"Remington Rifles"...what are they?

[johnf1862]

I have been compiling information of the 1st New York Vol. Inf'y, and something on the New York Military Museum research division (http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/historic/reghist/civil/infantry/1stInf/1stInfBMSHistSketch.htm) website (from the 3rd Annual Report of the Bureau of Military Statistics) has me puzzled. It states:
The regiment received from the State, exclusive of subsistence and quarters, the sum of $41,240.72; from the Union Defense Committee, $4,500; from the Chamber of Commerce, $1,500, and other sums from private parties. It was furnished with U. S. percussion muskets, pattern of 1842, calibre 69, by Brigadier-General Benjamin Welch, jr., Commissary-General of the State, May 23d, 1861. On the 29th August, 1861, these muskets were changed by the State authorities to Remington rifles, with angular bayonets. On the 24th May, the State issued to the regiment eighty-three common and eighteen wall tents.

What is a "Remington Rifle" exactly? The first thing that came to mind was the illustrious "Zouave" rifle, mfg'd by the Remington Company...but as far as I know those were made and shipped out in '63 and took a sabre bayonet. Possibly they are refering to an earlier conversion by the Remington firm?

[Johan Steele]

In the Spring of 1861 NY purchased arounf 5000 M1841 rifles in .54 I believe they were all Remington made. They made up about 3500 w/ for a sword bayonet and the rest were done up w/ a stud that was set for the M1842 bayonet. Looks to me like they traded in their M1842's for M1841 Remingtons.

[Jimmayo]

This is from memory but here it goes.

The M-1841 (Mississippi Rifle) was made by a variety of contractors, one being Remington. These usually were fitted with a sabre bayonet. The state of NY modified some by turning down the front 3 or 4 inches of the barrel and adding a lug to enable the barrel to receive the socket or angular bayonet. I believe that they bored out the barrel at the same time to .58 cal.

[Chris Suppelsa]

Possibly some type of contract rifle?

[Charles Heath]

This may help:

"In July 1845, Eliphalet Remington of Herkimer, New York, assumed a contract for 5,000 Model 1841 rifles which had originally been awarded to John Griffiths of Cincinnati, Ohio on December 5, 1842, and which the latter chose to forfeit due to his inability to make deliveries.

Records show that once Remington had completed this contract, the quantity was extended to include an additional 7,500 rifles. This was followed on November 21, 1851 by a second contract which also called for 7,500 Model 1841 rifles. Deliveries on the entire 20,000 wre made prior to 1855.

Figure 106 illustrates the only known lockplate marking incorporated by Remington during production of these arms. This is stamped forward of the hammer in very small letters "REMINGTON'S/HERKIMER/N.Y." in three lines, and to the rear "U.S." over the date, such as "1853."

Early in the Civil War, Remington received an Ordnance Department contract calling for the alteration of what is believed to be 6,000 Model 1841 rifles. The alteration specified the addition of a lug for saber bayonet and reboring the barrrels of .58 caliber. All of these are believed to have been delivered."

Source: Page 36, U.S. Military Small Arms 1816-1865, Robert M. Reilly

You may find the remainder of pages 35-36 to be well worth reading, if you can acquire this volume through interlibrary loan.

[johnf1862]

Many thanks to everyone, this information is more than helpful.

[John E. Tobey]

I believe what the original quote is referring to is the Remington conversion of the smoothbore '42. It looks like the regular '42, except it has a Maynard tape primer (if I remember correctly), a unique hammer somewhat like the M55, a rifled bore, and rifle sights. Technically, it was not a 'rifle,' but a 'rifled musket.'

John Tobey

[Jimmayo]

I believe what the original quote is referring to is the Remington conversion of the smoothbore '42. It looks like the regular '42, except it has a Maynard tape primer (if I remember correctly), a unique hammer somewhat like the M55, a rifled bore, and rifle sights. Technically, it was not a 'rifle,' but a 'rifled musket.'

John Tobey

They made a point of saying "angular bayonets". That is what made me think they switched arms and still used the M-42 bayonets and not the sabre bayonets.

Any idea what the date was on the conversions to tape primers?

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

For Remington??

The Government purchased the Maynard rights in June of 1853 for $21,000 to be able to convert 100,000 arms. But, revised that in February of 1854 to purchase all rights for $50,000 more.

The Ordnance Department gave Remington a contract on September 9, 1854 for 20,000 musket altered to the Maynard tape system for $3.15 per stand which included rifling the bore and adding a long-range rear sight.

The vast majority of the 20,000 Remington conversions were done on late model M1822's (M1816 Types II and III), with a small number of M1842's. Remington also threw in the "stand" a redesigned M1842 (socket) bayonet that included a locking ring and an 18 inch blade.

Curt

[Bill]

Hallo!

For Remington??

The vast majority of the 20,000 Remington conversions were done on late model M1822's (M1816 Types II and III), with a small number of M1842's. Remington also threw in the "stand" a redesigned M1842 (socket) bayonet that included a locking ring and an 18 inch blade.

Curt

Curt,

It was my understanding that a lot of these rifled muskets were converted at the Frankford Arsenal, in Philadelphia, PA, using Remington locks. True or false?

Second question. What conversion takes that odd bayonet with the M-1822 socket and the M-1855 blade? I've got one on a H & P Conversion, just because it fits so well.

[Johan Steele]

Curt,

It was my understanding that a lot of these rifled muskets were converted at the Frankford Arsenal, in Philadelphia, PA, using Remington locks. True or false?

Second question. What conversion takes that odd bayonet with the M-1822 socket and the M-1855 blade? I've got one on a H & P Conversion, just because it fits so well.

Please disregard my post... I had the wrong bayonet in mind.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

I should add, that Maynard "conversions" were also done to M1835/M1840.

Yes, Remington did not actually do the work for thier 20,000 stands. They supplied Maynard locks and the new percussion bolsters to Frankford Arsenal.

An "M1816" type socket with an M1855 blade? Hmmmmm.

A tough one...

There are basically two patterns of bayonets done with the "Maynard" conversions between 1855 and 1862.
Basically, they look like "M1816" bayonets" but have the blade shape but not the 18 inch length of the M1855 bayonet (being the old M1816 nominal 16 inch)...

The other is a so-called "Hewes & Phillips" contract.

In the fall of 1861, H & P of Newark. NJ, contracted with NJ to alter 8,000 flintlocks to percussion. That was quickly followed by a U.S. contract for 12,000 more. All 20,000 to be delivered by the end of 1863.

This creates a mess for us. As with "Remington," it is not known how many of the M1822/(35/40/)42 muskets arrived with bayonets. So bayonets of the "M1816/M1855 hybrid" were made. It is believed some did, and some did not. It gets messier as some of these bayonets may have been made for, or used by P.S. Justice on their guns as well.

At any rate, one finds "M1816" bayonet sockets with the later slots, and an M1855 style blade that may be a nominal 16 inches OR a nominal 18 inches long.

Curt

[Bill]

Curt,

Thanks for the info.

[Jimmayo]

Knapsack Matt, myself and one yankee took a road trip to the MOC today. What a mess they have and getting to it is rather difficult.

Anyway, while we were in the area we took a little side trip and snapped this picture of a M-1841 with the turned down barrel. This one is not a Remington but this is what the mod for the socket bayonet looks like. Notice the different looking ramrod. Anybody know if this was part of the mod?

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Not that I know of...

I would guess, or suspect, that the ramrod is more "recent" replacement (sometine since the CW) for the original's missing one. There is something familiar about it, but I cannot place it. German or Austrian maybe maybe.
At any rate, the "age" of the ramrod appears much "newer" than the age of the rest of the rifle. 1870 or 1940, etc. hard to say...

Curt

[Jimmayo]

Hallo!

Not that I know of...

I would guess, or suspect, that the ramrod is more "recent" replacement (sometine since the CW) for the original's missing one. There is something familiar about it, but I cannot place it. German or Austrian maybe maybe.
At any rate, the "age" of the ramrod appears much "newer" than the age of the rest of the rifle. 1870 or 1940, etc. hard to say...

Curt

My thoughts also but I had never seen a repro like that one. I was thinking it was an original for another type of arm. Seems like it would be costly to make for a reproduction. Thanks for the reply.

[Johan Steele]

My thoughts also but I had never seen a repro like that one. I was thinking it was an original for another type of arm. Seems like it would be costly to make for a reproduction. Thanks for the reply.

That ramrod looks suspiciously like the one on the French Model 1859 I handled last weekend... Isn't right for a Lorenz and the French M1859 is the only weapon of that age I can think of that would transfer over to a .58 or .54& the Austrian Jaeger had a more pronounced transition to the tip IIRC. Of coarse I might be way off base too...

Regardless it is a beautiful example of a Whitney M1841.