A Kaboom

[John Gross]

[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