PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on a two band rifle



Richard Schimenti
07-27-2006, 07:54 AM
Just a thought on the two band rifle.

My Unit is the 2nd Kentucky Cavlary, Co. D ( Morgan's Raiders )

After the Battle of Shiloh, the 2nd Kentucky fought primairly dismounted.

As a result, the 1858 Enfield rifle was the most popular rifle amoung the troopers.

When we go out on the field, we go out in skirmish order, ect.

My Enfield is a vintage Parker Hale, made in Birmingham in the early 70's.

I also know that many Confederate rifle companies also preferred the two band rifle vs. the longer three band. I was just wondering how many others out there use the two band for their impression ?

Jim Mayo
07-27-2006, 09:16 AM
The weapon of preference for the companies of CS Sharpshooters was the two band enfield. I think people would be surprised at the number and variety of two band rifles used by the CS forces.

http://www.leessharpshooters.com/Event.htm

ewtaylor
07-27-2006, 09:23 AM
reenactors, just like the real soldiers, would prefer the 2-bander. Its easier to deal with because of its size. The reason most reenactors don't use them is because they aren't allowed.
ew taylor

Bill_Cross
07-27-2006, 09:50 AM
I have no qualms about using a two-bander, since I'm usually rear rank! ;-)

Of course, if "Tiny" Grimes is at the event, then he's taller than me. That's when I might worry about losing what little is left of my hearing.

Wild Rover
07-27-2006, 10:30 AM
Rifles are the most under represented item in the hobby.

Pards,

Bill_Cross
07-27-2006, 11:12 AM
Rifles are the most under represented item in the hobby.
For a very good reason: safety.

People would be getting their ears scorched or worse from incorrect formations and foot positioning. I've seen plenty of problems in the ranks with 3-banders, I'd hate to see newbies and the intoxicated with 2-banders at incorrect and unsafe distances between the ranks.

Regular3
07-27-2006, 11:20 AM
reenactors, just like the real soldiers, would prefer the 2-bander. Its easier to deal with because of its size. The reason most reenactors don't use them is because they aren't allowed.
ew taylor
This is a reenactorism that began to grow during the 125th anniversary cycle of events and was partly a reaction to the fact that in those days the most common rifle carried was the Remington Zouave, which was not correct for much of anything ... But unfortunately repro Mississippi rifles were comparatively scarce and items such as the Enfield rifle, while available, were so uncommon as to be objects of awe and wonder.

But of course, like most reenactorisms it became a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water as we soon got to the point we're still at today, where rifles were just banned without regard to whether they might be appropriate ... And there are plenty of instances where they would be appropriate, as more than 70,000 M1841 and around 7,000 M1855 were produced in their lifetimes. (For example, the just-completed Manassas event, where only long arms were allowed: "Two band weapons or cut down weapons of any kind are not allowed.") They claim it's for safety, but how hard is it to put all your rifles in either a skirmish company or in the front rank.

How do we get event organizers to get off the ridiculous ban of all rifles and simply exclude the Zouave model?

Wild Rover
07-27-2006, 12:19 PM
I personally encourage the use of them when it is historically correct.

I think tossing them out is wrong, and would stand in the front rank of any drilled company using them.

I prefer them actually, especially when doing early war or Sharpshooter.

Pards,

Richard Schimenti
07-27-2006, 12:33 PM
Just as a thought, we assign one person to " hold hands" with a newbie when they go out for the first few times. As for the intoxicated, it is just not allowed. R. Schimenti 2nd Kentucky Ca. co. D

Jim Mayo
07-27-2006, 12:47 PM
This is a reenactorism that began to grow during the 125th anniversary cycle of events and was partly a reaction to the fact that in those days the most common rifle carried was the Remington Zouave, which was not correct for much of anything ... But unfortunately repro Mississippi rifles were comparatively scarce and items such as the Enfield rifle, while available, were so uncommon as to be objects of awe and wonder.

