Murray carbines in original picture

[threepdr]

Thought I would share this. This is the only period photo that I have seen of JP Murray carbines in the hands of troops. At least they look like JP murrays to me. The Chapman carbine was configured much like the JP Murray, but they were not as common. They are obviously not "short Model 1816s" as suggest in the caption.

What say you?


http://news.webshots.com/photo/2353327260081485148GGLoUH

[Phil Spaugy, 3475V]

Hard to tell, as I can't make out the top bands, or if there are rear sights on the barrels. Might be cut down '42 models also, ala Macon conversions.

Phil

[John Holland]

Interesting. The arm on the left seems to have a drum conversion...to me anyway.

JDH

[Bob Seng, 10979]

Not sound ignorant , just trying to learn but were the hammers on J.P Murray Carbines on the left side as shown in the picture.

Have never seen one was just inquiring

[John Holland]

Hi Bobby,

What you are looking at is a reversed image. Most of the tin types in the Civil War showed reversed images. It has made for some interesting photo's over the years!

John

[Francis J. Miller Jr, 02601]

No Bob your not being ignorant, I saw that also, what I believe it is I've seen some other CW tin types & photos that were reversed. I blew up the photo as far as I could go, and it looks like the one on the left that John said looks like a drum conversion, actually looks like a regular bolster, 'not doubting your opinion John', and the one on the right looks like the nipple is tapped directly into the breech of the barrel, also does not look like any rear sights on either of them. Could these be 2 different muskets?

[threepdr]

I wish it would let me save the photo so I could blow it up and rotate it ect. But from what I can see of it on line, they both look like standard bolsters. They both appear to have double strapped upper bands (have to squint a little on that observation). No patch boxes, so Model 1841s are ruled out. The high comb on the stock rules out M1816s. The angle of the guns on the shoulder may be misleading, but they appear to be carbine length. If I could blow it up, might detect a rear sight, but it is too hard to tell right now.

Intersting photo regardless of what they are.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Just used a hand mirror to reverse the image and they both have M1842 bolsters, and are dead-ringers for the Richmond 24" musketoon. Just like the one I just completed, eh John? Bet they kick like a mule.

Richard McAuley
37th GA

[threepdr]

Richard,

Arn't the bolsters on M1841 Mississippi (and CS derivative weapons) shaped exactly like a M1842 bolsters except scaled down in size?

[Joe Plakis, 9575V]

Look at the picture, at the lower band on each gun, it looks as if both have sling swivels on them. The one on the left is much more distinct, If so it would lend it to maybe being a plymouth, would give the look of a springfield, would have the swivel on the lower band and the rear sights were low profile which is why they might be just to hard to see plus the front band would look like a 1842 style front sight. And the OAL looks right as well.

Just my two cents but those lower bands do look like they both have swivels on them!

[John Holland]

No problem here Mr. Miller! I don't have any cool photoshop stuff to play with....just a plain ol' computer!

These are the kind of discussions we can all benefit from.

I look forward to anything else you can find.

John

[R. McAuley 3014V]

I don't have a problem with them being C.S. Murray carbines. But what I am certain of is that we are at a great disadvantage in studying this image because the original image would contain far more detail than can be rendered here in this digitized image. Digital imagery is great but it has limitations (memory size) and there is only so much information that you can show.

While I would concede that the carbine shown on the left has a lockplate that seems smaller than the one on the right, and is also the general size of a M1841 lockplate, the one on the right appears larger, like that of a M1842. But while in suggesting different size lockplates, we really cannot judge the length all that well using the men's hands for a reference. Tin-type images don't have any depth of field and objects appear flattened on account that the body parts and objects closer to the camera lense are distorted, and so appear larger than objects that are farther away. That's why these men's fingers look so huge and out of proportion from the lockplates just inches farther away. Also, the man on the right may be seated a little closer to the camera than the man on the left.

Also, the image on the right has suffered more spoilage and deterioration in the image than the image of the man on the left, hence several other annomallies have been introduced, like you could almost interpret the carbine on the right as having a rear sling swivel at the rear of the stock like a Richmond. Yet, at the same time, this could be explained away on account of the fact that this area has considerable silver spoilage (fogging and frosting), such that it could also be simply an annomally (a blank spot) in the image, making it appear like a highlight or reflection? If it is a sling swivel, it would be in the right place for a Richmond musketoon.

What really needs to be done is for some arms expert to closely examine the original image which even with the deterioration seen here is far more superior, such that the front sights, almost certainly the front bands, for these carbines might even be visible?

Richard McAuley

[Wayne M Clark]

I wonder if their front sight blades lean to the left?
W. Clark