1855 Springfield Use

[lukegilly13]

Are there any surviving documents linking the 1855 musket to use in the eastern (ANV) confederate army? I know that the Virginia Militia stockpiled the '42 Springfield....however, I've also read that the harper's ferry armory converted to producing the 1855 before John Brown's Raid. Therefore, when the confederates took over the HF Arsenal and moved the production equipment to Richmond, was this the '55 gear or the '42 gear or both? Also, was there a stockpile of '55s at the Arsenal and were those mass issued to confederates after the capture of the arsenal? Particularly interested in confederates stationed at Fort Lee at the Richmond fairgrounds....but would be glad to read about any other confederates (even western).
By the way...i've researched.....but sometimes confederate weapon issue can be slim and when you do find it...it's often just a mention of "sprinfield rifles".

[ajroscoe]

Luke,
As far as I understand it, the Springfield Armory was in production of M1855 Rifle Muskets until May of 1861. However, Springfield being in Massachusetts, it would have been difficult for the rebels to have captured it. Harper's Ferry, on the other hand was captured by Col. Thomas Jackson in 1861. I know there was machinery for the M1855 Rifle (called the "Harper's Ferry", as opposed to the M1841 "Mississippi" Rifle), which went to North Carolina to become the Fayettville Rifle. I believe the M1855 Rifle Musket machinery was taken to Richmond where it became the basis of the Richmond Rifle Musket production. I do not know about actual stores of weapons themselves though.

[Andrew Kasmar]

Hi,

If I recall correctly, there have been M1855 lock plates (with tape primer) found at Petersburg Battlefield, which would link them to the Army of Northern Virginia.

[David Fox]

As not-yet Stonewall Jackson's Virginia troops approached Harper's Ferry in April, 1861, a Federal lieutenant took it upon himself to burn the arsenal buildings and contents. He was partly suscessful. The Virginians acquired M.1855 rifle-muskets, machinery to make them, parts, and stocks in various degrees of finish. Never extraordinarily efficient and tramuatized by the John Brown raid, the Ferry's M.1855 production had been sorely depressed up to April, 1861. The rebel Virginians, w/ the help of many of the Ferry's workers, resumed assembly. The exposed position of the Ferry was a reason the entire operation was moved to the State's dorment Armoury at Richmond, where assembly of M.1855s blended into the distinct Richmond rifle-musket, which the Confederates called the M.1855, too. In addition, several southern states had acquired numbers of M.1855 rifle-muskets before April, 1861 pursuant to their allotments under the 1808 militia act and thanks to U.S. Secretary of War (and Virginian) Floyd. Thus certainly the Confederate Army of the Potomac, which in the Spring of 1862 was renamed the Army of Northern Virginia, possessed numbers of M.1855 rifle-muskets, most from Harper's Ferry sources. Springfield production, generally superior, was usually set-aside for U.S. Army (as opposed to militia) needs. Such Springfield M.1855s as would be in Confederate hands in Virginia would have been gleaned from victorious battlefields, chiefly Bull Run.
Dave Fox

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

In brief and to over-generalize...

There are differrent and differing views of Harpers' Ferry Armory M1855 rifle-muskets and rifles going into CS hands, as well as Springfield Armory
M1855 RM ones.

First, the 1859 survey of U.S. arsenals listed a total of 24,105 M1855 RM's and M1855 4,102 R's... of which 10,463 RM's and 4.073 were in Southern arsenals.

1st LT Roger Jones claimed in his report that on April 19, 1861, that he torched 15,000 stands of arms to prevent them form Confederate capture.
Some hisotrians put that at closer to 5,000 finished RM's 4,000 R's and that Jones was talking about not only finished weapons, but finished weapons awaiitng inspection, plus component parts like stocks (such as 17,000 rescued and sent to Fayetteville for rifle making).

Confederate pRoduction is tricky, as the state of Virginia started assembling unfinished M1855 RM's from Harpers Ferry parts, in the late spring and early summer, followed by the establishment of the Richmond Armory in October of 1861 (which kicked off with a assembling of parts and initial parts making at the rate of an estimated 700-800 guns a month.

And yes, they also assembled some few hundred M1842 muskets starting in June of 1862.

