Which rifle

[Tommy Bruce]

Please excuse the ignorance in my question but, I'm looking to buy a rifle within the next year and join a unit or join a unit and buy a rifle. It appears the most common were the 1861 Springfield and the 1853 enfield. Being undecided about who to fight with would either of these rifles be acceptable for both Northern and Southern sides?

[TheBaldYankee]

It would depend on the unit you join, and there rules and level of authenticity. Most mainstream groups won't care as long as it's a 3-bander, and in safe working order. Most of the guys in the 51st OVI carry Enfields, but I got a great deal on a 61 Springfield, so that's what I carry.

Other units will want everyone to carry the same rifle. So I guess my advice would be to choose yout unit first, then choose your rifle.

[Rob Weaver]

The 1861 Springfield was the most common long arm of the war, (if I can get away with a little hyperbole here) and safe to say would be welcome anywhere you want to soldier. This is, of course, provided that the unit you've joined doesn't have specific guidance on which rifle they actually carried. For instance, the 7th Wisconsin carried Springfields, so I do. Being white metal, it's a little harder to maintain than an Enfield.
The Enfield has great popularity with reenactors because the blued barrel is a little easier to maintain (less rust). It's marginally lighter to carry. Personally, I think the Springfield is a more comfortable gun to drill with, and shoulders better, but that may just be me. There is some talk of Enfields being over-represented but I'm no authority on that issue.

[killerreb]

let us not forget the 69cal.. the springfield model 61 was the most used during the war & i agree (my opinion only) that she shoulders better than the enfield. but the springfield smoothbore can be used in any theatre of the conflict, by either side & from beginning to end so you can do mannassas to appomatax & be right. but it truly does get down to what your unit had & personal choice....steve hutton (springfield man!)

[rebelyell62]

I concur, the Springfield's 42's,55's,61's Richmond's varient, etc.shoulder much more comfortably than the Enfields.

I own a 42, and a Richmond (1855)and they are a pleasure to shoot. The Richmond is quite a bit heavier than my Enfields. But the "American" style of shooting and the Springfield stock profile were made for one another.

Good luck in your choice of firearm.
Wendell Brown

[jerryeberg]

This is just a little querk I've noticed while shooting the different types. The multiple Springfields that I've used have a much smaller half-cock than Enfields, making firing on the battlefield much easier and faster. Plus, the Enfield is a lot cooler looking! :p

You asked earlier if either one of these guns would be acceptabe for either side. The answer is the Enfield. It was the most common CS gun and 2nd most common US gun (after the Springfield). However, if you join a CS and have a Springfield, it would be fun to tell the onlookers that you took the gun off of a dead US soldier becasue it was better than the gun that you brought from home.

Another thing that kinda gets me steamed at some reenactments is that when the regiment stacks arms, it is WAY much more rag-tagged looking than it should have been (at least for US troops) because of the innaccurate mix of Enfields and Springfields. Usually, a regiment used the same gun. I suggest asking the unit what gun the actual unit used in the war and get that, just so you don't make the same mistake I did!

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

As shared, the M1861 Springfield and the M1853 Enfield rifle-muskets are the "Bread and Butter" of Civil War reenacting.

However, it depends upon one's unit and impression. Some units want just so-called "Three Bander" and do not care whether it is a "Springfield or Enfield."
Other units and impressions are time and place specific as to what weapon the unit being protrayed actually carried.

BUT, we also tend to look at the Civil War as a "whole," 1861-1865 and make assumptions without regard to unit, time, and place. And we fall into the old Reenactorism of banning rifles (so-called "Two Banders") due to alledged "safety issues" and the desire to eliminate the Remington M1863 Contract Rifle- the "Zouave Rifle).)

For example, into even 1864 some 40% of the Army of the Potomac was still armed with smoothbore or rifled .69 weapons, and of the rest a roughly 2/3 mix of .58's (Springfields and Enfields) and 1/3 mix of .54's (M1841 and M1855 Rifles, and Lorenz, etc.)

But if one is portraying all but one of the Irish Brigade regiments at Gettysburg, they were carrying M1842 69's.... (and fussed about trading them in in 1864 for .58 rifle-muskets!)

Yet, the "nice thing" about a M1861 Springfield or M1853 Enfield (without a discussion of the repro being the incorrect 4th Model not used in the ACW) is that with the exception of the opening months of the Civil War, either is pretty much "universal" for 1861-1865 (with an overlooked Wink and a Nod for Manassas, etc.)

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

Who loves the "looks" of of a factory issued 3rd Model "Enfield," but hates the way the flat buttplate feels, and hates how the high comb bruises my cheek in live fire...

[RJSamp]

However, it depends upon one's unit and impression. Some units want just so-called "Three Bander" and do not care whether it is a "Springfield or Enfield."
Other units and impressions are time and place specific as to what weapon the unit being protrayed actually carried.

Having seen many a company with mixed Springfield's, Enfield's, or even musket's "Three Banders"......
can you name a specific event where this actually occurred?

Were people actually told to leave if they didn't have the correct weapon?

Understand your use of the work 'want', and also the term 'strongly preferred'....but in the reality of ACW reenacting does it really matter?




