Shotguns instead of carbines

[bqbowden]

I was going thru my Echos of Glory last night and read a caption under a shotgun that said these were used more than carbines because of their availability (for CS troops that is). I have not done any research on this, yet if this is true, why don't you see more shotguns in cav impressions? I do know, from my previous experience as a safety officer during events, we discouraged shotguns.

Any thoughts here?

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Shotguns instead of carbines

The upcoming book (from Watchdog Publications) called "Wearing the Gray" (WtG) has a chapter on shotgun usage. The one pictured in EoG is...well, wait for the WtG book. There is a lot more to this story. EoG is mostly pictures from MOC and private collections and not as much "text" explaining those images.

Shotguns are certainly documented as in wide use among CS cavalry as well as infantry. There are probably fewer safety issues for cavalry enactments than multiple blank loaded black powder handguns.

[NC5thCav]

Re: Shotguns instead of carbines

Try searching through this old thread.

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4938

[Jerry Ross]

Re: Shotguns instead of carbines

Barry,
I would read accounts from Cav Units .They will usually tell what kind of guns they carried .Several of the units that came through the Clarksville ,Tn area were armed with shotguns when they captured Clarksville in Late 1862 .
I hope this helps

[Sccavtrooper]

Re: Shotguns instead of carbines

my research shows the 1st SC cav regiment was carring 3 band enfileds at the end of the war. my idea on the subject is why carry a shot gun that has a very limited range when a 2 band musket or even a carbine can reach out and get someone. just my thought

[NC5thCav]

Re: Shotguns instead of carbines

my research shows the 1st SC cav regiment was carring 3 band enfileds at the end of the war. my idea on the subject is why carry a shot gun that has a very limited range when a 2 band musket or even a carbine can reach out and get someone. just my thought

You said yourself that they had Enfields at the END of the war. In the first months weapons were in short supply, so they had what was available. Often that was a shotgun. With the correct load, many had the same effective range and firepower as a smoothbore .69 musket.

[csabugler]

Re: Shotguns instead of carbines

That may well be true about shotguns being equivilant to a .69 smoothbore, but correct me if I am wrong that those were not very desireable, and were replaced as soon as possible. Coley has an obscure cav book that tells a story of 3 sorta goof ball fellas , at least one of which carried a smoothbore. The writer's comments indicate that being very unusual. As I recall, these 3 were fond of charging up to within effective range and firing. Until they got killed doing so.
Patrick

[NC5thCav]

Re: Shotguns instead of carbines

They wouldn't have been prefered, but you use what you have. By later in the war their are ordinance returns showing that shotguns were being turned in when men were unarmed, showing the lack of enthusiasm for the weapons. But their are lots of accounts of them being used earlier when the army was desperate for weapons.

[Jimmayo]

Re: Shotguns instead of carbines

Why would you use a shotgun when there were plenty of enfields you could cut down with a hack saw? This one is ID to a CS cav. but I have misplaced the ID. Thought I would post this because it is so unusual. The cut is uneven and was made right through the barrel and the stock.

[NC5thCav]

Re: Shotguns instead of carbines

To document my earlier posts these are some ordanance returns from AoT cavalry units from late 1863, by which time, according to your thinking, Enfields should be plentifull.

What I do know is that in the new book on the 1st Texas Cav. The list in Dec. 1863 "54 muskets, 253 enfield rifles,53 carbines and musketoons, 51 revolvers, 28 sporting rifles, 100 Mississippi rifles,47 mini-muskets, 16 shotguns, and 13 Harper's Ferry rifles (M1855)". if the "revolvers" mentioned are indeed pistols and not revolving rifles/carbines then that makes 51 pistols to 564 long arms which means less than 10%.

And this one.

Regiments 8th Texas 3rd Confederate 14th Alabama 2nd Georgia Total
No. of Companies 10 10 6 10
RIFLES Carbine 57 55 124 47 65
" 54 91 78 48 61
" 58 2 32 22 6
" 37 8 25 2 1
" 56 5 1 1 2
" 69 = 17 12 9
" 70 = 18 38 10
Smith's Carbine 8 1 3 =
Gallagher Carbine = 1 = =
Shot Guns 76 30 13 38
Total of each Regt 245 327 186 192
PISTOLS Colt's Army Calibre 44 103 = = =
Colt's Navy Calibre 33 300 12 5 =
Holster Calibre 54 2 40 = 6
AMMUNITION Calibre 57 1100 2990 1880 975
" 54 1820 1586 1933 915
" 58 40 570 880 90
" 69 1520 1570 2520 1755
" 44 1030 = = =
" 33 5400 = = =
ACCOUT RIMENTS Cartidge Boxes 173 278 162 134
Cap Boxes 554 286 166 97
Belts 299 293 169 134
Gun Slings = 38 48 136
Remarks Company B absent, no report of arms etc. Company K so so Company F lately joined unarmed using guns of sick men Company B. E. & G absent, no report

The last table copied a little funny from the word document, but you get the point. As you can see, both of these show several shotguns and smothbore muskets.

[csabugler]

Re: Shotguns instead of carbines

In response to Barry's original question about# of shotguns, looking at Derek's documentation:

The 1st texas numbers from dec '63 show shotguns at .028% of long arms.
In a reenacting company of 25, which is large from my experience, that would mean a total of 7/10th of one shotgun

The combined o.r. is a little higher at .16% which in a company of 25 equals 4 shotguns, but we have no dates included unless I missed that.

If I could afford a second confederate weapon, I might go with a full length shotgun for very early war or "guerilla" impressions. But with a Smith and Remington for fed, and a Mississippi and optional Colt for confed and the occasional oddball early fed, plus saddles, truck, trailer, etc,
I just can't justify a shotgun.

IMHO
Patrick