Springfield produced, between 1857 and 1861, 47,115 RM's with 12,158 produced at Harpers Ferry.

The M1855 Rifle was only made at Harpers Ferry, with 7,317 made with the final 420 being made between January and April when the armory was captured (3,545 being the first two brass variations in 1857-1858, and 3,772 being the last three iron mounted versions)

Curt

IMHO, it was not so much that production of the M1855 was traumatized in early 1861, it was rather that they were waiting to "retool" for the new M1861 coming down the road at any time.)

[Jimmayo]

Hi,

If I recall correctly, there have been M1855 lock plates (with tape primer) found at Petersburg Battlefield, which would link them to the Army of Northern Virginia.

I found one in a CS trench near Crater Road.

[lukegilly13]

Thanks for the info....still not sure how comfortable I would be with purchasing the '55 for an early war eastern confederate.....seems that it may prove to be a good early war Federal...and 62-5 confederate.
Have any of you diggers found or heard of '55 pieces/remnance being found at/near Manassas or at/near the prewar military camps such as the Richmond fairgrounds?

[Andrew Kasmar]

Hi,

Most likely you would be better served to get M1842 Springfield, Mississippi rifle, or converted flintlock; then to get a M1855 Springfield for a early war Confederate. But this is just my 2 cents.

[Daniel]

If memory serves me, in that famous photo of dead Confederates behind the stonewall at Fredericksburg in the 1863 battle, you can see a M1855 Rifle Musket. It lying across the trench in the forgound. It is the one with the long range sight on it.

Dan

Dan Stewart

[FloridaConscript]

Somewhat of a tangent here, but is there a reproduction '55 with a functional tape primer? I have seen the ones with the door, but there are no guts behind it.

Bryant Roberts

[Benedict]

Are there tapes that work?

[David Fox]

For what it's worth, an 1861 Virginia Reb carrying an M.1855 rifle-musket, esp. if marked Harper's Ferry, would seem kosher: as earlier stated, Virginians assembled an unknown number on site after capturing the Ferry in April, '61, Richmond continued the effort until supplies of the most identifiable componient (the lockplate) ran out, and likely hundreds were policed-up from the Bull Run battlefield. I've also seen Confederate-assembled '55s with lockplates milled-out for the Maynard cap roll but no cuts for the tape feeder arm and no door. Not pretty, but better than a flintlock smoothbore three times the age of the volunteer issued it. In an illustrated Civil War relics book I don't have at hand is illustrated a '55 rifle-musket a boy(?) found with the body of a dead Confederate in the area of the 1862 Seven Days battles. A suggestion: if you are contemplating a Confederate impression utilizing a replica M.1855 rifle-musket, do so: they were "first class" arms in Confederate service and would have been utilized until lost, broken, or worn out. This weapon would also serve, of course, for a Yankee role. Then buy a replica Richmond-style lock or at least lockplate. With a screw driver, one can change the character of the piece w/ just a lockplate change. Dave Fox

[lukegilly13]

Thanks David...I like that suggestion. I don't see too many '55's on the confederate side. As mentioned in the post above, I have seen that 55 in the Fredericksburg image. I portray my ancestor that was severely wounded there while staying behind to defending the heights during the chancellorsville campaign. My wonder if it were a rarity was my inspiration behind the research.

[AZReenactor]

Bryant,
I've seen Zimmerman defarbs where he also built a functioning Maynard Priming system. I know of no source for reproduction tape primers but being able to open the door and visibly demonstrate the priming system at interpretive events is quite useful.

BTW, the 1st California Infantry was issued 1855 Rifle Muskets that were on hand at Benecia Arsenal when the war began.

[FloridaConscript]

Troy,
Thanks. I remember reading an acct some years ago about Confederates using regular caps when the tape ran out. Sorry i can't remember where I read it. I also seem to remember maybe the 16th Mississippi having 55s around the Maryland campaign of 1862. Don't know if they were swapped out, but that makes sense with the Fredericksburg photo.

