M1855 tape primer cone

[ndnchf]

Been a little slow here lately, so I'll ask a question that has been rolling around my head for a while. Over the years I've seen statements in various books and texts about how the Maynard priming tape was unreliable and that the army eventually went back to using a standard musket cap on these arms. These statements have sometimes included a comment about changing the cone for use with the standard musket cap.

My question is this: was there a difference between the cone designed for use with the Maynard priming tape and the standard musket cap cone? If so, what was the difference? If this was the case, I imagine most were discarded so they would be pretty rare today. A good photo of an original Maynard type cone would be revealing.

[Blair]

Re: M1855 tape primer cone

Steve,

Yes, the nipple designed for the Maynard tape was not cone shaped. It was straight sided from the striking face (anvil) to the square wrench shoulder.
The standard percussion caps would fit on the Maynard nipple, but could also fall off between capping and firing positions.
The overall dimensions, and threads were the same for the M-1841 & '42's (5/16 X 24) so, the fix was pretty simple.

[David Fox]

Re: M1855 tape primer cone

In 1861 the government went back to use of the cone adopted for the M1842 musket and used that until war's end, I believe.

[gsusat]

Re: M1855 tape primer cone

I have some photos that might help.

This series starts with the Nippes Conversion which was the first Tape primer conversion used by the military. They were sent to Texas and New Mexico for trial usage. Notice the hammer has no recess and the nipple is a straight taper

Next is a Remington Conversion Again the striking part of the hammer is flat with no recess. The nipple however has a second taper at the top.

I have pictured three 1855's - One Rifle (Harper's Ferry) and two Rifle muskets - one Harper's Ferry and the other is Springfield. They all have the nipple with the second taper at the top. Also pictured is a 1858 dated copy of the rules for the 1855 showing the nipple with the second taper.
Note that the hammer has a recessed striking surface.

Last I have pictured a 1861 - this one is a contract dated 1863 and shows the second taper on the top of the nipple. It looks a little more pronounced.

IMHO the recessed striking surface on the hammer shows intent to be used with caps and tapes. What part of a tape is going to fly off and hurt you.

Original nipples - are slightly thicker in diameter and hold the cap pretty well. In the 70's I shot an original 1855 a lot and never had a problem with caps falling off.

Well the pictures are out of order - the last should be first and so on.

[ndnchf]

Re: M1855 tape primer cone

Thanks for the input guys. I can't imagine there are many original Maynard type cones remaining. After a tapered cone was installed to facilitate use of a standard musket cap, could the tape primer still be used? Or would there not be enough anvil surface to reliably detonate the tape primer? Great collection you have George, thanks for sharing.

[gsusat]

Re: M1855 tape primer cone

Steve

I am not sure that the government went back and upgraded the 1855's. I do not see them going back and changing the cones. In the trapdoor era and later, weapons were sent back and upgraded. But that was a different time and situation. From looking at the cones it seems that by the time the 1855's were designed, they were intended to be able to use both the cap and the tape. The drawing in the 1855 manual shows a tapered cone which suggest to me that it was there from the beginning. I think it may have also helped strengthen the cone to stiffen the tip so it would not get battered down so quickly. It was interesting to me that only the Nippes cone was straight. I will keep my eyes open as I look at more originals.

It seems a reread of the reports on the western forts would be in order- to see if they were issued caps and tapes. That might have not been mentioned but should show up at least in the inventories.

Thanks, I have taken a display to a number of shows on the transition of infantry arms from flint to percussion- focusing on the tape primers. I had it at Nashville last year but will take a different display to Nashville this year. I appreciate the comments.

[David Fox]

Re: M1855 tape primer cone

One would guess (fatal words in the forum, to be sure!) that such Maynard lock-specific cones as were replaced on Maynard lock weapons were replaced in the field as might be necessary on a weapon-to-weapon basis. This thread also begs the question: what were Richmond rifle-muskets and Fayetteville rifles initially equipped with, and, if "Maynard" cones, was there a transition during production? Did the South capture cone-making tooling from Harper's Ferry and, if so, was it the Maynard type?

[Blair]

Re: M1855 tape primer cone

David,

To answer your question as simply as passable, Yes, cone making tools were captured from Harpers Ferry. Including those from earlier productions that had not been altered for the newer production arms.
I have seen no evidence that either Richmond or Fayetteville had any interest in continuing or maintaining any aspect of the Maynard priming system. (beyond using what avilable parts were on hand)
Both Richmond an Fayetteville will incorperate a small cut out or knotch in their medium or low hump lock plates (which ever you prefer to call it) that allow for percussion cap expantion upon ingnition. Not incorperated on the Maynard locks nor on the High hump plates of Southern design.

Another note,
The late model 1855's, type II "Rifles" and type III "Rifle Muskets", both with patch boxes, will have a "spare" cone within the patch box. Which allows for field changes of the nipple.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: M1855 tape primer cone

Hallo!

It is said that Harper's Ferry and Springfield had slacked off on late Model 1855 production awaiting the final decisions, arrival, and installation of the new M1861 machniery or tweaking of the old (where possible
M1855 machinery.

So, Virginia, and then Richmond got the Harpers Ferry M1855 barrel and cone making machinery.

An interesting question though.

IMHO, it would take a survey or originals to weigh whether the M1861, or "Richmond" and "Fayetteville" cones measured or profiled that much differently. I never gave it a thought myself as I thought (correctly or not) the M1855 cone is, was, the same on the M1855, M1861, or M1863/1864. And that the change was in the beefing up of the M1855 hammer's nose, nose recess, and deletion of the primer tape cutter slot.
But, I am thinking, or leaning, to a second thought or look at the Richmond lockplate having to be recessed/cut.dished back to accomodate caps not sticking... (was that a problem on the M1855's when switched over to caps??)

I did a quick-and-dirty visual look at photos of cones on M1855, M1861, and M1863/1864's and did not, could not (visually) see differences in the angle of the sides or the width of the "anvil." (And all of my originals went to finance my daughter's college education.)

Curt

[David Fox]

Re: M1855 tape primer cone

Them daughters. The October '61, pre-March '62 Richmonds and earliest '62 Fayettevilles have the same profile as the Maynard lock, of course. And yes, prizing a spent cap off the nipple (we're chastely calling them 'cones' here) of the weapons w/ this lock profile can be a chore. At the Louisville show last month was a '62 Richmond which had been back to the armoury for repair. The high hump had been rather crudely ground-down to address this.

[gsusat]

Re: M1855 tape primer cone

So where does the idea that 1855 cone was straight sided come from? Is there a period source for it?

It is not shown that way in the period drawing in the picture from the 1855 booklet. The booklet is dated 1858 and the drawings were included in the Sec of War report for 1856, so that seems to be before they abandoned the tape primer.