Who is/are the Expert(s) on the 1841 "Mississippi" Rifle?

[Grump]

My Google-fu has just about tapped out everything I consider reliable on these front-stuffers.

A few questions still remain, like the role, if any, of the 183-whatever "Peace" flask, that was made for YEARS after the 1841 was adopted, played in the usage of that and other rifles and smoothbores of somewhat contemporaneous usage.

I'm already familiar with the 1855-onward modifications to the 1841, and since my interest is PRE-Civil War usage that stuff is a bit boring. To me. To each his own and maybe it will spark more interest in me later.

There being no serial number on these, tracing any individual rifle's movements seems a bit problematical, but methinks that at least some info on "Arsenal/Contractor X made YY,YYY of these in year 18ZZ, of which so many went to the feds, that many to state 1, and the rest were mixed between state and local militias in state 2".

Were any sold off before the War of Southern Attempted Desertion?

Anyway, any help you can give to point me to someone who knows a whole heap about these things would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

[fouronesix]

One of the best references for this category of US arms from 1840-1865 that I am aware of is American Military Shoulder Arms- Vol III by George Moller- published 2011. Packed full of info about these including the M1841. There are any number of other references that may highlight certain aspects or archival snapshots of any particular model, but this is one of the most comprehensive.

For fast, easily accessed general info on any particular US model, I usually grab Flayderman's Guide to Antique American Arms. For detailed info on any particular Mexican War to Civil War era long arm, I go to the George Moller Vol III reference. There are also reprints of issue Military manuals out there that describe proper care, loading and handling of some military models. I use one for historical reference for the M1863 called the Rules of Management and Cleaning for the Rifle Musket Model 1863 . I don't know if there was one for the M1841. The Civil War was, by necessity, about the first time for large scale US Military standardization.

Now, finding exact usage connecting any one model of firearm to any one model of flask is a much smaller subset of collector/historical interest than even the small arms group. There are those who specialize in flasks and there are reference works for them.
Any book source search of Amazon or B&N will show those.

If we were talking British small arms, you'd be flooded with info down to the smallest detail of minutia. You could probably find a large group of historians and equally large associated reference works dedicated to "the varieties of nipple picks used during the immediate post flint era"…. or some such :)

[Grump]

Yeah, the combination of the British Pattern Room and a near-German penchant for documentation, in periods of peace and prosperity between wars, would make them write histories ad absurdium, eh?

Thank you for the pointers to published works of better reliability.

[texaswoodworker]

Were any sold off before the War of Southern Attempted Desertion?

You mean the War of Northern Aggression? :P

[Grump]

You mean the War of Northern Aggression? :P
Yeah, but remember that history is written by the victors...

[doc1876]

But rarely the truth. Case in point: Sand Creek, & Wounded Knee.

[dondiego]

You can win many battles and still lose the war!

[Hanshi]

And remember that the M1841 was named the Mississippi rifle and not the Illinois rifle or the Pennsylvania rifle, etc.

[Zouave 58]

Grump, You might try Googling the American Precision Museum in Windsor Vermont; they are in the original Robbins and Lawrence factory and have actual gauges and machine tools used to manufacture the US Rifle Model 1841 (nobody ever made them in Mississippi, and to be correct about the matter, they were actually called the "Mississippian's rifle. Actually, there were many,many regiments other than Jeff Davis' that were issued the rifle during the Mexican War- Jeff must have had a better publicist). There is a lot of info in Civil War Guns by William B. Edwards, now out of print but available through used book sources. There are several variations of the Rifleman's pouch that had a white buff cross strap with strap hangers for the Peace Flask that were continuously issued with the rifle up until the 1855 cartridge box was adopted, S&S Firearms in Glendale New York sells a good quality reproduction of one of the variants. There was a very complete text published back in the 1970's on the '41 that might be available from a book locating service, unfortunately, I lent my copy to somebody who never returned it, and the title and author's name escapes me. Back in my mis-spent youth as a dealer in US Martial arms I owned dozens of 1841's including a flat new Robbins and Lawrence; all of the 1841's were beautifully made guns that are a joy to shoot. Hope my rant helps...

[fouronesix]

Grump,
You may have looked at this, but here's a link to a short, very basic overview of basic military uniforms, equipment and accoutrements put together by Cole.
http://www.history.army.mil/html/museums/uniforms/survey_uwa.pdf

[BPShooter]

Grump,
You might want to go to n-ssa.org and ask your questions.I've been told, the chances of a book ever being published on this arm is slim, for various reasons I won't go into.

