Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Regimental Armorer Tools

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Regimental Armorer Tools

    Mr Schaffner, that or one very much like it is what I recall. I have read a reference to the "Armory Sgt" at Allatoona packing all his tools into a .54 ammo crate and stowing it in the wagon with the ammunition in preperation for the march to Atlanta. I don't think all of those tools would fit into a .54 ammo crate, but by the fall of 1864 a man would likely have been able to pare it down to the absolute essentials. And an infantry unit would likely not need everything listed. The idea of using the ammo crate as a tool box makes good sense. It wouldn't be outsized on the ammo wagon and the .54 box will stand out from the .58 which the regt was carrying by that time.

    I continue to acquire period tools that would be appropriate but am trying to keep it down to what might easily be carried in an ammo wagon or wound into some scrap fabric and stashed in a knapsack w/ the balance left in the chest. With the knowledge that less is more in a presentation.

    My current "stage" is a half dozen various ammo crates, ledger & forms, the folding table I mentioned earlier and my crude stool w/ a dog tent kit and myself. A minimum of 3 differnt arms, sometimes in various stages of disassembly on a gum blanket. It's worked well enough so far in dealing w/ the public and explaining that there was a massive machine supporting the men in the line. People note the disassembled arms and it leads to questions. As I cannot walk very far and still have a serious weight bearing restriction this impression works well for me and allows me to stay in the field as something other than a recovering soldier in hospital. If I can both teach and learn through practical experimentation all the better.

    Any suggestions to improve are useful to me, I appreciate it and owe all a thanks who have offered assistance.
    Johan Steele aka Shane Christen C Co, 3rd MN VI
    SUVCW Camp 48
    American Legion Post 352
    [url]http://civilwartalk.com[/url]

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Regimental Armorer Tools

      Originally posted by OldKingCrow
      When someone is lead to ask a question based on a living history display and impression that is not even remotely supported outside of regulation and general orders how does one answer it ?

      Practical experimentation ?
      Exerpted from Instructions for Making Quarterly Returns of Ordnance and Ordnance Stores 1 May 1864. Para 65. Regimental Armorers.-Commanding oficers of all regiments armed with any muskets, rifles or carbines, other than the Springfield rifled musket, 1855-'61-'63, are authorized to detail from their regiments a competent and skillful mechanic to act as an armorer to repair the arms of the regiment. Requisitions for a set of armorers' tools, and such spare parts as are required, stating particularly the kind and calibre of the arm, will be made by commanders of regiments entitled to armorers under this order; which requisitions, after being duly approved at the department or army headquarters, will be forwarded to the Chief of Ordnance, at Washington, for final action. Genl Orders, No 189, A.G.O., Washington, November 18,1862

      Regulations are & were there for a reason, they address a particular subject for a particular reason. Noting references in multiple different generations of manuals is part of the research process.

      Practical experimentation = could they have managed this repair in the field with just these tools?

      Chris, It's evident you are capable of seeing only what you want to see and apparently haven't read the thread to which you are commenting on fully. I believe three people on this thread have mentioned reading letters referencing the existance and service of Regimental Armorer's to include links you could have followed to see in the original context. I've read several as well and am attempting to learn more so that I might better a portrayal and improve my impression.


      Please refrain from commenting further on this thread unless you have something constructive to contribute. I'm here to learn and this part of the forum is referred to as the Camp of Instruction for a reason. " For beginners to Authentic Campaigning, Living History, or Authenticity to ask and find answers to more "basic" questions."
      Johan Steele aka Shane Christen C Co, 3rd MN VI
      SUVCW Camp 48
      American Legion Post 352
      [url]http://civilwartalk.com[/url]

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Regimental Armorer Tools

        I think this thread raises a couple of interesting questions. First, what was in the "armorer's kit" provided by the Ordnance Department, and second, how would someone portray an armorer in the field.

        The first question interests me a little more than the second, but I'm glad it came up. I'd seen references to regimental armorers before, but I always thought -- for no good reason -- that they wouldn't have that many tools and materials on hand. But between the lists of tools in the manual, the quote in the history of the Pennsylvania regiment, and the list of spare parts authorized, it seems that the "regimental armorer" was not just a skilled, and highly paid, mechanic, but responsible for something like a traveling machine shop.