For example, into even 1864 some 40% of the Army of the Potomac was still armed with smoothbore or rifled .69 weapons, and of the rest a roughly 2/3 mix of .58's (Springfields and Enfields) and 1/3 mix of .54's (M1841 and M1855 Rifles, and Lorenz, etc.)


Actually I thought that muskets were in the 33% range at Gettysburg.....and less than that by the winter of 1864. Any idea on where the 40% in the AOP number came from (including the Irish Brigade and their greatly reduced numbers)? Thanks.



Others' mileage will vary......

Absolutely (and I'm a big Lorenz fan if it was in rifled .54 or rebored to .577)....but I don't know of any non specialty unit (Berdan's for example) that would give two hoots whether you had an 1861, 1863 Springfield....or an Enfield (P. 3 is a bear on your shoulder as you point out) at ANY ACW event.

If I'm mistaken I'd love to know the unit and the event where the reenactor was shunned/kicked out/forced to purchase/borrow another weapon.

Thanks!

[Richard Schimenti]

Gentleman I have 1970's Birmingham Parker Hale Enfield. The balance and feel of that firearm,( made to origal spec's ) make is to seem to be "alive" in your hands.

I have compared the modern Euroarms and A.Ss. Enfields and they feel like a club compared to the Birmingham model.

I also have had and used a repro 61 Springfield and that is much better to work with that the current crop of the Euro. or A.S. Enfields but does not comapre to the Parker Hale Birmingham model...

[rebelyell62]

I too own a 1st generation P.H. model 58 (2 band)
She is a SHOOTER!
But IMHO, the Springfields but stock profile is a far sight more comfortable and "pointable" when compared to the straight stocked almost ,shotgun like profile of the Enfields.

As the others have mentioned, you'll most likely be limited in your choice of arm as mandated by your unit.

But for sheer shootability, the Springfield is my pick.

Wendell Brown

[DukeRPSC]

"...would either of these rifles be acceptable for both Northern and Southern sides?"

Yes, either one. The Springfield (M1861 & variants ) was the most widely manufactured and the Enfield (P1853 ) was the most widely imported. These are your primary choices for repro arms for reenacting purposes. Refinements and specialty arms lie down the road after you become further involved in the hobby.

DCulberson
scfollydude@aol.com

[Tommy Bruce]

Thanks Lads. I greatly appreciate the information. I wish I would've had access to such message boards when I started my Rev. War reenacting. Mr. Schmidt, It appears that you are as well read in the 19th century as Mr. Archer is in the 18th will you be at Zoar village in September?

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Herr Tommy!

I will be at Zoar, yes. Stubby Nick Caldwell is hoping to find a new hat at Dirty Billy's.
The Federal Reenactor Protection and Relocation Program does allow me to get out once in a while, as long as I don't violate Invisibilty Protocols or the Chameleon Factor.
My twin brother Michael will not be there.

Regards,

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

Regarding AOP weapons in 1863. Ordnance returns and ammunition requisitions from NARA Record Groups 94, 109, and 156 in the National Archives can be referenced to units present at Gettysburg and tallied.
I am being lazy and copping out, rather than do the work for a posting that will be off the bottom of the page faster than it takes to type out and put up the numbers.
Sorry, pards. Untypically, poor of me...

[RJSamp]

Hallo!
Regarding AOP weapons in 1863. Ordnance returns and ammunition requisitions from NARA Record Groups 94, 109, and 156 in the National Archives can be referenced to units present at Gettysburg and tallied.
I am being lazy and copping out, rather than do the work for a posting that will be off the bottom of the page faster than it takes to type out and put up the numbers.
Sorry, pards. Untypically, poor of me...

And I cheated and just went on the quotes in CODDINGTON. You can't divide musket toting regiments by rifle musket toting regiments and come up with an answer.....it needs to be a by weapon count. Lot's of the musket toting regiments had been around since Bull Run, and reduced numbers means a smaller weapon count per regiment then the rifle musket count. You take the Irish 'Brigade' of June 20 1863 and compare it to Stannard's Vermonter's....it's like 600 muskets to 1800 rifle musket's. I don't know what a NARA is from an El Nino.....

You're still the greatest on weaponry Curt, keep up the good work!

[bob 125th nysvi]

1) What unit are you portraying and what were they armed with?
2) If they had different armarment during the war what weapon did they field the longest?
3) If you are going to 'galvanize' either an Enfield or a .69 (respectively the CSA 1st & 2nd most popular arm and the USA 2nd & 3rd most popular) would be more appropriate PROVIDING you don't violate rule (1) for your primary impression.

The best advice, find a unit that fits you needs and follow their standards.

[Southern Cal]

On page 76, "Battle Tactics of The Civil War, by Paddy Griffith, Table 3-1 shows the following: out of 242 Union Infantry Regiments at Gettysburg, 10 were totally armed with smoothbores, 16 partially armed with smoothbores, 26 armed wholly with 2nd rate rifles, 13 armed partially with 2nd rate rifles, 7 armed whole or in part with breechloaders, for a total of 65 regiments armed completely with substandard firearms. Anyway, the remainder, or 70.8% of the Union regiments were armed with Enfield .577 or Springfield .58 Caliber muzzleloading rifle muskets. About 90 regiments (around 36% of all the regiments) had more than one type of weapon, most with mixed Springfields and Enfields, but 38 of these 90 regiments had two different calibers of ammunition, i.e. mixed .58 and .69 caliber.

