Mississippi rifle question

[Mule Gil]

"I've heard pray tell that some battalions have grouped their rifles into skirmish companies, which seems like a logical solution to the safety and authenticity issues."

You mean, you mean, like it was DONE in 1861-1865. What a concept!!!!!!!

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

We still live in the Time of Miracles.



Curt

[Viceroy]

"I've heard pray tell that some battalions have grouped their rifles into skirmish companies, which seems like a logical solution to the safety and authenticity issues."

You mean, you mean, like it was DONE in 1861-1865. What a concept!!!!!!!

I know, right!? LOL

[Rob Weaver]

The only problem with that solution is that you now have a company or so who may never have drilled together prior to the event. Also given that short guns traditionally have found their ways to loaner closets and new reenactors, some of those soldiers may not have a lot of experience under their belts. They also may prefer to march with the unit they belong to, who may be the only people at the event they know. So this scratch company heads out onto the field, and the "battalion companies" observe "Wow, what a bunch of idiots. Rifles shouldn't be allowed at this event." And they get the special treatment once meted out to those who were daring enough to check "unaffiliated" on the registration form. I've led a company like that and it took a great deal of effort, and a long Saturday morning drill session to make it work. I think that banding your rifles together like that is probably the best solution, but it should be clear in the event regulations, and the time needed to meld them into a unit figured into the schedule.

[Mule Gil]

The only problem with that solution is that you now have a company or so who may never have drilled together prior to the event. Also given that short guns traditionally have found their ways to loaner closets and new reenactors, some of those soldiers may not have a lot of experience under their belts. They also may prefer to march with the unit they belong to, who may be the only people at the event they know. So this scratch company heads out onto the field, and the "battalion companies" observe "Wow, what a bunch of idiots. Rifles shouldn't be allowed at this event." And they get the special treatment once meted out to those who were daring enough to check "unaffiliated" on the registration form. I've led a company like that and it took a great deal of effort, and a long Saturday morning drill session to make it work. I think that banding your rifles together like that is probably the best solution, but it should be clear in the event regulations, and the time needed to meld them into a unit figured into the schedule.

Sounds like a group of "fresh fish" that would have actually appeared on a number of battlefields of our period; troops with little training thrust into the War well before they were really. Seems that it could be announced at the beginning of the battle that a group of reenactors, without IDing them, WERE protraying raw recruits and then ask the spectators at the end, which ones were raw.

Of course , then, we might ALL be accused of being the "fresh fish"!

[Poor Private]

Or better yet, it could be a group of reenactors whose sole aim is to portray a company of skirmishers. The problem I see is at events will they be used as they are supposed to be, or tossed aside as weird, funny, or strange. How many would have to make up this unit to be useful 10? 12?
Next would be how many fellers would actually take the effort to buy 2 bander rifles-- I was just on Cabella's web sight and they have the new Pedersoli Mississippi in stock at a price of $999.99-- In todays economy who can afford one.

[Rob Weaver]

Thanks for some affirming words about ad hoc skirmishing companies. There's a lot of maturity in admiting that we may not be the vaunted elite infantry we sometimes think we are.
I think in a lot of small and mid-sized events, the infantry should ALL be deployed as skirmishers. Sending 2 or 3 companies in as skirmishers is better use of small numbers than a single under-strength battalion en masse. It's a skill every company knew, and would go a long way toward de-mystifying skirmishing as a reenacting skill. (Face it, it's just not that hard, especially in the straight-ahead terrain most of us have to work with. Wheeling a skirmish line is a little tricky, sending it straight ahead isn't so head.)
As the war progressed, even front fighting lines in many cases resembled more of a strong skirmish line than a battalion front.
One of my peeves about skirmishing is that we use it at the wrong times. I remember a Cedar Creek several years ago. The Federal line was advancing toward the Confederate line with skirmishers in front. Looked cool, except that the Confederates were 50 yards away. What are skirmishers going to uncover for the main body when a) they're so close you can identify individuals you know among your own skirmishers and b) the main body of the enemy force is drawn up in force on your front? Nothing. We're playing real-life miniature wargaming again.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Excellent points...

NOT intended as a "them versus us,' "us versus them" discussion; or the "right events" versus the "wrong events"--

Skirmish lines and "skirmishers" have been known to run the History-Heavy to History-Light gamut from a 5-6 company line skirmishing by the bugle in the woods at say Wilderness 125 all the way down to a handful of individuals, walk-on's, and dismounted cavalry with no "skirmish drill" pot-shooting at the entire enemy line from 10 yards away.

And the other side of the coin is often times the issue of "Two Banders" is not those in the hands or potential hands of formal units R & D'd as having rifles that are drilled and disciplined, but in the issue of this lad or that lad or two with a "Zouave rifle" who is neither drilled or disciplined and is mixed in units with "Three Banders."

Curt

[akcampaigner]

Interesting points, but combining rifles into a single company would not necessarily be accurate for all impressions. Examples of this would be the 2nd Mississippi Company B which was armed with a mixture of conversion muskets and Mississippi Rifles (other examples of a mixture of Mississippi Rifles and Lorenz Rifles, Enfield Rifles and Rifle Muskets can also be found).

In my experience in using a Mississippi Rifle and a Hall Rifle in the field most units/events do not seem to mind if you are in the front rank...

All the best,

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

True...

Also with a mention of the early War practices with some regiments where eight companies were smoothbore musket armed, and the two skirmish companies (previously AKA flank companies) were rifle armed.
(The advent and arrival of the rifle-musket in larger numbers NUG ended the old practice.)

Curt