        As for the second question, it seems the armorer impression faces a similar challenge to that of medical impressionists -- there's a lot of stuff you could conceivably get, and it's going to cost. Worse, while I've seen some surgeon's kits with provenance, I doubt there's the same thing out there for armorers' kits. Obviously some judgment will be involved and I'm not going to second guess anyone who can base their calls on their research. It certainly sounds to me like you're on the right track.

        But what do I know? I'm lucky with something like clerking. It's a lot easier to come up with forms than tools. Even so, after all this time, I'm not entirely sure what an issue penholder looked like . . . :)
        Michael A. Schaffner

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Regimental Armorer Tools

          Gents, I might suggest first taking a look at " The Manual for Care and Maintanance of the Rifle Musket." Can't give you the authors name off the top of my head. Placed in print for the the 1855 Springfield rifled musket, it clearly describes what is permitted and who can perform in the field the diassembly of the musket. It also gives and good detailed description of all appendages that are a part of the rifle musket. This manual later was later printed to conform to the 1861 Springfireld rifle musket. Very little change from the two manuals.

          George Taggart
          Lee #30 F.& A.M.
          George Taggart

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Regimental Armorer Tools

            Chris, Please refrain from commenting further on this thread unless you have something constructive to contribute. I'm here to learn and this part of the forum is referred to as the Camp of Instruction for a reason. "For beginners to Authentic Campaigning, Living History, or Authenticity to ask and find answers to more "basic" questions."
            Johan Steele aka Shane Christen C Co, 3rd MN VI
            SUVCW Camp 48
            American Legion Post 352
            [url]http://civilwartalk.com[/url]

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Regimental Armorer Tools

              Chris, it is apparent you have failed to read the links provided by Mr Watts. I'm not replying to your questions because it is you asking them and I am all too familiar w/ your vitriol and why you've been banned from other boards. There are other sources available than those of the internet and I created this thread in an effort to learn more. I didn't begin the thread to deal w/ you. Judging from my experiance with you in the past your demand for period sources stretches hypocricy to new levels. I'll stick to receiving my schooling from legitimate historians & researchers who have actually done the research instead of those who typed Regimental Armorer into google and claimed that's all that exists.
              Johan Steele aka Shane Christen C Co, 3rd MN VI
              SUVCW Camp 48
              American Legion Post 352
              [url]http://civilwartalk.com[/url]

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Regimental Armorer Tools

                That early war impression of a hastily formed unit describes the exact reason that a gunsmith in any unit would have been a quick addition or at least accepted part of the ranks. There were some real junkers thrown into the hands of men and odds are great that these needed repair or alterations in the field. Springs, lost screws, broken hammers, splintered stocks, broken rammers and dented barrels woudl have been incredibly common for regiments on a campaign. Today, when we get 1000 muskets out for a weekend, there are going to be a dozen or so at least with broken springs, bent rammers, etc. While on the "mud march" with 20,000 men, or crossing the mts on the Tullahoma Campaign - oh yeah, there were a lot of damaged guns. There would be no way to return damaged guns to armories and replaced quickly on campaign. These gun-returns did happen, such as the MS (20th?) reg't at Stones River that had sent all their guns to an armory for repair just before the battle leaving them mostly disarmed as they attacked equipped with "cedar staves" (pieces of fences probably) to meet with disaster. But, a more likely general service repair would have been much as we do today, in camp. A large tool box like described above would have been on a wagon and the assigned armorer likely travelled near it and stayed close to it rather than haul it into camps. Then there would have been the companies' own gunsmiths or probably the "go-to" gun guy much as we have today that was just better at minor field repairs than the average private that would have had a few small tools in a haversack pouch to handle these repairs. These were working tools, and while there may have been an assigned "kit" I can attest with 100% certainty that none of the gunsmiths would have kept only the items in the kit without adding to the kit on his own based on what he needed. As soon as they left the service, they put those tools to work at home in shops or on farms, losing them to damage or later sellings or discradings after death. Surgeon tools on the other hand were very expenssive speacialty items usually in nice wooden boxes that had obvious value. Those kits survived in-tact much better than rusted old turnscrews, wooden mallets, hand-forged hammers, punches and chisels that a gunsmith may have carried. Just like cooks or teamsters, the mundane positions are known to have existed but there seems to be very little detail recorded about the position. I think the impression is easy enough to do since we know that these guys existed. You can't really get it "wrong" as long as you are using period-looking tools and are working on a period-correct gun. Just refrain from making up historical details without at least saying "propbably" somewhere along the way. We know it happened and we know that craftsmen just like today learn as they go and uses tools that work while discrading those that don't, so go with that and run with it.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Regimental Armorer Tools