[RJSamp]

On page 76, "Battle Tactics of The Civil War, by Paddy Griffith, Table 3-1 shows the following: out of 242 Union Infantry Regiments at Gettysburg, 10 were totally armed with smoothbores, 16 partially armed with smoothbores, 26 armed wholly with 2nd rate rifles, 13 armed partially with 2nd rate rifles, 7 armed whole or in part with breechloaders, for a total of 65 regiments armed completely with substandard firearms. Anyway, the remainder, or 70.8% of the Union regiments were armed with Enfield .577 or Springfield .58 Caliber muzzleloading rifle muskets. About 90 regiments (around 36% of all the regiments) had more than one type of weapon, most with mixed Springfields and Enfields, but 38 of these 90 regiments had two different calibers of ammunition, i.e. mixed .58 and .69 caliber.

Thanks! My guess is that the Austrian Lorenz was one of the 2nd rate rifles.....the 2nd and 7th WVI certainly acquitted themselves well with them (as well as the 4th TX in Hood's Division). The boy's were certainly happy to get rid of their Belgian muskets and replace them with the Lorenz'.


And I don't know if the 7 regiments armed whole or in part with breechloaders is a substandard firearm.....and wouldn't think these would be muskets.....
Like I said Curt-Heinrich, I thought that smoothbores were a lot less pervasive in 1864 in the AOP than the 40% you cited.... Griffin's numbers certainly support that thought.....

[Frenchie]

Which breechloaders were rated as sub-standard?

[RJSamp]

Which breechloaders were rated as sub-standard?

Evidement the ones that fired too quickly and wasted ammo....

[theknapsack]

I'm sorry if I seem a bit come-offish, but if ANYONE should make the claim that so and so was the most popular weapon in the US and so and so was the most popular weapon in the south, you better have the info and the source to back it up.

Not saying it isn't necessarily true... my experience with my own research on a number of regiments on both sides has seen both these weapons to be very common.
That being said, PLEASE stop making general statements like that without backing it up. It makes my brain hurt.

[1stTexas]

You can read the the history of the P53 Enfield during the civil war from hundreds of sources on the internet and all unamously agree that the South purchased the most of those weapons, or about 900,000 from English contractors. The Federal two units that were issued P53 Endfield rifles were the 54th and 55th Mass. Infantry that were seized from a captured blockade runner. Documentation is easy to get, all you have to do is Google P53 Enfield rifle musket.

The P53 Enfield rifle was the AK-47 Kalashnakov of the civil war.

[Southern Cal]

Dear Mssr. Frenchie, my paraphrasing of author Paddy Griffith may look as though breechloading firearms used at Gettysburg were "substandard" in the sense of meaning they were inferior to other firearms, but that wasn't my intention. The major point was to illustrate to the pard wanting to know which riflemusket to buy, how diverse the arsenal of Army of The Potomac remained, even as late as mid 1863. However, some breechloaders were indeed substandard. According to authors Coates & McAulay state in "Civil War Sharps Carbines & Rifles", at Snicker's Gap, on 3 Nov 1862, a detachment of the 1st Massachussetts Cavalry commanded by Lt. H. B. Sargent, along with elements of the 6th, 14th, U.S. Infantry, engaged Confederate infantry and cavalry. The 1st Massachussets were hampered in this action due to misfires from their Smith carbines, which required several caps to fire the cartridges. Afterwards, an inspection of these arms by the brigade HQ resulted in all 508 Smith Carbines being recalled (minus the existing 84 Sharps carbines the regiment already had), and the 1st Mass. was subsequently reequipped entirely with Sharps carbines. Anyway, as to which rifle musket to buy, the best advice seems to follow the previous pard's guidance and find out first what the reenacting unit is using.

[Eric Hinson]

1) What unit are you portraying and what were they armed with?
2) If they had different armarment during the war what weapon did they field the longest?
3) If you are going to 'galvanize' either an Enfield or a .69 (respectively the CSA 1st & 2nd most popular arm and the USA 2nd & 3rd most popular) would be more appropriate PROVIDING you don't violate rule (1) for your primary impression.

The best advice, find a unit that fits you needs and follow their standards.

When I was portraying US Regulars, they required us to purchase either an 1861 or 1863 Springfield as would be accurate for us. 1842 Springfields would have been accurate as well, for troops that were mustered in 1855, but no one carried one.

A springfield can be just as versatile as an enflield. It satisfies the requirements for US troops, and if you are a few feet away, or in the crowd, it might as well be a CS Richmond, since it was a nearly perfect clone to the 61 Springfield (I know back then there were differences, while modern Richmonds are just restamped 61's).

Enfields i believe are slightly more expensive, at least they were when i bought mine (when they were 500 not 900), so its really your choice.

Eric

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"It satisfies the requirements for US troops, and if you are a few feet away, or in the crowd, it might as well be a CS Richmond, since it was a nearly perfect clone to the 61 Springfield (I know back then there were differences, while modern Richmonds are just restamped 61's)."

???

So, a "Richmond" would be a good choice for a U.S. impression is, or isn't, what you are saying then? ;-) :-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

(In brief and to over-generalize, a "Richmond" is closer to a late model M1855 sans Maynard primer lock form and evolving into brass buttplate and nose cap.)