[Grump]

Inquiry into the museum.

Wish I knew where my BYU Bud Sim was these days. He usta be curator of the museum in Cody Wyo, but I got the impression that he really didn't need a day job after he left that to open a gun shop.

[fouronesix]

Here's a couple of more links of interest.
One is an excerpt from Firearms in American History by Sawyer- beginning on page 141.

The other is a presentation by Richard Johnson.

There are references to the use and issuance of both the cartridge box and the pouch with flask during the period of use of the M1841.
Also mentioned are standard charges for the M1841- 75 gr for the PRB and 50 gr for the various Miniés.

https://books.google.com/books?id=TYlCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=accoutrements+associated+with+us+model+1841&source=bl&ots=0r-w3YcsOW&sig=0srE0vZWPZmF4LQraDnd1J2XdLU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YpP3VJT_F_CHsQTJ1IKwCA&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=accoutrements%20associated%20with%20us%20model%2 01841&f=false

http://americansocietyofarmscollectors.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/B045_Johnson.pdf

[doc1876]

Grump, not that I am home, I can help instead of just give you flip answers
United States Firearms, The first Century 1876-1875, by David f. Butler has a good amount of info. It seems that Remington had their first contract of 5000 in 1847, @ $13 each. They made approx 1000 a month, the Ordinance Dept then awarded a contract for 7500 additional rifles. They kept manufacturing them into the Civil War (what is Civil about War?) and the pattern morphed into the Zouave Rifle. ppgs 82-85, and p 140
as for the flasks, I don't have anything there.
IF you want to learn somethings about the war, find out just why the South fired on Ft. Sumter......Lincoln did some fast shifty tactics similar to the guy we have now.
Doc

[Grump]

Thanks for the further info.

So, what rifles or muskets ever had a "standard" charge of 95-105 gr of BP?

It just doesn't make sense to me to have a three-position adjustable powder flask spout start almost 1/3 larger than the "standard" load, to be poured into a separate measuring tube or whatever and have spare powder spilling about.

[doc1876]

are you talking of the shot flask? They had three positions, the charging flasks usually had a removable spout that could be interchanged.

[fouronesix]

Grump,
I have two or three originals (none a Peace or martial type though) of that type full sized flask with the adjustable spout. Usually they'll have the zig-zag adjustment notches for throwing different charges with the notches marked something like 3 through 6 (dram eqs)- as is marked on the American Flask & Cap pictured below. It's always been my understanding those were used primarily for charging BP ML shotguns.

I also have an original full sized flask with that type spout but for much smaller charges ranging from about 35 gr BP up to 50 gr BP which would have been appropriate for small to medium caliber rifles. I usually see references to 1850-54 dated martial flasks by companies such as Batty as being associated with the M1841. Obviously earlier dated flasks would have been used for the Mexican War. Whether or not those flasks had spouts regulated to exactly the standard charges for the M1841 (or any other martial arm)…. I have no idea. Even though these martial flasks are considered "military issue", they were made by private companies to what may have been very "general" parameters and specs…. like the powder charges an adjustable spout may throw. So it's entirely possible you have a martial Peace flask that was carried along with an M1841 rifle. But the flask's spout may be capable of throwing a charge too large or charges inconsistent with the standard charges for the M1841.

When the US was attempting to outfit regulars and militias for and during the Mexican War, Jefferson Davis' units were issued cartridge boxes (for paper cartridges) for their M1841s. While other units were issued pouches and flasks for theirs. Davis' main concern was not the ammo (in whatever form it came) but an adequate supply of percussion caps

If you have a setting on your spout that throws a charge of 100 gr BP, that is equivalent to about a 3.65 dram charge…. which is in the ball park for med-heavy field loads for 10-12ga shotguns.

After the Civil War, all kinds of military equipment held in or returned to arsenals was disposed of as common milsurp. Bannerman's was one of the better known milsurp dealers in such a business. Tracking back these type items ranges from extremely difficult to impossible. That's why any Civil War or similar older item increases in value astronomically if the provenance can be locked and verified. I have an M1861 Navy that was issued to a Union blockage ship in the Civil War. That rifle "disappeared" (possible sold off as surplus) after the Civil War. It's found on the Chinese border during the last stages of WWII, is recovered by a US soldier and is brought back to the US as a "war souvenir". Sometimes you just have to fill in the blanks best as possible with usually sketchy records or lost history. But sometimes it presents itself in some unbelievable way… as happened with the M1861 Navy. Go figure!