                  BTW, the John Spence diary from Murfreesboro, TN mentioned that the town's local gunsmith was turning out guns as fast as he could to equip the CS volunteers of the area. Jerry Smith at The Blockade Runner thinks he found one of thes guns recently. It is really cool! It was in a private local collection and has been a long time. It fits the description of a gunsmith-built military musket perfectly and being in the area odds are at least fair that it is from the M'boro smith. It appears to be an 1816 barrel, cut off at the breech about 1" with a drum-in-barrel percussion conversion. The barrel bands are from something, possibly another 1816 through which he drilled a hole on the side of each and put a nail in to hold the band in place. The front band May be off some European arm or home-made and is only held on by a very tight fit. The trigger guard is off a 1795 I think and turned around backwards. There is no doubt it was made for military use because he filed a flat on the side of the barrel near the home-made front sight and had soldered on a bayone lug which is now gone. The flat is there as well as a little lead solder. The stock is probably walnut and is a wierd contour almost looking like a thin matchlock design, and there is no buttplate. The butt is literally carved into the contour of a buttplate! The whole thing only weighs about 6 lbs I think and with the slick thin butt, I bet it was hateful to shoot. I see things like that and marvel that these guys gleefully marched off to war with them and understand why they replaced guns ASAP once in action. If you ever happen by BRi by all means ask to see the Murfreesboro gunsmith gun on Jerry's rack behind the register. Careful though, I think it is loaded.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Regimental Armorer Tools

                    Sorry, don't know you Chris. I do what I do as does everyone else here. I do what works and figure things out as best as I can which is not easy on something like the armorer position. Just enjoying things as best as possible is all.

                    One other thing to add to an accurate armorer's kit would need to be flax. Flax was the common "cleaning brush" back then used by all sorts of craftsmen, including gunsmiths. The cleaning rods were normally just hickory rods split on the end. Some flax was pinched into the split. It is rough in the packing form and was a very common item then, used for packing just about everything. Finding the stuff today is extremely difficult. There is some similar stuff for sale at hobby shops. It is tan and sort of looks like straw or spanish moss. Pictures of the stuff I have seen from the 1800s show it was sometimes kept in little bundles about fist-sized and wrapped with string to hold it together. Place a couple of these into the "kit" and it adds another bit of authenticity. You can get a hickory rammer from Dixie Gun works and then cut an 1" long split on 1 end to demonstrate the technique. I have done this before playing around and don't recomend it much simply because the stuff doesn't clean all that great compared to modern brushes and pulls off in the barrel some. This won't cause loading or firing problems, but in our hobby having anything that might come back out of a barrel at an in-opportune moment is a no-no.

                    Lard was a common lubricant and also can be easily put into a kit. It can go into a little wooden bowl, or kept in a jar and can be used to grease a part or prevent rust. Again, I'd rather not use it exept to demonstrate. The odor of bacon will fill the air as the barrel heats up.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Regimental Armorer Tools

                      Hallo!

                      Moderator hat on...

                      This thread has drifted back and forth between the historical of what we know, what we do not know, what we do in reenacting/living history, and Mental Picture and personal differences.

                      As a result, it tips the scales away from what we should be seeing on the AC Forum, and as a result is closed.

                      Curt
                      Former modern reenacted company armorer Mess
                      Curt Schmidt
                      In gleichem Schritt und Tritt, Curt Schmidt

                      -Hard and sharp as flint...secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster.
                      -Haplogroup R1b M343 (Subclade R1b1a2 M269)
                      -Pointless Folksy Wisdom Mess, Oblio Lodge #1
                      -Vastly Ignorant
                      -Often incorrect, technically, historically, factually.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X