Posted on 11/16/2013 11:37:27 PM PST by Reaganite Republican
The Spencer rifle or carbine could not have accommodated the coffee mill device, since any interior spaces of the buttstock that might have been used for the mill had already been filled with the magazine tube and other feed system parts.
I have seen ONE photo of a Union soldier holding a Spencer with the coffee grinder handle in the stock. I have come to the conclusion that if they did have such a device that the Spencers so equipped were made as single shot breech loaders only, which would still make them a good deal faster than a muzzle loader. Every Spencer had a magazine cutoff so they could be used as single shots in order to save the magazine rounds for a real emergency, so making some as only single shots would not have been that difficult.
I’ve never seen this, but you are right. There is a big difference between a rifle and a gun.
X Fretensis wrote”
“Believe Brown Bess fired a 75 cal. bullet. The French pattern Charlesville were 69 cal.”
It was chambered for 75 caliber, but with the powder fouling being part of the routine of the day, they used 69-caliber balls.
Flick Lives wrote:
“Three rounds a minute was also the standard for the Union troops in the Civil War.
That’s amazing. 20 seconds to clean the barrel, load in the gunpowder, wadding, shot, aim, and fire.”
You ‘cleaned the barrel’, at the end of the battle, if you lived!
It was Fire; open paper cartridge; open to half-cock, move the frizzen plate, and load the frizzen pan, then close with the frizzen plate down; put buttstock on ground; pour the rest of the powder down the barrel; put the torn paper cartridge and ball in the muzzle; remove ramrod and ram home the charge; return the ramrod to the stock; shoulder the musket; cock the lock; aim; fire.
These battles went for hours in this manner. Otherwise, it was at the end of a three-bladed bayonet.
See: http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/amarch/getdoc.pl?/var/lib/philologic/databases/amarch/.5533
Do you think that the requirement for a one ounce ball suggests the Continentals preferred the .69 caliber, of there was just a lot of sloppy shooting?
The Civil War was almost completely percussion cap, there were very few flintlocks.
I believe using cap and minie ball, 4 rounds a minute was a good rate of fire from a Springfield/enfield muzzle loader.
central-va wrote:
“I believe using cap and minie ball, 4 rounds a minute was a good rate of fire from a Springfield/enfield muzzle loader.”
As a former black-powder rifle owner, I do not disagree!
However, your rifle of choice was just that, rifled, whereas the original rifle, in the original article was a smoothbore.
So, the progression of the soldier’s capacity to ‘bring fire to the enemy’, increased by a total of one round per minute, from 1776 to 1860, correct?
(Really makes those folks that had Spencer and Henry rifles appear to be ‘speed demons’, does it not?)
Fido969 wrote:
“The Civil War was almost completely percussion cap, there were very few flintlocks.”
A fact not lost on me.
Actually it is easier to ram the round ball into a smooth bore, as such that part is faster. The musket priming is the time consuming part. I have never fired a musket but that is what I am told.
central_va wrote:
“Actually it is easier to ram the round ball into a smooth bore, as such that part is faster. The musket priming is the time consuming part. I have never fired a musket but that is what I am told.”
Fitting in reality a primer cap onto a tube’s end, and the primer cap size is the thumb-pushing end of a Bic Clic, can be a bear. Not much easier with a flintlock - with flashpan powder being of a finer grainage than the barrel powder - making it a two-flask operation.
I would say the rate of fire of smooth bore vs rifled musket are about the same.
“... ‘... each Soldier be furnished with a good Musket that will carry an ounce ball, with a bayonet, ...”
Do you think that the requirement for a one ounce ball suggests the Continentals preferred the .69 caliber, of there was just a lot of sloppy shooting?”
Standard Euro footsolider tactics of the 1770s rendered mass musket fire indispensable. And since everybody used smoothbores, “sloppy” shooting (by our standards today) was unavoidable.
The American War of Independence is distinctive, in that it was the first conflict between “civilised” combatants in which rifles were used and documented. Much is made inside gun-enthusiast lore of this employment of rifles, but it was never more than a tiny portion of the overall effort.
