1855 Harpers Ferry Rifle "U.S.M.R.?"

[Southron Sr.]

Check these photos out and tell us what you think of the rifle! What is it???

The location of the rear sight is interesting & especially the "early model (?)" bayonet lug.

http://rickburtoncivilwar.com/museum/sold-archive/102-confederate-a-union-small-arms-sold/325-harpers-ferrry-model-1855-rifle

THANKS

Southron, Sr.,

[R. McAuley 3014V]

It's a U.S. Model Rifle (U.S.M.R.) much like any of the U.S. Model arms (i.e. M-1841 U.S.M., M1842 U.S.M., etc.). Somewhere in my notes, I have the exact dates concerning these, but as I recall, the national armories were required by Ordnance Regulations to exchange ten specimens of each model arm produced yearly by the national armories, to be sent to the other national armory to insure consistency in the standards of manufacture. However, under the military superintendency of both armories, from 1841 to 1851, this practice was discontinued at Springfield Armory such that no arms were exchanged with Harpers Ferry for nearly 11 years, till (I believe I read) in 1852, suddenly Springfield Armory sent several U.S. Model arms to Harpers Ferry, made between 1845 and 1851, to be examined. I believe this was in the testimony of Adam Rhulman, Armory Inspector at Harpers Ferry from about 1836 to 1852, given in congressional hearings, who remarked after having examined these arms sent from Springfield, some of the screws (he said) were so badly made, they only belonged in a waste bin! He pronounced the whole lot as the worse made guns he had ever seen in his 30+ year career.

Although the list does not provide any specific details when the specimen was made, or which type, but the inventory of the musket parts and machinery taken at Harpers Ferry and sent to Richmond had included one Rifle Musket, Model 1855. In the list of rifle parts and machinery taken at Harpers Ferry and sent to Fayetteville, it did not include either a model rifle or even sufficient parts to build even one rifle.

[Blair]

Southeron Sr.,

Nice! The only thing I can see that is different form the H F production brass mounted M-1855 Rifle (type I) is the bayonet lug guide.
Blair

[Southron Sr.]

Several things make this rifle interesting to me. The fact that it has survived seems to indicate to me that after it was produced, it was sent to Springfield Armory as a "Model" per armory practice even though Springfield Armory (to my knowledge) never produced a brass mounted rifle.

The date on the lock plate, 1856, and the guide on the bayonet lug seems to indicate to me that this rifle is "all original." The guide on the bayonet lug makes one wonder if maybe if perhaps several hundred of the production models had the guide and then it was dropped. There has been such a high attrition rate of brass mounted 1855's that this is plausible.

I would like to thank both Richard for his expert and knowledgeable reply on the history of the "U.S.M" rifles and Blair for his observation about the bayonet lug guide bar! I had missed that one!

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Hill & Antony (1978) Confederate Longarms and Pistols features (pp247-49) a Eli Whitney Mississippi rifle made by contract for the State of Mississippi in 1860 that has almost the same sword bar with a very similar extension (which is also rounded on the end). The Pattern 1855 Lancaster (Engineer’s) Carbine and Pattern 1856 Enfield each used a similar extension but they were square-cut on the end. Both the sword bayonets for the Lancaster and P/56 Enfield, like this Whitney Mississippi, had a recess in the pommel to accept the extension bar, so the Model 1855 sword bayonet for this specimen, if one was made, should be easily distinguished from the standard model sword bayonet.

[Blair]

Richard,

Yes, there is a long bayonet lug guide variation used within the M-1841 modification/variations of a type you suggest as well as is seen on the images Southeron Sr. posted. (one even longer for an early 'Colt' type variation that requires two rivets to help hold the extra long guide in place)
However, this does not seem to be standard on the production model 1855 Rifles, brass or iron mounted veriations.
My best,

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Below is a link to a Model 1841 rifle by Robbins & Lawrence with a missing one-piece sword bar and extension (or guide key). Blair, you might like to see these photos. You don't always see the mounting surface, or how the sword bar was aligned for installation.

http://www.shilohrelics.com/cgi-bin/Display_Item.asp?104448

[Blair]

Richard,

Thanks, this is great information.
I have seen several original arms missing their bayonet lugs... not one like this one!

I can't help but wonder how they got the front "long barrel band" off? Maybe that is why the bayonet lug is now missing?

[R. McAuley 3014V]

I suspect the official policy of the Ordnance Department was that soldiers were to be discouraged from dissembling their issued arms for cleaning purposes, which remained much the same policy in the U.S. Army until quite late, though in more recent times, the Army has authorized soldiers to disassemble their weapons to a certain point. Even unit armorers are not authorized to conduct certain work, such as changing receivers and barrels, for which is done at a higher level of maintenance, typically at depot level. But to suggest how the front band was removed, I suspect it was done much the same way as removing the front band on the C.S. Richmond .69 caliber razee cavalry carbine (made from the M1842 musket), which because the front sight is so close to the end of the stock, there is only enough room to slide the front band (actually the original middle band) its width forward, and requires that the stock be removed (or conversely, the barrel removed from the stock), to free the band and allow it to be removed. Installing the band is simply the reverse. All the more reason why soldiers should have been discouraged from taking their muskets into pieces, less they come under attack and be forced to using cold steel because their ammunition was rendered useless. That would have ruined their whole day!

[Blair]

Perhaps?
I speculate this is why the short front barrel band was developed. (The one with the slot cut in the bottom front edge running back to the ram rod channel?)
This arrangement allowed the front band to be released from its spring keeper, slid forward with enough room to allow the band to be turned 90 degrees and slipped over the the saber/sword bayonet lug.
An unmodified '41 long front band, with the original stock length would not allow the band enough movement 'with a saber/sword bayonet lug' fixed to the barrel.
Made no difference who was authorized to dismount the arm for cleaning.
Just my speculations on this subject,

[John Holland]

The Mississippi shown in the link provided by Richard isone of the 961Robbins & Lawrence contract arms sold by Massachusetts to NewHampshire on Oct. 29, 1861. New Hampshire later had them altered to accept asaber bayonet using the lug with two (2) mounting screws, as shown by thebayonet lug footprint in the link. It is not known who actually did thealterations, but it has been speculated that it may have been by either Collinsor Ames. There are several examples in existence that have been re-altered by Drake for use of his socket bayonet.