Bryant Roberts

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Rich Cross makes a most excellent reproduction of the M1855 lockplate (drop in for originals) that is correctly milled to take the "Maynard" mechanism (the only one available).
However, there are no reproductions of the "Maynard" ratchets and hands that make up the tape advancing mechanisim. (When I shot one in the 1980's and 1990's, I simply used repro original M1861 "guts" and greased/sealed
the "Maynard" tape slots to keep blow-back out of the inside of the lock.
So, one can go with a repro lock but will need the original Maynard parts to supplement the repro original M1861 internals.

No one makes repro Maynard tape primer rolls, but historically they fell from use in favor of the standard musket cap anyways.

And an aside... Once the supply of Harper's Ferry parts was quickly used up, Richmond starting replacing the iron buttplate and nosecaps with brass versions. So, unless one is creating one of those early Richmonds that still had HF iron mountings, simply swapping out an M1855 lock for a later 1861 or possibly early 1862 dated Richmond would not work due to the brass parts.

Curt

[Slouch]

Monocacy NBP has a 63 Richmond on display with iron harware. But who knows, it could have been an earlier piece sent back to Richmond for work and recieved a new lock.

[David Fox]

Richmonds from all years of manufacture may have iron buttplates. Iron chiefly through much of 1862 production, battlefield salvaged iron buttplates and rebuilds for the balance. I once owned an honest attic condition 1863 Richmond w/ all iron funiture. And yes, percussion caps were routinely used on Maynard tape-primed weapons, tho' it's a pain, especially decapping w/ that bloody great lock hump in the way. That's why Richmond went to the low-hump plate, circa March, 1862 and why they ground-down high-hump plates on early pieces returned for repair. Dave Fox

Dave Fox

[gsusat]

1855's were in great demand being the latest rifle musket. One other interesting aspect is that the US army had finished outfitting most of the troops in the field (Texas and New Mexico have a large percentage of the troops) with the 1855 rifle muskets. San Antonio had a stockpile of them in storage. Mansfield left Texas in February 1861 after touring the army posts and inspecting the troops. He comments on the rearming and even mentions that he did not like the later rear sight.

Even so at the beginning of the war what you tend to see is that the flank companies received the best weapons. So in a regiment two companies might have 1855's while the rest had converted flintlocks. For example co K 3rd LA had Miss rifle while the other companies had 1816's either flint or percussion, Co B 4th Texas got 1855's while the other companies were less well armed. There is the famous photo of Co. B 9th Miss with 1855 rifles and I would presume that most of the regiment had something else.

The basic 1816 percussion conversion would be the most common arm for the first half of the war. Looking at the boxes of them that were shipped from 1858 to 1860 is staggering. The 1842's would be a close second.

1855's show up in all theaters, though not as the predominate or perhaps even a common weapon.

George Susat
Confederate Guard

[FTrooper]

Just a side note guys when doing research.

As Andrew Roscoe points out...9 times out of ten if you see a reference to a "Harper's Ferry Rifle" it usually means the M1855 Rifle...BUT sometimes the term IS applied to M1841's that were altered to .58. Unless both weapons arelisted in the inventroy, you never really know. It also seems that at one point ALL single shot horse pistols were being called Harper's Ferry Pistols (and HF did not produce a single shot from 1812-1855...go figure how terms are used).

I have a huge love for the M1855 Rifle and was surprised to learn that few were ever really issued ( according to most current published research) as they lacked rear sights...those rear sites that were made were attached to converted M1841's. The army felt the that M1855 RM in .58 was the priority and that the .58 and bayoneted M1841 Rifles would suffice. If anyone has more up-to-date research please share it with me!

I leanred this when studing the 3rd Cavalry in New Mexico in 1862, they carried "Harpers Ferry" Rifles only to to more research and learn that the General who made the quote was actually referring to the M1841's in .58 :-( too bad as I was looking for a GOOD reason to invest in a M1855 Two-bander.

Chris Fischer
Fort McKavett
&
F-Troop

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"I have a huge love for the M1855 Rifle and was surprised to learn that few were ever really issued
(according to most current published research) as they lacked rear sights...those rear sites that were made were attached to converted M1841's."

??

Curt

[LibertyHallVols]

Hey, Chris,

I think you've got a wire crossed somewhere. Check this out...

