musket Q

[Bill Cross]

Re: musket Q

So your thinkin smoothbore for CS and rifled for US?

Uh, no. Sorry.

Various estimates put the number of 1842 smoothbores produced at around 275,000, mostly at Springfield, MA and Harpers Ferry, VA. A small number apparently were made privately, but not in large enough numbers to count.

Between 1856 and 1859, less than 15,000 were rifled, with about 10,000 of them fitted with rear sights.

I don't think a rifled 1842 is at all a good choice for a Federal impression unless portraying a unit issued that weapon. It's just not common. And considering that according to the Gettysburg web site (http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/soldierlife/webguns.htm), 1.5 million Springfield 1861s and its variants were produced, a rifled 1842 is in the same category as the LeMat pistol: a lovely curiosity.

If I may politely say so, this discussion is becoming a lot of hot air with little or no effort made to apply much historical rigor. As such, it's not worthy of this site, which has always put research above "gut feelings." We'd all like to be able to have a one-gun solution to the cost of a good impression, but this kind of wool-gathering is not going to help.

I'm far from an expert on this question, but a little surfing the web will turn up the numbers that back up these various long arms as appropriate or inappropriate.

[32ndalainf]

Re: musket Q

Sir I am not trying to find the easiest route here I am trying to have an accurate impression , now my 42 like I said is rifled w/ the rear site so if you are saying that a 61' is the better rifle then hey I am game and the reason I started this thread was not to polute this site I want the input from the members that have more knowledge in this matter than I ....

[Bill Cross]

Re: musket Q

Sir I am not trying to find the easiest route here I am trying to have an accurate impression.

Jason, I gathered that much and I think everyone here appreciates your desire to "get it right."

My 42 like I said is rifled w/ the rear site so if you are saying that a 61' is the better rifle then hey I am game.

There simply isn't a simple solution. I pointed out early on the Enfield and the '61 Springfield are the most-commonly requested long arms at the CPH events I've attended or helped organize in the past 6-7 years. There is no right gun, though your rifled '42 is clearly a curiosity more than PEC (plain, everyday, common). The suggestion to add a second barrel is a good one, since the 1842 smoothbore is more-common.

The reason I started this thread was not to polute this site I want the input from the members that have more knowledge in this matter than I ....

It is not you that is wagging his tongue while offering mostly personal opinions, and I regret giving you offense. I was hoping some of our senior members with knowledge in these matters would chime in. This site has imparted a lot of outstanding information over the years, and always demanded that we do our homework and offer facts, not feelings.

Is Curt Heinrich Schmidt lurking out there?:sarcastic

[32ndalainf]

Re: musket Q

Thankyou Bill , I ain't mad at ya'

[Prodical Reb]

Re: musket Q

Jason,
no I wasn't thinking smoothie for CS and rifled for US. I was just trying to simply give you a solution for getting a smoothbore rifle without buying another musket. Having the 2-in-1 combo was much better than having the rifled only. The others are correct in that the numbers of rifled '42s are limited at best (nearly 15,000) and not a good option for an all around one gun. Smoothbore '42s and the Enfield were the most common (PEC) for a early and late impressions respectively.

If I had to pick just one though musket either rifled or smoothbore it would be an Enfield for many reasons.(due to it lower price, availability, used by both sides. Its like "Visa"! It is accepted everywhere you go!) It may not be right for specific units at specific times but it is PEC for virtually all time frames except for the very earliest of fights. You won't be turned away for having it there. To many folks would be turned away.

In fact with the right attitude I'd venture to guess you could carry a '63 Springfield to an early event, they wouldn't like it but they would probably let you play if that is all you had. If they didn't you probably wouldn't want to be around them anyway!

[Craig L Barry]

Re: musket Q

Find a copy of Coates & Thomas "Intro to Civil War Small Arms", look in the Appendix. It lists most units by what weapon they were issued. Not all the answers, but a good starting point for the curious. As Michael points out, an Enfield (which is grossly over-represented in the hobby) makes a utilitarian piece for both US and CS impressions, if one weapon only is to be used for all events. However, so does the 1842.

The problem here is, you have a weapon and a versatile one at that in the US 1842. You will find that a replacement barrel is not as inexpensive as you might think. I have picked up second hand Enfields on this forum for less than the cost of that replacement repro barrel. Taylors & Co lists a smoothbore barrel at $322.65 + tax/shipping. My point is this, if you want to "get it right" do the research into what your primary US and CS units were issued, and if there is a reproduction available for those models, use de-farbed versions of them. If you want to carry a musket that you can use at virtually all events from the "invitation only" to the 13th annual Buster Flywheel CW Reenactment and BBQ event, you are probably okay with what you have. The event guidelines are very broad as far as muskets, and even OP III did not require (only recommended) de-farbed weapons. In fact, I saw some that were not at all appropriate for the scenario, and others that were not de-farbed, but so what? The musket you use, and in fact how far you take any aspect of your impression is largely up to you. Most guys truly don't care what kind of musket the fellow next to him is using as long as it is safe and well maintained.

