2 band guns at re-enactments

[Iron Jim Rackham]

I've never seen two band rifles at re-enactments. Many rifles with barrels less than 36" were used during the Civil War, thus I'm surprised I don't see 2 band guns. Why?

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Most events ban them under the guise of "safety", saying that barrels that short can be a hazard, particularly when fired from the rear rank. To that I say BS. Indeed it is true that there were many two banded rifles in the service of both sides during the war, a fact that is not reflected at reenactments. Depending upon a unit's impression and what they were issued for a given time in the war, I'd love to see more of them on the field. As for now, if you truly want safety, fire from the front rank and you won't have any issues. I was also told at one event by a company commander of whose unit I was about to fall in with that I couldn't fall in with them because I would "ruin the stack" when stacking arms. Huh?

[Craig L Barry]

Historically speaking, it is of course complete balderdash to try to represent the arms used during the Civil War with only three band rifle-muskets. And the event ban is not there for reasons of "safety" either as the key to maintaining a safe distance of 13" from the cap to the ear of the front rank soldier is the same whether the barrel is 33" long or 38" long. And as Ross points out, if the issue were truly safety based, it would ban rifles in the rear rank only during those formations where there is a front and rear rank. There is no danger to the front rank that way, whether real or imagined. Logically, it has to be something else...

One other theory is that events banned two banders in the interest of limiting the usage of the anachronistic "Zouave" (reproduction of the 1863 Remington contract rifle) rifles. Another bit of lunacy is the "messing up the stacks" nonsense. However, it appears to me that the answer probably lies somewhere in between the various rationalizations, where ignorance most easily gets its foothold. The ban on two-band rifles is now so deeply ingrained in mainstream event rules that it can't be rooted out with mere facts anymore. A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. And if events were truly worried about "safety", would the ridiculous close range use of handguns be permitted? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the last incident of someone being shot with a live round from an uninspected loaded handgun wielded by a French foreign national at 135th Gettysburg? So it isn't safety...there is no ban on Frenchmen or pistols is there? So let's follow the money from the event organizers perspective. I am going to wager a guess that it must be stipulated somewhere in the liability insurance policy that covers such events as Civil War re-enactments. The ban on using ramrods falls under that broad heading, too. Thousands of demos have been staged at NPS living histories and campaigner events with ramrods in full use without incident. Same kind of "not based on facts" or safety thinking. This has the ring of an "event liability insurance" policy exclusion to it. And I bet I'm not too far off the mark here.

[GaWildcat]

Here in GA I have seen Rifles in ranks, and not much made about it. I agree about unit impressions, as both the units we emulate, 2nd Battalion, Georgia Sharpshooters and the 64th Illinois (1st Battn, Yates' Sharpshooters) were armed with Rifles (the 64th carrying 1841 Rifles for the first half of the war)

Rifles should not be a safety issue, IF the drill is followed correctly. I.E. Hardee's RIFLE and Light Infantry tactics. If one looks at the illustrations, these are not written for muskets or rifled-muskets, but rifles.

[sbl]

I have read of an actual unit, the 5th Rhode Island Battalion that carried 2 band Enfields with sword bayonets. This was in the New Berne, NC fight. The writer C. Henry Barney complained of the bayonet scabbard tangling in his legs.

The issue is that the whole unit needs to have the shorter rifles rather than mixing them up with in a unit.

Another example is the 1st Rhode Island Detached Militia which had 3-4 types of weapons within the unit, but split these up to separate companies.

[Jim Mayo]

When I started this hobby in 1981 the event rules specifically said no Zouve muskets (or rifles) along with hawkins etc. No other mention was made about two band rifles. I was using a M-1841 at the time since the regiment we portray used them. I didn't notice the 2 band ban until the late 80s. It started creeping into the rules at the large events. IMO it was the brain child of some of the reenactor organizers who at that time, had a habit of tripping on their bayonet scabbard quite frequently.

[Jeffrey Cohen]

As I recall he was quite unapologetic about the incident.
How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?
I don't know it's never been done.

[tompritchett]

As I recall he was quite unapologetic about the incident.
How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?
I don't know it's never been done.

In all fairness to the French, it was indeed done successfully once in the 20th Century - WWI. But it took the help of the British to do so, especially after the entire French army mutinied against the French high command after yet another failed French offensive against the entrenched Germans (the 1917 Nivelle Offensive). And it took the Americans providing the additional fresh manpower to tip the balance enough for the Allies to ultimately break the stalemate.

[Craig L Barry]

Exactly how unapologetic the Frenchman in question was/is will be evident in the April Camp Chase Gazette when some recent correspondence from this individual is printed in response to the "Eric from France" letter to the editor that appeared in the last issue. Essentially, he is now denying responsibility for the whole matter, despite having a loaded gun, pleading guilty on the criminal charges and accepting a huge fine, a two day jail sentence plus the additional obligation for the victim's medical expenses which totaled $28,500. An amazing turn of events...He is pretty bold and arrogant from the safe distance of cyberspace.

I was doing research on Enfields not made in Britain (the P-53 was widely produced elsewhere), and found it interesting that the St Etienne produced P-53s were priced higher than those made elsewhere when going back into the gun trade. I assumed it was because they were fired once and dropped.

[7thNJcoA]

A major reason today is insurance. Many agents have some experience with reenacting units and read alot into it. For some reason for insurance purposes these crazy agents think 2 banders and such are a liability. I know it is on our units policy that no long arm be less than a certain length. As stupid as it is we have to follow the rules to stay insured. I love some rifles and 2 banders I have a few that I live fire and I like them alot. I wou;d have no problem with a Pard in my unit firing a 2 band behind me. If you get up on the shoulder and close like you are suposed to there is no issue IMHO.



Member of the Kill the Insurance Man Mess