Regular Army equipment.

[BerdanBraafladt]

I have been doing a lot of research into the Regulars prior to and thru the Civil War and I am having a difficult time finding out about the specific equipment that they were issued. I have read through the "Sykes Regulars" book, “Army Blue" and a few others and have not really found exactly, to the model of rifle and certain equipment, what I have been looking for. First question does anybody know of a better resource to find this information in? Am I going to have to go to an archive and try to find the records there?

What I am mainly looking for is just prior to the war 1855-1860 what gun/musket would the regulars have been most commonly carrying? The 1842 or the 1855 Springfield? I am sure it would depend on where they were stationed and how easy it was to exchange gear but when they were working their way back to Washington D.C. would a regular from California or Utah have received an 1855 yet or would they have still had the 1842? Also the same question with the frocks on their way back would they have been still wearing the 1855 style frock coat or would they have had an earlier pattern?

Does anybody have any reference or book that shows how well the supply lines were to pre-war regulars? How long would it have been before a regular out west got the "new" equipment?

[Charles Heath]

Re: Regular Army equipment.

Does anybody have any reference or book that shows how well the supply lines were to pre-war regulars? How long would it have been before a regular out west got the "new" equipment?

See if you can find an old article online entitled "Supplying the Frontier Army," and several book length products are out there covering the 1840s-1850s era.

[A Sykes Regular]

Re: Regular Army equipment.

Kevin - sent you a PM.

[John McPherson]

Re: Regular Army equipment.

Kevin:

I've been looking into this issue as well as of late. I live in Washington State and my interest has been in the equipping and arming of Regular Army infantry here in the Washington Territory prior to the ACW. As a volunteer at Fort Steilacoom near Tacoma, Washington (an antebellum post that is very close to modern-day Ft. Lewis & McChord AFB), I have been grappling with identifying the correct issue of firearms to Regular Army soldiers at Fort Steilacoom.

From my research, I know that the 9th US Infantry, a regiment of troops raised in 1855, trained at Fortress Monroe and later deployed to the Washington Territory at the end of that same year was armed with the 1841 Harpers Ferry rifle (two-band) and was trained as a light infantry regiment. When presented with the possibility of an upgrade in December 1856, Colonel George Wright advocated that his men retain the 1841 rifle (Guie, 1977, p. 102). They carried this weapon as far as 1858 during the Spokane Expedition, but I am not sure as to how long afterward. I'd like to know this myself as I would be curious to know if Capt. George Pickett's Company D of the 9th still carried their "Yeager" rifles on San Juan Island in 1859. While perusing through the research materials at the Ft. Steilacoom Historical Association Library, I came across a transcribed copy of Col. Mansfield's Inspection of the post in 1858. I do not have the copy of this inspection with me at this instant, but I do remember seeing that he remarked that the companies there of the 9th retained their 1841 rifles and that they were in "well-used condition."

On the other hand, it appears that the 4th Infantry did switch over toward the end of the 1850s. According to Mansfield's 1858 report, the fellows of the 4th at Fort Steilacoom carried the "new model" rifle while the old pattern rifles were kept in storage at the posts. This report indicates the exact number of rifles and ordinance on hand at the post! I'm assuming that the "new model" was the 1855 rifled musket. As for the old pattern, I'm also assuming that it was the 1842 musket (smoothbore). As the 4th was a line or "drum" regiment, these muskets may have been new issue when the regiment left for the West Coast back in 1853 or they may have been conversion pieces left over from the Mexican War. According to HD Guie in his text, "Bugles in the Valley," soldiers of the 4th Infantry under Lt. George Crook arrived at Fort Simcoe near modern-day Toppenish (Yakima area) armed with "the rifle musket--the 1822 model altered by converting the lock, rifling the barrel and adding a rear sight" (1977, p. 115). Company D of the 4th had come from Ft. Ter-Waw near California's Klamath River. So, I'm really not sure if the new model was indeed the 1855 model with the Maynard priming system or if the new model was merely a rifled conversion of older pieces.

Your question also has me wondering, did the 4th Infantry participate in the 1862 Peninsula Campaign with the 1861 Sprinfield, or did they fight using 1822 conversions, 1842 conversions, or 1855 rifled muskets? Had these men exchanged their older pieces for new 1861 models, what became of the older pieces?

Reference

Guie, H.D. (1977). Bugles in the valley: Garnett's fort simcoe. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Historical Society.

[coffee boiler]

Re: Regular Army equipment.