Here's a Rifle Musket with a rear sight:
http://historical.ha.com/common/view_item.php?SaleNo=6015&LotIdNo=22112

Here's a Rifle with a rear sight:
http://www.civilwar.si.edu/first_blood_images/1855rifle.jpg

[FTrooper]

I did not say there weren't any M1855 rifles, nor did I say they didn't have ANY made with rear sites.

The information came from:

Rifles of the U.S. Army, 1861-1906
by John D. McAulay (2003).

Basically bunches of the M1855 rifles were made up, but as the precision sites were made for the rifles, they went to converted M1841's first. At the outbreak of the war most (but not all) of the M1855 rifles were still at Harper's Ferry and were still lacking sites! Again, this was what was found in the above book...if someone has more recent documentation I would be very eager to get a hold of it. (please also note I am talking M1855 RIFLE, not Rifle-Musket).

BTW, I do not have a copy of the book in front of me...so if I am misquoting the research, would someone who DOES have a copy handy correct me please.

Christopher Fischer
Fort McKavett
&
F-Troop

[FTrooper]

While on the topic, there are several "variants" of the M1855 Rifle, though only three seem to be regularly identified. That being the brass mounted with long range site and the patchbox cut figure-8 for the "sniper" ring. And then Iron mounted versions with both the long range sites and flips sites with oval patchbox inlets. I have also handled two diffent iron with figure-8 inletted patchbox (basically a "Type 1.5") one with a long range site and one with no site, and have seen them both with brass and iron stock tips.

There will always be transition peices, especially if they were siting them at random in 1861!

NOW if I can just find a M1855 Rifle-Musket with the patchbox AND the long range rear site! :D

Chris Fischer
Fort McKavett
&
F-Troop

[David Fox]

All patch-boxed M.1855 rifle-muskets were assembled at the two U.S. arsenals w/ the familiar small rear sights. The use of the large "long range" sights, (a sight adopted and downscaled from the M.1842 .69 calibre rifled-musket) was terminated in 1858. Patch box rifle-musket production began sometime after October, 1859. Some may exist w/ both, but they'd be Richmond assembly. My 1861 date Richmond high wall rifle-musket sports the patch box but no cut for a spare nipple in the recess, for instance: the Commonwealth of Virginia using up captured Harper's Ferry patch boxes and the wooden stocks pre-cut for them. They'd as likely have slapped a Maynard lockplate on it, if that's what was on top of the parts bin that day.

[FTrooper]

Yeah, that's what my research showed too... there was such a gap from the time they terminated using "long range" sights on the Rifle Musket to when they started to add the patch box that there is no logical way to have one with both...sad. The only chance is a restocked/repaired on from about 1860...but know collector nor expert I have ever talked too has ever seen nore heard of such a creature.

I am very fascinated by the idea of the "Richmond" with a patchbox though! and I have seen a few "Richmond" with maynards locks as well.

While on this topic, does anyone know when the M1855 Rifle-Musket officially startes to disappear from the US Regulars? I am not sure if they are listed seperate or together as .58 cal.? I am just curious as a "regular" how late a person could justify a M1855 as opposed to a M1861 or M1863.

Chris Fischer
Fort McKavett
&
F-Troop

[FlatLandFed]

"Are there tapes that work?"

A friend wants to buy a functioning reproduction M1855, so I looked up John Z while at AHT this past summer. I was mostly looking at fit and finish and, yes, it was neato to open the little door flap and watch the parts move as if the primer tape was being advanced.

I asked John if he knew of a supplier of tapes or if my friend could try to fashion some of his own, similar to children's cap gun tapes.

I was told in no uncertain terms that first, it might be dangerous to work with the chemicals needed for such an endeavor and, second, my friend would be promptly sued by the current patent holder (3M?) of the tape for copyright infringement. John has no intent to make the tapes.

Seemed a little harsh, but I was assured John's reproduction firearm would fire just fine with the standard cap on the nipple "just like they did it when the tape got wet, broken or kinked."

Anyway, I don't know if John's version would feed an original Maynard system tape, only that he doesn't know of a supplier and advises against trying to make your own.

Just saying ...
Paul Hadley

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

There appears to have been five "variations" in the M1855 Rifle between its start in 1857 and its end in 1861.