Musket effective range is constrained by the falloff in accuracy, not by velocity loss nor any related deterioration in “stopping power” (whatever that means). So any difference in terminal effectiveness between the 72 cal Brown Bess and the 69 cal French musket had little influence.
The 1770s were still very much pre-Industrial Age; detailed technical requirements did not exist. Still less would the Continental Congress (by any stretch, a gaggle of screaming amateurs, stirred by its powers, ableit with oodles of good intentions and heady enthusiasm) be in any position to declare a “one ounce ball” as the make - or - break criterion for any contracted supply of muskets, and make it stick.
US ordnance preference for 69 cal likely amounted to nothing more than convenience and circumstance. France - still smarting from defeat in the Seven Years War - was willing to supply arms, 69 cal was what they offered, and the fledgling United States was in no position to be picky. So 69 cal was what the uppity Americans got.
“... with flashpan powder being of a finer grainage than the barrel powder - making it a two-flask operation.”
By the 1770s loose powder poured from the flask was not used in combat.
To the greatest extent possible, troops were supplied with pre-loaded cartridges. The cartridge was torn open, pan primed first, then barrel loaded.
This did cause a less-than-efficient use of powder granulation: the main charge worked better with a coarse granulation, while the pan charge worked better with fine granulation. A balance was struck - cartridges were loaded with intermediate granulations.
“...I have seen ONE photo of a Union soldier holding a Spencer with the coffee grinder handle in the stock. ...”
Call the archivists and documentarians then. Assuredly a rare variant.
Given that ingenuity of American troops, I’d never reject out of hand the possibility that some enterprising private shoehorned a coffee mill into the stock of a Spencer.
And the 1860s - early Industrial-Age America - were a time of unprecedented experimentation and innovation, in firearms and much else.
James Wolfe Ripley - Chief of Ordnance for the Union War Dept as the American Civil War began - is condemned today for lack of interest in breechloaders and repeaters, but his overriding duty was to organize the production of standard issue arms. He regarded the horde of inventors that stormed Ordnance offices, each toting their personal “great idea” to save the Union by armed force, as a gaggle of starry-eyed fools wilfully devoid of meaningful experience.
And it is very true that in 1861 no metallic-cartridge small-arm system was in any way a battle-proven concept. The Federal government wanted proof before betting military monies.
“...it was Fire; open paper cartridge; open to half-cock, move the frizzen plate, and load the frizzen pan, then close with the frizzen plate down; put buttstock on ground; pour the rest of the powder down the barrel; put the torn paper cartridge and ball in the muzzle; remove ramrod and ram home the charge; return the ramrod to the stock; shoulder the musket; cock the lock; aim; fire. ...”
Close.
From “baron” Von Steuben’s regulations, the commands for loading:
Carry firelock (starting from any position, soldier moves musket in front of body, muzzle up and tilted a little left, butt in front of or a little below right hip, left hand gripping at a natural balance point between lock and lower band, right grasping wrist of stock)
Handle cartridge (soldier releases grasp of right hand on stock wrist; without looking, places right hand on cartridge box (at right hip, strap over left shoulder), flips up cartridge box lid, pulls out a cartridge, raises right hand, thumb and forefinger holding cartridge by its folded end (ball down), poises hand a few inches below and to right of chin)
Tear cartridge (soldier inserts folded end between teeth, bites down, and tears off folded end, pinching paper tube shut with thumb and forefinger to keep out rain (if any) and prevent powder loss) (prudent supplement: soldier spits out torn end)
Prime pan (soldier lowers muzzle to level, pointing slightly left; checks frizzen (pan cover) position and flips it open if not already so; cock is pulled back with lower three fingers of right hand to the half-cock position; pours small amount of cartridge charge into pan)
Shut pan (pinching shut opened cartridge once more with thumb and forefinger, soldier uses lower three fingers of right hand to pull frizzen backwards, shutting pan; returns musket to previous orientation commanded by “carry firelock” without additional command)
Charge with cartridge (soldier turns musket muzzle to point a little right and lowers musket to where left wrist can rest on left hip, muzzle visible; angles muzzle up; pours remaining charge down muzzle, pushes now-empty cartridge paper and ball into muzzle as far as fingers permit)
