The Rifle Sling Controversy - By Aaron Young

[paulcalloway]

This is an article that Aaron Young wrote and which appeared on Joe Strauser's website. Joe is member of the Tar Water Mess and gave the AC permission to post this in 2000.

The Rifle Sling Controversy
"To Sling or Not to Sling...(Should it Really Be a Question?)"
-By Aaron Young

There is definitely more thatn on area in Civil War reenacting that is questionable. One area that is hardly questioned , but almost always overlooked is that of the usage of the rifle sling. It seems that this little item may have not been as common as many of us believe. Many living historians have the idea that improving your impression is always expensive and very hard to do, but this is not the case here.
As according to the United States Ordnance Manual of 1861, the rifle sling should be made of russet (brown) leather. The dimensions called for the width to be1.25 inches and 46 inches in length. The sling should include one standing and one sliding loop, and a brass hook, which is fastened to the sling with two brass rivets of No. 15 wire. The manual stated to make 40 gun slings, one butt hide of bag leather should be used as material. The gun sling were to be sewn with white shoe thread, which was waxed with rousin-wax(1).
The majority of the slings were marked with either a maker's name or inspector's markings. When used the sling provided a means of carrying the weapon, but was hardly ever used for steadying the rifle in aiming and firing (2). Between the time of January 1, 1861 and June 30, 1866 the United States Army bought or made 265,866 rifle slings(3). Compare that with the number of rifles made or purchased at this time.
On March 31, 1863 the ordanance return of Co. B, 72 Regiment Pennsylvania Infantry Volunteers gave a report of their rifle and accouterment standings. The company had 20 Springfield rifle muskets, 17 Enfield rifled muskets, four Belgian rifles, and one Australian rifled musket, which make a total of 42 longarms in the company. The company also had a full set of accouterments for each soldier, but there was only 15 rifle slings issued in the whole company(3).
In the state of Indiana, on April 27, 1861 three cases marked Lafayette Depot were received by the Indiana Ordnance Department. One crate was shipped with 50 altered percussion muskets, 51 bayonets, 52 scabbards, and only 10 gun slings. In the three cases, out of a total of 151 rifles and muskets of different makes, only 26 longarms were equipped with gun slings (4). By looking through the Indiana Ordance records one can see that these numbers do not change much throughout the entire war (4). It seems that most of the rifles and muskets issued to Indiana troops (or any other state for that matter) did not come equipted with slings. By thunbing through the pages of such sources as Military Images Magazine, the Image of War series, and the Time-Life Book series, one will see that the majority of the men in these photos do not have slings, on their muskets.
All of these facts seem to suggest that the rifle sling is just another piece of equiptment seen far too often in the Living History community. It seems that the magority of the men who actually fought in the Civil War did not have such luxuries. One way to portray the soldiers of the Great Rebellion more accurately, the magority of reenactors as well should probably not have a sling on their musket or rifle either. To cheaply improve your impression, this is just one more step one should definitely consider.
Remember, we as reenactors/living historians are not portraying what every soldier did, during the Civil War. This would be impossible, since there is only a certain percentage of us. Therefore, to accurately portray what the majority did. Here is where the rifle sling debate comes into play. I am not saying that all soldiers of the Civil War did not have rifle slings, but I am saying the majority probably did not.

---

Sources:
1. Ordnance Manual of the United States Army. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Company. 1862.
2. Coates, Earl J. and Thomas, Dean S. An Introduction to Civil War Small Arms. Gettysburg: Thomas Publications. 1990
3. Katcher, Philip. Men at Arms Series: American Civil War Armies (2): Union Artillery, Calvary and Infantry.
London: Osprey Publishing Company. 1986.
4. Quartermaster General of Indiana Ordnance Department "Armorer's Book" April 20, 1861- August 12, 1862.

Note: Copying or reprinting of the above article is not permitted without the written permission of the author. Permission can be easily achieved by emailing Joe Strauser at: whylie1@yahoo.com.

[sharpshooter]

Re: The Rifle Sling Controversy by Aaron Young

Paul, I sent an e-mail to the address you listed above for copying permission. The address rejected. I want to respect what you requested.

[paulcalloway]

Re: The Rifle Sling Controversy by Aaron Young

Paul, I sent an e-mail to the address you listed above for copying permission. The address rejected. I want to respect what you requested.