1. 1857-1858. Brass furniture, long range rear sight, long brass nose cap. All stocks cut for the long nose cap were inletted for the "Figure Eight" add-on front sight in the "patchbox." Barrel browned, locks and hammer color case hardened,

2. 1858. Brass furniture, short range rear sight, long brass nose cap.

3. 1859. Iron furniture, short range rear sight, long brass nose cap.

4. 1859. Iron furniture, short range reat sight, short brass nose cap

5. 1859-1861. Iron furniture, short range rear sight, short iron nose cap.

The "short range rear sight" for the Rifle was .10 inches shorter than the one used on the Rifle-Musket.

The "most complete" Confederate M1855 Rifles and Rifle Muskets were those assembled from finished and semi-finished parts by the State of Virginia before they were shipped to Richmond to be "CS Richmonds."

Curt

[FTrooper]

Thanks Curt. Your #3 is what I have seen two of an have been calling the TYPE 1.5 SO the long nose cap usually means figure 8 patchbox? neat!

When you say "short range" site are you referring to the 400yrd version or the two leaf flip? I was referring to the leaf-flip...if your referring to the adjustable 400yrd (as oppsoed to the 500yrd, am I correct in that? found on rifle-muskets) then there is a whole slew of variants not discussed...also, I have seen repro made long iron nose caps...did any such creature really exist???

Chris Fischer
Fort McKavett
&
F-Troop

[David Fox]

Re: arms of the regular Army infantry. If my memory serves, by the early 1850s, the first ("old") eight infantry regiments were equipped primarily with the M.1842 .69 calibre smooth bore musket. Some isolated companies stationed primarily on the west coast (most of these regiments were parcelled-out on one and two company posts and never saw a full regimental muster) made-do with converted flintlock muskets as late as 1861. The two "new" regiments, the 9th and 10th Infantries authorized in 1855, were equipped with more-or-less experimental gear, as, incidently, were the two new cavalry regiments. These new infantry regiments were outfitted as foot riflemen with appropriate accoutrements, odd uniforms, and M.1855 two-band rifles. The older regiments were re-equipped with M.1855 rifle-muskets, beginning about 1857. Circa 1862 all regular regiments were re-equipped again with M.1861 rifle-muskets which, with some admixture of M.1863 and '64 (aka: M.1863 type II) rifle-muskets, they retained until issued Allin M.1866 or M.1868 trapdoor rifles in 1871 and 1872. The wartime-formed new regular infantry regiments were all pretty much issued M.1861s as they were raised. There was also limited post-war trial issue of experimental breechloaders, Spencers, and Sharps. Odd limited Civil War issue arms, such as the 7th Regiment's 1864 issue of a couple hundred Colt's revolving rifles, complicate the picture.

[FTrooper]

Actually, the 9th & 10th Infantries and 1st and 2nd Cavalries never got their experimental weapons authorized in 1855. The 9th and 10th had M1841 rifles reamed out to .58 and fitted with the sword bayonets. At some point even the 2d Infantry ended up with them. Eventually some companies of the 9th was re-equipped with rifled M1842s as they felt they were more accurate. By 1861 the 9th and 10th seem to have been re-equipped with M1855 Rifle Muskets (the 10th carried them in New Mexico). The 6th Infantry was still caring flintlocks in 1851! (but the replacements were in route when that inspection was made).

The Cavalry regiments were equipped with the new M1855 rifled-carbine (not the pistol-carbine), M1841 Rifles, M1847 Musketoons, and M1843 Halls (the 2d Dragoons got wind that the Hall had been ordered to be reissued to the "mounted arm" and tried to re-equip with it at Leavenworth and Riley and tried to stick the 1st Cavalry with musketoons! The two cavalry regiments did not even get a full compliment of Colt Navies, the 2d's 1856 inspection in Texas shows .44 Dragoons and M1842 Horse Pistols as well!!!!!

I LOVE the messed up 1850's troops.

David, Thanks for the 1862 date for replacement of the 1855 rifles in the old regulars. I was curious how long the held onto them. BTW, love the M1836 pistol!

