Artillery rifles

[Damon]

Hi all,
Just wondering if anyone can give me some more information on the artillery rifles? There is very little written about them in Fuler and Moller's books. Did they see use if the war or just Bannerman's creations?

Thanks,
Damon

[Edwin Flint]

Hi Damon

Depends on how you define "Artillery Rifle". If you are talking about a 2 banded Muzzle loaded 33"+/- barreled rifle then the answer would be yes.

Two banded rifles used

There were 7000+ US Model 1855 made at Harpers Ferry Arsenal prior to the CW. In addition the US Model 1841 Mississippi Rifle was used quite heavily by both sides. Estimated HF and private contracts for the Mississippi totaled 70,000+. Many state militias used the Mississippi Rifle.

The Confederacy made from scratch and captured parts Richmond(1000+), Fayetteville(5-9000+), Dickson Nelson (3000+), and Ashville(less than 1000) "Short Rifles". (Short Rifle is the term used by the Richmond Armory to distinguish between full length, 40" barrel muskets, and these 33"+/- barreled rifles.) There are several other 2 banded rifles made in smaller numbers but you get the idea. Don't forget the 2 banded imports also. So yes they exsisted and were used. The Rebs used every weapon available, including shotguns, Kentucky rifles, Hawken style, etc.

It is questionable whether there were ever any 2 banded Springfield US Model 1861 and 1863, or 1861 Special Model muskets were made from scratch. To my knowledge, there are no recorded contracts for them. However, We know that the Confederacy used battlefield pickups and salvaged parts to make 2 banded rifles.

It is possible the Union did these rebuilds also, but in my opinion, the Yankee Government probably did not send these repaired/salvaged guns to battle. I know of no contracts calling any of the 2 banded rifles "Artillery Rifles". They were just called Rifles.

[Damon]

Hi Edwin,
I am referring to the 1861 to 1863 rifles as apposed to the Armory pattern rifles such as the 1841 and 1855.

Thanks,
Damon

[Edwin Flint]

I suspect most of the so called Artillery rifles were Bannerman creations. The only reference I am aware of for an Artillery Rifle being made from scratch by the US government was the private Amoskeag contract for the Special model 1861. No specific number is given for how many were made, just "small number". Reilly's "United States Military Arms, 1816 to 1865" is the only reference I have seen this mentioned as actually being made. With so few made, I doubt they saw use. All others doubt their existence.

[Southron Sr.]

I think that Yankee "Springfield Type Artillery Rifles" were made and used during the war because of the very same reason the Richmond Armory made those "Mounted Infantry Short Rifles." I believe that so far as contractors for the Springfield rifle-muskets were concerned, three bander stocks that came off the stocking machine with damage in the front section of the stock weren't scrapped, but put aside to be used to make up "Artillery Rifles" The same is probably true with three bander barrels that had defects near the muzzles.

I have been in the stock making business and I can vouch from personal experience when you put a piece of wood on a stock making machine and start the carving process, you often get rejects because you find a knot or knot hole in the wood that was not visible before the stock blank was placed on the carving machine.

Remember the contractors were businessmen that could not afford to literally "throw good money out the window" by scrapping stocks or barrels that had defects in the front end. They very well knew they could use the stocks and barrels with defects in the front end to make up "Artillery Rifles" and sell them to the states for their militias.

[John Holland]

Southron, with all due respect, I must strongly disagree with your hypothesis. There is no evidence in the copious records of arms manufacture in the North that such an arm was ever made for the reasons you have stated. Although Whitney may have done that with his "Direct Vent Carbine" as his reputation was built on "Good & Servicable Arms"! But, the Federal Armory and their contractors, no. There are no original Civil War photos of the type of arm Claude Fuller called an "Artillery Rifle". Remember, Mr. Fuller was a close associate of the Bannerman family, and where do you think he got many of the arms pictured in his 1933 landmark book? Why from Bannerman, of course!

The North was a highly developed industrialized society and was rolling in money. They could well afford to scrap goods damaged in the manufacturing process. It was a much different story in the South. The majority of their arms productions were nearly hand to mouth operations.

Battlefield salvaged arms in the South is a topic all of its own.

JDH

[Southron Sr.]

Dear John:

I definitely agree that the vast majority of Original Civil War Springfield rifles with 33 inch or shorter barrels were done by Bannerman and the other surplus dealers in the post war era. The late Colonel Lindsey Henderson of Savannah had a couple of contractor made, Springfield rifles with 33 inch barrels. The end of the barrels on both rifles were turned down to accept a standard socket bayonet. Matter of fact, his son, Pat Henderson used one of those rifles at the first Nationals I attended in the late 1960's.