But of course, like most reenactorisms it became a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water as we soon got to the point we're still at today, where rifles were just banned without regard to whether they might be appropriate ... And there are plenty of instances where they would be appropriate, as more than 70,000 M1841 and around 7,000 M1855 were produced in their lifetimes. (For example, the just-completed Manassas event, where only long arms were allowed: "Two band weapons or cut down weapons of any kind are not allowed.") They claim it's for safety, but how hard is it to put all your rifles in either a skirmish company or in the front rank.


You are absolutly right. I used to use a M1841 with no problem. Many of us did. It is what the regiment I portray carried. Basically it was either that or an Enfield if you wanted to stick to repro muskets. All of a sudden around the 125th they were not allowed. I could never find out who started that rule or at least nobody owned up to it. I fixed the problem by buying a nice original contract Springfield for 300 bucks and used that.

RJSamp
07-27-2006, 01:38 PM
is the lack of Austrian LORENZ rifles in the hobby....and not the Jaeger's but the 2 band rifles in .54 caliber (2nd Wisconsin) that many units rebored to .577 (7th Wisconsin).

The banning on two banders is not a knee jerk reaction....it's based on safety and PEC. If the answer is 5 - 7, 3 bander muskets or rifle muskets to every 2 bander rifle BATTALION....then at a 1 battalion per side event the answer is ZERO 2 banders. This isn't an issued 1 muskatoonie for every 3 Enfield rifles and 4 Springfield rifles..... in a 400 man regiment you'd probably have a few odd ball weapons in 1862....and a 100 odd ball weapons s in late 1864....but in a 78 man reenacting regiment that means ZERO 2 banders in 1865. Local Militia, bushwhackers, and CSA cavalry are exempt from all this (where are 'dem shotguns!).

I see far too many reenactors of ALL persuasions (not just newbies, and not just dismounted cavalry) not lining up their bands correctly with the front rank's ear. Heat of the battle, casualties, loosening formations, and lack of AUTHENTIC practice.....all contribute to the problems.

Don't confused with AUTHENTIC Battlefied Practicez with AUTHENTIC Drill....here's a couple of observations after reading over 500 books and taking 3 college course in the ACW.

1. Most firing was 1 volley, followed by fire by file, which in practice meant everyone fires on their own crook as fast as they can. It doesn't mean start at the right end of a company and wait for the adjacent guy to fire (that would be DRILL).

2. A Wisconsin vet (of many an Eastern Standup firefight) remarked that the only time he heard repeated regimental volleys was going up the National Road prior to Antietam. That means he didn't hear (in his limited view of any battlefields) repeated volley fire at Antietam, Brawners Farm, GBurg.....go back to number 1.

3. Many mentions of the men being in loose bands, knotted clumps, swarms....very tough to keep the men in 2 even ranks 13" apart. Have always though that we marched too tightly (a LIGHT touch of the elbow!) and recall almost being carried across the field during G135 Pickett's charge from the CRUSH. Hand painted pictures of men fighting, unless highly stylized, envariably showed daylight between the files AND RANKS while fighting....

4. While in the swarms the loaded men would work their way up to the front, discharge their piece, and then rotate to the rear to reload.

5. Many mentions that Veteran regiments fired while on the move! An awe inspiring site (battle of Monocacy, fight at Ft. Stephens). The loaded men worked their way to the front and moving rank.....stopped and fired....and then caught up to the onrushing line....worked their way to the front....and repeat.

6. Once the shooting started they didn't stay in tight cartridge box to bayonet scabbard entangling drill field formations....they had been drilled so that when the command came down the line they quickly aligned themselves and carried out the evolution......

but even veteran troops became entangled, disordered, and unresponsive....look at the fighting in the Wheatfield......when troops were ordered they seemed unstoppable (Wofford, Brooke, Kershaw early on).....but the formations were muxxed up and illformed after they fought for awhile....
by the time the Confederates were crossing the Valley of Death they were 'clumps' of troops around battle flags at x00 yard intervals....

