1863 Springfield - widespread use???

[billywebb]

I've always wondered just how widespread the issuance of the Model 1863 Type I & Type II Springfield’s were to Union troops prior to the end of the conflict. Most contractors seemed to stick with the 61 Springfield pattern. Therefore, how correct is the 63 Springfield in a mid to late war impression?

In most armed soldier group photos I've seen taken by Brady & Gardner during the war, the arms appear to be 42 or 61 Springfield’s or Enfield's. I know this is an unscientific way to estimate usage, so is there another reliable source? What units were issued the 63 Springfield’s? Were there any 63 Springfield’s at Gettysburg? Petersburg? Appomattox?

[RebelYellofDixie]

i say i have to agree with you that the 1861 springfield was the most common issue throughout the entire war. i think about half of all union troops were issued 1861 springfields so that means about roughly 1.3 mill. 1861's were issued to troops and its a good estimate that another 700,000 were issued 1853 Enfields. so that means the other 700,000 union troops were issued other types of weapons and the most common among these i would say would probably be the 1863 springfield and 1842 Springfield. Also Dont Forget the Cavalry :)

[John Grimes]

Just a cursory web search came up with the following numbers produced by type. This of course does not indicate how many were actually issued, but may put the possible usage by type into perspective.

1842- approx 275,000
1855- approx 60,000
1861- approx 800,000 (US and private contracts)
1863 (type I) - approx 273,000
(type II)- approx 255,000

[ThehosGendar]

In the image "Petersburg, Va. Row of stacked Federal rifles; houses beyond", taken on April 3rd 1865, there is a mixture of both '61 and Type I '63 Springfields. There are well over 20 stacks in the picture (I started losing count towards the middle of the image when they turn into one big mash of stocks and bayonet tips), but the majority appear to be made up of Type I '63 Springfields. There are no stacks composed of only one type of rifle.

http://www.3nj.org/stack.jpg

The lockplate of a '61:
http://www.3nj.org/lockplate.jpg

Barrel bands, showing both '61 and Type I '63 split bands:
http://www.3nj.org/bands.jpg

This is interesting, too - There's not only a mixture of rifles in the picture, but a variety of cartridge boxes that are on slings and on belts.

http://www.3nj.org/sansplate.jpg
(with breastplate removed, too!)

http://www.3nj.org/onbelt.jpg

Some extra tidbits -

A blanket rolled in a groundcloth, and well as an extra pair of boots packed:
http://www.3nj.org/extraboots.jpg

A wire handled cup attached to a haversack:
http://www.3nj.org/cup.jpg

[dusty27]

Jason,

You are scaring me with your pictures and detailed blowups. What are you using to blow them up?

[ThehosGendar]

Jason,

You are scaring me with your pictures and detailed blowups. What are you using to blow them up?
Mike,

http://www.3nj.org/oogahboogah.jpg
OOGAH BOOGAH!

God bless Adobe Photoshop! ...but any graphics proggy that can enlarge images should do the trick. By the way, that's not me in the picture.

[BorderReb]

Great photos thanks!

[1stMaine]

Comrades,
Note also the cartridge box with no plate, attached to a sling with pre-punched holes for the breastplate, but no plate attached.
respects,

[Niels_Kaas]

Don't mean to be picky, but just curious: how can you be certain--just from looking at the barrel bands--that these are '63 Type I and not '61 Specials (Colt, Amoskeag, LG&Y)?

Paul Lockhart

[QUOTE=Thehos Gendar]In the image "Petersburg, Va. Row of stacked Federal rifles; houses beyond", taken on April 3rd 1865, there is a mixture of both '61 and Type I '63 Springfields. There are well over 20 stacks in the picture (I started losing count towards the middle of the image when they turn into one big mash of stocks and bayonet tips), but the majority appear to be made up of Type I '63 Springfields. There are no stacks composed of only one type of rifle.

Barrel bands, showing both '61 and Type I '63 split bands:

[major]

Great photography work but I am curious, :confused: why aren't the images reversed as in all the original CW picture of the time?
Terry

[HOG.EYE.MAN]

Terry,

Not all CW images were reversed back then. It's possible to have one made that's non-reversed.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

"The troops at the bridge were colored men, and they made the mistake of thinking when they first saw us that we were also Negroes. This was not surprising as we were certainly as dark as Negroes. We had no soap and were covered by greesy black that could not be removed by water alone. While in complexion alone we might resemble our colored comrades, in other ways we presented a strange contrast. Their uniforms were new and well fitted , bright and clean, their shoes were new, black and shining; thier guns were the Springfields latest model and almost sparkled with brightness. The men looked fat and sleek, showing the good care and food they had recieved. Their officers were splendedly dressed, with buttons shining and new unfaded sashes. What a contrast did they present to Sherman´s veterans, some of those passing them had followed that great leader for four years."

Rice C. Bull
123rd NY