[theknapsack]

You can read the the history of the P53 Enfield during the civil war from hundreds of sources on the internet and all unamously agree that the South purchased the most of those weapons, or about 900,000 from English contractors. The Federal two units that were issued P53 Endfield rifles were the 54th and 55th Mass. Infantry that were seized from a captured blockade runner. Documentation is easy to get, all you have to do is Google P53 Enfield rifle musket.

The P53 Enfield rifle was the AK-47 Kalashnakov of the civil war.

I understand this, Mr. Coffee, but over general statements can be the bane of good research and learning.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"...sources on the internet and all unamously agree that the South purchased the most of those weapons, or about 900,000 from English contractors"

During the period 1861-1863, some 1,078,200 "Enfields" were imported by the U.S. AND C. S. during the CW.
The South did not get 900,000. Northern Ordnance Records (Document 99) show 505,135 but that does not include a few thousand more purchased for New York and Massachusetts.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Rob Weaver]

Actually the Richmond is a clone of the 1855 musket, with brass buttplate and nosecap. There was no Maynard primer, but the lockplate was replicated anyway, giving the lock an interesting looking "camelbacked" appearance. I think they're a handsome gun. I have occasionally seen someone whose primary impression is COnfederate toting one while wearing blue and you're right; if you don't know the difference, it won't keep you up at night.

[Frenchie]

The 1st Massachussets were hampered in this action due to misfires from their Smith carbines, which required several caps to fire the cartridges. Afterwards, an inspection of these arms by the brigade HQ resulted in all 508 Smith Carbines being recalled (minus the existing 84 Sharps carbines the regiment already had), and the 1st Mass. was subsequently reequipped entirely with Sharps carbines.

Ah, okay. I took "substandard" to mean they'd been declared "secondary arms" by the Ordnance Department.

[Tarheel57]

I too own a 1st generation P.H. model 58 (2 band)
She is a SHOOTER!
But IMHO, the Springfields but stock profile is a far sight more comfortable and "pointable" when compared to the straight stocked almost ,shotgun like profile of the Enfields.

As the others have mentioned, you'll most likely be limited in your choice of arm as mandated by your unit.

But for sheer shootability, the Springfield is my pick.

Wendell Brown

I am another one currently looking to purchase a rifle, and I like to shoot, too. Unit considerations aside, I have heard from a couple of people that '61 Springfields foul quicker than '53 Enfields; and that a Springfield is more accurate on the first shot, but tends to lose accuracy on subsequent shots because of this. But the people I talked to aren't shooters, so this is at least second hand info. Is there any truth to it?

[7thNJcoA]

I shoot my euroarms 61 live all the time and find its pretty good but every musket I have fired fouls up and makes shooting more difficult alot depends on the powder the bullet used and proper lube on the round. The barrel is going to foul thats what the jag is for!

[Frenchie]

I am another one currently looking to purchase a rifle, and I like to shoot, too. Unit considerations aside, I have heard from a couple of people that '61 Springfields foul quicker than '53 Enfields; and that a Springfield is more accurate on the first shot, but tends to lose accuracy on subsequent shots because of this. But the people I talked to aren't shooters, so this is at least second hand info. Is there any truth to it?

If the people you talked to aren't shooters, why did you listen to them talk about shooting? What they told you ignores scores, possibly hundreds, of variables. The truth is that every firearm is a law unto itself and even two identical guns with sequential serial numbers may have different reactions to the same powder charge, bullet size/weight, percussion caps, etc.

If you want to learn about shooting black powder guns from people who've done it for decades and know the subject backward, here are a few suggestions:

The Complete Black Powder Handbook by Sam Fadala

Here is a link with other titles: http://www.possibleshop.com/book-reloading.htm

Look into the Muzzleloading Forum www.muzzleloadingforum.com

Join the National Muzzleloading Rifle Association http://www.nmlra.org/

And let me know if I can help!

[bob 125th nysvi]

be affected by wind, humidity, altitude, bullet weight and the occassional beer or smudge on your glasses.

Not to mention that in the CW the "target" was often shooting back.

[Southern Cal]

If you get you a smooth bore, one might consider an M1816 percussion conversion musket. M1842 Muskets are likely over represented in reenacting. From 1844-1855, the government production run of M1842 muskets was fairly small compared to other muskets: 272,565, supplemented by several thousand from eleven different contractors, plus 6,000 M1842 "Palmetto" .69 cal. muskets produced under contract with B. Flagg & Co. machinery in Columbia, South Carolina, for the State Militia. At least 10,000, perhaps 12,000 M1842's were rifled in the 1850's, taking them out of the smooth bore category. In contrast, the Model 1816 .69 Cal. musket and several variants had a production total of 325,000 from Springfield Armory and 350,000 from Harper's Ferry, or at least 675,000. Starting in 1841, at least 300,000 M1816 muskets were converted to percussion ignition, more than the total production of M1842 muskets. Many thousands more M1816 muskets were converted under contract to percussion ignition at the beginning of the Civil War. Likely, a number well above 600,000 M1816 muskets were used during the Civil War, though it isn't clear how many of these were still flintlocks. Sources, Paddy Griffith cited above, Echoes of Glory, Wikipedia, Al Varedas USMC web site, and others...

