M1861 Contract muskets

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Musket Stocks - The "Right Color"?

Hallo!

As made by the arsenals, the rear sights (and screws and barrel band springs) on "Springfields" were not blued, but rather "quench blackened."
My guess for sights, it was designed to cut down on reflected (actually refracted) light distortion.
That was the sight base, the two sight screws, and the two leaves on the late model M1855, M1861, M1863, or one leaf on the M1863 "Type II."

However, it was sometimes removed before issuance.
I have never encountered documentation as to why.
As a result, (and assuming it was not done in say 1961 to improve the looks before a sale by a dealer or antique seller), one sometimes finds rear sights both dark and bright.

I replace the bright Italian rear sights with the blackened Rich Cross ones on my Italian
"Springfields."

(As an aside, the hammers and lockplates were color case hardened for function rather than looks. The "color" on M1855 and M1861 arms was arsenal or armory polished bright, except for the M1863 arms..)

Curt

[Foust JW]

Re: Musket Stocks - The "Right Color"?

Veering lazily Off-topic,

But the shots of this remind me of that series of books for grade schoolers, must've been published in the 1960's to early 1970's when I attended...E.B. Brown?...I think we discussed it about 4 permutations ago.

Series of books about weapons. (I practically stole the CW ones.)everything up to early 'Nam I think. WAY too politically incorrect for modern schools, but I still remember looking at that shot of the Pipe Organ, & thinking..."Holy Crap"!

...Carry on with the important stuff,
Joel Foust

[unclefrank]

Re: Musket Stocks - The "Right Color"?

Those are sweet!

[NC1862]

Re: Musket Stocks - The "Right Color"?

Those are sweet!

Indeed. Wouldn't mind having one for myself... :tounge_sm

[johnnyturncoat]

Re: Musket Stocks - The "Right Color"?

Just to agree with the others, thanks for posting those images-they answer many questions.
Sincerely,
Jon Jones

[LibertyHallVols]

More Details on Original Springfields

I thought I would post a couple of other observations...

In the attached pic, please note the circled areas:
Red: On all of the Armi Sport 1861's I have seen, there is a gap here, where the stock, barrel, lockplate, and bolster for the cone come together. Not the case with originals, as you can see.

Green: Note the two different patterns of checkering on these orignals. Interesting!

Blue: Note how tightly (for lack of a better word) the breech of the barrel butts up to the stock. This seems to vary from repro to repro, regardless of maker... another reason to hold a repro in your hand before you buy.

Enjoy!

[sauguszouave]

Re: Musket Stocks - The "Right Color"?

Hallo!

As made by the arsenals, the rear sights (and screws and barrel band springs) on "Springfields" were not blued, but rather "quench blackened."
My guess for sights, it was designed to cut down on reflected (actually refracted) light distortion.

Curt,

Or it may have just been to control the mechanical properties of the sight or it may have been to rust-proof it.

For folks who aren't familiar with the phase transformation properties of iron/carbon alloys, the Cliff Notes version is:

When you heat iron up really hot it takes on an open cubic structure of eight iron atoms, one at each corner of the cube. If there happens to be enough carbon atoms mixed into the iron, a carbon atom will migrate into the space on each face of the cube. If you allow the iron to cool slowly, the carbon atoms will diffuse back out as the iron cube shrinks. However, if you cool the iron rapidly (by doing something like jamming it in a bucket of cold water) some of the carbon atoms will become trapped in the iron cube creating a micro-structure with internal stress. This "quenching" is what makes steel hard and brittle. How this actually happens was first described by the German metalurgist Adolf Martens in the 1890s. Folks during the ACW didn't know why it worked, but they knew it worked.

