Measuring the depth of rifling in altered muskets

[James Brenner]

Is there a way to measure the depth of the rifling in an original altered musket; M1816/22, M1842, or Austrian tube lock?

I've been doing some research on Miles Greenwood's contracts with both Ohio and John Fremont to rifle smoothbore muskets. Newspaper accounts of Greenwood's efforts in Ohio suggest that he rifled the M1816/22s and M1842s according to Ordnance Department standards: three lands and grooves measuring .015 at the breech and .005 at the muzzle. Testimony in the Fremont trial, though, indicates that the rifling in the tube locks was the same depth throughout the bore.

None of the standard reference works address this issue and, to date, none of Greenwood's small arms contracts have surfaced. Similarly, neither his insurance nor tax records appear to have survived which may have described his rifling machine(s). Greenwood's correspondence in the National Archives may yield some answers as might the Dun and Bradstreet credit ledgers. But until I can access those records, I'm on a technological/physical archaeology quest.

Thanks in advance,

Jim

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Measuring the depth of rifling in altered muskets

Hallo!

Based on observations of originals, but not actual bore measurements...

Rifling appears to be varied. Obviously standard-depth versus progressive depth, but IMHO the depth of rifling appears to vary gun to gun. (As if different contractors had different rifling machines/tables and cutting tools.)

I am of the opinion that part of that is due to the muzzle end wear of standard-depth rifling but more particularly so with progressive depth rifling. And also, it may vary by the variations in barrel wall thicknesses by manufacture as well as by the (seemingly) varied thicknesses caused by the hand work of earlier hand-made and non-interchangeable barrels. And then again a conscious decision as to ow deep to cut rifling versus the thickness of a particular musket's barrel wall.

I think would take the ability to dismount a number of muskets so as to have access to the exposed breech to take measurements of both rifling depth (S or P depth) and barrel wall thickness. That would not work so well for non breech replacement type later alterations where the breech end is sawed off and the new integral section sweated on, versus say the cone-in-barrel type work.

And, there is always the "curse" that it is harder to get muskets to strip down once one has exhausted your own collection and that of willing or "coerced" friends.

:)

An interesting question .

We need to get together some time. I haven't seen you since November 2014. :)

Curt

[Don Dixon]

Re: Measuring the depth of rifling in altered muskets

There is an additional problem regarding the "Greenwood" cone-in-barrel conversions of Muster 1842 and 1840 Austro-Hungarian muskets for Major General Fremont. Greenwood's contract with Fremont involved the conversion of 10,000 muskets. His Eagle Iron company could not meet the delivery schedule required by the contract, and Greenwood subcontracted the conversion of 5,000 muskets to Hall, Carroll, and Company; a Cincinnati manufacturer of safes. While Hall, Carroll, and Company was experienced in manufacturing precission equipment, it was not experienced in manufacturing arms. So, when you measure a "Greenwood" conversion was it done at Eagle Iron, or was it a Hall, Carroll, and Company conversion done for Greenwood?

There were a number of problems with the Eagle Iron and Hall, Carroll, and Company conversions, and I have wondered if any of the arms were subjected to inspection by an ordnance officer before they were dispatched to Fremont.

Regards,
Don Dixon

[James Brenner]

Re: Measuring the depth of rifling in altered muskets

Right now, I cannot say for certain where the rifling was done for Fremont's muskets. From a practical standpoint, it would seem most likely that Greenwood did all the rifling; both for his 5,000 and Hall and Company's 5,000. Not only did he have the rifling equipment set up and immediately available, he also had the experienced workmen to run the machine(s). I'm still cautiously hopeful - but not overly optimistic - that I will come across either the insurance or the tax records for both companies and they may be able to tell me who had the rifling machines and how many. I do know, though, that Hall, Carroll, and Company spent much of their time replacing the annealed iron hammers they initially installed on the conversions and machining long range sights.

As for inspectors, Ohio used a militia officer by the name of Neereamer to inspect the Greenwood's rifled for the state. Major Hagner and Fremont inspected the Austrian muskets upon arrival in New York. Fremont found the unaltered muskets "unsuitable" as did Hagner, but Fremont changed his mind once he arrived in Missouri and needed weapons. At St. Louis, Fremont worked with a Captain Callender, an Army ordnance officer, who inspected the sample muskets that Greenwood and Tryon presented. Callender felt the Austrian musket was "indifferent" even after alteration. Regardless, the contract went ahead. Fremont needed weapons and Greenwood's bid came in at $1.50 less than Tryon's $6.00. I've not come across any mention of a regular Army inspector either at Greenwood's Eagle Iron Works or Hall, Carroll, and Company. Right now, it appears that Callender's initial inspection was the only one.

The absence of records combined with the lack of inspectors marks/acceptance stamps, makes identification of Greenwood muskets challenging. I'm not certain that measuring the depth of the rifling will guarantee identification, but it'll be one step closer.