Ammunition Crates

[Scott]

Moderators I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this so feel free to move it..

I was wondering about the correct size for a .69 cal. wooden ammo arsenal box... I am considering on making them and was curious as to the proper demensions, I have viewed original .58 cal. boxes from the St. Louis arsenal but have yet to find originals for the .69 cal.

Thanks in advance,

Scott Davolt

[hardtack1864]

Look up the yellow hammer rifles mess and check under articles. They have demensions for a 69 cal. box.

[1stMaine]

Comrade,
The dimensions depend upon the type of round. Do you want to make packing boxes for Round Ball, Elongated Ball, or Buckshot?
respects,

[Scott]

I could not locate the yellow hammer rifle's page... do you have a web address?
I am specifically looking for the .69 cal. round ball....

Scott Davolt

[Clark Badgett]

I can help you here. Let's see what the Ordnance manual called for. Keep in mind that these are all interior diminsions.

For .69 elongated ball- 14" long, 12" wide and 7" high. Color of box is lead (dark gray) weight when full of 1000 live cartridges is 135 lbs

For .69 round ball- 15.5" long, 11.75" wide and 6.75" high. Color of box is blue and weight when full is 107 lbs.

For buckshot and buck and ball- 15" long, 10.75" wide and 6.38" high. Color of box is red. No weight is listed.

[Bill]

Scott,

I took the exterior mesurements from a .69 cal. round ball box I found at a relic shop. The box was 12 1/4" wide, 17" long, and 8" tall, including both the bottom and top. (The top was missing, so I added the thickness of the bottom to my measurement) The handles were 1 1/2" wide, and were 2" from the open top. They were 3/4" thick and attached to the box with three clinched nails

The wood in the box was between 3/4" and 7/8" thick. Planed on the outside, and rough on the inside. The corners were rabbited, not finger jointed. The bottom of the box was attached with eight iron screws, three on each side, and one in the middle of each end.

The Markings were done using a 3/4" Roman stencil, using white paint and were as follows:

1000
CARTRIDGES
(handle)
MUSKET, CAL. .69
SPH 1861

Only the very bottom of the number 1000 showed on the box. Most of the number had been stenciled on the missing top. The information was centered on the box. The computer won't let me show that. It keeps moving my diagram to the edge of the page. SPH was at one edge, while 1861 was at the other edge.

The box was painted OD green, rather then the lead color specified in the Ordnance Regulations. I can't tell you which arsenal produced this box, since that information would have been stenciled on the inside of the missing top.

I hope this helps,
Bill Rodman

[Clark Badgett]

Bill,
I have heard of the .69 boxes being painted green as well. I've also heard of the boxes being rabbited instead of dadoed. The exterior dimentions you stated seem to correspond to those in the manual except the length. did you include the handle in the overall length?

[Bill]

Bill,
I have heard of the .69 boxes being painted green as well. I've also heard of the boxes being rabbited instead of dadoed. The exterior dimentions you stated seem to correspond to those in the manual except the length. did you include the handle in the overall length?

Clark,

For round ball, the length is about right. The inside length was listed as 15 1/2". Two pieces of 3/4" wood would give you a 17" long box. I did not include the handle in my measurement. I did make a mistake in my earlier post. The Ordnance Manual said the .69 Minnie Ball box was lead color. The round ball box was supposed to be blue.

Bill

[1stMaine]

Comrades,
Although the manual calls for dove-tailed joints, I too have seen other forms of construction, including simple butt-joints. I would, however, caution against producing non-spec items for general useage. Although some boxes were of non-standard construction or finish, those should be reserved for specific times and places associated with those items, unless we can show wide-spread useage of those types. Better to err on the side of caution than to make up some boxes that may be, in fact, the exception rather than the rule.
That some boxes were painted other colors than what was called for is understandable, especially in the early years of the war. Trying to ramp up production to unheard of levels must have been a nightmare for the arsenals and contractors. Imagine those fellows of the Mexican war period who, at most, saw maybe 20,000 men in an army. Now they've got to produce arms and clothing for armies of 100,000 men, and distributed across the country.
It's amazing not how well they did it, but that they did it at all.
respects,

[slickdogshep]

Dimensions and pictures.
http://yellowhammerrifles.tripod.com/ammobox.htm

[Clark Badgett]

Very interesting. This makes me wonder if Federal arsenals started using screws to attach the handles with. Makes more sence than using clinch nails, but then again I don't think they were caring if these boxes lasted beyond the battle where they were issued.