Christopher Fischer
Fort McKavett
&
F-Troop

[FTrooper]

Just looking at the troops that faced the Sibley brigade can show you how much fun. The regular Cavalry in New Mexico was the 3rd US (old Mounted Rifles) and the 1st Cavalry (old 1st Dragoons) The 3rd was equipped mostly with .58 M1841's, identified as "Harper's Ferry Rifles"...for years I believed that meant M1855 two-banders, but again as I noted earlier I found it did not with the regular regiment (so sad for me). Some members of the 3rd also carried First Model Maynards that they had been testing since 1859 (so YES, the federals DID use the first model). The 1st Dragoons (I thin Just company D) carried both M1852 "slant Breech" Sharps carbines and M1855 .44 Colt revolving long rifles (just like Dixie sells)! The New Mexico Volunteers has .54 M1841's, M1855 Pistol Carbines and M1847 musketoons both rifled and smooth!

Other prewar nightmares include the "NIPPES/Maynards Primer conversion" this were old M1835/40 muskets with Maynard primer boxes added. This was the army test version and is VERY different than the M1855 and Remington conversions as a small box was added to the lockplate instead of inletting it and adding the door. These show up as late as 1857! Also the .58 M1841 with two different sites and two different bayonets, including the famous Snell Bayonet.

Sadly I am away from a book I need for three days, but when I get to it I will post form the 1859 inspection of New Mexico a great note on how messed up the pre-war army could really be in regards to arms!!!

Chris Fischer
Fort McKavett
&
F-Troop

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"Thanks Curt. Your #3 is what I have seen two of an have been calling the TYPE 1.5 SO the long nose cap usually means figure 8 patchbox? neat!

When you say "short range" site are you referring to the 400yrd version or the two leaf flip? I was referring to the leaf-flip...if your referring to the adjustable 400yrd (as oppsoed to the 500yrd, am I correct in that? found on rifle-muskets) then there is a whole slew of variants not discussed...also, I have seen repro made long iron nose caps...did any such creature really exist???"
The "short range" rear sight is the "ancestor" of the M1861 rear sight, and yes, is the two leaf graduated at 100-300-500 yards.
The "long range" rear sight had two forms, one graduated from 100 to 1000 yards and a later one reduced to 100-900 yards (nicknamed by some collectors as the "Roller Coaster" rear sights because of the side wall profile.

The side wall of the M1855 long range rear sight was stamped 1-5 and the then the ladder had to be raised for the rest of the range.

There are several variations of the "long range" rear sight used on the M1842 rifled-and-sighted alterations which like the M1855 "short range" rear sights also showed up on some of the M1841 Rifle alterations. They typically are graduated to 900 or 100 yards, but the sidewalls only stamped 1-4.

I have always questioned the long iron nose cap as a "maker convenience" the way longrifle parts suppliers simply offer their furniture in brass or steel because it is convenient to use the molds for either whether or not there is any historical documentation for the same parts to exist in BOTH brass and iron versions (which in the artifact pool there is not- but that is a larger 18th century argument). Meaning it is typical to offer copies of furniture from a surviving original and then simply also offer the same furniture in steel.
I may be "dated" and I could be wrong- basing my knowledge on my own research and experience, and what research Paul Davies and my late friend Howard Madaus did, as well as the collector who used to bring his extensive collection of M1855's to the old Ashland Civil War Show (and whose name escapes me at the moment).

Curt

[gsusat]

I am a fan of the 1855 rifles as well. On the rear sights my reading between the lines is that when the order came to change to the shorter 2 leaf sight the change was made to the rifle musket then in production, but they wanted to clarify applying that change to the rifle. They continued production of the rifle, albeit without the rear sights and then when the clarification happened went back and installed the rear sights. Evidence seems to indicate that the majority of the brass mounted rifles had the sliding leaf sight added. (from the book on US Rifles mentioned earlier) Again my speculation - but there was so much emphasis in making the brass mounted rifle the ultimate muzzle loading military rifle that having a top of the line rear sight would be very important. Anyway have you ever seen a 1855 rifle without the rear sight dovetail?