According to Lindsey, he acquired both rifles from an old lady in Savannah in the late 1930's. She told Lindsey that her father had been one of a gang of boys that had stolen rifles from Sherman's soldiers in late 1864 when the troops were engaged in the occupation of Savannah. The boys watched the soldiers in downtown Savannah until two soldiers went inside a barber shop to get haircuts and leaned their rifles on the wall just inside the door.

When the attention of the soldiers was distracted, the lady's father simply sneaked into the barber shop, picked up both rifles and left. Yep, I realize that is "hearsay evidence" but many times hearsay evidence proves to be true.

I seem to recall in Paul Davis' book on the Richmond Armory he reproduced a list of arms to be sold at a post war Ordnance Department sales brochure and (short) rifles were listed. Unfortunately, I can lay my hands on the book right now or I would give you the page number.

Perhaps an avid researcher needs to head to the National Archives and pull all of those Ordnance Department Sales Brochures from 1865 to the early 1900's and see how many Springfield "short rifles" are listed. So far as the wording in the contracts the Ordnance Department placed with the carious contractors, in several contracts-the contract called for the manufacturer to make M1855 rifle-muskets rather than M1861's (although it was the M1861's they produced.)

What I am saying is that more research on the "Short Springfield Rifles" needs to be done. For example everyone was mystified why the Georgia Armory Rifles went out of production in 1863 until I found an article in an 1863 Milledgeville, Georgia newspaper announcing that the armory was being converted into a Cotton Card Factory! The idea being that the cotton cards would be sold to the ladies of the state at a reasonable price so they could make cloth (to be made into clothing) for themselves and their men in the armies. Hopefully, according to the article, the proceeds from the sale of the cotton cards would be used to retire the state's debts.

So, I sincerely believe that much more research on Springfield Short Rifles needs to be made before a definite conclusion can be drawn. As for the "negative proof" that there are no pictures of original Civil War soldiers holding Springfield short rifles-keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of Civil War photographs have been lost since the war. Who knows-several of those pictures could have been of soldiers holding Springfield Short rifles.

[John Holland]

Southron,

I am so pleased that we can discuss this topic, agree to disagree, and still retain our friendship and respect for each other, as it should be!

John

[William Schoenfeld, 1386]

I am not an expert on this but in looking at some pictures of the 22nd NY at Harpers Ferry they seem to have 2 band muskets. I don't think they are Springfields since they have a sabre bayonet on them BUT the order of battle for Antietam states that they had Springfields durng the battle. First question is what did they have at Harpers Ferry and when did they change to Springfields.

By the way these are the types of discussion that are really interesting to see.

Thanks,
Dutch

[Phil Spaugy, 3475V]

Dutch,

The 22nd New York that is pictured in the images at Harpers Ferry was a 90 day Nationa Guard unit, not the same unit as the 22nd New York that was at Antietam.

Phil

[Southron Sr.]

John:

If the truth be known, I have learned a lot about WBTS firearms from you over the years and always highly respect your knowledge and views.

All My Best
Southron, Sr.

[William Schoenfeld, 1386]

Phil,
I did not know that about them since I have always seen pictures about this unit while they were at Harpers Ferry and I alway thought they were regular NY troops. However what type of muskets did they have then. They look to be 2 banders.
Dutch

[Phil Spaugy, 3475V]

Dutch,

They are 2 band Enfield rifles, fitted with sabre bayonets.

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b06386/


Phil

[Dave Fox]

This dispute has been festering since the early sixties, to my cerain knowledge. On the one hand, there is no documentation for Federal or state purchase of these "artillery" rifles, nor for the name, for that matter. No photographs of troops with them in hand. On the other hand, there are the rifles themselves and secondary sources discussing them. Those who believe they were manufactured as such and/or issued have no primary evidence. Those who believe they are post war lash-ups have Francis Bannerman. Me? I'm from Missouri. Until pre-1866 evidence for Federal use or or manufacture turns up, I'm a Bannerman man. And, for what it's worth, I don't believe they're evidence of Confederate salvage. In cutting down long arms, the South didn't much worry about nosecaps (except for the Richmond mounted infantry rifle) nor would they have bothered to turn the muzzles down for bayonets. Peddling his wares to military schools, perhaps schools in Savannah, Bannerman would have bothered.

[Jim Mulligan 7288V]

deleted........