[Bill]

Comrades,
Although the manual calls for dove-tailed joints, I too have seen other forms of construction, including simple butt-joints. I would, however, caution against producing non-spec items for general useage. Although some boxes were of non-standard construction or finish, those should be reserved for specific times and places associated with those items, unless we can show wide-spread useage of those types. Better to err on the side of caution than to make up some boxes that may be, in fact, the exception rather than the rule.
That some boxes were painted other colors than what was called for is understandable, especially in the early years of the war. Trying to ramp up production to unheard of levels must have been a nightmare for the arsenals and contractors. Imagine those fellows of the Mexican war period who, at most, saw maybe 20,000 men in an army. Now they've got to produce arms and clothing for armies of 100,000 men, and distributed across the country.
It's amazing not how well they did it, but that they did it at all.
respects,

Tim,

I don't pretend to be an expert on Ammo Boxes, but I have noticed that every arsenal, both North and South seemed to have their own unique way of marking boxes. If you match the stencils with the construction technique, I don't think you'd be far wrong.

[Fod]

Some years ago I used Dean Thomas' book Roundball to Rimfire to answer the "must be dovetailed" question. Mr. Thomas has some great photographs from different arsenals in there. If I remember correctly, within a given timeframe, federal arsenals were pretty consistent in the joining method, dovetail, butted and nailed, box joint. Different arsenals changed at different times. Unfortunately, I no longer have the book or the notes, but I wanted to let you know where the answer could be found.

[hardtack1864]

Does anyone know what color the lettering is supposed to be on a federal ammo box and should the bottom be painted on a federal ammo box? Also should the lettering be on the ends, sides, or tops of the box? Thank you.

[Fod]

The answers are: white, good question, and usually, maybe, maybe.

Really though, your best bet is to pick up a copy of the book "Roundball to Rimfire" by Dean s. Thomas. If it's not at your local library, request it through an interlibrary loan. The book has excellent photographs of a dozen or so boxes with and without lids from various US arsenals. Pick one that's right for your theater and time.

I haven't ever looked at the bottom of a box....I had always assumed it was painted the same color as the rest, but now I have to know.

I don't have it in front of me, but I recall some arsenals stencilled information <i>inside</i> the lid too. That surpised me....

[Bill]

Sean,

To the best of my knowledge, Federal ammo boxes were stenciled on both ends only. And as Dan said, using white paint, at least on the OD green boxes. I've never seen one of the "lead", "red", or "blue" colored boxes for .69 cal. ammo, but I would guess these boxes were stenciled in black for visibility. I would be interested if anyone has specific information on these .69 boxes.

The few boxes I've been able to handle were painted on the bottom. That
makes sense, since the paint helps waterproof the box.

The number of rounds, type and caliber of ammunition, and the year packed was about all that was stenciled on the outside of the box. Many Federal boxes also had a bullet stenciled on the box for the soldiers who could not read.

Specific arsenal information was stenciled on the inside of the top. This is one of the problems with identifing which arsenal packed a particular box. Most surviving ammo boxes are missing their tops. While the basic information is always the same, each arsenal had their own style of marking their boxes.

[Jim Peterson]

Hey Bill;

A number of the boxes shown in the book "Roundball to Rimfire" are marked with the Round information on both ends and the Arsenal information on the inside of the cover and on one side. Pages 63 and 84 show boxes from St Louis and Watervliet.

There are variations between Arsenals and even between different years of the same arsenal but the basic format remained the same for "most" boxes. Round type and count on each end with the arsenal on one side and the arsenal and date of manufacture on the inside.

It is easy to look through the book and find an arsenal that fits the area and time you wish to use and then have stencils cut. I made a box with the correct outside measurements and took it and the book to an office supply store. I showed them what I wanted and let them keep the book while they cut the stencils.

Jim Peterson

[Bill]

Hey Bill;

"A number of the boxes shown in the book "Roundball to Rimfire" are marked with the Round information on both ends and the Arsenal information on the inside of the cover and on one side. Pages 63 and 84 show boxes from St Louis and Watervliet."

Jim Peterson

Jim,

Two other books that contain excellent photos of Ammo Boxes are "Ready- Aim - Fire! Small Arms Auuunition in the Battle of Gettysburg" and "An Introduction To Civil War Small Arms"

"Civil War Small Arms" has a great picture of a Richmond Arsenal Box, which was an entirely different shape then the Federal boxes.

The Gettysburg National Museum has an excellent, and well preserved Watervliet box, that has the top attached with leather hinges. An interesting thing is the box is stenciled "CAL .57" Which is I believe is the actual size of Watervliet's bullets. I copied the stencils from this box, for a box that I made.

Thanks for your correction of my statement concerning the arsenal markings on the side of the box. I was going by my memory of the few boxes I've been able to examine, that lacked that feature. A good lesson to get the books out, and check your facts, before putting your typing fingers in gear!

[Jim Peterson]

Hey Bill;

At the begining of the war the US arsenals were producing both the .58 and .577 rounds. That was a supply problem getting the right rounds to the right rifles. The .577 quickly became the standard. As the war went on the arsenals began to shrink the rounds down to .575 with some ending up at .57 by the end of the war.

So the arsenal and date you put on your box will indicate the round size required. Just another thing to research.

Jim Peterson

[Bill]

Hey Bill;

At the begining of the war the US arsenals were producing both the .58 and .577 rounds. That was a supply problem getting the right rounds to the right rifles. The .577 quickly became the standard. As the war went on the arsenals began to shrink the rounds down to .575 with some ending up at .57 by the end of the war.

So the arsenal and date you put on your box will indicate the round size required. Just another thing to research.

Jim Peterson

Jim,

The Watervliet Box in the Gettysburg National Museum is marked "CAL. .57", and was packed in February 1862. (Based on the information on the inside of the lid and the year date on the end of the box) I hope this helps, or maybe just confuses the issue even more!

[Jim Peterson]

Hey Bill;

The fall of 1861 was a busy time for the US Army. A number of letters were transmitted between the War Department, Ordnance Department and the various Arsenals about the ammunition requirments for the American and British rifles. By January 1862 Watervliet was producing only the reduced size round at about .574 .

By 1864 there was still some variation in the rounds produced by the various Arsenals. A portion of a report by Maj. J.G. Benton dated August 3, 1864 stated in part "...Two different Bullets were found in the packages of the cartridges made at Frankfort-one weighed 574 grains and the other 539 grains. The true weight of the Regulation bullet is about 500 grains.
The diameter of the Frankfort and Watertown bullets is .573 in. while that of the Watervliet bullet according to careful measurement is only .57 in. and the weight of the bullet is 496 grains...".

Die wear increased the size plus a number of firms produced bullets for the various arsenals. The new dies started at .573 and were used until they wore to about .57425 . They did not use .574 dies because they would have worn too quickly. So a summation would be that the rounds got smaller as the war went on and that there would be slight variations within each box as to actual size.

More detailed information can be found in the book Round Ball to Rimfire by Dean S. Thomas. It's a great source for Boxes, Bundles, Wraps, Loads and much more.

Jim Peterson

[1stMaine]

Comrade,
In "Ready, Aim, Fire..." there is a letter in the back (pp72) from Ord. Major W.A.Thornton of the Watervliet Arsenal dated 27 May 1862 to Captain M.R.Stevenson of the 7th US Infantry, Madison Barracks, NY. The good captain had returned some ammunition to the arsenal because he had found it to be labled .58 calibre, but actual only 57/100 inch calibre. The Major replies..." Respecting this matter, I have to inform you that no cartridges are made of .58 Calibre they are all of .57 Calibre, which makes them answerable for the Enfield muskets of .57 and the American muskets of .58 Calibre. The advantage of this is that one kind of ammunition answers for two kinds of arms and gives greater ease and rapidity in loading the American musket. For the same reasons we have but one kind of ammunition for the American rifle of .54 and the Austrian rifle of .55 Calibre as we only furnish rifle cartridges of .54 Calibre.
For the reasons I have explained, I have directed the M.S.K. to remark the 3 boxes containing 3000 rifle musket cartridges .57 Cal. and return to your address pursuant to order of supplies from Washington."

Respects,

[Qb17Joe]

I was wondering what was written on the top of an ammo box from a richmond arsenal, and what the demensions roughly were. also if there were seperators or what. I am trying to make a couple of them


Thanks for your Help,
Joe Whitehead

5th Va Co. G

[Will Eichler]

Joe,

While I have no knowledge of arsenal boxes specifically from a Richmond arsenal I will call your attention to the 1863 Ordnance Manual for the Confederate States. There are dimentsion for Packing Boxes for 1000 cartridges. They are on page 257 of my Morningside reproduction.

If you need the actual information, email me and I'll get it for you. I'm getting married on Saturday, so speak quickly or be willing to wait until after the 24th of February.

Good luck,

Will Eichler

[Spongebucket]

Okay fellows. I have been looking for the proper marking for small arms ammunition crates. I have read the ordnance manual 1861 and know the sizes and the colors for the various rounds. And even where the markings belong..."on both ends with the number and kind of balls, and on the inside of the cover with the place and date of fabrication." As there are several interpretations to this and with so few of origanl items in existance...the question what is the wording?
1000 Cart.
type of ball
calibre

1000
type of ball

should the type of weapong they are for be listed?
if so, then if you are shooting .69, does this mean....m.1816, m. 1842
and in the .58 category....you get the picture.

or what ever varient the one can come up with. I mean look at what is usually knocked out and sitting on sutler row.
The topic is brought up not to see hwo many folks cn come up with variations, or what they have seen on the market. I am looking for some info that is a bit more definative.

Any infor would be great.

Thanks
Joe Blunt

[markj]

Okay fellows. I have been looking for the proper marking for small arms ammunition crates. I have read the ordnance manual 1861 and know the sizes and the colors for the various rounds. And even where the markings belong..."on both ends with the number and kind of balls, and on the inside of the cover with the place and date of fabrication." As there are several interpretations to this and with so few of origanl items in existance...the question what is the wording?
1000 Cart.
type of ball
calibre

1000
type of ball

should the type of weapong they are for be listed?
if so, then if you are shooting .69, does this mean....m.1816, m. 1842
and in the .58 category....you get the picture.

or what ever varient the one can come up with. I mean look at what is usually knocked out and sitting on sutler row.
The topic is brought up not to see hwo many folks cn come up with variations, or what they have seen on the market. I am looking for some info that is a bit more definative.

Any infor would be great.

Thanks
Joe Blunt

Hi Joe,

I would suggest you look through previous threads as this subject has been repeatedly discussed in the past. Here's a start:

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/search.php?searchid=69827

I have also attached an enlarged view of a Confederate ammo box depicted in one of the Fort Mahone "death studies" made in the Petersburg trenches on 3 April 1865. Doing a search through other contemporary images will provide you with additional photographic examples.

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[Will Eichler]

Joe,

The Ord Manual is a good place to start. To go further, especially for markings, I direct you to "Round Ball to Rimfire: A History of Civil War Small Arms Ammunition, Part One" by Dean S. Thomas.

The work is primarily about the ammunition but Dean has provided photos of many Ammunition boxes from his collection and others to support. They are entirely Federal but represent most arsenals from (I believe) all years of the war. It's a great read and you should be able to deduce what you need from the pictures. When I dropped Dean a letter last year to ask about sizes of the boxes, he refered me to the ord. manual.

A note of caution. From my inspection of his photos (and no more), it seems there are several different methods of jointing the box sides used, not just the dovetail called for in the Ord Manual. If my eyes are correct, I saw butt joints, half lap joints and dovetail joints all used. You might decide which box to build and use the appropriate joint as well.

Best of luck,

Will

[justthemiller]

Hey Mark,

The attachment you posted of the ammunition crate is, in all likelyhood, a federal one. The markings on it closely resemble a known federal one that is pictured in the book "From Roundball to Rimfire Vol. I." Either way it is still a very interesting close-up.

[markj]

Hey Mark,

The attachment you posted of the ammunition crate is, in all likelyhood, a federal one. The markings on it closely resemble a known federal one that is pictured in the book "From Roundball to Rimfire Vol. I." Either way it is still a very interesting close-up.

Hi James,

This is a vexing subject. However, given that the box is shown directly adjacent to a dead Confederate soldier in the Petersburg trenches, it was almost certainly Confederate in origin. There are one or more Petersburg-area photographs depicting Federal troops, and taken around the same time, that also show ammunition boxes in the scene(s). As I recall, William Frassanito's "Lee and Grant" book, about photography during the Overland Campaign and Siege of Petersburg, includes at least one of these.

I can believe photographers moved rifles, and even bodies, to "improve" a photograph but I find it hard to believe they'd take the extra time and effort to track down an ammo box to toss into a scene. Guess we'll never know beyond a reasonable doubt!

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[Yellowhammer]

Guys,

For comparison, here is an original August 1864 dated Richmond Arsenal ammunition crate.

http://www.oldsouthantiques.com/os427p1.JPG

http://www.oldsouthantiques.com/os427p2.JPG

Markings are:

96 Lbs
~1000~
Cart. Cal. 57-58
ELONGATED
BALL
Richmond Arsenal
Augt. 1864

I have pictures of a Selma Arsenal crate at home. Markings are very similar except that crate is not marked with the overall weight as this example is.

[markj]

Interesting pics, John. Compare your box with the one shown in the Petersburg image and you will immediately note significant differences, particularly in the placement of the carrying handles on the side and the stenciling.

Logic suggests that the external appearance of ammo boxes varied somewhat depending on the maker but, as long as they met the "specs," and did their assigned job, nobody really cared since such items were "made to be destroyed" anyway.

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[Spongebucket]

Thanks fellows. John, that is a beautiful piece. I find it interesting that it is not marked according to the Ord. manual. That and the fact that the overall weight of the crate is also marked.

Joe Blunt

[John E. Tobey]

Joe,

In addition to the advice already given, I'd offer the following...

I'm not sure whether you're asking about US or CS boxes, but my comments apply (as far as I know) to Federal-issue ammunition crates.

You asked about how the size of the cartridges were called out. The answer, I believe, is both by the caliber of the piece and by the actual diameter of the bullets, depending on who made them. Some makers would mark the box "Cal. .58" while others would mark the same box "Cal. .577" because the diameter of the rounds for .58 arms was actually .5775 inch. As a more specific example, Frankford arsenal made rounds for ".58 caliber arms" and marked those boxes ".577". They also made smaller rounds that were intended for both the smaller caliber Enfields as well as the US standard .58 pieces...these boxes are marked ".574".

This brings up another point. Because the actual details of various makers' boxes vary so much, Will Eichler made an excellent point when he suggested that you copy a specific box. I don't know how anal you want to get with the markings on your ammo box, but after you choose a specific box to copy you may want to research its time frame. Again, using Frankford Arsenal as the example, they made both .577 and .574 caliber ammunition. They stopped making the .577 stuff in 1863 (I think...Dean Thomas's book will give you the exact dates on this. I'm working from memory) and only started making the .574 stuff at the very end of 1862. The implications are obvious. You probably wouldn't want a .574 Frankford box for a program that portrays troops in 1861 or the first half of 1862.

John Tobey

[Fod]

Mr Eichler noted the different joint styles in the Thomas book. The book actually has a good enough sample of photos that you can assign a rough correlation between joint style and year by Arsenal.

(Sorry don't ask exactly what the correlation is, that was lost in a hard drive crash long ago - any one willing to repeat the study?)

[1stMaine]

Mr Eichler noted the different joint styles in the Thomas book. The book actually has a good enough sample of photos that you can assign a rough correlation between joint style and year by Arsenal.

(Sorry don't ask exactly what the correlation is, that was lost in a hard drive crash long ago - any one willing to repeat the study?)
Joe, et al...
Another good source is Thomas' earlier book "Ready, Aim, Fire.." In the appendix, he transcribes a letter from a Major at the Watervliet Arsenal to a Capt of US regulars stationed in New York. the Captain had returned a box of ammunition stencilled .58 caliber because he had examined some rounds and found them to be only .57 caliber. The Major informs him that Watervliet only produces rounds of .57 caliber in order to service both .577 and .58 weapons. He then offers to RESTENCIL the box as .57 and return them to him if he so desires.
This is interesting on a couple of levels. First, it shows that smaller caliber rounds, in this case, .57 are being produced for economy of materials and time, and thuis then leads directly to the apparent discrepency in accuracy commented upon by soldiers vis-a-vis Enfield versus Springfield. The general comment was that the Enfield was more accurate, but fouled faster.
Secondly, this shows how anal some of the regular officers might be. Can you imagine taking the time to open a sealed box of ammunition to insoect the contents, and UNWRAPPING and MEASURING a sample round? This guy either takes his job WAY too seriously, or has a heck of a lot of time on his hands.
Regardless, the book is very informative and has numerous illustrations.
As to specific weapon stencils on boxes, the only time I have seen such a marking was on pistol ammunition, and it was marked for "Colt's Revolver" , and was a commercial contract production. Some other's like that were weapon-specific, such as Sharp's, Burnside. Maynard, etc, but in each case, they were a commercial maker selling to the military as well as civilian markets.
Trusting this is of some small use, I remain, sir, respectfully,
Tim Kindred

[Will Eichler]

Daniel,

In a way to avoid the work of the 21st Century, I accepted your challenge (although in a brief time-frame) this evening. I've re-done the charting of all the Ammunition boxes in Thomas' work.

Like I said, quick, down and dirty but here are the results I have.
1st. I ignored the Williams Bullet Ammunition box as a contract made item.

There were 18 boxes shown in the book. 8 had dovetail joints, 6 had half-lap and 4 were made with butt joints. In short, a plurality of the examples shown had the specified dovetail joints. If you remove the 4 examples from State Arsenals, the ratio raises to 50% having Dovetail joints.

Early war, late war? Good question. I'm not as comfortable drawing a conclusion on this subject. Butt joints (the simplest way to construct) appear from Federal arsenals on boxes dated '61, '62 and '64. This does show there wasn't a trend to move to and easier construction method as the war progressed. This just isn't a good enough sample to draw good conclusions on when what joints were used.

Sorry this is so quick, but I've gotta time-warp back to some work. Hope it helps.

Best,

Will

[1stMaine]

Comrades,
I'll throw out another thought on the construction question. It seems to me that the butt-joint represents an expedient method of construction, one used when quantity was more important than quality, or perhaps where less-skilled labor might have been utilised.
Now, it occurs to me that although ammunition production proceeded throughout the war, the winter months would have been well suited towards replenishing stocks expended during campaigns. Arsenals had to consider the campaign months and stock up for those, see that not only sufficient inventory was produced and shipped to the various departments, but that sufficient packing and shipping material was procured/produced as well.
During the "off-season" dovetailed joints would have been easy to produce, and in fact was the prescribed method of contruction. This was probably the normal method of construction year round. What would have changed that? A series of protracted engagements or large-scale battles that expended significant amounts of ammunition that needed to be rapidly replaced. Butt-joints would certainly save time on production.
Perhaps the answer, and this is pure speculation, has more to do with an increased demand and a time-critical situation. Finding boxes dated 1861, 1862, and 1864 with butt-joints vice dovetails is certainly rationalised by looking at what the armies were doing during those times.
1861 saw a meteoric rise in the size of the Federal Army. It rose on a scale unheard of in the country, rivaling the size of Napoleon's Grande Armee that marched into Russia. Certainly just the simple step of going from dove-tailed to butt-joints would save a significant amount of time and labor, especially considering a million rounds requires 1,000 boxes and we are talking about providing 100 rounds each for 200,000 men.
1862 brings the massive battles of Shiloh, the Penninsula Campaign, 2nd Bull Run and Antietam plus many other engagements. Those months of April to September, especially in the eastern theatre saw a number of engagements falling close together and requiring a near constant replenishment of ammunition stores.
1864, of course, sees the Overland Campaign in the East, and the Atlanta Campaign and March to the Sea. Again, large scale and near continuous contact resulting in the expenditure of massive amounts of small arms ammunition that needs to be replaced.
As I said, it would have been the norm to use dovetailing throughout these periods, especially in the winter months, but butt-joints could easily have been introduced as a time-saving device when demand outpaced production and the arsenals needed to ramp up production.
Of course, this is, as I said, mere spreculation on my part, but it seems to me to be a very plausible explanation for the use of non-standard, or non-regulation construction techniques. This is especially true given the proportions Will Eichler points out above. True enough, it's a small sample, but it's the only one at present we have access to. Someone needs to poll museums and collections and perhaps do a study of existing ammunition boxes. Sounds like thesis material to me:)
respects to all,

[AZReenactor]

I was trying to remember how much a box loaded with 1000 .58 rounds weighs. I suppose I could go home and make up the rounds and pack my box but asking seemed quicker. ;-)

Any one have the info handy?

[1stMaine]

Troy,

98 Pounds. More for the .69 cartridges.

Respects,

[AZReenactor]

Tim,
Thanks, that is right about what I had calculated but wanted to double check and couldn't find the info in the ordnance manuals.

[1stMaine]

Troy,

You can find the various weights listed in the chart that has all the domensions, etc, for small arms cartridges. It also lists the dimensions for the boxes, etc.

Respects,

[Bill]

Troy,

You can find the various weights listed in the chart that has all the domensions, etc, for small arms cartridges. It also lists the dimensions for the boxes, etc.

Respects,

Strange, the 1863 Ordnance Manual doesn't have specs for the .69 cal "Buck & Ball" Cartridge. There are specs for .69 Minnies, round balls, and buck shot, but no Buck and Ball.

[Johan Steele]

In an effort to revive an old thread and praise the search function I'll pose my question here. Where can I find specific information on a .54 Cal Ammo Crate from the St Louis, or other US Arsenal? In particular the color of the box and proper markings.

While I know US crates in .577/.58 were typically a shade of green & .69 were blue, sky blue/gray or red depending on the bullet I have failed dismally to find any info for the .54 crate as would have been issued to troops issued w/ M1814, M1817 or M1841/45.

Any information or avenues of research would be appreciated.

[Bill]

In an effort to revive an old thread and praise the search function I'll pose my question here. Where can I find specific information on a .54 Cal Ammo Crate from the St Louis, or other US Arsenal? In particular the color of the box and proper markings.


Any information or avenues of research would be appreciated.

Johan,

Very interesting question. I have never seen a surviving .54 Cal Ammo Box and don't remember ever seeing a photo of one. The 1863 Ordnance Manual has no specs for .54 cal ammunition. You would have to assume (There I go assuming again!) that the .54 box would be slightly smaller than a .58 box. How much smaller is the question.

Does anyone have access to a Mexican War period ordnance manual? Since all rifles were .54 cal, at that time, the book may have the specs for Ammo Box.

[FTrooper]

Somewhere I have the 1850 Ordnance Manual Specs for the ammo boxes for rifles. It would seem that the "color" coding was an ACW thing, so my information wouldn't help there...if I can find the specs I will post them however.

Chris Fischer
Fort McKavett
&
F-Troop

[Johan Steele]

http://civilwarfortifications.com/library/ordnance-1850/index-frame.html Page 251

The 1850 Ord manual doesn't give the color coding, but the dimensions are IIRC the same as a .58 cal box.