What Type of Paper

[bob 125th nysvi]

do you use to make your arsenal packs?

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

[BobSullivanPress]

you ought to use cartridge paper. The closest thing to it today is the newsprint-type wrapper you get a sandwich in from many lunch counters.

Don't forget, some arsenal packs had the labels stamped on the pack, some had the labels affixed under the string and some had the label attached after the string was tied on.

[bob 125th nysvi]

Bob.

I've got the labels and since my unit came from Troy NY I'm going to mostly use the Watervliet Arsenal Labels from just across the river.

Just got to figure out if WA used labels or printed.

Yes I know not every pack would come from the same so I've got a couple of others to throw in.

Thanks again.

[GaWildcat]

Keep in mind that just because a unit was from one local didnt mean it would draw all its ammo from that arsenal. It would have been a get the beans and bullets to the guys, and the devil with where it came from.

[Sgt_Pepper]

And some arsenal packs had no label or printing at all.

[huntdaw]

I read an article about this subject which said that if we use existing cartridge bundles as a guide it leads one to believe that the majority of Federal bundles were either made without any labels or the label was stamped on. Remember the boxes were marked to identify the ammo within so labels were not a necessity.

Confederate bundles had a higher tendency to have paper labels affixed but there were still plenty of bundles without them.

So not using a label at all is certainly accurate also.

[BobSullivanPress]

While I agree that we need to base our reproductions on existing items, I am sometimes tugged in the direction of research versus actual existing items. This is the seeming conundrum of accuracy versus representation. Let me explain.

I've seen pictures of supply depots where dozens of arsenal boxes are in the photograph, and there are dozens if not hundreds more. Now, if we took all the existing cartridge bundles in the world, I think we'd be hard pressed to fill up one box, because I'm assuming that there are perhaps less than 100 surviving examples of cartridge bundles. Perhaps not, perhaps there are 200 examples, which would fill two boxes. Whether 100 or 200, these bundles taken together do not constitute a representative sample, statistically speaking.

So, if research tells us that labels did exist, then perhaps we need to find a label and use it, regardless of the number of surviving originals.

On the other hand, when making a reproduction, we need to specify what we are reproducing. When I reproduce documents, I select one and reproduce it. For example, I am aware that the Confederates used different styles of Morning Report forms. I found one in the Museum of the Confederacy and am reproducing it. No one can tell me that mine is wrong, as it is a direct photocopy of an original. Is it representative? I don't know and can't answer. Is it accurate? Yes.

Same thing for cartridge boxes, cap boxes, etc. My friends that reproduce these items show their reproduced cartridge boxes side-by-side with originals. These reproductions are accurate copies of an original. Therefore, they are accurate. How many of these particular cartridge boxes existed? I can't say, but someone probably can. So are they representative? Maybe.

Here's another example from a different period:
In my research on the Revolution. I have found an order that states: "The cartridges are to be bundled and placed in barrels." I have alos found on virtually every Continental Ordnance form I've ever seen, good cartridges are counted in dozens, as in "118 dozen." Almost every cartridge block in the 18th century cartridge box is drilled for some multiple of 3, and most are drilled for a multiple of 6 (12, 18, 24, 36). We can interpolate from this that cartridges were bundled in packs of 6 or 12. Six seems too small of a number, so perhaps 12, which matches the counted figure on the returns. No bundle of Continental cartridges exist, so we can't reproduce one with any confirmed accuracy. But is it representative of the period to wrap the cartridges in bundles of a dozen? Perhaps.

Accuracy versus Representation.

[TimKindred]

Bob,

You are exactly correct, inthat we base our reproductions, indeed our assements of what is correct based upon surviving examples, comingled with contemporary images and accounts, and therein lies the rub.

What remains is a tiny, miniscule example of what was produced, and it is problematic at best to base our assumptions and conclusions upon such a small sampling. The problem, of course, is that things like cartridges were expendable stores, used up and not worried about. Clothing also falls under expendable items, as they were worn out and discarded. True, we have a few remaining examples, and we have some generalised descriptions and a handful of images, but most of those items went to the graves with casualties, or were burned or otherwise destroyed as new clothing was issued.

What we show to the world is basically a best guess me make based upon our examinations of surviving materials and descriptions. However accurate that may or may not be cannot be ascertained, as we have no context within which to base our conclusions. We can only use what we have and hope for the best, even though the items and information we use to base our conclusions upon is, in reality, a statistically insignificant number.

Respects,

[Hoosier Yank]

Bob.

I've got the labels and since my unit came from Troy NY I'm going to mostly use the Watervliet Arsenal Labels from just across the river.

Just got to figure out if WA used labels or printed.

Yes I know not every pack would come from the same so I've got a couple of others to throw in.

Thanks again.


You need to pick up a copy of "Round Ball to Rimfire a History of Civil War Small Arms Ammuntion" Part I by Dean S. Thomas. ISBN: 0-57747-015-X

You can also write to: Thomas Publications PO Box 3031 Gettysburg, PA 17325