Ewell's boys couldn't be put in order again....so as to continue the advance up Cemetery/Culp's Hill...and they had been victorious in the attacks!

We know they used 2 banders....but we don't array ourselves with weaponry as they did (90%+ same weapon in a single regiment)....and don't fight like they did.......

Don't confuse drill with actual battlefield experience.

Rob Weaver
07-27-2006, 02:37 PM
Interestingly enough, an 1855, or even a Remington 1862 for that matter, is longer than my Sharps infantry rifle. Yet no one gives a soldier with a Sharps a hard time. As I am a short soldier, I've always been in the front rank; the left front rank of every reenactment for many, many, many years. If you're concerned about rifles, keep them in the front rank, in the hands of competent firers, regardless of the model. I think good drill is the answer to the safety issues that have, justifiably, been raised. However, a front rank position for rifles is better than uncritically banning a weapon which, from any other angle, is safe to fire.


Sgt. Rob Weaver
Pine River Boys
Co I 7th Wisconsin Volunteers

Union Navy
07-28-2006, 10:45 AM
Interestingly enough, an 1855, or even a Remington 1862 for that matter, is longer than my Sharps infantry rifle. Yet no one gives a soldier with a Sharps a hard time. As I am a short soldier, I've always been in the front rank; the left front rank of every reenactment for many, many, many years. If you're concerned about rifles, keep them in the front rank, in the hands of competent firers, regardless of the model. I think good drill is the answer to the safety issues that have, justifiably, been raised. However, a front rank position for rifles is better than uncritically banning a weapon which, from any other angle, is safe to fire.


Sgt. Rob Weaver
Pine River Boys
Co I 7th Wisconsin Volunteers

I have found the same to be true - no one questions my Sharps rifle or thinks of it as a two-bander (it has three) even though it is considerably shorter than other 3-banders. Some of the units I associate with don't have a problem with a shorter firearm (including my Smith carbine) and move it to the front rank when necessary. It is often event organizers that have the problem and ban shorter weapons. The Navy may be a special case - many carbines were used (Sharps, Jenks, Sharps-Hankins, Perry, 2-band Plymouth rifles, etc.) and commanders/organizers usually don't bother us, especially if we are assigned detached duty.

Phil
07-28-2006, 10:53 PM
The safety issue is nothing more than an excuse. The newbies should not be in the rear rank, even with a 12 foot long barrel. Drunks shouldn't be allowed on the field at all. Both types are simply unsafe with any weapon in the rear rank, no matter what.

Most of the "example situations" given by those embracing the safety excuse illustrate situations where a musket-length weapon would also be unsafe and are irrelevant.

The PEC argument is likewise worthless, with the possible exception that a scattering of rifles in a company of rifle muskets is quite often inauthentic. However, it is even less authentic to have mixed calibers in a single company, and less authentic still to see 1861 Springfields and 1853 Enfields at 1861 events, but this still happens, even at "good" events.

There is a constant cry for more Lorenz rifles at events. The only option now is to buy an original. An appeal has been made to the Italians to make a reproduction, and it was thoughtfully and carefully ignored. I'm thinking the only real hope is to approach someone in India with the idea.

Phil Graf
TGH

Rob Weaver
07-29-2006, 06:50 AM
I attended an event earlier this season in which the following was the policy concerning rifles: "Rifles (2-band muskets) may be used at the discretion of the field commander, and must be placed in the front rank of any formation."
Oh so simple, and seems like a great answer!
1) "At the discretion of the field commander" supports and endorses field leadership. That commander, or his representative, is going to inspect that piece. If it is not safe to fire, that's the time to discover it.
2) "front rank" Rifles have been in the wilderness of reenacting for so long that their inherent safety is going to have to be proven again. It may take 20 years of putting rifles in the front rank to get the word out and around that they OK. Then in 2026 we can come back to this forum, and hash out moving rifles to the rear rank! :)

Sgt. Rob Weaver
Pine River Boys
Co I, 7th Wisconsin

Jim Mayo
07-29-2006, 08:38 AM
The PEC argument is likewise worthless, with the possible exception that a scattering of rifles in a company of rifle muskets is quite often inauthentic.

