CS Richmond: High hump vs. Low Hump

**Ammodramus** · 02-14-2011

Gentlemen,

I would appreciate your advise on which Richmond lock plate you would prefer from a shooters perspective.

I have never handled a repro Richmond with the early high hump, but I have been lead to believe that the high hump models were much harder to cap quickly and with dexterity, and that was one of the primary reasons for the change to low hump plates.

However, I also understand that the high hump serves the favorable function of acting as a much better 'fence' protecting the shooter from exploding caps better than the later low hump models.

Anyway, I very much appreciate the advise of those who have used either or both versions of the CS Richmond RM's as to shootability. Although I suppose that if the early Richmond RM's were difficult to cap, the 1855 Springfields must have been at least as difficult to cap with individual caps (without Maynard tape rolls), and I have never read about that (but perhaps I will when I see your replies).

Again, I thank you for all your opinions.

Chris

**R. McAuley 3014V** · 02-14-2011

I suspect the change in the height of the C.S. Richmond lock had more to do with economy of material than with any perceived difficulty in capping, and for much the same reason why the patchbox was similarly omitted from the new Model 1861 as was the Maynard tape primer system. But one of the significant physical differences between the Model 1855 and Model 1861 barrel is the flash shield behind the bolster on the Model 1861, which for the Model 1855 and subsequent C.S. Richmond models, the bolster had no such shield.

Rather the raised portion of the lock preformed that function. Indeed, if you examine other model muskets (i.e. M1841, M1842, M1861, and M1863), you will often find these to have considerable burn out in the wood behind the bolster because as the flash shield had so deteriorated from not keeping it clean, this allowed more and more of the cap flash to burn out the wood. Fulminated mercury was not only extremely corrosive to the nipple (cone), but to all the metal surfaces exposed to it around the bolster, and this damage extended to include any exposed wood near the cone.

As to whether it is more difficult to cap a Model 1855 with a high hump versus low hump, I shoot a Model 1855 Rifle and I’ve not found it to be any more difficult to cap than my low hump C.S. Richmond carbine. I shoot about the same number of shots with either one, with just as many hits, and in about the same amount of time expended. I tend to shoot a little slower than some here, usually firing only seven well-placed shots in three minutes and dumping my eighth shot into the backstop when time has expired. Some here get ten or even 12 shots off in the same amount of time, but their hit rate is maybe not as good. Of course, after 35+ years of skirmishing, capping becomes almost second-nature. For the Boys of '61, they also had to load while other folks were busy shooting at them, so they had more incentive to load and shoot faster. I concentrate on the quality of my shooting, not the volume.

**Ken Hansgen, 11094** · 02-14-2011

I don't have a Richmond, but I do have a '55 Springfield rifle and I can attest that they ARE harder and slower to cap with the 4-winged caps. I do much better with the wingless caps, so I have switched to them. If I did buy a Richmond for N-SSA shooting, I think I'd go for the low hump model for that reason.

**Blair** · 02-14-2011

I have used, either an M1855 or a Richmond high hump variation for many years in both shooting and in reenacting. I can't honestly say and have never found there to be any difficulty in capping these weapon with indivdual, four or six wing percussion caps.
Opinion based "only" on my experiance,
Blair

**Dave Fox** · 02-15-2011

Richmond Armory apparently did receive serious complaints from the field regarding the difficulty the high hump lockplate caused in capping (and likely, from my experience, with prying stubborn spent caps from the cone). They went to the trouble of shutting-down lock plate production in March, 1862 to address the issue by reconfiguring the tooling to make the low hump lockplate. An additional step taken in manufacture of the low hump plate to ease capping was provision for a subtle cut to the low hump plate where it is adjacent to the cone on the weapon. Thereafter, the armory also took the trouble to crudely file-down high humps received by the arsenal for repair...one of these latter weapons was offered for sale at the January Charleston Civil War relic show. For a discussion of the process see: "C.S. Armory Richmond" by Paul Davies, pp. 36-38. Since Richmond provided lockplates at the time to Fayetteville, Fayetteville rifles show the same sequence (pages 42-43). As an aside, the hump, though lowered remained so the 1855 Harpers Ferry stockmaking machinery used at Richmond wouldn't also have to be altered.

**John Holland** · 02-15-2011

For an excellent example of an altered lock see, again "C.S. Armory Richmond" by Paul Davies, the photo on page 368. This shows a Harper's Ferry 1861 dated lock altered to a Low Hump Richmond lock. There is some belief that this may have been an unfinished plate captured at Harper's Ferry. Pure speculation, but a nice example of a Richmond Armory altered Lock.

JDH