How hard the steel becomes is a function of how fast you cool it. Cool it fast, lots of carbon atoms get trapped. Cool it slowly and fewer carbon gets trapped. But there is also another problem which is how the cooling gets diffused through the work piece. If you stick a small part that is really hot into something that is really cold or that absorbs heat really fast, like water, the outside of the piece cools much more quickly than the inside of the piece. That means more carbon gets trapped in the outside of the piece than gets trapped in the inside of the piece. The structures that have carbon trapped in them are physically bigger than the ones that don't. That means that the outside of the piece is cold, but bigger and the inside is hot, but smaller. The result is the piece cracks or shatters.

The way to prevent that is to quench in something that doesn't transmit heat quite so rapidly. Brine was a common quenching medium because it transmits heat more slowly than pure water. Oil transmits heat even more slowly. But oil also has another advantage: some of the oil burns onto the surface of the piece during the quenching and produces a black, waterproof surface. The result of oil quenching a small piece is that it is hard, and rust proof with less risk of cracking. The black color is just a byproduct. The problem with the sight picture theory is that the black from quenching is a shiny black, not a dull black. Period sources I've seen soot blacken sights with a candle or a match. But those are competition shooting sources, not military sources. I'll have to check my Wilcox and my Cleveland to see if they have anything about blackening sights.

Regards,

Paul

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Musket Stocks - The "Right Color"?

Hallo!

Yup, IMHO, originals are spectacular.
Reproductions are just craptacular.
;) :)

Curt

[JustinPrince]

Two newbie questions

Hi guys. I'm new to living history, and though a good portion of my gear is sutler row starting out (I'm a college student in Oklahoma), I'd like to try to be as authentic as money will allow.

My first question is something basic. My trousers are way too long, and I need to shorten them. Some have told me to just roll them up, but I need to roll them up so much (about 3-4 inches) that too me it just doesn't look right. Is there a particular way they should be hemmed? I suppose I should mention this is for a Federal Army of the Cumberland impression.

My other question is cartridge box related. I have both a Model 1861 Springfield (defarbed from James River Armory) for an 1863-1865 impression and an Armi Sport Model 1842 Springfield. I have a regular Model 1855 .58cal Cartridge Box for the '61 Springfield, but what cartridge boxy would be appropriate for the '42 Springfield? Would a volunteer carry a Model 1855 .69cal box or an older Model 1842 box?

Thanks again,

Justin Prince

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: Two newbie questions

trousers are way too long, and I need to shorten them. Some have told me to just roll them up, but I need to roll them up so much (about 3-4 inches) that too me it just doesn't look right. Is there a particular way they should be hemmed? I suppose I should mention this is for a Federal Army of the Cumberland impression.

You could just cut them and not bother with a hem.

My other question is cartridge box related. I have both a Model 1861 Springfield (defarbed from James River Armory) for an 1863-1865 impression and an Armi Sport Model 1842 Springfield. I have a regular Model 1855 .58cal Cartridge Box for the '61 Springfield, but what cartridge boxy would be appropriate for the '42 Springfield? Would a volunteer carry a Model 1855 .69cal box or an older Model 1842 box?

According to the CRRC2 very few soldiers (early war) would have been issued the Model 1839 box and most would have been issued a later box appropriate for if it was a smoothbore or rifled version.

Unless you can document the unit you are portraying was issued the earlier boxes you should carry a later version.

[JustinPrince]

Re: Two newbie questions

Therein lies the dilemma of why I'm not looking straight into what the unit carried. According to the unit's website that lists their requirements (what I've been using as a guide, in addition to research) is that before being issued Model 1861 Springfields the unit was issued Belgian Model 1842s. Since there are no readily available repros of this weapon, the unit prefers to use Model 1842 Springfields to "simulate" the Belgian 1842s. That's why I was asking which cartridge box would be more appropriate for the Model 1842.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Two newbie questions

Hallo!

1. Is there a particular way they should be hemmed?

In brief and to over-generalize...