I have been thinking about the mixing of types of rifles in a CS company/regiment for some time. IMO I don't think it mattered as long as the weapons used the same ammunition. I have recovered parts of M-1841, Lorenz and even a bar band enfield along the same trench line. Of course they may have been from different regiments or companies and at different times but one never knows. One member of the 9th Va. Inf. was wounded at Drewery's Bluff in 1864. He was carrying a M-1841 (which his company had started the war with), but it is not likely that all of the remainder of his company were armed with that weapon. One picture in the LOC even has a dead CS soldier with what appears to be a Brazilian minie rifle in the trench with him.

Just food for thought.

MDRebCAv
07-29-2006, 06:19 PM
Check out the rules for the Battle of Aiken, SC...Two-banders are acceptable.

Bill_Cross
07-31-2006, 11:44 AM
There is a constant cry for more Lorenz rifles at events.... An appeal has been made to the Italians to make a reproduction, and it was thoughtfully and carefully ignored. I'm thinking the only real hope is to approach someone in India with the idea.
The Italians have not ignored the request, but given that they're running a business, have concluded that the handful of Lorenz muskets they'd sell would not make the tooling-up costs worth it. There is also the issue of the oddball bayonet, not to mention the farbisms that would likely creep into production. I spent more de-farbing my guns and buying decent bayonets than I did on the guns themselves.

As for the Indians-- aren't they the ones who make the ####y bayonets?

Phil
07-31-2006, 04:49 PM
I do find it interesting the Italians make all manner of oddball arms, but have thus far avoided the Lorenz.

It depends on which Indians. They're much more decentralized than the Italians, and their products show it. They don't seem to be as high quality as the Italian products yet, but they are much lighter and well-balanced, and the fact that they're hand-made makes them much easier to work with in terms of product changes and improvements.

Button Whizzer
08-01-2006, 07:08 AM
My Unit is the 2nd Kentucky Cavlary, Co. D ( Morgan's Raiders )

Perhaps the correct spelling of "cavalry" is the most underepresented item in the hobby today. :D

Just a gentle poke!

Brandon

Bill_Cross
08-01-2006, 10:49 AM
I do find it interesting the Italians make all manner of oddball arms, but have thus far avoided the Lorenz.
I seem to recall that some of the dies and tooling for the Italian guns were bought up from American companies, so that might account for the oddball guns. There are also those weapons we love (LeMat) that are over-represented, but people buy them.

There was an email campaign a few years back to "nudge" Armi-Sport into making a Lorenz. That it didn't produce the desired result probably has more to do with the numbers who want the gun than the Italians' disdain for our feelings. They're business people, and would make anything they think would justify the start-up costs.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt once discussed the problems with the Lorenz and making an accurate reproduction. It's not a project I would take on willingly.

Rob Weaver
08-01-2006, 04:12 PM
Check out the rules for the Battle of Aiken, SC...Two-banders are acceptable.
This is a good statment: "No Hawkins, flintlocks or shotguns." I can't tell ya the number of times I heard a guy ask me if he can bring his CVA Hawkin with him! Although there were a small number of flintlock muskets issued during the Civil War, reenacting is not prepared, on the whole to handle the special safety issues involved in carrying them. Until someone wants to raise a company of the 10th TN at Donelson, they're best left to the F&I and Rev War folks.

Sgt. Rob Weaver
Pine River Boys
Co I, 7th Wisconsin Volunteers

VaTrooper
08-01-2006, 10:03 PM
Well the good thing about cavalry is that most event organizers are so use to seeing carbines and musketoons that the site of an M41 or other rifle is a treat.