Try the updated email.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: The Rifle Sling Controversy by Aaron Young

Paul:
You have hit on a pet peeve of mine. In addition to being way over represented in the ACW hobby, the reproduction slings found in the ranks are often incorrect for the model chosen and generally not properly installed. I have seen them installed upside down, backwards, twisted and inside out. One time all at once. P-53 Enfield slings are particularly bad. The extra long hook and loop variety stamped "S.Isaac Campbell" are a complete modern fabrication. I don't (personally) use a sling on any of my muskets. My research mirrors your conclusions. I wrote something on this in "The Watchdog" back in 2005, and it is also mentioned in The Civil War Musket, A Handbook For Historical Accuracy, published in 2006.

[DougCooper]

Re: The Rifle Sling Controversy by Aaron Young

Quote

Between the time of January 1, 1861 and June 30, 1866 the United States Army bought or made 265,866 rifle slings(3). Compare that with the number of rifles made or purchased at this time.
On March 31, 1863 the ordanance return of Co. B, 72 Regiment Pennsylvania Infantry Volunteers gave a report of their rifle and accouterment standings. The company had 20 Springfield rifle muskets, 17 Enfield rifled muskets, four Belgian rifles, and one Australian rifled musket, which make a total of 42 longarms in the company. The company also had a full set of accouterments for each soldier, but there was only 15 rifle slings issued in the whole company(3).

In the state of Indiana, on April 27, 1861 three cases marked Lafayette Depot were received by the Indiana Ordnance Department. One crate was shipped with 50 altered percussion muskets, 51 bayonets, 52 scabbards, and only 10 gun slings. In the three cases, out of a total of 151 rifles and muskets of different makes, only 26 longarms were equipped with gun slings (4). By looking through the Indiana Ordance records one can see that these numbers do not change much throughout the entire war (4). It seems that most of the rifles and muskets issued to Indiana troops (or any other state for that matter) did not come equipted with slings. By thunbing through the pages of such sources as Military Images Magazine, the Image of War series, and the Time-Life Book series, one will see that the majority of the men in these photos do not have slings, on their muskets.

Unquote


"Thumbing through" does not give one a feeling of confidence that careful research has been done here. Nor does using 2 companies of infantry returns to form a conclusion. Does "only 15 slings issued" mean that 15 replacement slings were issued or that only 15 of the 42 weapons (36%) in Co B 72nd Pennsylvania on March 31, 1863 had slings? Were long arms supposed to be issued with a sling, and if not, were they then supposed to be backfitted - i.e., one of the 265,866 were issued to make up for the deficiency? Or is the 265,866 the total of all slings issued with longarms and for replacement?

As I "thumbed through" a number of photos in the publications above, I spied many men with slings...but many more photos that are so small or indistinct that it is impossible to tell. It would be more useful to examine photos on-line that can be zoomed to get a better view. One thing that did jump out is that the majority of repeating weapons I could see did not have slings.

The conclusions here may be correct...but the methods are suspect. Before we all go toss our slings in the closet, a more scientific survey needs to be conducted...or at least more information provided on the survey conducted here. Be that as it may, the majority of folks in units I fall in with do not have slings on their weapons. Not sure if that is due to any particular research or personal preference. I suspect the former.

I agree with Craig on the incorrectly installed slings...in fact, it is the single most difficult skill required in the entire hobby ;)

[paulcalloway]

Re: The Rifle Sling Controversy by Aaron Young

"Thumbing through" does not give one a feeling of confidence that careful research has been done here.

The evidence presented may be, in fact, somewhat anecdotal - a more exhaustive study might be required. This leads me to another point - and one not directed at you Doug.

While the Columbia Rifles continue to write consistently, as evidenced by the impending publication of volume 2 of the CRRC, the rest of the hobby seems to have grown weary of writing and researching.

This article, and indeed most of the articles in this collection, are between 5 and 10 years old.

Internet forums are wonderful tools for staying in contact with one another but they should not replace actual writing and research. I hope the new articles links section encourages a new generation of writers to contribute something to the hobby besides conjecture.

As others have noted, one only need tiptoe through recent discussions such as "Are you ready for some football?" and "A Masonic Incident" to see that a great many subjects beg the attention of additional research. Including this very thread on Rifle Slings.

If your name doesn't already appear as an author on the research articles links page or in other printed publications, consider rectifying that. The Watchdog and the Civil War Historians need writers - and the AC could surely use more content. If you're not sure where to begin or what to write, you should also consider doing a unit research site like the 105th Ohio Website or Scott McKay's 10th Texas site.

I wouldn't even know where to begin looking for Aaron Young, the author of this article but here we are debating his research 10 years later. Aaron is an example of someone who left their mark on this hobby as opposed to a stain.