Two banders

[Lone_Rebel87]

Hello all,

I have a querstion for ya....what are the sentiments towards the two banders out there and being used at reenactments. I currently have a two bander enfield 1858 i think. I was just wonderin because a lot of the units sites that I have been to say that they only allow three banders. I know the safety risk of being in the second rank and at reenactments I make sure to let them know and put me up front. All thoughts on this are welcomed whole-heartedly.

(I couldn't find anything on it here so thought I would ask)

much obliged,
Jordan Davis

[MarkTK36thIL]

Re: Two banders

For me, it would depend on if I can trust the man in the rear rank with a 2-bander. It's still a problem for guys to shoot 3-banders without blowing out someone's hearing or breaking caps next to my ears- so there's no chance I will let so-and-so shoot a 2-bander if they can't figure out how to shoot a rifle that's 56" long.

For authenticity, yes, they were used during the war. No problem there, but it can at times depend on the scenario and if they fit in the guidelines of the event. You're unit may also have a problem with 2-banders, maybe not also, but that's a factor too. I would suggest that you start looking towards a 3-bander at some point in time. Best,
Mark

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Two banders

Hallo Kamerad!

As with any choice of a firearm (clothing or gear), ultimately the answer lies with what research and documentation shows as being used at the time and place by the unit one is portraying.

The Not So Simplistic answer is, there is a "reenactorism" in the form of a bias and prejudice against rifles.

Because modern day troops often lack training and well-drilled practice in the basic as well as finer points of the "Manual of Arms" and the various "Schools-" the level of "period competency" in those areas can vary wildly at events (some "types" of events more than others).
As a safety issue, the fear is that the muzzles of the rifles in the rear rank will end up opposite of the ears and faces of the front rank men.

The easiest approach is to "shift blame" and the "possibility of accident" from the MAN (men are hard to control) to the RIFLE (the mistaken/false notion of eliminating or reducing the potential or actual problem by banning the weapon- which is easier).

I say "mistaken or false notion" because my ears have been "rung" and my face "stung" many times by rifle-muskets (hobby term: 3 banders) even while serving in Mainstream and Progressive units.

As a result, one can expect to be "not welcomed or banned" with a rifle- except for some limited "living history" and some "EBUFU" events.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Known User of Custom M1855 Rifles, Richmond Rifles, and Cook & Brother Rifles.
Rung and Stung Mess

[Lone_Rebel87]

Re: Two banders

Thank you both for your comments on this issue....they are much appreciated.


Jordan Davis

[Wild Rover]

Re: Two banders

I am heavily in favor of more Rifles at events, and Company I of the LR is being created as a light rifle company.

It would be great to see a battalion of rifles, using Hardee's Light drill.

Pards,

[1stMaine]

Re: Two banders

Comrade Chris,

I too would like to see an increased use of rifles, especially a unit armed entirely with them. There were at least 2 regiments from Maine (the 7th and the 9th) which were armed with M1841 rifles. Massachusetts also issued some, and also sold a regiment's worth to New Hampshire early on.
Records indicate many Federal regiments carrying rifles, if those units are to be recreated on the field, then I would be in favor of recreating their weapons as well.
Traing is the key. Those rifles are no more dangerous than the rifle-muskets, and perhaps its time to start working on eliminating the "2-band reenactorism" area of the hobby.
Lately, Comrade Heinrich has been posting some excellent information regarding the M1841, and maybe we in this hobby ought to look at transferring some of our interest away from the clothing and drill area, and onto the weapon area. We expend much time and energy over what trim is correct for what jacket, and what type of stitching is appropriate for what accouterments, yet very little discussing the overall area of authentic weapons.
Respects,

[MBBursig]

Re: Two banders

Greetings,
The 20th New York Regiment "United Turner Rifles" were armed almost entirely with the 1841 Mississippi Rifle both wth Grosz and Remington Alterations. One company had socket bayonets, but for the most part the regiment was issued the saber bayonet (also befitting the German Rifleman/ Turner aspect of the regiment). I always thought it would be a great sight to see "Der Turner Soldaten" at charge bayonets with the sabers yelling "Bahn Frei". I hope it will be a reality someday at an event. Info on the Turner Rifles are at this site:

http://gkkapp.home.infionline.net/20NYSV.htm

Gut Heil!,

[Alamo Guard]

Re: Two banders

The 6th/15th Texas used the Lorenz mainly from mid to late war. After Tunnel Hill they talked about getting shiney new Springfields from the defeated Yankees in front of their postions.
It appeared this organization had both two and three banders within their ranks. I wonder if they had their ears popped or faces blistered?
My self I concur with the comments about safety being paramount. Like was alos stated for file closers, or for specific events this could happen. Bottom line is practice and attention to detail would have to overshadow the heat of battle to ensure safety.

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Two banders

It obviously must still be a problem:

I think the 2-band Enfield makes a nice looking weapon, and know many were issued to Southern & Northern ranks. I always thought that for the most part they banned 2-banders because of trying to keep out the 1863 Remington Contract (AKA "Zouave") rifle. :tounge_sm

I have had the 1841 Mississippi Rifle poked between my, and my next files shoulder a few times, as well a few Cook & Brother 2-banders, and suffered no less discomfort, due to the rear rank fellers with those rifles taking care WHERE they placed the muzzles!

I have seen Curt's postings on authenticating the Mississippi rifle, and have pondered getting a Mississippi myself. The Historical Society in Dalton, GA. has an original .54cal Mississippi Rifle that my GGAunt's first Husband carried in the 39th Georgia INF.

Oh, I know other problems exist, like commonality of stacking arms, and I know that some of the 2-banders have thicker barrels, making them about as heavy (if not more so) as the common 3-bands. But like others posting on this same thread, I wish to see more of them myself!
Respectfully:

Kevin Dally

[markj]

Re: Two banders

Indeed. There is circumstancial evidence indicating that the 32nd Tennessee (AoT), of "Brown's Brigade" was at least partially armed with 2-bander Enfields in 1862-1863 (an ordnance document I found in the 32nd TN "CSR" mentions the turn-in of "Enfield rifles" accompanied by "sabre bayonets"). Some Indiana regiments (13th and possibly 8th IVI's, to name two) were partially armed with what were apparently 2-bander Enfields at least as early as June 1861, according to sources at the Indiana State Archives and Historical Society.

Yep, the answer to your question is "it all depends...."

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[JustRob]

Re: Two banders

My biggest compaint with the two banders is the weight. I purchase a Mississippi Rifle a month ago and the thing weighed a ton. My heaviest musket is my '42 Springfield, which comes in at 10 lbs. The Mississippi Rifle was 10 1/2 lbs., despite the fact that it was considerably shorter.

The problem was compounded when I tried to use the sword bayonet, which came in at 3 1/2 lbs itself. The only thing that kept my waistbelt from sagging to my hip was my hip bone, which meant I had to wear the waistbelt supertight.

All in all, I found the Mississippi to be a disappointing buy, and I sold it. It's a shame, since one of my units, the Garibaldi Guard/39th NY, carried them from 1863 onward.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Two banders

Hallo Kameraden!

Weight, indeed...

The US Ordnance Department "experimented" with the so-called "Artillery Rifles" which were M1855, M1861, and M1863 Springfield rifle-muskets with their 40 inch barrels and three bands shortened to 33 inches and two bands.

Having thinner barrel walls than a 33 inch rifle, the "artillery rifles" were lighter. (particularly with socket bayonets...)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Lone_Rebel87]

Re: Two banders

Weight is a downside of my rifle though...it weighs as much as any Springfield out there (if not more than)

Jordan Davis