specific box markings

[rebyank]

Alright, I'm being specific on this question.
1. what would the color of a fed. 69 cal round ball box in early 62 be.

2. what should the stenciling on the ends and underside of the lid be, if the box was to be made availible to Illinois troops, more specifically, 12th ILL Inf. Co. A

I have not been able to find this information in other posts on the subject, I've got all the measurements, just not what's listed above.

Thanks,

[RyanBWeddle]

Re: specific box markings

That's a tough one . . .

Federal .69 cartridge boxes in early 1862 would not have been 'round ball' boxes . . . The 1857 pattern for .69 Round Ball did not ever leave the arsenal basically. No wartime contracts ever were issued for the pattern. The 10K or so that were made were prewar items and never saw field service (not so with the 1857 pattern for .58 accoutrements)....so a .69 'round ball' box wouldn't be correct in any/many scenarios/impressions.

More likely than not the pattern you seek would be an 1839 pattern box, issued through the state, or an 1861 Pattern Elongated pattern .69 box.

In any case, the color as with all cartridge boxes would be BLACK.

With the 'stenciling' you are refering to, do you mean contractor/arsenal & inspector stamps? In that case you are seeking out some damn hard info...
Otherwise I have no idea what you are refering to . . .

You'd have to research the records of the regiment, QM and Ordnance returns for 1862, then find what depot/aresenal was supplying that regiment's area, then go to the records for that aresenal/depot and find what they are producing and who is turning in contract items to them . . . Then at best it is guesswork to say what contract would have ended up with a specific company & reg't.....

Lots of NY & Phila stuff went out west throughout the war . . .

You be better off not marking a cartridge box....tons of them went out with no markings at all...

Alright, I'm being specific on this question.
1. what would the color of a fed. 69 cal round ball box in early 62 be.

2. what should the stenciling on the ends and underside of the lid be, if the box was to be made availible to Illinois troops, more specifically, 12th ILL Inf. Co. A

I have not been able to find this information in other posts on the subject, I've got all the measurements, just not what's listed above.

Thanks,

Didn't see you were refering to wooden boxes and not cartridge boxes... It wasn't made clear.

[JimKindred]

Re: specific box markings

Ian,

I do not believe the cartridge packing containers would be marked at the arsenal for specific regiments, they were not into such personalized service as we expect today. :wink_smil

Try obtaining a copy of Dean S. Thomas’ “Round Ball To Rimfire” Thomas Publications. Your best bet would be through an interlibrary loan at your local library. Should not cost you a thing.

This book has a large number of photos of original shipping containers with the inside stencil markings. Text is quite extensive regarding the individual arsenals and it would much more informative to get the information from the book rather than a short posting on the Internet.

Printed material research is not dead just takes a little more effort but you get much better results from it.

[Bill]

Re: specific box markings

That's a tough one . . .

Federal .69 cartridge boxes in early 1862 would not have been 'round ball' boxes . . . The 1857 pattern for .69 Round Ball did not ever leave the arsenal basically. No wartime contracts ever were issued for the pattern. The 10K or so that were made were prewar items and never saw field service (not so with the 1857 pattern for .58 accoutrements)....so a .69 'round ball' box wouldn't be correct in any/many scenarios/impressions.
...

Ryan,

I may be wrong, but I think this question concerned the wood packing boxes that held 1000 rounds of ammunition.

According to the Ordnance Manual. The packing box for .69 cal. round ball ammunition should be painted blue. The inside measurments were: L = 15.5",
W = 11.75", H = 6.75". A full box weighed 107 lbs. "Each box should be marked on each end with the number and kind of cartridges, and on the inside of the cover, with the place and date of fabrication".

There were varations. I viewed a .69 packing box that was painted olive green. The end markings were as follows:

1000
Cartridges

Musket, Cal. .69
SPH 1861

The top was missing from this box, so I do not know where the ammo was made. The stencil was done in white paint on this box. My guess is that black paint would have been used on a blue box. But, that is only a guess.

