in which Ripley apologizes for not having modern rifled muskets to send to Ohio. "These are altered muskets, and I regard them as in all respects, serviceable and efficient, and the prejudice against them are not founded on just grounds."

It appears, though, that extending the breech did not always happen. Captain Kingsbury, the ordnance officer assigned to McClellan, wrote Ripley on 25 June 1861 reporting shoddy workmanship on (I think) the arsenal's part. "The mustering officers have informed me that the altered percussion muskets issued to the Ohio troops are inferior; that the work is generally badly done, the cone in some instances entering the barrel almost over the ball, and in others, near the extreme upper end of the powder."

Also, do you -or anyone reading these posts - know why the muzzle of a musket had to be reamed prior to rifling?