Here's a couple of pics of an American Flask and Cap Co flask with the 3-6 dram adjustable spout usually associated with charging BP ML shotguns.

[Grump]

Oh, it's definitely and powder flask and was used as such. BP residue all over the inside and the cut-off looks suitable for only powder.

[fouronesix]

Grump,
IIRC, you mentioned Peace flask earlier. That can mean either an original, likely made by Ames or Batty and could be dated anywhere from the 1830s through the later 1850s. It could also mean you have any of a number of repro Peace flasks dating from the late 1960s to the present. The original martial flasks will have at least maker mark, date and the initials of the gov. inspector. The repros may have few if any definitive markings.

If you do have an original Peace flask with the adjustable spout, it could have been used with or issued for any number of military firearms. It could have been used for more than one type or caliber of muzzleloading military arm- from old flintlock smoothbores, flintlock smoothbores converted to percussion- many of which would be 69 caliber. Maybe for the M1842, 69 cal percussion smoothbore. Maybe for a smoothbore converted to rifle. Maybe for the M1841, 54 caliber. Maybe used with yet a different caliber altogether. It could have been pressed into service during the Civil War and used with any of those arms with the most common being the .577 and .58 calibers using a standard charge of about 60 gr BP under a Minié.

Here's a link to a brief on Peace flasks with some good pics of the most common makers like Ames and Batty.
http://armscollectors.com/mgs/peace_flasks.htm

[Grump]

Thanks, fouronesix.

It is a Batty flask dated 1850. No signs of being fiddled with, but I used to imagine "what if" about Italian repro BP revolvers possibly dug up 300 years from now with all their markings rusted off...BEFORE Mark Hoffman was artificially aging forged writings with period ink on early 1800s-era paper he had located. My wife and I each have our own "brush with history" on that one.

The point is that if it was fiddled with in 1853, that's so long ago that few people could identify it.

The museum has forwarded my inquiry to two of the 'sperts they use. I'll look up your link and we'll see what the next week brings.

???Anyone know what the standard charges were for those heavy-recoiling .69-caliber smoothbores??? I'm pretty sure they took more than 75 grains.

NOW I gotta go get calibrated in drams too, I guess. Meh.

[fouronesix]

:) Grump, at least you're keeping a good sense of humor about it.

About drams and grains. Drams is an old measurement usually associated with BP shotgun use. Odd that it is still in use even in modern smokeless shotshells today (the dram equivalent thing). Some old things just keep on hanging on. The conversion is easy enough so everyone can communicate apples to apples.
1 dram = about 27.34 grains
1 grain = about .037 drams

You're right about fakes. Usually, they can be spotted pretty easily- the ease with which is directly proportional to the market value of the item. While relatively valuable, the original Peace flasks at 400-600 still are not worth it for the fakers to spend much effort at it…. therefore, easier to spot.

And that's exactly right, something fiddled with (fixed or modified) 100-150+ years ago really only adds interest and doesn't hurt value.

Oh, and so all is clear, there is a big difference between a fake and a reproduction. Repros are very common and wise because they provide a realistic facsimile of the real thing to use so as not to risk damage to an original. A fake or counterfeit is meant to deceive and usually begins life as a repro, is modified to look like an original then sold or pawned off as an original for profit. But they are usually easy to spot if you've looked at both the repros and the originals in detail.

[Grump]

I might have had a wonderful post here that got eaten up by a bum laptop battery.

Anyway, I have an inquiry into Ames, the only remaining company which produced the Peace Flask waybackwhen. Brief correspondence with the American Precision Museum and a couple of their buddies who have provided a few insights. Need to get the local library to order The Powder Flask Book (if that's the exact title, I have it here somewhere), 'cause it makes to sense to me to spend 40% of what I overspent on the flask for a book that has probably a page and a half of info on it...

