M1855 Rilfe-Musket in Western Federal Hands

[hardeeflag]

In my area (southwest) probably the weapon you'd get the most versatility in using is the M1855 Rifle-Musket. So I am in the market and putting money aside for one with the full functioning Maynard Tape system. I am covered as far as documentation in the Southwestern theater to justify having one in my little arsenal. I've documented a few western CS units with them as well but my question is if anyone knows of any Western Federal units that carried M1855 Rifle-Muskets? I see these mostly lumped together as 1855/1861/1863s, so it is pretty hard to determine unless it is very early in the war. Any direction is appreciated.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: M1855 Rilfe-Musket in Western Federal Hands

Rich

The 1st and 2nd California had 1855 Springfields.

[hardeeflag]

Re: M1855 Rilfe-Musket in Western Federal Hands

Rich

The 1st and 2nd California had 1855 Springfields.

A friend of mine who is relocating here in AZ are planning on portraying Co. I, 1st California Infantry for local events. I am just looking for evidence of other western theater federals in the Army of the Cumberland or Army of the Tennessee who may have been known to carry these.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: M1855 Rilfe-Musket in Western Federal Hands

A friend of mine who is relocating here in AZ are planning on portraying Co. I, 1st California Infantry for local events. I am just looking for evidence of other western theater federals in the Army of the Cumberland or Army of the Tennessee who may have been known to carry these.

Well you did say WEST :tounge_sm

[utahreenactor]

Re: M1855 Rilfe-Musket in Western Federal Hands

Well the 3rd calafornia volentires (curse my spelling) had the '55 s well. and for those ho dont know they were posted at fort douglas utah. They were also involved in the bear river massacure in idaho

Chase Pinkham

[Agate]

Re: M1855 Rilfe-Musket in Western Federal Hands

Rich,

Ohio received a small batch of M1855's from the Governor of Illinois very early in the War, believe it was by order of Genl. McClellan, both states at that point falling within the same department. I don't remember quite how many. I believe they may be the rifle-muskets listed in the tabular statements of the Ohio Executive Documents for the Ninth OVI. Believe the mention of the arms having Maynard systems, coming from newspaper accounts.

The Ninth OVI was the first Ohio Regiment to answer the call for three-years. Will have to double check all this, but believe it too, to be accurate. They certainly received something somewhat unusual, the rest of Ohio's offering during this period being armed in much the same way, and the Ninth doesn't fit that pattern. Of course having said that, I must confess that local oral tradition holds that at least one company was armed with their 1850s militia "Bahn Frei" rifles and bayonets, at least at Mill Springs, so it obviously would do to engage in more research. Have always wanted to check and see if these M1855's, if indeed truly M1855's, could have been part of the arms rescued at St. Louis by Illinois.

It looks as if the first attempt to really get Class I shoulder weapons into the hands of Buckeyes by the Ordnance Dept. was with Ohio's quota of the 300,000 man call in July 1862.

The 1862 reports contained in the Ohio Executive Documents, as well as letters in Series 147, Correspondence of the Governor of the State of Ohio, detail much of this. Included are copies of letters sent back and forth between Ohio authorities and Ordnance Dept. folks in Washington.

So, it isn't surprising that we find the first "batch" of regiments like the 93rd, 105th, 45th and 79th, all being "300,000 man" regiments, armed with .58 U.S. Rifle-Muskets.

When I was searching local papers for articles on the 105th OVI a few years ago. I happened across an article which outlined that Gov. Todd of Ohio had just returned (late July 1862) from Washington, and it mentioned his attempts to lobby for better arms for these new Ohio troops. The article also mentioned Gov. Morton of Indiana, although now I can't remember in what context. It very well may have been that Todd had Morton's endorsement.

I've always understood that the Indiana regiments that were engaged at the Battle of Richmond Ky. were regiments raised in response to this call. Also have always understood that these regiments were armed with .58 U.S. Rifle-Muskets, or at least in part.

I believe it would be worthy of further research, because if this were to prove to be the case, it might* indicate that this was an effort by the Ord. Dept. to get first class U. S. arms into the hands of Western troops, or particularly, the Army of the Ohio. Would then be to determine if this was the very first attempt, en masse.

Would be interesting too if we could check "Arming the Suckers" to see when Illinois troops first started receiving .58 U. S. Rifle-Muskets.

If the Indiana Regiments that were captured had been armed in this fashion, that is, with arms from a lobby by the Governors of the "big three" western states, it might put a whole new twist on the reaction of Indiana authorities to the event. Conjecture of course, maybe fantasy, nonetheless I believe worthy of a look into.

The 45th OVI, which was an Ohio regiment captured at Richmond, was definitely armed, and lost, U. S. Rifle-Muskets from this lobbying by Todd.

Food for thought, and thinking out loud.

Sorry can't be of more help.

Regards,

John

John Sarver
Cincinnati
Cincinnati Turners

[hardeeflag]

Re: M1855 Rilfe-Musket "Minie Musket or Rifle"

One other question. Often times I have read that these were referred to as "Minie Musket," "Minie Rifle," or "Minie Gun" and sometimes with cal. .58 with it. When reading this reference in period writings are they referring to the M1855 rilfe-musket? Or has this reference been used in refering to the 1861 Springfield. I usually have seen this in early war writings.

