PDA

View Full Version : A theroy on Civil War Issue of the Zouave Musket



mikepatty4
05-06-2008, 03:05 PM
I would like to propose a theroy , probally one which I will get ripped apart on, but I am going to propose it anyway.

The Remington Model of 1862 ( commonly referred to as the Zouave rifle) is generally not considered to be an issued firearm as we cannot seem to find evidence (documents) referring to their issue and also based on the fact that so many of them are found in excellent condition.
I would first like to address the later fact ( excellent condition) and simply point out that a large number of weapons can be found in excellent condition ( 1855, 1861 1863 Springfields , Spencers , Sharps , etc. etc.) and yet we know from documental evidence that these were indeed issued firearms. Condition of surviving pieces therefore cannot be considered proof positive of issue or not.
Now of the first part, lack of documental evidence, I have only one thing to ask are we looking in the right place? My reason for asking this is the simple fact that both Remington and the War Department referred in coorespondence with each other to this guns as 1855 Harper's Ferry rifles and not as Remington 1862 rifles , or Mississippi rifles , and certiantly not Zouave rifles. The rifle best resembles a 1855 Harpers Ferry rifle with a Mississippi Lockplate on it anyway so referring to them as such kinda makes sense. Since we know that Harpers Ferry did not make anymore 1855 rifles (or anything else for that matter) after the start of the war, it may be plausible to assume that any 1864 or 1865 ordnance return referring to 1855 harpers Ferry Rifles and Saber Bayonet may indeed be referring to our Remingtion 1862 Contract " Zoauve " rifle.

Now for a question , does anybody know when and why Remingtion switched from 7 to 3 Groove rifling in the Remingtion 1862 Contract " Zoauve " rifle
thankyou
Mike Pierson

Southron Sr.
05-06-2008, 09:51 PM
Someone needs to go into the National Archives and actually research the history of the "Zouave Rifles." Until that is done, we can only specualte IF Zouaves were ever issued of IF NOT.

The ill fated "Georgia Armory Rifle, manufactured in Milledgeville, Georgia beginning in 1862 was ALMOST IDENTICAL to the Zouave Rifle.

Although production of the Georgia Armory Rifles were limited, there is no doubt that they saw plenty of combat in the Atlanta Campaign of 1864.

Ironically, production of the Georgia Armory Rifles were halted so the factory could be convertend into a "Cotton Card" factory. [I am the first researcher to discover this fact!]The idea being that the state could sell Cotton Cards at a profit to civilians in Georgia to help pay for the war effort!

Realize that by 1864 the Union Ordnance Department was engaged in a program to replace the polygot of various models and makes of infantry muskets and rifle-muskets with various models of the Springfield Rifle-Musket. By 1864 brand new Springfields were becoming available in huge quantities thanks to the efforts of Springfield Armory and a host of contractors making the Springfields.

But by 1864,-Zouaves might have not been issued simply because they were NOT SPRINGFIELDS, and hence, a "non-standard" arm. Like I said, only additional research in the National Archiveswill be able to find the facts.

R. McAuley 3014V
05-07-2008, 09:06 PM
CENSORED

Jim Brady Knap's Battery
05-09-2008, 11:00 AM
I have never seen the "Zouave" production being called an 1855 H/F rifle. I have seen repeated references to merely H/F Rifles. This is probably why the "Zouave" is a mix of 41 & 55 rifles and a band shape of the 61 special, and the later 64 rifle musket pattern. Since there was no defining model spec Remington felt free to incorporate the best of several types.
Too many exist in pristine condition compared to the production numbers for them to have been a combat arm. Yes, ther are 41's, 55's and other models existing in mint condition but the production numbers on those types are way above the numbers of "Zouaves" produced.
As a rule armies despise having wide diversity in field equipment and arms and usually attempt to standardise as quickly as possible. Like Mr. McAuley indicates the "Zouave" arrived in arsenals at a time when the Springfield patterns were flooding in in large numbers.
Perhaps the tooling wore out and three groove was considered a better system based on the H/F testing reports I have seen.
There are two seperate lock plate markings seen on Zouaves also. After owning several over the years I have found that, unlike Springfields and the contract arms of those patterns, not all parts are reliably interchangeable. Also the proof markings and dates on the breech are never in exactly the same spots on the "Zouaves". Look at several next chance and you will see the differences.

Fun stuff!