I hope this helps,

[Clark Badgett]

Re: specific box markings

Ryan, I've noticed that in a couple of postings now you have stated that the 10K or so Pattern of 1857 R/B boxes that were made were never issued. Am I missing something here, or wasn't the Federal government in pretty dire straights in 1861 for military equipage, even to the point of issuing .69 boxes with muskets of other calibers, that they would just leave 10,000 very needed cartridge boxes in stores simply because they were not .58 or the elongated ball pattern? This doesn't make any sence. Where did you come across this info? It would be a neat subject to look into, if it's true.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: specific box markings

Clark

I have seen a letter in the ORs to the effect; (paraphrase) stop sending us the round ball cartrige boxes and send us Elongated ball boxes instead. This was done with the view that the larger elongated .69 box could hold .54 .58 .69 .69R etc.

I dont know what volume the quote was in, but I can try to dig it up. My ORs are not in any kind of order right now so it may take me a while to look it up.

Edit. (Sorry for posting something I could not back up on posting. Moderators feel free to delete this post.) I am still looking for chapter and verse.

[JimKindred]

Re: specific box markings

Date of the OR reference would help too.

Paul Johnson's cartridge box book mentions the round ball contracts. The Federal government dropped the contracts but those let by states were not dropped.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: specific box markings

Date of the OR reference would help too.

Paul Johnson's cartridge box book mentions the round ball contracts. The Federal government dropped the contracts but those let by states were not dropped.

And who wrote it and to who.

I have no idea at this point. I need to get that CD everybody else has.:sarcastic

[RyanBWeddle]

Re: specific box markings

Here are some quotes from a recent conversation with Frederick Gaede, author of a forthing volume on U.S. Army accoutrements:
(my questions in red, answers in blue)

What is the most common early-war Federal .69 cal cartridge box?

"The .69 elongated (‘Minie’) ball cartridge box was .... contracted for and used early in the War, not the round ball box. You could put round ball cartridges in an elongated ball box, but not vice versa. Well, at least not very easily, or as many. "

So the 1857 pattern .69 roundball box wasn't made during the war?

"I know of no WARTIME contracts for the P1857 .69 Round Ball cart box, Ryan. My example (in Paul’s book on pp. 98-99) was made by Henry A. Dingee before the War and has the characteristic NY loop positioning on the back. And no rivets. Now, as Paul states, 5,845 of this pattern were made at Allegheny Arsenal between April and June 1861, and had the Allegheny positioning of the belt loops. And they had rivets. But none were contracted for by Ord Dept personnel once the War began, that we know of. If they had been I think they too would have had loops, the Allegheny positioning and rivets. And they would have been maker-marked."

How many of this pattern were made and in stores prior to Ft. Sumter?
"my guess it couldn’t have been more than 10K or so, judging from the fact that most of the contracts were low in quantity and split among the contractors. I think the vast majority were sent to just the Regular Army as they always got the latest patterns and the volunteer companies ‘sucked hind tit’ and got the older patterns. Probably half of these boxes were made after the War started, at Allegheny, and may have been held back for issue with second class arms. Perhaps never issued during the War."

So then their likely wartime destination? Regulars? Volunteers? States? Any documentable CS usage?
"Since this pattern was in use for such a short time I doubt if very many ever got to volunteer companies. The ones made at Allegheny could have gone anywhere, but I think very few (if any) saw their way South. Judging from the early-War Confed boxes I know about I think the standard P1839 box was the more common one in arsenals in the South, or in southern volunteer company hands at the beginning of the War. . "


Now this is all I am comortable posting here w/o Gaede being included in the discussion, if we all wait be patient and when his new book comes out it will 'learn' us all quite a bit...

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: specific box markings

Hallo Kameraden!

1. Generally, the packing boxes followed the ORDNANCE MANUAL, page 269:

"Each box should be marked, on each end, with the number and kind of cartridges, and on the inside of the cover with the place and date of manufacture."

This was generally done with a brush stencil using white for the ends and black for the naked pine of the cover's underside.
However, surviving cartridge packing boxes show that they were sometimes unpainted with black paint stencilling; that they some times had the arsenal info on the ends and the round info on the side; sometimes the arsenal info on the sides and the round info on the top of the cover/lid. Sometimes varying even from the same arsenal.

Federal arsenals, like their depots, often shipped their items to others for issuing, and the "closest" one to a body of troops making requisition may not always have been the one they drew from (that time).

2. I would like to see the documentation that supports "The 1857 pattern for .69 Round Ball did not ever leave the arsenal basically. No wartime contracts ever were issued for the pattern."