Withdraw rammer (with right hand, soldier grasps ramrod with thumb pointing down along its length toward lock, pulls ramrod from its channel under the barrel; ideally done in two pulls. Soldier grips ramrod at a convenient point behind its flared (muzzle) end, flips it to point flared end down, inserts that end into the muzzle, then pauses. Musket is still held in left hand, tight against body, muzzle up angling out a little and to right across body)
Ram down cartridge (soldier pushes ball and paper down barrel to seat at breech with as many repositionings of right hand as required; without further command, soldier pulls ramrod back out of barrel, grasps it near its middle, flips it 180 degrees so the flared (muzzle) end points up and a little right, parallel to musket barrel, inserts rear tip of ramrod into thimble or front band aperture of ramrod channel, and pauses)
Return rammer (solider fully seats ramrod in its channel, then without further command flips the muzzle from right to left and reassumes the “carry firelock” position)
Commands to fire:
Poise firelock (from the “carry firelock” position, solider lifts muzzle straight up until able to see lock without tilting head forward; trigger guard faces forward; affords a final check of flint position and pan status)
Cock firelock (solider releases grasp on musket wrist with right hand, and pulls cock all the way back to full cock using lower three fingers of right hand)
Take aim (soldier lowers muzzle to level, pointing exactly ahead, and moves right foot half a step backward, turning toes 90 degrees right, at the same time)
Fire (trigger is pulled. After the main charge goes off, soldier reassumes the “carry firelock” position without further command. Right foot is returned to position just right of left foot)
It was not required that the musket’s butt be grounded for loading (though it helps). Troops were drilled until able to load on the march.
“Take aim” was a generic sort of command, considering the rudimentary sights on muskets of the day. It was said that supplementary commands like “shut eyes” and “turn away head”
were sometimes issued, to lessen chances of injury from sparks, flint fragments, powder gases, and the like.
All this might sound overly anal-retentive and fussy, but when one ponders the battle formations of the 18th century - troops lined up squeezing together, shoulder-to-shoulder - sureness of movement, alacrity of response, predictability of muzzle angles, etc, mean something. So it all sounds a little more critical.
An entire additional sequence of commands was used to fix bayonets. The triangle cross section socket bayonet of the day was a major component of the system, unlike later conflicts (casualties by bayonet in the American Civil War were statistically minuscule).
And there were yet more commands soldiers had to learn and practice, to march in formation, to change from road-march order into battle-line order, to reform, to perform ceremonies like parades and reviews and whatnot.
So, eight to ten hours of drill a day, every day but Sunday, were indispensable in the training of footsoldiers.
Schurmann wrote:
A lot.
But, hell, what do I know? I owned a nice Dixie Gun Works “finish-at-home” Pennsylvania flintlock rifle, with the Roman stock, a 36-inch browned barrel, and all the German silver work to polish, the lock to fit, and work, chambered in 45-caliber, having used a 435-ball and a 015 patch, over 65 grains of FFFg powder (Pyrodex was not there yet), a flash pan full of FFFFg powder, ignited by a nice small English flint, for over 10 years. And yes, it was ‘blooded’.
Actually I have the photo, it also contains my Great Grandfather in his confederate uniform. The rifle is most assuredly a Spencer and does have the handle in it. Obviously captured from some prisoner or dead Yankee soldier.
Because of this photo I always thought the coffee grinder must have been fairly common.
“... owned a nice Dixie Gun Works “finish-at-home” Pennsylvania flintlock ... 45-caliber, ... 435-ball and a 015 patch, over 65 grains of FFFg powder (Pyrodex was not there yet), a flash pan full of FFFFg powder, ignited by a nice small English flint, for over 10 years. And yes, it was ‘blooded’.”
Some things never change, and for that proper pupils of the art are properly grateful. Blooding is still the initiation rite for any personal arm, as it was in the 1770s.
Approximately half way through my military career of 29 years, I took up with a Continental Army regiment manned by volunteer reenactors and formally chartered by the US Bicentennial Commission, rising through the ranks to archivist, training officer, and (in the fullness of time) second in command. Spent the last half of my military career blending 18th century and 20th century particularities. Comparing the nuts, bolts, and daily routines lent more than a few insights.