[Mule Gil]

How many 1855 rifle muskets were built at the two armorys?

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Rifle-muskets: At Springfield... 47,115 between 1857 and 1861. At Harpers Ferry... 12,158 between 1859 and 1861.

(That does not count the few assembled by the State of Virginia or C.S. "Richmond" from HF parts early in 1861.)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[1stTexas]

Casual students of the American Civil War easily accept the notion that the Confederacy relied completely on foreign imports and captured union weapons. This belief is only partially true. At the Tyler Texas Ordnance Works, rifles were made between November 1863 and March 1865. Tyler Rifles were unique among the many interesting arms to come from Southern armories. It is unfortunate that so few specimens survive today.

Tyler Ordance Works in Tyler Texas was built under a contract between the Texas State Military Board and the business partnership between Short, Briscoe & Co. Five catagories of rifles were manufactured at Tyler including the following: Mississippi Rifle, Texas Patent Breech Rifles, Hill Rifles, Enfield Rifles, and Austrian Rifles. Three other examples of Tyler Texas arms have been identified; but examples of them have yet to surface.

Type I, .577" cal., 5,000 stand of arms, including the bayonets, 48", 32-3/16" barrel, lock was an P.53 Enfield, distinctive nosecap. light orange stock probably cut from holly wood.
Type II, Only minor differences from Type I, i.e.: fore-stock ended within seven inches of the muzzle. rear sight was an iron blade, infantry rifle.
Type III, Shorter, 45-1/2" overall, barrel length of 30-7/16", cavalry rifle.
Type IV, Known as "Texas Patent Breech Rifle" shorter than the others, 43-1/2" overall, 27" "true" barrel length, manufactured from July and August 1864.

In March 1865, Gen. Jo Shelby and his "Expedition to Mexico" came through Tyler Texas with hundreds of Confederate officers, troops and politicians, who were planning to join Maximilian and continue the war from Mexico. Gen. Shelby was given 1,200 Type I, Tyler Enfield rifles to arm his expedition and take to Mexico. Unfortunately, Maximilian was abandoned by the French government and was executed by Mexican rebels before the Shelby Expedition was established in Mexico. The Mexican rebels met Gen. Shelby at Pedras Neigras on the Rio Grande and required that the exiles sink their Confederate flag in the river and surrender all arms except their side arms.

[bob 125th nysvi]

Type I, .577" cal., 5,000 stand of arms, including the bayonets, 48", 32-3/16" barrel, lock was an P.53 Enfield, distinctive nosecap. light orange stock probably cut from holly wood.
Type II, Only minor differences from Type I, i.e.: fore-stock ended within seven inches of the muzzle. rear sight was an iron blade, infantry rifle.
Type III, Shorter, 45-1/2" overall, barrel length of 30-7/16", cavalry rifle.
Type IV, Known as "Texas Patent Breech Rifle" shorter than the others, 43-1/2" overall, 27" "true" barrel length, manufactured from July and August 1864.

but 5000 weapons is barely a drop in the bucket. So for reenacting purposes to go with an "off brand" would be hard to statisically support.

[1stTexas]

How many rifles is a "stand of arms"? There were only 5,000 Type I Tyler Enfield "stand of arms" produced but I don't have the production figures of the Type II, III and IV rifles but I am sure there were far more than 5,000. The Tyler arms factory produced rifles for three years so I must assume there were many thousands made and issued to Confederate troops in the Trans-Mississippi Department, mostly short cavalry rifles. Texans would not walk anywhere when they could ride a horse. That is why Texas Tyler rifles are not popular in the reenactment community; very few reenactors can afford to keep and maintain a horse.

In May 1865, Texas was not whipped and that is why Gen. Sheridan was deathly afraid of Texas. He established his reconstruction headquarters in New Orleans until Texas was completely sujugated. In the meantime, Sheridan appropriately sent Col. George A. Custer to the "Deaf and Dumb School" in Austin Texas to take the surrender oaths.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

You mean I can't use a 48 round .24 Lorenzo Sibert Magazine Repeater Carbine then?
Sigh... :-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Virginia Pacificator Mess

[bob 125th nysvi]

How many rifles is a "stand of arms"?

one.

So the type one had 5,000 produced and the rest of the types too few to even notice.

A little pride in local history is admirable but don't get carried away.

5,000 is still a drop in the bucket

[bob 125th nysvi]

but it was more important to the western CSA as a source of logistical supplies than as a source of fighting men or a tactical/operational/strategic staging ground.

Whipped or not they were militarily insignificant once the main CSA Armies had folded their tent.

And your own facts can prove that. They sent Sheridan and Custer not Grant or Sherman and their Armies. The A- team not the A team.

Besides don't forget the LAST Confederate General to officially give up the fight was Staid Waite, a Native Ameican not a Texan.

Texas is beautiful, big, bountiful and populated, but those are all (except the beautiful-big part) post war developments. Pre-war it was the frontier and once the Big Muddy was "unvexed" by Grant if Banks hadn't been stupid enough to launch the Red River Campaign it would have been just another backwater (except to the locals, real shooting is real shooting no matter how few men are involved).

[RJSamp]

one.

So the type one had 5,000 produced and the rest of the types too few to even notice.

A little pride in local history is admirable but don't get carried away.

