Chickamauga Rifle

[tenfed1861]

On the weekend of Thanksgiving,Patrick Lewis and myself did a two man living history at the Cravens House on Lookout Mountain.On Sat. morning,a gentleman who lived at the base asked about Pat's 1862 Tower.He later informed up about how his great grandfather had gone to the battlefield and picked up an 1862 Tower.He spoke of how it had "alittle" battle damage.We both thought it was a post-war weapon.But as you can see,we were very wrong.
As you can see,it was at Chickamauga.It is battlescarred.The ramrod is little more the a steel rod with a peice of brass at the end.The bayonet is the M-1816 model.And from what the guy said,the ramrod and bayonet were on the weapon when it was picked up.
I hope everyone enjoys it.

[Prodical Reb]

Re: Chickamauga Rifle

What a find! Wish the images were more in focus. You can't see the detail in most of them. Did he allow you to take apart the rifle to see who the individual makers were? (eg lock maker: J. Webley, Barrel maker: Ezra Millward etc)

[Pat.Lewis]

Re: Chickamauga Rifle

Yeah, I could have kicked myself when I downloaded those blurry pictures. I've got the gentleman's contact information and intend pay him a visit during the summer when I'm down that way to take some better shots.

We didn't get to take a look at the individual parts, etc. I was honestly afraid to hold the thing at first because that bullet had done so much damage. It looked quite frail, but was sturdy enough when you actually held the thing. The owner even cocked it and eased the hammer back down. The lock still worked fine. I was most impressed by the force of the impact. Not only was there that big chunk missing but there were also numerous smaller cracks that ran all around the lock plate, too. It certainly brought home all of those quotes from soldiers getting hit and it feeling like a sledge hammer. There was a ton of force in that round. I hope for his sake that the soldier was carrying it to his side when that hit.

A question for "gun people," was the mixing and matching of bayonets common, or at least evidenced elsewhere? The ramrod, too, for that matter. Are there any other hodgepodge guns of this sort floating around? It struck me as odd, coming relatively late into the war. We -- or at least I -- tend to think of weaponry being more "standardized" by mid '63.

[Jimmayo]

Re: Chickamauga Rifle

A question for "gun people," was the mixing and matching of bayonets common, or at least evidenced elsewhere? The ramrod, too, for that matter. Are there any other hodgepodge guns of this sort floating around? It struck me as odd, coming relatively late into the war. We -- or at least I -- tend to think of weaponry being more "standardized" by mid '63.

I tried a M-1816 bayonet on two original enfields I have and it would not fit over the front sight on either one. I see the one in the picture fits. If the blade from the sight is filed off it may slide on but I am not going to try and prove that with mine.

I also have a dug 55 springfield and P-53 enfield. Both were dug at the same time, from a CS trench and both have springfield bayonets attached. In this case the P-53 enfield bayonets and the M-55 springfield bayonets were interchangeable and I have proof that Springfield bayonets were used on Enfields. Also, on my web page there is a dug throat from an Enfield bayonet scabbard that has been modified to accept a Springfield bayonet suggesting use of a Springfield bayonet on a Enfield.

I suspect ramrods were also used as whatever works. I have seen old guns with ramrods of a different make than the gun but had the same patina as if they had been there for years. I think I remember reading that the Richmond Armory had difficulty at one time making ramrods because of the strength of the metal involved. I suspect some Richmonds were issued with salvaged ramrods during that shortage.

Five other guns (3 Enfield and 2 Springfield) that were dug at the same time as the two mentioned above and had no ramrods installed. There were several ramrods dug in the vicinity of these guns and after all the digging was done there were 2 Enfield ramrods and two Springfield ramrods recovered. I guess the other Enfield one is still in the dirt somewhere but it goes to show that it was very easy to lose a ramrod and probably very easy to pick one up that would work.

There is another explanation for the mis-matched parts. In 140+ years much could have happened to that gun. A bayonet that was picked up during the same period, through the years has now been on the gun when picked up. Some one could have also made a ramrod to replace one which wasn't there when the gun was picked up. There is no way to tell what happened. If only it could talk, what a story.

[FlatLandFed]

Re: Chickamauga Rifle

Friend Jim,

Your observations are always a welcome part in discussions, but I would like to ask for a reconsiderations of "… a dug throat from an Enfield bayonet scabbard that has been modified to accept a Springfield bayonet suggesting use of a Springfield bayonet on a Enfield."

That suggests more to me that the lad may have lost his Springfield-style scabbard and made an adjustment to the next best thing he had available -- one made for an Enfield.

Like you said, if only these antiques could talk.

On another note, how relatively "interchangeable" were Springfield parts? A comrade purchased an original M42 style Springfield last summer. During a dedication ceremony we tried fitting my original Springfield bayonet on the gun "for size." It fit as if made for that musket. Unusual or not? (The bayonet was used on my Armi reproduction .69 Springfield smoothbore.)

Paul Hadley

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Chickamauga Rifle

Hallo!

Interesting stuff....

Yes, "a problem" with original pieces is that one does not kn ow the "when" or "why" of things such as whether a ramrod was replaced when a recylced gun was issued say in 1862 or by an antique dealer in 1942.

The "M1816" bayonet has a number of varients, and due to the hand-made nature of that era, the guns and bayonets will vary amongst themselves. (A problem that was suposed to be fixed with the advent of the "standardized parts" M1842- but M1842 parts do not interchange.)
Nominally...

The M1816 bayonet socket had an inside diameter of 27/32nds inch, and blade with of between 15/16ths and 1 inch..
The P1853 Enfield bayonet socket had an inside diameter of 25/32nds inch with a blade width of 26/32ths.
The M1855 Springfield socket had a inside diameter of 25/32nds inch, and a blade width of 25/32nds.

While the M1816 would, or could be made to, fit over the Enfield front sight by reducing the sight height or sight base width or filing away a wee bit of the rear reinforcing of the socket- it would have to be one of the variants of the M1815 that "L" or two "T" type slots that would accomodate the location/position of the front sight t0 allow it to turn the "angles" in mounting it.

The M1855 Springfield bayonet has a 1/32 smaller blade width than the P1853 Enfield socket bayonet, so a "Springfield" will slip into an Enfield bayonet scabbard arrangement, but the Springfield scabbard would have to be "stretched" a wee bit. (Although some of the makers now offer a lad the choice between the two scabbards already made for one or the other bayonet.)
Considering the numbers of Enfield scabbards, IMHO, there was more of the Enfield bayonets going into the Springfield scabbards than Springfield bayonets going into Enfield scabbards.

Later tonight I will play with some original M1816 bayonets and Enfields and see what happens.. and post back.

Curt

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Chickamauga Rifle

Hallo!

A mini-experiment of fitting "M1816" bayonets on some London and BSAT P1853 "Enfields..."

Yes, the "M1816" variant with the "L" slot profile WOULD fit the Enfields IF the Enfield front sight blade was reduced and/or there was enough thickness or "meat" to the reinforcing ring/bridge at the base of the socket to allow for a little "relieving."

But I would caveat, that the bayonets AND the guns were "hand-made" and not with interchangeable parts- so one might could/would find a bayonet and a gun that would match... maybe.

Others' mileage, and samples to experiment on, will vary...

Curt