[NC5thCav]

Re: M1855 Rilfe-Musket in Western Federal Hands

I would venture to say that any rifle musket could fit this term at this time. The term comes from the design of the bullet, which had a loose fit and hollow base that expanded into the rifling when fired. It was commonly used to describe any rifle that used that system. The Springfeild and Enfields all used this method. It is named after the French officer who invented the system, a feller named, you guessed it, Minie (pronounced mina, with a long a).

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: M1855 Rilfe-Musket in Western Federal Hands

Hallo Kamerad!

Claude-Étienne Minié

(I don't want to speak French, or for the French.. but I would say, closer to
"mean nie-ay."
;-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Agate]

Re: M1855 Rilfe-Musket in Western Federal Hands

Fellows,

What exactly did Burton do? He was a US Ordnance officer responsible for improvements and the "Burton bullet" or something of the nature, is that correct? Never quite have understood that.

Thanks,

John

John Sarver

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: M1855 Rilfe-Musket in Western Federal Hands

Hallo Kameraden!

In late 1853, the Ordnance Department asked Colonel Benjamin Huger to conduct experiments at Harper's Ferry Armory, with "Minie" and "a Tige" bullets.

In brief, James Burton was acting Master Armorer at Harper's Ferry during the 1853-1854 "bullet trials," and actually designed many of the bullets tried/used.

One of Burton's ideas during the trials, was to hollow out the base of the bullet.

I guess, in some ways, we should be talking about "Burton balls"... ;-) )

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Agate]

Re: M1855 Rilfe-Musket in Western Federal Hands

Thanks Curt,

John

John Sarver

Oh and BTW, thanks for the info on the Mississippi rifles. Am finding myself up all night trying to decide on which variant is the most must have.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: M1855 Rilfe-Musket in Western Federal Hands

Hallo Kameraden!

This can be a complicated and nvolved area... with uncredited claim and misapplied credit ;-)

"Technically," in England, the "Enfield" fired either a Pritchett or Wilkinson projectile. ;-)

I would go back to Delvigne in 1828 with his "system" of a round ball being "pounded" down on shoulders at the breech, followed by fellow Frenchman Pontchara adding a patched wooden sabot to the ball to prevent it from being pounded into the chamber, folowed by Austrian Augustin eliminating Pontchara's patch/sabot for a bevelled edge, followed by Frenchman again Thouvenin who added an iron stem of "tige" in the center of the breech, followed by the Englishman Greener in 1841 with his expanding bullet, followed by Minie who noted Greener's and Delvigne's continued work in adding a groove and patched thread to Delvigne's cylindro-conical bullets (the first concept of "grooves") and worked with Delvigne's bullets in Thouvenin's system but lengthen the ball and eliminated the thread, followed by Tamister who added more grooves called "cannelures."

IMHO, proper "credit" for the "Minie" should go to Delvigne who wrote about in 1849. but he did not explore its full potential, while others did, such as Minie who added an iron cup to force the skirts into the rifling, or Englishman Pritchett who added a wooden cup, and Wilkinson who eliminated the cup but went to just solid base with deep cannelures.

In 1854 additional tests were ordered done at Harper's Ferry by Lieutenant J. G. Benton uisng Pritchett and Burton (a "Minie" but with a "teat" in its cavity) types.
Further tests were ordered in 1855 to be done by Benton at Springfield.
What Benton basically did, is to take Burton's "Harper's Ferry ball" but omit the "teat."

And on June 26, 1855, Ordnance head Colonel Craig recommended to Secretary of War Jefferson Davis new guns, calibre, and bullets- which Davis approved on July 5, 1855. (using the new .58 "Burton-Benton" ball.)
;-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Darrell Cochran]

Re: M1855 Rilfe-Musket in Western Federal Hands

on June 26, 1855, Ordnance head Colonel Craig recommended to Secretary of War Jefferson Davis new guns, calibre, and bullets- which Davis approved on July 5, 1855. (using the new .58 "Burton-Benton" ball.) ;-) Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

So, who do we have to thank for that misbegotten primer system on the 1855 US Rifle and Rifle Musket :cry_smile ?

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: M1855 Rilfe-Musket in Western Federal Hands

Hallo Kameraden!

Dentist Edward Maynard with his patent in September of 1845.. but I do not know who in the Ordnance Department was the advocate... But I would go with Huger then Craig, with Secretary Davis' stamp of approval. ;-)

Colt himself may have contributed to the "answer" here, when he wrote to Elisha Root in 1855 to push models with the Maynard tape primer to "please the fancies of the present Secretary of War.' :-)

Although "things Maynard" go back a bit earlier.

In March of 1845, the Ordnance Department contracted with Maynard to apply his tape primed lock to 4,000 (M1840) muskets, for $4,000- along with the right to put Maynard locks on 10,000 additional guns for $7,500, or 20,000 additional guns for $10,000, or 100,000 guns for $25,000.

When Davis took office, he jumped on the Maynard deal by sweetening it with $50,000 for the full rights to use the design. Remington then received a contract to alter 20,000 (M1822's) in September 1854.

In this, Sharps had already been using Maynard's system on his M1853 and M1855 models, as well as on Massachusetts Arms Company revolvers.

And, it is interesting to note, that Maynard did use his own system on the carbine of his own invenion, when the tide turned against it in 1859/1860, he "revised" a second model with percussion cap.

And for some reason, while the Government was going with the Maynard system, left and right, they did not adopt it for the U.S. M1855 Carbine.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt