A Kaboom

[John Gross]

http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/379/379388/pages/1103275/kaboom1.jpg

http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/379/379388/pages/1103276/kaboom2.jpg

http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/379/379388/pages/1103277/kaboom3.jpg

http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/379/379388/pages/1103278/kaboom4.jpg

http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/379/379388/pages/1103279/kaboom5.jpg

http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/379/379388/pages/1103280/kaboom6.jpg

[Eric A. Savickas, 08663V]

OUCH!

[bilge water bob]

YIKES!!!! Got fingers?

[RaiderANV]

Yeppers,,,,,even when yer all excited, :shock: shooting, attachin well defended Fort and having just general all 'round fun ya gotta remember ta shovel that minnie ALL THE WAY DOWN THE BARREL. :!:

This was know to be a main cause of exploded barrels.

Should oughta make ya think twice 'bout just shootin' that round that's half way down yer barrel rather then wait for the guy to blow yer barrel clear after the relay.

[Southron Sr.]

Besides the ruptured barrel, that Model 1863 is a "First Class" Historical Artifact because of the "Pinned" Barrel Bands.

Anyone that has ever shot an Enfield, Special Model 1861 or M1863 Springfield with the screw tightened barrel bands knows that those bands have a tendency to slide forward from time to time. APPARANTLY, THe "PINNED" BARREL BANDS WERE A MODIFICATION ORDERED BY THE ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT TO CORRECT THE "SLIDING BARREL BANDS" PROBLEM.

In all of my research, I have never run across an Ordnance Department order or directive to the armories instructing them to install these "Pinned" barrel bands. That being said, I have seen several original Special Model 1861 and M1863 Springfields with "Pinned" barrel bands. Previously I had assumed that these were "post-war" modifications, but my assumption was wrong!

OBVIOUSLY, those "Pinned" barrel bands were INSTALLED AT THE FACTORY precisely to stop the barrel bands from sliding forward!

We know for an absolute fact that that particular musket went from the factory and was issued to a soldier in the field and was picked up on the battlefield. So, we know that those "Pinned" barrel bands were not a post-war modification by a gunsmith or one of the surplus arms dealers.

So modern collectors need to change their designations for M1863 Springfields: The NEW designations should be:

1 M1863 Springfield Type I - Arm with screw tightened barrel bands.
2 M1863 Springfield Type II - Arm with screw tightened barrel bands that are "Pinned."

Presently, they call the M1864 Springfield with the solid barrel bands and band springs the M1863 Springfield "Type II" which is a bit "whacky" because the Ordnance Department referred to that arm as the M1864 Springifled.

THANKS FOR POSTING THOSE PICTURES!

[John Holland]

This is a worthy discussion, so please don't misunderstand what I'm going to say as being argumentative. The following is to be taken in a friendly manner.

I too, have seen several muskets over the years with pinned barrel bands, and unlike Southron Sr., I still believe them to all be post war modifications. With that having been said, the following is my opinion of what I see in the photographs.

What I see in the photographs of the blown up musket are the very familiar "white paint splatters" that all good old relic arms are seemingly adorned with! If you look over the rest of the relic you will see additional white paint spots to go along with the one that has happened to land directly on the center of the bottom barrel band.

What is noteworthy to me is that the lower barrel band is reversed. The "U" on the band indicates "UP", which is the way the band is to be put on the arm because of the internal taper, which matches the taper of the barrel and stock. The "U" is to be in the upwards position, not in the downward position, as it now is. It shows me how little the soldiers actually knew about their arms, for here is the perfect example frozen in time!

Thanks again to Mr. Gross, for yet another delightful example of Civil War history.

Sincerely,
John Holland
SAC

[John Gross]

About the barrel bands being pinned.

There are no pins. If Southron is referring to the lower band, that is a white paint spec as John guessed.

Additional info is that it is a contract piece by SN&WTC, and dated 1863.

Now for you historical xperts. Besides the name of the GAR post being mispelled (it should be BACON and not BASCOM), what historical error is contained in the ID tag on the stock?

A prize will be awarded to the first correct answer.

John Gross

[threepdr]

I think you may be referring to the magazine explosion. From what I remember in my reading, the magazines exploded BEFORE the landing force was put ashore. Thus, the good Captain could not have been killed during the magazine explosion.

[Southron Sr.]

Actually, there occurred an ACCIDENTAL explosion at Fort Fisher AFTER the fort fell to Union soldiers and sailors in January of 1865.

Basically, some of the soldiers and sailors found and confinscated some medical whiskey from the Confederate stores and were having something of a combination "Victory Celebration" and party.

Somewhere between 6 & 7 tons of gunpowder were stored in an underground magazine. This magazine was being used by some New York soldiers, who were bedded down in it to escape the cold January night when two drunken sailors with tourches entered the magazine.

The accidential explosion resulted in the the tragic death of 104 soldiers and sailors.

[John Gross]

I think you may be referring to the magazine explosion. From what I remember in my reading, the magazines exploded BEFORE the landing force was put ashore. Thus, the good Captain could not have been killed during the magazine explosion.

No, I'm afraid that's not the answer. The storming of the fort
was on January 15, 1865, and the magazine explosion was on
the 16th. Captain Ferguson's National Archives paperwork
confirms that he was killed on the 16th.

For a hint to the answer, check the order of battle.

John Gross
http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/379/379388/pages/1103550/kaboom.jpg

[threepdr]

Okay, I see now. No Massachusetts troops in either expedition. There were other New England troops but no regiments from Mass.

[Southron Sr.]

Wasn't the good Captain killed in that accidentail magazine explosion I referred to in my earlier post?

[John Gross]

Okay, I see now. No Massachusetts troops in either expedition. There were other New England troops but no regiments from Mass.

WINNER WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER!!

Yes, that's the correct answer. Your prize is a copy
of the April, 2009 issue of THE GUN REPORT magazine
with my article "The Myth of Confederate Sharpshooters
and the Whitworth Rifle." Email your name and address
to me at floridarebel@bellsouth.net and I'll send it out.

Here's what I wrote about the discrepency on the ID tag.
Keep in mind it's a SN&WTC contract piece which were
made for Massachusetts and so marked on the lockplate.

________________

"For those who are familiar with the battle for Fort Fisher they
will note the historical error contained in the inscription, that
of the rifle being found 'where the Massachusetts troops attacked.'
This was an understandable assumption since the lockplate does
say FOR MASSACHUSETTS. However a check of the Union order
of battle does not list any Massachusetts regiments present at
Fort Fisher. Which of course leads us to the question of how a
rifle, contracted for by the state of Massachusetts, made in
Massachusetts and intended for Massachusetts troops, wound
up at a battle where there was no Massachusetts regiment
present. While your author does not have the definitive answer
here are a few plausible explanations.

Firstly the rifle, dated 1863, had more than a year to find its
way to Fort Fisher. One scenario is that it could have been
issued to a Massachusetts regiment and at some point dropped
or lost by a soldier, recovered by a Union or Confederate soldier
in another regiment who needed a weapon and, not caring a wit
what it said on the lockplate, used it until that soldier subsequently
ended up at Fort Fisher. Another possibility is that although
there were no Massachusetts infantry regiments at Fort Fisher
there were a good many sailors from the Bay State
involved in the amphibious assault.
This is evidenced by the fact that no
less then twelve navy men who were awarded the
Medal of Honor at Fort Fisher hailed from Massachusetts.
And finally, Governor John Andrew of Massachusetts was a
stout supporter of the Union and would do whatever
was necessary to achieve a Northern
victory, even if it meant a sacrifice to his own state. There is
ample evidence that his state, though just as desperate for
arms as anybody, sold firearms and equipment to other
states and that he put at the disposal of the U. S. Government,
as it saw fit to use, arms and supplies which were
en route to Massachusetts soldiers in the field or
contracted for by the state of Massachusetts.
(For some examples of Governor Andrew see; The
Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, Series III,
Volume I, pages 141, 182-183; American Military Equipage:
State Forces, Frederick P. Todd, page 901; Spencer
Repeating Firearms, Roy M. Marcot, pages 65-66, 71;
Massachusetts Military Shoulder Arms 1784-1877,
George Moller, pages 100-103).

___________________

Now for Part II. The same prize will be awarded.
Typewritters were not in use during the Civil War, so
this tag was added later. Based upon the style of the
lettering, as well as a tid bit of information contained
in the inscription, we can come to a reasonable time
guesstimate of when the tag was affixed. What is that
time frame, and why?

John Gross

[John Gross]

Wasn't the good Captain killed in that accidentail magazine explosion I referred to in my earlier post?

Yes, you were correct, he was killed the day after the fort was taken when the magazine accidentally exploded.

John Gross

[Jim Wimbish, 10395]

The medal in question came out around 1886. The typing appears to have been done on a manual typewriter. There is a reference to the late war in the description. All of this tells me the tag was probably done sometime after 1886 and before the Span Am War.

Jim Wimbish

[John Gross]

The medal in question came out around 1886. The typing appears to have been done on a manual typewriter. There is a reference to the late war in the description. All of this tells me the tag was probably done sometime after 1886 and before the Span Am War.

Jim Wimbish

Your about 3/4 right so you get a magazine!!

I agree that the "late war" infers prior to 1898. However,
although your 1886 date is about what I figured too,
I believe for a different reason than the GAR badge.

I'm not sure exactly when this style badge came out,
but I'm pretty sure it was well before 1886. For example
here's a GAR brochure from 1881 with the badge
on it.

http://i.ebayimg.com/02/!BUzul8wBGk~$(KGrHgoH-CcEjlLl4lRpBKP,CIq-hg~~_12.JPG

Now, as to my theory on what the earliest date could be
for the ID tag. The earliest typwriters of the post war period were
capable of only CAPITOL letters. It was not until 1878 with
the Remington No. 2 typewriter that upper and lower case
could be used, but even then such typewriters did not become
common until sometime in the 1880's.

Hence, that's my best guess on the tag being placed
on the stock, about the mid-1880's to 1898.

Jim, email me your address so I can send the magazine
to you

John Gross
floridarebel@bellsouth.net

[John Gross]

Mark and Jim. Magazines mailed today (Friday, 6/26). Enjoy.

John Gross