The sight on the brass mounted rifle is graduated to 5 (500 yds) on the sides I believe -and I will check when I get home. The Mississippi sights went through several changes. First was the screw sight used with the snell bayonet. The next was the sliding leaf design but soldered on and had different details than the 1855 rifle sight. Then the typical 1855 rifle sight with a dovetail and screw holding it on. The bayonet lug was also changed to match the one used on the 55 rifle (no 1" long key).

The rifle with the rifle belt is such an interesting set. Interesting how quickly all that development work on Burton's bullet and the 1855 model of arms was so quickly outshadowed by all the breechloading weapons.

George Susat
Confederate Guard

[Gary of CA]

Mention was made of the fear of a lawsuit for making reproduction Maynard tape. Without being an attorney, one would think that after a century, the patent no longer protects that technology. Remember, patents ran only about thirty years and after that, it was up for grabs and development. I cite the example of the flood of revolvers after Colt's patent expired and another flood when the bored-through cylinder patent for metallic cartridges also expired.

[FTrooper]

OK Gents, found it. It doesn't get more messed up than this!

This is from Jospeh E. Johnstsons Inspection tour of New Mexico in 1859 as reprinted in Texas and New Mexico on the Eve of the Civil War by Jerry Thompson (2001)

Fort Buchanan October 4th, 1859

"The garrison present is...Capt. Ewell's G, 1st Dragoons...a Capt. and 74 enlisted men including 22 on extra duty and daily duty, 17 sick & 4 confined, with 57 horses, 4 of which are reported "unserviccable"...
...There is, however, a great variety of fire arms, Sharp's, Hall's & the pistol carbine, the rifle (cal. .54) & musketoon-Colt's revolver of both sizes, & the old Dragoon pistols...His sabres are of the old pattern."

The last line is intersting and alot of Dragoon historians have discussed it. M1833 Dragoon Sabres DO show up in the 1st Dragoons as late as the 1850's, BUT a new saber (Light Cavalry Sabre aka M1860) begins production in 1857-58...so it is not 100% sure which one Johnston is referring to as the "old pattern" was it a M1833 or a M1840? Its just in the wrong transition era to document 100%

Chris Fischer
Fort McKavett
&
F-Troop

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

In his patent (No. 4,208) granted September 22, 1845, Edward Maynard described his pellets as being made up of 100 parts of "fulminaitng mercury" and 60 parts "gun powder."

IMHO, while it would be interesting...

Fulminate of mercury is an unstable explosive substance which might create BATFE and HLS problems. Plus "mercury" these daze is its own hazmat curse.

Aside from originals, no one makes a function M1855 lock. Although Rich Cross makes an excellent museum-quality reproduction that can be fitted with the Maynard system parts to make it function.
I shot one in the N-SSA for years with percussion caps, but half way through my first season I omitted the "ratchets" and "hands" as blow-back came through from the nose of the hammer, into the tape slot, and into the backside of the lock through the milling. I filled the tape slot with grease.
;) :)

Plus, aside from the limited or non existant demand, I do not see anyone bucking the Modern World to try produce Maynard primer rolls.

Curt

[David Fox]

As an aside, for an article in "Camp Chase Gazette" a couple years ago, I attempted to fire my 1859-dated Harper's Ferry M.1855 rifle-musket using an original priming tape. Tried several strikes. Mechanism functioned perfectly, tape advanced correctly, the priming lumps were dead as Caesar's daddy.

[Foggy Bottom Jim]

...While on this topic, does anyone know when the M1855 Rifle-Musket officially startes to disappear from the US Regulars? I am not sure if they are listed seperate or together as .58 cal.? I am just curious as a "regular" how late a person could justify a M1855 as opposed to a M1861 or M1863.

Chris Fischer
Fort McKavett
&
F-Troop

On page 120 of "Echos of Glory" there is a picture of the 8th U.S. at Fairfax Court House in June of 1863. If you download the original photo from the Library of Congress website and enlarge it, it becomes clear that at least 2 1855 rifle-muskets are evident by the long range sights.

[David Fox]

Great detective work, Mr. Reynolds!

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Within the realm of possibility...

The others could conceivably also be M1855 RM's... just the later version with the "short range" rear sights.

(I cannot blow it up with enough resolution to discern the form of the rear sight (1855 versus 1861) or the possible presence of the "Maynard hump.")

Curt