My advice for "one musket only" impressions is to go EARLY WAR rather than mid to late. There were more 1842s at Appomattox than there were US 1863 rifle-muskets at Antietam in 1862, for a ridiculous example that makes the intended point. As Curt has pointed out on similar threads, most of us do not have a golf bag full of muskets to select from, and they have to "make do" on some level. The US 1842 may be less common at some event scenarios but it would not be anachronistic (not of the time period) for any of them. I probably go more overboard here than most others do because that is the part of the hobby I enjoy most, but I understand those whose priorities are different than mine. To sum it up, before I would get another smoothbore barrel, I'd take the rear sight off that one (for nothing) if you wanted to affect the outward appearance of a smoothbore US 1842, and pick up a second mid-to-late war rifle-musket, either a US 1861 or Enfield as you prefer.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: musket Q

Hallo!

Herr Craig has it covered well.

In brief and to over-generalize...

Aside from the opening months of the War, the M1861 and the "Enfield" are the "catch all" weapons.
Except for when the research and documentation for the unit being portrayed, time, and place speak to something else.
A "rifled and sighted" M1842 would not necessarily be more "Yank" than a "smoothbore" M1842 necessarily would be "Reb."

IMHO, a smothbore M1842 is a versatile choice for a "second choice." Noting the caveat above, NUG (Normally, Usually, Generally) as the War went on the "older" model muskets and rifled-muskets were replaced by the newer generation of ".58's" (exceptions so noted), particulalry after 1863.
Even Irish Brigade, of whom it was said really loved their style of close-in fighting with buck-and-ball loads in M1842's, lost them when they reorganized.

And yes, looking at the prices of M1842 barrels, IMHO, putting that towards a used
M1861 or "Enfield" would be a better investment.

On another point...

"Virtually every musket known to mankind was used by both sides, either as issue or trophy."

I would not go quite that far.

"Otherwise, avoid the Zouave rifle and the 1863 Springfield for early scenarious..."

IMHO, the "Zouave rifle" is inapproriate for any "year" except Post War surplus.

Curt

[Craig L Barry]

Re: musket Q

Amen. The 1863 Remington contract rifle (Zouave is a modern nickname for it) spent the war years gathering dust in Watervliet Arsenal. The Zouave is an example of an anachronistic weapon for any US Civil War battle scenario. It would be appropriate only for re-enacting the centennial N-SSA shoot 'em up hootenanny of 1963.

At the time I was doing my "put together" US 1842 project, all I could find for it was a rifled barrel. I thought it came with a rear ladder sight, as the catalog suggested that it did, but none came with it. Aghast at the prices for the rear ladder sight (I was directed to Lodgewood Mfg), I just did not put one on it. Call me a farb, but I was never turned away from any event for having a rifled barrel that was not sighted and looked like a smoothbore. To the best of my knowledge nobody cared, and neither did I.

Wish I had that 1842 put together musket back again...

[Johan Steele]

Re: musket Q

"IMHO, the "Zouave rifle" is inapproriate for any "year" except Post War surplus.

Curt"

That isn't an IMHO, it's gospel truth. No Remington "Zouves" were issued out of the arsenal. Records are fairly clear on that no matter what some streamer sutler websites say.

I've been suprised to discover how widespread the use of the M1841 was by both sides in the western theatre. All but two of the Union Regiments I have represented in Living Histories over the last couple years had numbers of the M1841 at one time. And the opportunities for the M1841 are rich... pick a rear site and bayonet as there were a whole herd of variations to start a project. That most powder burner events don't allow anything but a 3 band (they probably wouldn't allow a Lorenz either) is a good thing for me as I prefer the actual history to playing war.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: musket Q

Hallo!

Springfield and Harpers Ferry altered 4,363 M1842's by rifling only- sans rear sights.
I have never seen stats for contract work, but would questimate it to be a smallish number if any- it just is weird to go to the bother of rifling and then not putting a rear sight on (rear sights being typically the M1855 long range (max 1,000 yards) and later short range 500 yards max versions).

Curt

[Bill Cross]

Re: musket Q

Springfield and Harpers Ferry altered 4,363 M1842's by rifling only- sans rear sights.... It just is weird to go to the bother of rifling and then not putting a rear sight on.

Curt

Could it be the rifling group and the sight-fitting group didn't talk much? My friends from the Real Army would likely say that, once a gobment contract is undertaken, it gets done whether it makes sense or not. :wink_smil

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: musket Q

Hallo!

"Could it be the rifling group and the sight-fitting group didn't talk much? My friends from the Real Army would likely say that, once a gobment contract is undertaken, it gets done whether it makes sense or not."

Possibly:

Workman: "Boss, we have run out of rear sights! What should we do!"
Contractor: "How much can we get them for?
Workman: "25 cents."
Contractor: "Forget it, they'll never notice. Or if they do, they'll give them to the old guys in the Veterans Reserve Corps who can't see anyways"

:)

Curt

[Bill Cross]

Re: musket Q

"They'll give them to the old guys in the Veterans Reserve Corps who can't see anyways"

Hey, Me and Rodman ressemble that statement! :wink_smil

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: musket Q

Hallo!

Buck-and-ball
Doth make shooters
Of us all.

;) :)

Curt

[32ndalainf]

Re: musket Q

Gents I appretiate all of your input and I think I will hang on to the 42' , but do you think it will help if I remove the rear site ...??? And Curt I like the little saying of yours..!!