Jim Brady
2249V
Knap's Battery

05-09-2008, 12:49 PM
These rifles are called "Harpers Ferry Rifles" in original ordnance documents, though I have seen "Harpers Ferry Model 1862" rifle mentioned someplace. According to McAulay, all 10,000 were still in storage at Watervliet Arsenal (their point of delivery) in 1866, and 9,999 were sold to Bannerman in 1901. He names it the "Remington Model 1863 Contract Rifle".
I know of no one who knows why the appellation "Zouave." was applied to these rifles. If we found an early Bannerman (or maybe Sears or Montgomery Ward) advertisement maybe we would know when the nickname started.

R. McAuley 3014V
05-09-2008, 07:01 PM
CENSORED

Jim Brady Knap's Battery
05-09-2008, 11:30 PM
I'll say again that I have seen where the contract called for "Harpers Ferry Rifles" but have never seen a specification stating which model, 41 or 55. I agree on the 64 rifle musket production. While Flayderman's book is a good general reference it is not infallable.
Here's a good debate point on Zouaves, the "U" on the barrel bands on Zouaves are properly placed on the left side of the band. That way the open end of the letter "U" is properly pointed towards the muzzle. On most all other US arms the "U" is on the right side of the bands to have it's open end towards the muzzle. I have seen this on other Remington arms like some of the Remington produced rolling blocks.

Jim Brady
2249V
Knap's Battery

Ken Hansgen, 11094
05-10-2008, 12:39 AM
I once asked, at the Springfield Armory museum, what the U on the bands meant. The Curator answered that it meant "up" -- when the weapon was assembled on a table, the lock was up so the U on the bands went on the right side. Now I'm wondering how they assembled the weapons at the Remington factory!

Richard Hill
05-10-2008, 11:31 AM
The contract and specifications for this gun can be found in “Civil War Arms Makers and Their Contracts – A facsimile reprint of the Report by the Commission on Ordnance and Ordnance Stores, 1862” by Mowbray and Heroux, starting on page 131. The first paragraph of this section reads:

"Ordnance Office, Washington, July 30, 1861.

GENTLEMEN: You will please make for this department, and deliver with all possible dispatch, ten thousand rifles, with sword bayonets, and appendages complete. These rifles are to be of .58 inch caliber, and to have a three-leaf rear sight, and a cupped ramrod, with sword bayonet stud similar to those of the Harper’s Ferry rifle model of 1855, in other respects of the pattern of the rifles without bayonets heretofore made by you for this department."

The “pattern of the rifles without bayonets” would be the model 1841, or the Mississippi rifle. The above book is the proceedings of the Holt-Owen Commission and is quite interesting. The Remington section also includes revolver early contracts.

R. McAuley 3014V
05-10-2008, 04:30 PM
CENSORED

05-14-2008, 09:39 AM
All said, there seems to be only evidence that these were never issued during the Civil War. We have not seen any evidence that they were issued.

R. McAuley 3014V
05-14-2008, 12:24 PM
CENSORED

Blair
05-14-2008, 02:57 PM
Gentalmen,

You have your you 19th Century nomenclature all turned around.
In this respect you are comparing apples to oranges and wondering why they don't taste like peaches.

The Harper Ferry Rifle refers only to one firearm. That firearm is the M-1841 Rifle.
Springfield manufactures none of this model firearm throughout the M-1841's production history. Which is why this model is commonly known as the "Harpers Ferry Rifle" within it's time period.

Both Harpers Ferry and Springfield Armories are involved in manufactoring the M-1855 series of firearms. Springfield's production rate is slightly higher of this model firearm that what comes out of Harpers Ferry. Partly due to the fact that Harpers Ferry is so heavely involved with modifying and up dating the M-1841's.

The Remington Contract Rifle commonly known as the "Zouave" Rifle today is not made up of old parts. It is a completly new designed firearm. I don't care what the lock markings are, or how close they maybe to an older contract. The Remington "Zouave" lock is a completly new desinged lock using a stirup mounted mainspring. Which no other M-1841 type lock uses.
Blair

threepdr
05-16-2008, 04:05 PM
Blair said: "The Remington "Zouave" lock is a completly new desinged lock using a stirup mounted mainspring. Which no other M-1841 type lock uses."

I think Blair is right here, however I don't think I'd call it a "completely new design". Remington was probably able to take advantage of some of the old tooling they had on hand from M41 production to make the locks and barrels, which is why they chose those design features. The stirup and the lack of mainspring screw are the biggest differences in the lock. The lack of the screw is also evident on the exterior of the plate

mikepatty4
05-16-2008, 08:43 PM
This is really great stuff but one I think is for sure is that there is no definate evidence one way or the other , although I would lean to limited issue of the firearm , simply because I know of one Remington that is photographed and in a publication on the 1861 Springfield, that has been identified as being purchased and brought home after the war by a USCT.
I can list the book where this is if I am allowed to do so on this forum.
Mike

Blair
05-16-2008, 10:32 PM
Mike,

The excavated remains or A Remington "Zouave" Rifle have has been recovered by the James River Inst. for Archaeology for the National Park Service in the Petersburg area.
I was able to view these parts shortly after they were recovered.
The name and date on the lock were unreadable. Identification was made by the serviving brass furniture. Furniture that was designed for and unique to the Remington "Zouave" Rifle.
Since that time (the early 1980's) I have herd about two more that have been excavaterd. I have not seen these other two, so I can not say if these were indeed "Zouave" Rifles.
Does this prove documentaion these arms were issued during the War?
No it does not!
It only proves, at least some of there firearms saw service in that area either very late in the War or after.
Blair

Blair
05-17-2008, 08:35 AM
Mark,

Yes it is obvious that Remington uses the tooling from their M-1841 prodiction. The bolster, barrel, lock plate profile, Hammer and trigger bow evlove from this Harpers Ferry Rifle pattern.
But look at what was newly designed for this firearm.
Stock, butt plate, patch box, trigger plate,side lock washers, barrel bands, nose cap, bayonet lug and ramrod. Many of these parts are unique to this fireame.
I think this qualifies as a completly new designed model firearm.
Blair

threepdr
05-17-2008, 10:42 AM
Blair,

I agree on the firearm as a whole, just not a completely new lock as suggested earlier. I think the Remington engineers who designed this rifle were very clever in using existing Remington machinery resources blended with new elements that were inspired (not copied) from the Model 1855 Rifle.

Too bad it did not see any significant use during the war, but after having toted a sword bayonet for many miles during my early reenacting career in the 1970s I can see why rifles which used them were not appreciated by the units to who they were issued!

When the Remington rifles finally were sent to Government in 1863 I can understand why issue of standard Springfield took precidence.

Southron Sr.
05-26-2008, 11:29 AM
Based on the fact that remains of a Zouave Rifle have been excavated from a late war, battlefield site, then we must conclude with a 99% probability THAT INDEED, REMINGTON "ZOUAVE" RIFLES WERE ISSUED AND SAW COMBAT IN THE LATTER STAGES OF THE WAR IN THE EASTERN THEATER, INCLUDING PART OR ALL OF THE PETERSBURG CAMPAIGN!

Now, I am going to propose a theory as to HOW THIS HAPPENED:

When General Grant was given overall command of the Union Armies and was planning to take on Lee's Army of Northern Virginia with overwhelming forces in the Spring Campaign of '64. What Grant did was to reassign numerous "backwater" Heavy Artillery military units that had, so far, remained far from combat on peaceful "Garrison Duty" in the forts around D.C. to the Army of the Potomac.

By 1863/64 the emphasis of the Yankee Ordnance Department was to replace all the various models of older arms in the active field armies with the various ('61.'63 & '64) models of the Springfield pattern.

These Heavy Artillery, etc., units, prior to being assigned to the Army of the Potomac, were not in the supply chain of arms and equipment being supplied to that army. Arming and equipping these backwater units (prior to their assignment to the Army of the Potomac) was not necessarily a "High Priority." as far as the Yankee Ordnance Department was concerned.

Most likely, with the supply of Springfields earmarked for the active armies, these backwater units were issued "Secondary Arms," which would include the Remington Zouaves. Of course, when these backwater units were ordered to join the Army of the Potomac for the Spring Campaign of '64-they carried their issue Zouaves with them and into combat.

So, we can theorize with a high degree of certainy that the Remington Zouaves WERE NOT USED IN COMAT UNTIL THE SPRING CAMPAIGN OF 1864.

There is a good chance that those former "backwater" units that had carried their Zouaves into combat, sometimes after the Petersburg Campaign stagnated into trench warfare, turned their Zouaves in and were issued regular Springfields. This would make sense as these formerly "backwater" units were now being supplied by the supply chain for the Army of the Potomac and the emphasis was on issueing everyone new Springfields.

This would also account as to why SO FEW ZOUAVES HAVE BEEN EXCAVAED, as they were not used in combat for very long.

So, Blair has settled the argument about Zouaves being used in combat for wonce and for all. Most likely, (according to my theory) is that they weren't used for very long.

Your comments, opinions and theorys on this would be most Welcome.

THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT BLAIR!!!

Southron Sr.
05-26-2008, 02:59 PM
The first thing to do would be for a researcher to go to the National Archives and find out exaxctly what Heavy Artillery units, along with other "back water" units were assigned to the Army of the Potomac for the Spring Campaign of 1864.

Then go to the "Compiled Service Records" of those units in the National Archives and go thru their correspindence, records, etc., looking for references to "Remington Harper's Ferry Rifles," etc.

One thing about going thru the Compiled Service Records, you never know what you are going to run across. For example when I researched the unit that was issued the Georgia Rifles, I also found that in addition to requisitions for regular .58 ammo (persumably for the Georgia Armory Rifles in the unit) they were also requisitioning ammo for .54 Austrian Rifles!

So, for anyone that wanted to document the combat use of the Remingon Zouave Rifle, this would be the roadmap to follow, especially for anyone that wants to write a Masters Thesis in History, magazine article, etc.

Will any scholarly Skirmisher take up the challenge? I simply don't have the time.

ONE LAST POINT: If the Remington Zouaves were used for a short while in combat and then turned in to be replaced by Springfields, this would explain why so many of the Zouaves survived the war in such good condition-considering that most Zouaves were never issued out and the ones that were, were in active field service for only a short time before being turned in.

John Holland
05-31-2008, 10:27 PM
I'm interested in any documentation on this topic, relic, written, etc.

John Holland
SAC

Roger Hansen
06-02-2008, 08:26 PM
I went back through all old issues of North/ South Trader. Found 3 different dug M1841s from around Richmond, but no 63 Remingtons.
R Hansen
20th Georgia

kevikens
06-07-2013, 08:57 AM
I just discovered this old thread which got me to wondering. The term,"Zouave" for the Remington rifle. Was that the term used for this firearm during the War or was this use of "Zouave" for the rifle a post Civil War creation? Do we know what the official designation of this firearm was during the War, something like "Remington, Model 1863"? Is it possible that the Zouave rifle was being referred to by some other designation that makes it difficult to distinguish from another similar firearm? One last question. There were a ton of these as Italian repros. Is there anything on the originals that would be necessary to differentiate an original from a scrubbed Navy Arms repro from the 1970's? Thanks

Michael Bodner
06-07-2013, 03:09 PM
First differentiator that comes to mind: The originals has the word STEEL stamped into the barrel near the breech. The Navy Arms guns don't, to the best of my knowledge (never saw one that did).

-Mike

John Holland
06-07-2013, 10:47 PM
All of the reproductions have Metric threads.

Southron Sr.
06-11-2013, 06:13 PM
BAck in the "Days of Yore" when the N-SSA was first starting out, the ONLY arms available were originals. Then in 1957 Val Forgett formed Navy Arms and began importing replica '51 Navy Revolvers from Italy.

About the same time, original Remington Model 1863's (what we call Zouaves today) were available for around $20.00 each in "Mint" condition. Why were they in "Mint" condition? Because the government had accempted them from the production line at Remington and then immediately sent them to warehouses where they remained for the next century.

Yes, yes, yes, there is the possibility that a few did get issued out OR maybe Reminton sold some of the overrun to the states for their militias. Unfortunately, no documentation has been found.

Flash forward to the 1950's and the ORIGINAL ZOUAVES quickly gained a reputation as superb shooters in the N-SSA.

So, Val Forgett purchased one in "Mint" condition and sent it to Italy and had it put into production. Hence, the replica Zouave was the FIRST replica of a percussion Civil War long arm.

When the replicas arrived in the U.S. from Italy Val Forgett had a "Marketing" problem to solve and this he did in a brilliant manner.

He couldn't call the replica's "Remington Model 1863 Rifles" because he would have probably gotten sued by Remington. The name "Remington" is copywrighted by the company and they don't loan it out!

So, Mr. Forgett named his replicas of the Remington Model 1863 "ZOUAVE RIFLES.!!!" The Zouaves from the Civil War era dressed in colorful uniforms and were often considered "Elite" troops.

So, that is how the Zouave Rifle got its name, almost a hundred years AFTER the Civil War was over!!! Thanks to the marketing campaign that Mr. Forgett launched around 1961.

Ron/The Old Reb
06-12-2013, 04:19 PM
Thanks Southern very interesting. I offen wondered why it was called the Zouave. Some where in one of the many books I have on the Civil War. I read that some of the troops guarding Washington were issued Remington Zouave rifles.

le piaf
06-13-2013, 03:07 AM
Even in France ,during the prussian war of 1870, only a few Zouave were issued and seen on battle fields , lots of them were kept by town militia after the war and make today french shooters and reenactors happy . About 10.000 or more Zouave came back"NIB" to America at the end of XIX century.