1st Minnesota/ Model 1855 Weapons issue?

[tmdreb]

Joseph E. Johnston, in his inspection tour of forts in Texas and New Mexico in 1859-60, noted that many of the 1855 rifle muskets of Harpers Ferry manufacture had rear sight screws that were set too deep, and interfered with loading. He was very displeased.

[Craig L Barry]

Well how 'bout that? Thank you for the referenced material gents. Learn something new every day.
In that Texas fort reference about the r. sight screws...how would the sight screws interfere with loading?
Were they all the way through the barrel walls?

[David Fox]

Craig, likely so. A whole shipment of M.1816/22 flinters went out of the Ferry allegedly fully proofed and inspected, but were found not even to have had their vents drilled. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned M1 carbines. Harpers Ferry was to quality control in the 19th Century what Rock-Ola was in the 1940s. And, as a fellow accumulator of martial weapons, due to the eccentric nature of Harpers Ferry and Rock-Ola products, like a doting mother, I tend to love them the best.

[tmdreb]

I left the book at work, but Johnston said that they created a bulge on the inside of the barrel that would catch the bullet or even the ramrod by itself. Apparently, many of the few pistol carbines that were produced were used by the mounted branches in the area, as well as the 1841 rifle and the 1855 rifle carbine, as well as several other types of carbines. The Mounted Rifles thought the 1855 rifles were less accurate than the 1841's, and it seems no one liked the tape primers.

[Blair]

David,

You make several references to or for some sort of documentaton, where do these points actually come from? Can you post an actual reference to these so the rest of us can evaluate them for ourselves?
I must admit, I have never read this type of info. Especially not in this vain about HF.

[David Fox]

Friend Blair: as aforementioned, the quotations cited above are from the book "Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology" by one Merritt Roe Smith. Just checked and reprints in paperback are available from Amazon. It's a great source for anyone interested in the manufacture of early American small arms, the evolving methods of manufacturing them, and, concurrently, the checkered, colorful history of the facility at Harpers Ferry. There are several books written about Springfield Armory; this is the only thorough treatment of the Ferry of which I'm aware. It is heavily footnoted. Harpers Ferry was a particularly unfortunate choice...a political choice...of a place to build an armory. It was physically and culturally remote, flood and disease prone. The superintendants tended to come from the local planter class and the individualistic, eccentric character of the early workers...many of them Pennsylvania riflesmiths...survived for decades, peculiarly adverse to modernization or mechanization. For much of its life, the administration of the armory was in conflict with the Army Ordnance Department who constituted an ongoing irritation due to its push for improvement and efficiency. Harpers Ferry weapons were often of marginal quality and routinely more expensive to produce than like arms from Springfield.

[Blair]

David,

Thanks, I'm going to have to get this book.
I knew of the issues regarding the location of the Armory. Flooding was a major problem. Along with getting raw materials to that area.
The thing I was interested in most was this "marginal quality" thing. This is not something that I have experienced with the arms had a chance to examine.

[lwtaggart]

Gents,
Your thoughts and opinions are good. I thank you for that...

Must go with Dave on the Ferry though. The James Henry Burton letters, Yale Univwersity, reveal like descriptions of conditions at HF.

Just to get back to the question posted, I am looking for a reply from probably the most knowlegable person I know on Minnesota troops, Steve Osman. I'll share with you what I learn from him.

Cheers!
George Taggart

[Curt Schmidt]

Hallo!

Thanks!

I knew I should not have tossed that book into the Books to be Read Pile when it came out. It is around here somwhere!

Curt

[gsusat]

A few comments.

HF and the New Technology is a great book. It did shed a new light on Harper's Ferry - much to my Chagrin. However. Most of the period - problems discussed in the book are with teens, twentys and thirties. In 1842 after another investigation the military took over the leadership of both armories and at least in my opinion HF moved into being a first class operation. The book does not get into the 1840's until almost page 300. The chapter begining on page 305 discusses the period 1859-61 so there is an abrievated coverage of the 1840's and 1850's.

That being said I think HF both suffered and benifited from it's location. Springfield was in a consitrated industrial area. How many major manufacturing facilitied were within 50 miles of SF? That provided good access to materials and skilled labor. Conversely HF was somewhat isolated, though close to Washington.

In the conculsion Smith does note the cost difference between SF and HF weapons, but even comments that given the variety of weapons produced and the struggles with both the political system and the raw materials it is a wonder that there was not more difference.

HF providing the militia while SF provided the regular army (?) My opinion/ understand is that the contract weapons were for the militia and armory production was for the Army. That changes though with the 1842 & 1855. Few 1842's were produced under contract - but that is a mute point becaues I am not sure there was a mass issue of 1842's - the Mexican war being primarly fought with flint 1816's. And I think there was a concern over transportation expense, so SF would provide for the North East and North West while HF would be closer to the south.

The Johnston and Mansfield Inspection reports are a wonderful source for some of what was in the hands of the troops. The report on the HF 1855 RM barrel screw problem was at Ft. McIntosh (page 147) Mansfield mentions a special report on the rifle musket at the end - but my reprint does not seem to have it.

I skimmed them tonight and did see where Johnston commented at three or four posts that the officers did not favor the Tape primers. His inspection was in 1859 and at several of the posts, he mentioned they had just recieved ammuniton and could begin practice. There tends to be some lag time in troops adjusting to a new weapon - recall the restance to the adoption of the M1 over the 1903. Also most of the posts visited the arms were excellent and functioned well.

It is interesting to note that Mansfield, who was inspecting in late 1860 and early 1861 did not record similar opinions on disliking the tape primer. His report from Ft. Stockton from November 17 1860 mentions "... There were but 7 snaps of the tape primer out of 144..." (page 113) He did critize the new rear sight. At Ft. McIntosh (page 145) he said "Four of the muskets of this company had sights different from the standard & were arranged for 100, 300 & 500 yds. only. This is disadvantageous innovation. The great benefit of the rifle musket is the long and certian range & why cut off its range & efficiency [at] 600 yards."

Mansfield did mention "Harper's Ferry Rifle" at several posts, but I think he is refering to the 1841 rifle. The ammunition at San Antonio lists both rifled musket ammunition and rifle ammunition. At fort Brown Mansfield mentions ammunition stored "... 1000 musket ball cartridges .. 115,000 rifled musket ball cartridges of caliber .58, 10,000 Harpers Ferry rifle ball cartridges... " (page 164) The only need to distinguish the difference would be caliber.

Granted the words used are not the same terms used today.

In my opinion the HF of the late 1840's and 1850's was preimer installation. Look at the model gun development that went on and people like James Burton who went from being the Master Armorer at HF to building the British Small Arms plant at Enfield. Granted Springfield made an excellent product as well.

Well food for thought