From Col. Mansfield’s inspection of Fort Steilacoom in December 1858. Hope this helps.

Co. F, 9th Inf.
“This company was provided with old knapsacks, tin canteens, old caps, and recently newly equipped with the new pattern rifled musket, and accoutrements, and was supplied with 9,000 rifled ball cartridges, and in addition it had on hand its entire old equipment of smooth barrel muskets etc. ready to be turned in to the arsenal.”

Co. C, 4th Inf.
“This Company has old knapsacks, and gutta purcha canteen, old caps and was armed with the new rifled musket, and supplies with 9,000 rifled ball cartridges.”

Co. H, 9th Inf.
“This Company was arms with Harpers Ferry rifles, much worn and many out of order and sward bayonet, and supplied with 2076 rifle blank cartridges, 3200 expanding ball, and 800 rifle ball cartridges.

[John McPherson]

Re: Regular Army equipment.

Bob:

Thanks for posting those quotes. My drive to Ft. Steilacoom from my home takes about 1-1/2 hours on a busy Interstate 5; you saved me both time and gas! By "new pattern," I would assume that this is the 1855 rifled musket with the Maynard priming system. On the other hand, could "new pattern" have also been used to describe the rifling of earlier pieces?

Additionally, I've seen the quote regarding the gutta percha canteens issued to Comp'y C, 4th Inf'y. Thus far, I have not seen any descriptions of the shape and construction of this particular canteen. Was this an experimental design issued in small quantities?

[1stMaine]

Re: Regular Army equipment.

Comrades,

Regarding Gutta Percha canteens, there is a comment about them on pp214 of "Todd's American Military Equipage 1851-1872" (which, btb, ought to be on everyone's shelf).....

------------------

"During the Mexican war and throughout the 1850's, experiments were conducted with other kinds of canteens. By 1851 canteens made of wood, sewn leather, tin covered with cloth, and india rubber were on trial in the field. In 1855 gutta percha was added to the list of materials. In december, 1858, the Quartermaster General wrote ' I coincide fully...in his opinion of the worthlessness of India Rubber and Gutta Percha canteens, and have sold all that we had at Philidelphia; none but tin canteens covered with cloth will be issued hereafter'. ..."

---------------------------

Comments from soldiers were generally unfavourable regarding all but wood or tin canteens, most of them along the lines that they made the water unpalatable.

Respects,

[coffee boiler]

Re: Regular Army equipment.

By "new pattern," I would assume that this is the 1855 rifled musket with the Maynard priming system. On the other hand, could "new pattern" have also been used to describe the rifling of earlier pieces?

Hi John, I believe your first assumption is the correct one. While rebored rifles were issued, the reference to "new pattern" seems a petty clear indication that it was the 1855s that were on hand here.

[AZFarrier]

Re: Regular Army equipment.

In southern California and Arizona I know the troops were issued the M1855 rifled Muskets. Infact when the war broke out all Regular troops left their posts with the cloths on their backs for the east, they left all their equipment in the arsenals. When the 1st California Infantry was formed they were issued M1855 rifled Muskets from those same arsenals. The Cavalry was issued the M1859 and M1852 Sharps carbines. On the other hand I know the troops in New Mexico had and assortment of weapons. When Major Loynd abandoned Ft Filmore in 1861 his regulars were issued the M1842 smoothbore muskets. In his command there were also either Dragoons or US mounted rifles that took part in the retreat. There was mention that they had the M1842 Musketoons.

[Dan Munson]

Re: Regular Army equipment.

I believe AZFarrier has a good point. I also have seen the reference --although I can't place the source just now -- that the Regulars leaving the West Coast for the "seat of war" left behind a great deal of their equipage, including arms. (Of course, not all the Regulars went east. The 9th US Infantry and 3 or 4 companies of the 3rd US Artillery remained on the West Coast.) The 1st Calif. Inf'y, as AZFarrier noted, got "pick of the litter" 1855 pattern Springfields, no doubt because it was anticipated that, as a projected part of the "California Column," they might well bump heads with Sibley's Confederates in the New Mexico Territory. Not all California units were so lucky in their arms allocation at the start -- there was a lot of old crap laying around at Benecia Arsenal and other western storage points. The 2nd California Inf'y was initially armed, in large part if not in whole, with percussion conversions of the old 1816 pattern smoothbore. At least some of the companies of this regiment exchanged these for 1855 Springfields drawn from Benecia in the summer of 1863.

Dan Munson
Co. K, 100th Penn. V.I.