The step-by-step sequence I posted refers to military use of the flintlock musket, and that use ONLY.
Safe employment of any flintlock suggests that the main charge be loaded into the barrel first, then wadding and ball (or patch and ball as required for rifles). Only then should the pan be primed, and a finer granulation of black powder is preferred; usually, it ignites more easily, though it does produce more solid residue (fouling) than coarser granulations, which is why they are preferred for the main charge. Saving the priming step for last reduces the risk but does not negate it entirely; a swung flint will still strike sparks from the frizzen, and I have watched flintlocks go off when sparks bounced around an empty pan, found their way into the vent, and touched off the main charge.
Loading from both flasks can be tolerated in peaceful venues, and indeed the footsoldier of experience in America’s Continental Army carried a horn of loose powder, and a priming flask (or smaller horn) for priming powder, if he could afford such. Why? Because any troop could run dry of pre-made cartridges in the heat of action. Too, paper cartridges are not that sturdy: they can get dropped, crushed or broken, or wetted. Very bad for one’s prospects.
But it is very dangerous business, working with flasks or horns around any muzzle loader; few such containers seal tightly, and spilled granules inevitably become scattered about the arm and the person. Risks rise higher with the flintlock, which throws white-hot sparks in every direction each time the cock swings to scrape flint against frizzen.
Muzzle loaded side-by side shotguns (termed “fowling pieces” back in the day) pose additional risks: after reloading the first barrel, the shooter may have a powder flask in the support hand when the quarry breaks cover, and then it’s a nearly irresistible reflex to shoulder the arm and give fire, still clutching the flask in that hand. Sparks can fly forward and ignite spilled powder granules, which then flash sufficient flame about to touch off the full flask. More than one antiquarian bird hunter has come to grief in this manner.
It was well that Mr Smith’s flintlock experience predated Pyrodex: that modern “replica propellant” won’t ignite unless fired by a percussion cap. Our Continental Army reenacting regiment tried more than once; the result was a lot of hissing, and smoke, and perhaps once or twice an embarrassing little “bloop” of a report that sounded all hollow.
” ... Because of this photo I always thought the coffee grinder must have been fairly common.”
It’s been written that one picture is worth a thousand words, but it may take 10,000 words to validate such.
The existence of a single photo can mean a lot, or nothing much, as it’s but an eyeblink in time, and the camera’s field of view reveals but a few degrees out of the 360 that surround every photographer every second of every day; and no matter how sharp-eyed, no photographer can see beyond the horizon.
Documentation is necessary.
In summer 1874, George Armstrong Custer led a detachment of the 7th Cavalry Regiment on an expedition through the Black Hills, in what is now Wyoming and South Dakota. Photographer W.H. Illingworth went along and captured the very first photo images of what was then completely unknown territory. Illingworth went on to photograph other spots in what was then still the rather wild American West, and other locales.
Over 100 years later, photographer Paul Horsted and writer Ernest Grafe retraced Custer’s route through the Black Hills as closely as they could, working with intense determination to find the exact spots where Illingworth set up his camera; from each, they snapped their own photos. Eventually, they published a book, _Exploring With Custer_ (Golden Valley Press; 3rd edition edition (2005), ISBN-10: 0971805318; ISBN-13: 978-0971805316). Containing great maps and detailed directions, it’s a wonderfully colorful travel guide popular with history buffs and energetic tourists.
The collection of original pictures is surrounded by legends and tales of its very own. Each was accompanied by documents and other information used by co-authors Grafe and Horsted to nail down location and circumstances, and capture their latter-day counterparts. But for decades, an image of a waterfall deep in a forest rested alongside the others; it was all by itself without location data or description. The authors conceded their lack of information; pleas for help went out around the globe, but no one knew where the mysterious waterfall was in the Black Hills.
Some years after the first edition of the book came off the presses, someone discovered that the waterfall was not in the Black Hills at all but somewhere in Minnesota or Wisconsin (I no longer recall which). How - and when - it came to reside in Illingworth’s Black Hills collection, no one could say.
So the truism is inescapable: a picture can tell us much, but not everything. And its surrounding circumstances - its context - can illuminate, or mislead, or even convince onlookers to believe falsehoods.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.