As for drams, thank you again fouronesix, I was literally checking here as a last step before looking up the arcane units conversions. The 96 grs calculates out to 3-1/2 drams, which just happens to be one of the accepted charges for, yes, the old .69 caliber smoothbores. Yes, your instincts are correct, those things are reported to have kicked the user pretty good. Remember, those charges were pushing about 480 grains of lead, so think .45-70 PLUS.

As to why a powder flask make in 1850 would throw a charge used in an decades-old flintlock is beyond me at the moment.

[fouronesix]

You're right, the charge settings on those don't make a lot of sense. I think the manufacturers of the peace flask and similar other martial flasks may have been using an outdated "range" of increments and guidelines for the, usually three, adjustment notches. Those large amounts may have even been based on the normally larger "dram" charges for the larger smoothbores and shotguns?? Flask use spanned a major era of transition from flintlock smoothbores of various calibers through percussion rifles of various calibers. To some degree, the paper cartridge tended to standardize ML charges for military use.

Your peace flask is from that period, the 1830s to the late 1850s. And of course there would have been a difference between the military use of a flask and the civilian use. I think the book you're talking about is The Powder Flask Book by Riling. It's been the standard reference since first published in 1953.

Now, if you can find an original Rifleman's Pouch with the split shoulder strap to go with that flask you'll have one of the "Holy Grails" of Mexican War era collectibles. Even the single leather shoulder straps for those flasks are valued at about equal to the flask itself. :)

[Grump]

The Ames contact was a dud--wrong Ames, this one made shovels for the US military (and a huge amount of commercial sales to this day) and though founded by a military guy, did not make the Ames powder flasks.

BUT some more research pointed me to the 1842 smoothbore percussion musket, derived from what was originally the 1816 or so Springfield flintlock. All .69 caliber. And guess what? Its powder charges were in the 95-105-gr range.

THIS Peace Flask is post-Mexican War so I guess its value is less, and being made, apparently, for a smoothbore .69 musket which I thought was probably gone by 1850, is not really connected to the 1841 Rifle. OR maybe that makes it more rare? I plan to find out.

One thing is for sure--I'm not going to try a 95-gr charge in the Mississippi Rifle. Going 26-2/3% heavier than the standard arsenal charge really doesn't interest me at the moment, even with a rather thick barrel marked "STEEL". Yeah, I know hunters go around 100 gr and more for "hunting charges" in the .54 caliber using PRB, but I don't want to go that high without some documentation from back in THAT day that it was ever done intentionally.

Anyone else here have a Peace Flask? If so, what charges does it throw?

Thanks!

[fouronesix]

Grump,
The charges sound correct and would more closely match the larger caliber older flintlocks, flintlock to percussion conversions and the M1842 smoothbore percussion. The M1842 of course was in use throughout the Mexican War and on into the Civil War. Some were converted by rifling for the Civil War. The M1842 would have shot buck and ball loads, round ball loads and Minié loads.

As with most all military items, a lot of it was sold off as milsurp after it's useful design life and some was transferred to various state militias or outlying regional units. So, exactly what equipage was used or issued with any particular firearm model would have been in constant flux over time.

Two major players (contractors) for the long arms martial flasks were Ames (the sword company) and Batty. The value of the various martial flasks including the peace flasks has a lot to do with basic rarity of the production and survival along with the specialized small market niches…. like an "anchor flask" (for the naval specialists). Condition always plays a part in value. Most collectors would rather have a complete item, with dents, scratches and the like in original patina and condition rather than a refurbed or polished example. Generally older is more valuable, but not always.

I'll dig out and into some of my pile-o-stuff and do some BP charge measurements for the adjustable spout larger size martial flasks I have… and post the results.

[fouronesix]

Grump,
Just a frame of reference and for those who may have an original Peace flask- or other large martial flask from the 1830s-1850s.

I dug mine out and weighed charges for the 3 spout positions. I'm certain the various powders from 150 years ago will vary a little as to bulk density just as our modern powders do. I used Wano FF.

Ames 1844 Peace, 3 position adjustable spout, hi-med-lo, weight in grains.
98-93-88

Batty 1851 Peace, 3 position adjustable spout, hi-med,lo, weight in grains.
103-98-94

[Grump]

fouronesix:

Well, the only copy of the Powder Flask Book is a first edition that is marked "Library Use Only". I haven't asked the locals/called the one about whether that includes interlibrary loan for reference use only here.