Federal clothing was issued without regard for a man's actual sizing/size, with certain percentages of the Size 1-4 in every batch of 100 garments. The concept was to trade off with another man for a truer or closer size, make or have made alterations, or wear them as is.
IMHO you have three choices:

1. Wear them as they came (issued) are by rolling them up.
2. As trowsers came from the arsenals/depots, they have a unique cuff treatment with vents and "reinforcing" strips typically not found on most Run of the Mill Sutler Row vendor products. They also have (within a range from "regulation) slightly different lengths sometimes other than "specs." So, you can cut your trowsers to your length and not worry about the cuff treatment, or
3. You can use the cut-off material to reconstruct the arsenal cuff treatment- but IIMHO if you are cutting cuffs, it raises the discussion as to whether a soldier in the field would have, or would not have, restored the cuffs rather than just hemming them up...

I have a regular Model 1855 .58cal Cartridge Box for the '61 Springfield, but what cartridge boxy would be appropriate for the '42 Springfield? Would a volunteer carry a Model 1855 .69cal box or an older Model 1842 box?

You have a Pattern of 1857 (March or August) or Pattern of 1861 .58 box. Assuming you have not researched or documented a particular pattern .69 RB or .69 EB box for the unit your impression or persona is- you can always go with the 1857 or 1861 .69 patterns.

In the "shortage" period of 1861 it was not unusal for some "volunteers' to get whatever was on hand or could be found including flintlocks and percussion alterations- and older types of accoutrements such as Pattern of 1839 boxes being phased out by the new 1857 and 1861 patterns.

Curt

[nick19thind]

Re: Two newbie questions

Hi guys. I'm new to living history, and though a good portion of my gear is sutler row starting out (I'm a college student in Oklahoma), I'd like to try to be as authentic as money will allow.

My first question is something basic. My trousers are way too long, and I need to shorten them. Some have told me to just roll them up, but I need to roll them up so much (about 3-4 inches) that too me it just doesn't look right. Is there a particular way they should be hemmed? I suppose I should mention this is for a Federal Army of the Cumberland impression.

My other question is cartridge box related. I have both a Model 1861 Springfield (defarbed from James River Armory) for an 1863-1865 impression and an Armi Sport Model 1842 Springfield. I have a regular Model 1855 .58cal Cartridge Box for the '61 Springfield, but what cartridge boxy would be appropriate for the '42 Springfield? Would a volunteer carry a Model 1855 .69cal box or an older Model 1842 box?

Thanks again,

Justin Prince

1. Just turn up the trousers until they're short enough, during the war any soldiers were issued clothes too big or too small

2 Volunteers carried both the 1855 and the 1839 box as older equipment was often kept in state armories. What you should have depends on what your unit was originally issued. Does your group have guidelines on what equipment you should use?

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Two newbie questions

Hallo!

Would anyone care to describe an "1855" box?
;)

(Or list the Federal Ordnance reports that list Belgian "M1842's?)

Curt

[JustinPrince]

Re: Two newbie questions

Oops sorry I mean Model 1857 Cartridge Box...

I'm curious, (and this is a complete newbie question), is the reason some call it the Model 1855 box instead of the Model 1857 is because it was adopted for the Model 1855 musket, which I believe wasn't issued in large numbers until early 1857?

While we are at it I have another stupid question. What would be a good reference for 1861 Springfield muskets? The musket one I have is defarbed by James River Armory, but I have read that Springfield Armory muskets were more likely to go to regulars, volunteers would receive contract muskets.

I thought of getting one of the defarbed lockplates from James River Armory or Regimental Quartermaster and turning it into an 1862 Bridesburg musket. The problem is the barrel would still have the 1861 stamp. Would it be possible (or to be more correct probable) that a contract Springfield's lock could have been mated with an older dated barrel? If not I would think it would be more correct to have an 1861 Springfield than a mismatched 1861/1862 Bridesburg musket.

I have excellent works on U.S. Military Flintlocks, but I'm still searching for something good on percussion muskets.

Thanks,

Justin Prince