5,000 is still a drop in the bucket

No it isn't, and I'm going to bring my revolving battery gun to the next reenactment to prove it!!!

[RJSamp]

It would depend on the unit you join, and there rules and level of authenticity. Most mainstream groups won't care as long as it's a 3-bander, and in safe working order. Most of the guys in the 51st OVI carry Enfields, but I got a great deal on a 61 Springfield, so that's what I carry.

Other units will want everyone to carry the same rifle. So I guess my advice would be to choose yout unit first, then choose your rifle.

The truth be told, all cph groups don't care Strongly either, nor do their events/standards. Sure if their base impression is the 33rd Wisconsin they're going to want you to buy an Enfield....but as soon as you go to an event and reenact the 24th MI (who used M1861 Springfield's) they're not going to care. As long as you're carrying an M1842, Enfield, or Springfield, can you cite ANY event or ANY unit that denied a reenactor access to an event, unit, or failed to provide a loaner? Just cite one?

CPH EBUFU events have mixed rifles in any given company....they don't sort companies by rifle type, nor do they assign reenactors to companies by regimental impression based on rifle type. We'd all love unlimited wealth to convey a 2nd Wisconsin or 4th TX Austrian Lorenz in .54 caliber.....but even the vaunted 7th Wisconsin impression at Brawner's Farm reenactment had ZERO Austrian Lorenz in .54 rebored to .577 caliber (they had two originals in .54 caliber). And this was an 'historically precise' impression for an above average event.

Bottom line on defarbed 3 banders, unit impressions, historical precision, standards......at 10+ feet no one call tell your reproduction had the serial numbers filed off..... and no one is jumping up and down about blued Enfields in the same company as bright 61 OR 63 Springfields. And I'll await the names of the units and/or events that totally ban members from not having a precise weapon.

We talk the talk, but we certainly don't walk the talk (literally or figuratively) now do we .

[flattop32355]

We talk the talk, but we certainly don't walk the talk (literally or figuratively) now do we .

Which is perfectly understandable: The government is not providing the issue items as was done with the originals, and money, like kitchen passes, are not in endless supply.

Much as we'd like to have standard equipment in all cases, it's just not likely for most of us to own multiples of weapons, uniforms, etc. enough to cover all the possiblilities.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

How d' ye!

Exactly correct...

And even a well-known unit, having picked a EBUFU until to portray that was armed with M1842's, and made it the "Gun du Jour" for that event, counted only three out of nearly 40- the rest being... you guessed it M1861's and P1853's...

"And I'll await the names of the units and/or events that totally ban members from not having a precise weapon."

It is so minor as not to really be worth adding, while I have NEVER encounterd such at any so-called F/M/C/P/H/A event, there are very small speciality units that do require the correct weapon. (Not mentioning individual impressions as relevent...)

Some Berdan messes require NM1859 Berdan Contract Sharps while others allow just the NM1859 Sharps while others allow "Springfields and Enfields."

And the 7th Ohio Independent Company of Sharpshooters requires a Spencer RIFLE.

But, IMHO, these are insignificantly small "specialities" and do not bear mentioning.
There was, past tense, a 1986-1991 unit of 40 lads, who mandated P1853 3rd Model Enfields for the unit standard/requirement (but allowed new recruits to play with the commercial mass produced 4th Model Enfields while they waited on the retro-version work to be done.)

Yes, IMHO "authentic" firearms, present as documentated for unit impressions, is the Last Great Frontier of Civil War Reenacting and Living History. And where even the so-called H/A Community looks the "other way" when it comes to arms... and accepts less than they do for uniform, kit, drill, and activities.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Beat Goes On Mess

[TheBaldYankee]

The truth be told, all cph groups don't care Strongly either, nor do their events/standards. Sure if their base impression is the 33rd Wisconsin they're going to want you to buy an Enfield....but as soon as you go to an event and reenact the 24th MI (who used M1861 Springfield's) they're not going to care. As long as you're carrying an M1842, Enfield, or Springfield, can you cite ANY event or ANY unit that denied a reenactor access to an event, unit, or failed to provide a loaner? Just cite one?

CPH EBUFU events have mixed rifles in any given company....they don't sort companies by rifle type, nor do they assign reenactors to companies by regimental impression based on rifle type. We'd all love unlimited wealth to convey a 2nd Wisconsin or 4th TX Austrian Lorenz in .54 caliber.....but even the vaunted 7th Wisconsin impression at Brawner's Farm reenactment had ZERO Austrian Lorenz in .54 rebored to .577 caliber (they had two originals in .54 caliber). And this was an 'historically precise' impression for an above average event.

Bottom line on defarbed 3 banders, unit impressions, historical precision, standards......at 10+ feet no one call tell your reproduction had the serial numbers filed off..... and no one is jumping up and down about blued Enfields in the same company as bright 61 OR 63 Springfields. And I'll await the names of the units and/or events that totally ban members from not having a precise weapon.

We talk the talk, but we certainly don't walk the talk (literally or figuratively) now do we .

Sir,

My post was NOT an "us vs. them" post. My point was simply that it's a good idea to choose a unit before you buy a rifle. When I was looking for a unit to join I remember seeing a few that had a specific one they wanted their members to have. I don't remeber wich units, because I didn't join. Personally I don't care wich units have such a standard.

I don't care if a person is a mainstreamer or hardcore or farb or whatever. To each his own. Mr. Bruce asked a question, and I tried to offer the best advice I could with my limited experience. There's no need to read anything more into it. I said nothing about C/P/H, mainstream or anything else. The only group I mention, in fact is my own unit, the 51st OVI.

If you want to talk about Walks and Talks, go right ahead. You don't know me, or what kind of guy I am, but I invite you to come have a chat with me at an event sometime and I think you'll find I'm an easy going guy, who cares more about the individual than throwing labels out at groups of people.

[tompritchett]

The truth be told, all cph groups don't care Strongly either, nor do their events/standards. Sure if their base impression is the 33rd Wisconsin they're going to want you to buy an Enfield....but as soon as you go to an event and reenact the 24th MI (who used M1861 Springfield's) they're not going to care. As long as you're carrying an M1842, Enfield, or Springfield, can you cite ANY event or ANY unit that denied a reenactor access to an event, unit, or failed to provide a loaner? Just cite one?

Actually RJ, my unit is a mainstream unit and we currently strongly encourage new members to get Enfields just for the sake of uniformity (we do not however pressure current reenactors to buy a second long-arm if they come to us with Springfields or Richmonds). So, as you see, the post you are using for your current anti-c/p/h rant could be as equally applicable to mainstream units as c/p/h units.

[bob 125th nysvi]

No it isn't, and I'm going to bring my revolving battery gun to the next reenactment to prove it!!!


taking it RJ ..... WITHOUT taking any hits on the way in!

[RJSamp]

Actually RJ, my unit is a mainstream unit and we currently strongly encourage new members to get Enfields just for the sake of uniformity (we do not however pressure current reenactors to buy a second long-arm if they come to us with Springfields or Richmonds). So, as you see, the post you are using for your current anti-c/p/h rant could be as equally applicable to mainstream units as c/p/h units.

So you avoid going to events that require you to have a Springfield? Or adopt the historically imprecise impression of Enfields in a Springfield toting Regiment?

This isn't an anti-c/p/h rant.....it's an anti if you're going to be inaccurate anyway why sweat it rant. Of course this hits Farb, Mainstream, or cph units alike (why would you assume otherwise from me, do we need another gabled front porch post? or we can't recognize bugle calls to save our rear? I'm just as anti Farb as anti mainstream as anti cpher....call me an anti non historical ranter Tom.)...... For Line infantry units, no one is forbidding members to join or reenact if they don't have the historically precise and correct weapon in their company, let alone Regiment. Why even 'strongly' encourage prospective members to buy an Enfield when you're falling in with a Springfield outfit at this and that event and portraying an Austrian Lorenz toting unit?

It doesn't matter. A bright barrel stands out in a company of blued Enfields....and a company of blued Enfields stands out in a Regiment of bright Springfields. Telling a newbie (Strongly Suggesting) that they get an Enfield vs a '61 Springfield vs .69 musket is simply lip service, it doesn't matter. To us, to your unit, to the event, to spectators, to historical accuracy.
A) you're going to accept them anyway
B) you're going to be mixed up in the formed company anyway
C) you're going to be mixed up in the formed Regiment anyway
D) and the weaponry probably won't be in the same mix as the multiple regimental impressions one is called on to portray in a typical national event (that would be MAINSTREAM or FARB events).
E) even if 5 of the weapons are defarbed, that leaves X weapons not-defarbed, may run afoul of serial number defacing laws, may not defarb the rifles to the same level of accuracy, and may not be as accurate as the 1 or 2 Originals that manage to show up in each company at each event anyway.

MONEY is the issue here, never said it wasn't.

But everyone who posts up here "I'm a newbie which rifle should I get? and we come back with what's your unit? We Never comes back with: how many unit's have I been with in 10 years of reenacting, including falling in with Another Unit at this or that event....why am I giving advice to a newbie to buy per a unit that he MIGHT join for a season or 4, and attend events that are with other units or rifle impressions anyway before slinking away to another unit/branch of service/hobby.

BOTTOM LINE, Tom....for a line infantry regiment it doesn't matter which three bander you get of the three majors. No matter which unit you join, and which firearm they 'strongly' suggest. And it doesn't matter where you fall in your level of historical reenacting. We've seen muskets in a blued Enfield half defarbed rifle musket company portraying a Springfield Regiment at local farb fests, mainstream nationals, farb nationals, campaigner adjuncts, EBUFU, NPS Living Histories, crossover events, Outpost, Recon, McDowell, or simply name the event.

Specialty impressions and branches of service are a different matter of course..... so your mileage will vary.....

[RJSamp]

Sir,

My post was NOT an "us vs. them" post. My point was simply that it's a good idea to choose a unit before you buy a rifle. When I was looking for a unit to join I remember seeing a few that had a specific one they wanted their members to have. I don't remeber wich units, because I didn't join. Personally I don't care wich units have such a standard.

I don't care if a person is a mainstreamer or hardcore or farb or whatever. To each his own. Mr. Bruce asked a question, and I tried to offer the best advice I could with my limited experience. There's no need to read anything more into it. I said nothing about C/P/H, mainstream or anything else. The only group I mention, in fact is my own unit, the 51st OVI.