Until I see that, I have a feeling that you and I just became sorta expurts on this little element of the Peace Flask, and perhaps any other U.S. martial flasks that might have existed between 1838 and 1865. I reasonable conclusion I am confident in is that most of the currently surviving Peace Flasks were made for the smoothbore muskets in use before the Civil War. This site's brief exposition of the simple fact that not all are the same (http://armscollectors.com/mgs/peace_flasks.htm) shows, to me, two musket models and one for an 1841 rifle.


Every other *intact* one I have seen on-line the past month other than the one in that link above has had a longer spout, consistent with the musket charge.


Yours, like mine, are for the smoothbore .69-caliber musket.


Next is to see whether the adjustable part of the spout was ever exchanged out. I think not, as the inside sleeve appears to go all the way to the "shoulder" of the adjustment sleeve, leaving no room to reduce the minimum charge by about 21%...


That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


Grump

[fouronesix]

I can go with that :)

I have seen various peace flasks with smaller volume, non-adjustable spouts. But I have not seen firm information (one way or another) that they were issued that way. The smaller spouts may have been simply added afterward for a more suitable, pre-determined charge??

Here are my Ames 1844 & Batty 1851. The Ames' spout is a little thinner which explains the slightly smaller charges.

[Grump]

Took some measurements on the Batty flask...

Don't know if the maker was free to design within some parameters, or if the military dictated it, but...

They were fond of decimal inches, NOT fractions.

The spout in its smallest setting measures 1.85 inches long. When set for the largest charge, it is 0.15 inch out from the smallest setting, 2 inches even. Outside diameter of the adjusting sleeve is .66 (close) and the material thickness is .05

[Grump]

A bit of an update--was poking around on eBay (anti-gun pukes that they are!) and found this one, pictured with a 4-position spout ranging from 2 to 2-3/4 drams powder:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-ANTIQUE-1837-N-P-AMES-PEACE-FLASK-GUN-POWDER-COPPER-FLASK-US-PRE-CIVIL-WAR-/231568675958?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35ea919476

Look at the 4th photo.

That $875 price is positively INSANE.

For those of us speaking grains of powder, that's about 55, 62, 68 and 75 grains of powder. This one would be useable with a Mississippi with both PRB at 75 gr, and with Minie Ball at 55 gr if your particular tube shoots them okay. I have read reports from some (maybe here?) indicating that at least a few 1841s had faster than "spec" twist barrels that can launch Minie/Pritchett Balls without keyholing in the 1st 50 yards.

Now the odd thing is that the date on this is BEFORE the Mississippi Rifle. There of course remains the possibility that the spout was replaced during the period of use, perhaps in my GUESS by a State Milita which had added some 1841 rifles to their arsenal.

Digging a bit deeper, we have the .65 caliber flintlock British Baker *rifle* being made from 1805 to...1837, and reportedly being used by the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_rifle. These makers of fine reproductions put the powder charge at 70 grains, = about 2-1/2 drams if that's the language you're speaking: http://therifleshoppe.com/catalog_pages/english_arms/baker_rifles.htm.

I haven't yet found any innerweb references nailing down US military or state militia use of the Baker Rifle, though, and I'm done for the night. Large numbers were captured from Santa Ana's troops during the Tejas revolution, but I have some doubts that any of them would have purchased Peace Flasks for them in 1837... Always remembering that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Later,

Grump.

[fouronesix]

"I have read reports from some (maybe here?) indicating that at least a few 1841s had faster than "spec" twist barrels that can launch Minie/Pritchett Balls without keyholing in the 1st 50 yards."
---- While not widely known or reported in the references, that's true. The original Mississippi rifle I have is a Whitney. It has a 7 groove bore with 48" twist which may account for it's accuracy with a Minié. And most assuredly, the barrel is original.

Peace flasks are not cheap and one of the most desirable of the metal flasks from the period, but that $875 is a little steep considering it has a couple of problems. But it is on a "Make Offer" listing.

"... Always remembering that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
---- now that's a true statement!!

[JHeath]

The Ames contact was a dud--wrong Ames, this one made shovels for the US military (and a huge amount of commercial sales to this day) and though founded by a military guy, did not make the Ames powder flasks.



Maybe related to this Ames?

https://www.joesalter.com/category/products/Ames-Sword-Company-Lock

[Geezer in NH]

An Expert was only a drip under pressure.

[fouronesix]

G in NH- any added info for Grump?