According to Ordnance records, the only new cartridge box patern introduced during the first eight months of the War WAS the Pattern of March 3, 1857 .69 round ball cartridge box.

The first available weaponry for the 500,000 new volunteers were the M1822 conversions, and some M1842's, "requiring" the .69 round ball boxes.

Ordnance Chief Henry Craig sent out letters on April 16 and 17, 1861 to arsenal commanders setting the tone for the next eight months:

"Sir:
Of the accoutrements ordered, those for the round ball will be first required. Let me again impress upon you the necessity for the utmost dispatch. The shoulder belt may be omitted, but the cartridge box made for waist and shoulder belt."

Initially, the Ordnance Department was trying to match up weapons with cartridge boxes, but within the first six weeks of the War there were shortages of some types, so they largely focused on the .69 round ball and .69 elongated ball boxes- but as long as the bundles and cartridges of a particular weapon fit the box it was authorized (such as a .69 box with a .58 weapon).

This also includes contracts for the .69 boxes, between April and December, 1861.

One of the first changes for the 1862 infantry accoutrements was that production of the .69 round ball cartridge box was dropped in January or early February, 1862. And for those troops still using .69 smoothbores, Ripley ordered: "Issue elongated ball accoutrements instead of round ball, whenever the latter is called for."

There some surviving Pattern of March 1857 .69 round ball cartridge boxes that have riveted belt loops as called for with the Pattern of 1861. These are believed to be special "state" orders, and not federal issuance as such.

In reviewing arsenal production and listed deliveries of accoutrements from contractors in 1861, tens and tens of thousands of .69 round ball boxes (as well as elongated ball) are shown.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[RyanBWeddle]

Re: specific box markings

Hallo Kameraden!

2. I would like to see the documentation that supports "The 1857 pattern for .69 Round Ball did not ever leave the arsenal basically. No wartime contracts ever were issued for the pattern."

We will when Gaede's book comes out : ).

I'd love to post more of the info I know and have here, although it is "publication sensitive", and I don't want to put anything 'out there' that FG doesn't want prior to publication of his new book....

Basically, as it applys to use, the 1857 pattern round ball box isn't a very good box for a generic impression . . . rather a more honed one for a specific scenario.

[RyanBWeddle]

Re: specific box markings

2. I would like to see the documentation that supports "The 1857 pattern for .69 Round Ball did not ever leave the arsenal basically. No wartime contracts ever were issued for the pattern."

We will when Gaede's book comes out : ).

I'd love to post more of the info I know and have here, although it is "publication sensitive", and I don't want to put anything 'out there' that FG doesn't want prior to publication of his new book....

Basically, as it applys to use, the 1857 pattern round ball box isn't a very good box for a generic impression . . . rather a more honed one for a specific scenario.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: specific box markings

Hallo Kameraden!

Deliveries from contractors:

January 14, 1861 3,000 r.b. boxes from: Dingee

April 15, 1861 10,000 r. b. boxes from: Barchfeld, Clendining, Gilmore, Harmer, R.H. Hartley, Hoblitzell, Holstein, Longliney, William Miller, Henry W. Oliver, Henry Seitz

April 15, 1861 5,000 r.b. boxes from Boyd, Dingee, Gaylord, Pittman

April 20, 1861 5,000 r.b. boxes from: Hansell

May 6, 1861 10,000 r.b. boxes from: Hansell Moyer, Magee, J.T. Smith, Nece

June 18, 1861 5,000 r.b. boxes form unknown contractor

July 5, 1861 20,000 r.b. boxes from: Barchfeld, Clendining, Gilmore, Harmer, R.H. Hartley, Hoblitzell, Holstein, Longliney, William Miller, Henry W. Oliver, Henry Seitz

I have left out deliveries of 117,300 .69 boxes because it was not specified whether they were r.b. or e.b. or both. I have also left out all contractor orders as the numbers ordered do not always match the numbers authorized to be purchased (documentation for the diferences may have been lost over time).

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: specific box markings

Hallo Kameraden!

As with any new research, it may advance the hinge point of our collective CW knoweldge.
And I greedily await Fred G.'s... (in advance, I am not sure how he reconciles Ordnance Department correspondence, circulars, contracts, and deliveries, etc., etc. but I reserve opinion until I see the book...)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt