1st Minnesota/ Model 1855 Weapons issue?

[Blair]

David,

Or the single shot Pistol Carbine.
Both of which were made in very small number and not considered basic Infantry arms. But, worth mentioning.

[lwtaggart]

Thank you all for your valued feedback...

What I hope to find is a definitive description stating the weapons some received indeed were the "Harpers Ferry', model 1855 rifle musket. Logistically it would seem given the location of Harpers Ferry to the frontier states at the time would make it a good option to supply them. Evidence showing some indeed were issued the Harpers Ferry raises this question. I know its a long shot.

VR
George Taggart
Lee Lodge #30 F.& A.M.

[David Fox]

Bad opening for a forum observation, but, "as I recall", new Harpers Ferry arms were more often issued-out to the States under the 1808 Militia Act whilst Springfield production tended to be reserved for Federal issue. Harpers Ferry was subject to quality control issues.

[Curt Schmidt]

Hallo!

As shared, INDEED a very long shot as NUG that "level of detail" was:

1. not important
2. typically falls under the rather lax us eof "descriptors" BOTH among Ordnance folks and particularly among everyday soldiers. (Meaning an RM was likely to be a ".58 in a ammumition return, or "Springfield" or "Minie gun" could apply to M1855, M1861, SM1861, M1863/M1864 as musket, rifle, gun, etc., randomly.

IMHO, one would have had find a soldier somewhere who thought that the armory or contractor names on his gun was important to make note and write it down. (In the Modern World, it would remind me of a WWII soldier talking about whether his M1 Carbine was made by General Motors, IBM, Winchester, Underwood Typewriter, and the Rock-Ola jukebox company, etc.).

Curt

[Blair]

Curt,
I agree.
The individual soldier may have found this important info, however, is not often the one filling out the returns and/or reports that we have access to today.
Sometimes there are clues in these reports. Such as the caliber of the arm. Or the type of bayonet issued with that particular arm that may give us a clue today as to what it was.
A great deal of confusion can often be added to this search, if one takes into account the "up grades" that were being preformed on the M-1841 Rifle's at Harpers Ferry between 1855 and 1861, just before the War.
These two models are commonly referred to as Harpers Ferry "Rifles" (along with the M-1803's and the 1819 Hall Rifles)

George,
I wish you a great deal of luck in finding the detailed description you hope to find.
Unfortunately, at least within my experience, this does not often happen.
In most cases, one has to take a rather educated guess (assumption) base on your individual knowledge of the weapons variations and the documentation that is available.

David,
As to the quality control issues Harpers Ferry may/might have had... I could not disagree more.
This is based solely on my knowledge of the various types of work and alterations HF was known for doing.

[Craig L Barry]

Agree. I have not heard that about Harpers Ferry (quality control) either. It does not track
with my experience, limited though it is, working with original parts from there. If that were
true, why would HF be the Armory selected to make the US 1841 percussion rifle rather
than Springfield?

[Blair]

Craig,

I think, and yes, this is my opinion... but much of the flint to percussion conversions Muskets can also be included with what was being done at Harpers Ferry too. (Not excursively.)
It is actually rather amazing that HF was able to produce as many arms as they did during this time priord with all the other work they were involved with.

[Curt Schmidt]

Hallo!

The same would be true for the M1855 Rifle at HF rather than Springfield.

I have never encountered any references to inferior HF quality or quality control, nor in the originals I have seen or owned.

And I forgot to add, the location of armories, arsenals, and depots does not always necessarily match or make sense when it comes to the issuance of not only weapons but also uniforms and gear. Sometimes, yes. Sometimes not at all. The U.S. Ordnance as well as Quartermaster folks shipped stuff here and there, in an inter-linked network system- and it does not always make sense to look at the closest facility for the closest troops.

Curt

[Blair]

It is also very important to note, that even here on the Authentic Campaingner... where most want to be extremely authentic... few care little about the firearms that the soldier actually needed to ply his trade.
Hundreds, even thousands of dollars maybe willingly spent on more "stuff"... but who is willing to spend good money on a quality firearm?
Who can be a soldier without the primary tool of a soldier, the firearm?
I often wonder at peoples priorities for this hobby.
This is a very good question, BTW

[David Fox]

Harpers Ferry Armory was chronically deficient in economy and quality control when compared to Springfield. References below are to "Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology" by Merritt Roe Smith (Cornell Univ. Press, 1977). "The (Harpers Ferry) armory's disappointing performance was...atributed to managerial shortcomings, craft traditions, harsh environmental conditions, bizarre local customs (!), and the baleful influence of several families who owned and controlled the town...." (p. 76). "Over the years many workmen left the factory to escape the dreaded 'bilious fever' epidemics which occurred almost annually. Each outbreak of the fever inevitably reduced the labor force to a skeleton crew and sometimes even forced closure of the armory for weeks at a time." (p 76). The workers maintained "an indifference toward mechanization" which "permiated attitudes at Harpers Ferry" (p 113). In the years prior to 1830, Springfield musket barrels sustained a 10% failure rate while Harpers Ferry barrels suffered a 25% failure rate, which an examining board found to be "unusual and extraordinary". (p. 115) "...(U)nusually high consumption of alcoholic beverages" (p 77). Ordnance inspectors pronounced the arms manufactured at Harpers Ferry '40 per cent inferior' to those made at Springfield" (p. 279). "Springfield concluded preparations for interchangable production during the summer of 1840, Harpers Ferry had only partially accomplished the same objective by 1846." (p. 283) Workmen at Harpers Ferry assaulted an inspector because "the inspection was too close" (p. 159), one HF master armorer's name "seemed to be synnonymous with corruption, turmoil, and intrigue...he had taken bribes, falsifed records, intimidated workers, played favorites, (and) condoned...violence...." (p. 179). One HF armorer murdered a reform-minded HF superintendant at his desk. (p. 256). "Throughout the period from 1815 to 1861 the Harpers Ferry Armory maintained an aloofness from the forces shaping industrial civilization" (p. 326). For these and other reasons, the Army Ordnance Department sequestered Springfield arms for the Regular Army where possible and preferred to issue-out the products of Harpers Ferry to the states. Thus, if Minnesota had M.1855 arms to issue-out before the scramble of mid-1861 which anniliated distinctions, they were more likely to be Harpers Ferry manufacture.