If you want to talk about Walks and Talks, go right ahead. You don't know me, or what kind of guy I am, but I invite you to come have a chat with me at an event sometime and I think you'll find I'm an easy going guy, who cares more about the individual than throwing labels out at groups of people.

Nor was mine.

It doesn't matter which of the three weapons you purchase, and it doesn't matter which level of reenacting orgy you are aspiring to, and it doesn't matter which unit you belong to.

Name me one Line Infantry unit that requires or strongly suggests a Blued Enfield Model 3 or 4 that will refuse a reenactor to join with a '61 Springfield. At any event, at any time. Understand about late war, early war, specialty impressions, branches of service.....but thats not the poster's question, and that wasn't your answer.

I'm not picking on you at all, you were just the first poster (of MANY) that posted find out what your unit is using. The real answer might be which UNITS are you going to fall in with throughout the course of your reenacting hobby life.....but none of us are prescient enough to divine the event impressions and unit impressions that we will be portraying....and ONLY go to events that require that unit's impression with that type of weaponry.....

Bottom Line is it doesn't matter which of the three three bander's they buy. That would be the appropriate answer.

I'll be at Mill Springs, if you are there you Will hear me, come on by Federal HQ and we'll have that talk.



Thanks!

[bob 125th nysvi]

I think given your logic that "What's your unit impression?" is the perfectly logically answer to the question.

As you pointed out due to money we can't be all things at all events all the time so we accept compromises.

So for example my unit is 125th NYSVI, issued Enfields (which were then turned over to the victorious rebels at Harper's ferry 1862) and then issued Springfields. Later in the war (since the ammo was interchangeable) it was probably whatever the Quartermaster had available when replacements were requested.

So for me a .577 is a realistic portrayal. A .69 wouldn't be.

No does that mean I should be shut out of portraying units which had a .69?

Only if the event coordinators want to field 10 guys and claim it is a regiment.

If you're doing a generic impression, again the logic applies. The Springfield was the most common rifle issued to Federal Units, followed by the Enfield with various .69s a close 3rd.

So if you have a generic federal unit impression a Springfield would be the first choice (being the most common Union weapon issued).

Again the event coordinators face the problem articulated above.

A generic southern impression order of preference would be Enfield followed by .69.

That no one can field a full sized regiment accurately armed at an event is a reality all segments of the hobby realize and thus choose to 'overlook' on the authenticity scale.

The one part of your argument that does hold water to a certain degree is that if you are willing to pass on one item on the authenticity scale (in this case the weapons) why get your drawers in a bunch over the other things on the authenticity 'scale'.

The answer to that is a personal choice as to what to accept as inevitable and what not to accept.

The cold hard reality is none of use will ever 100% accurately portray a CW soldier or actual tactical unit. And to believe you are is something of an internal lie to oneself. What some people are striving for is to get as close as humanly possible given their own personal resources and ability.

What is sometimes lost is that this is both a collective and highly individualize hobby. Collective in that we are all interested in the same thing (the CW) individualized in how we each approach our impression.

[RJSamp]

I think given your logic that "What's your unit impression?" is the perfectly logically answer to the question.

As you pointed out due to money we can't be all things at all events all the time so we accept compromises.


I'll buy all of that Bob. The problem is which is your unit? The one you're thinking about, the one your friend that took you to for your first reenactment as a spectator? Many of us go through several units in as many years.....others, like myself, don't technically belong to any unit (no dues, no voting privileges, no postage fees for the newsletter, no insurance, etc.).

As a Western Federal portraying an Eastern Theatre Regiment we simply bought Springfields for $350 and that was that. And it didn't matter that some of us had Enfields, original Austrian Lorenz, original '63 Springfields, etc.

A .69 musket wouldn't be my first choice for a Western Federal impression, but there are enough units, and famous ones, that used them.

Anyway, this is definitely one of the 'acceptable' limits to authenticity. We definitely could be more historically precise, but choose not to and look the other way. Event Standards aren't....they're guidelines. Unit impressions aren't, they're merely strong suggestions as pointed out by Tom. Farb, mainstream, cpher.....armed similarly, equally inaccurate.....

As for me, I vary $150-$500 bugles and trumpets by impression branch of service, year, regiment...... kind of like multiple rifles.

[bob 125th nysvi]

The problem is which is your unit?

is first the reenacting unit I decided to join (and the unit they choose to reenact).

In my case Co C 125th NYSVI.

Which is also the unit I wind up representing the most since we do more parades and local living history events than we do battle events.

Given my limited funds that is my first impression.

But I am buying items which are more generic for an AoP impression to allow me to easily represent 'more' units.

For example my 125th forage cap has appropriate unit brass on it. I also have a forage cap with no brass on it, although I have enough brass to allow me to decorate the hat for almost any regiment number/company letter if that is requested. I also own a slouch hat.

I have a belts with both NYS and US plates on them allowing me to be more versitle. Ditto with the cartridge boxes.

I am planning to acquire a second weapon. Originally I was thinking a defarbed Enfield (to go with my '61) but I think I am starting to drift towards a .69, since I don't think it would be uncommon (unusual?) to find a mix of Springfields and Enfields in a .58 armed AoP regiment. The .69 makes me a little more versitle but it is my SECOND weapon since my primary impression calls for a Springfield.

Sigh, I guess the defarbed Enfield will have to wait to be my third weapon.