Grump,
For reference, Flayderman's Guide to Antique American Firearms, should be basic to any firearms library. Additionally: Moller's American Military Shoulder Arms Volume III, 1840-1865 and Riling's The Powder Flask Book are both excellent.

Some reference books are not cheap, but good information seldom is.

[Grump]

"I have read reports from some (maybe here?) indicating that at least a few 1841s had faster than "spec" twist barrels that can launch Minie/Pritchett Balls without keyholing in the 1st 50 yards."
---- While not widely known or reported in the references, that's true. The original Mississippi rifle I have is a Whitney. It has a 7 groove bore with 48" twist which may account for it's accuracy with a Minié. And most assuredly, the barrel is original.

[snip]

Finally got a tight patch on the ball-bearing cleaning rod. 1850 Whitney rifle, must be a 1:66 twist. I got 30" of travel and it was not quite halfway around the turn.

Guess I should just not bother at all with further Minie experiments? It's the Lee "Improved" one, and in my teenage years I rather enthusiastically cast up a BUNCH of them.

G in NH--off to check the link now. Thanks!

[fouronesix]

Grump,
The sources giving twist rates of the M1841 are scarce. The Moller book clearly lists the standard M1841 Harper's Ferry Armory Pattern rifle as having a standard 72" twist. The makers include: Harpers Ferry, Remington, Whitney, Robbins, Kendall & Lawrence, Tyron and Robbins & Lawrence. There could have been undocumented variations from any of the contractors.

Both Remington and Whitney also produced M1841s with steel barrels. Unmarked barrels by the various producers presumedly would be of iron. The steel barreled rifles are marked "STEEL" on the left barrel flat at the breech. I believe the steel barrel was standard production for Remington at this time and was also standard for their Zouave rifle. The 1850 Whitney I have is marked "STEEL" on the left barrel flat and has 7 grooves and is 48" twist.

Measuring slow twist barrels is difficult and requires attention to detail as the rod is rotated to depth and has to be measured in exact fractions of a turn.

[Southron]

From the Revolutionary War up until 1855 when the Model 1855 series of rifled arms were adopted by the U.S. Army, rifles were considered by the army to be "Secondary Arms" and bayonets were not normally issued with them. During this period, the Smoothbore Musket was considered to be the main arm of the Infantry.

Jefferson Davis' 1st Mississippi Regiment was issued Mississippi Rifles made by Whitney (the first contractor to deliver Mississippi Rifles to the government) when they were passing through New Orleans on their way to Texas and then Mexico.
Colonel Jefferson Davis and the 1st Mississippi Regiment are credited with being instrumental in the American Victory over the Santa Ana and the Mexican Army in the Battle of Buena Vista.

After the war, War Hero Jefferson Davis found his political career to be "kick started" by being appointed to the U.S. Senate by the Governor and legislature of Mississippi. Because of the decisive role the rifles carried by the 1st Mississippi Regiment, the U.S. Model 1841 became known as "The Mississippi Rifle."

[Grump]

Makes me wonder if I should run the tight patch again and get a more precise twist. 66 and 72 aren't that close in my book, but one from the same year, same maker, and 48-twist is way out of there.

Anyone know how soon Whitney started selling the Government inspector rejects as "serviceable" arms or whatever? Eli Junior somewhat famously complained about how much he wound up spending on the ones that passed the gaging inspections. This is directed towards wondering how and why different twists were put into the known variations of Whitney barrels reported here. Experiments? The ***/OLG screwed up the rifling machine setup? Tubes meant for other guns finished out to 1841 profile and thrown on (think how Colt always used up the last of the old parts on commercial sale guns when transitioning to new/improved/different USGI versions of those parts...or even frames/receivers for the ARs)?

At least these questions are not as deep as those created by each new "answer" from the quantum physics crowd...they still haven't been able to do THAT much with those matched pairs of particles.

[fouronesix]

Grump,
I'll pull my Mississippi out, maybe today, and take the barrel out. Then post all the stamps and markings so you can compare to yours. And you're right, quantum physics with the associated probability math might be more straight forward than filling in the blanks of missing or erroneous info and records of history.

OK,
The lock plate is marked "N Haven 1850" rear of hammer. "Whitney US" front of hammer.

The barrel is nominal 33". Front sight is small brass blade. Rear sight is small dovetailed blade. Barrel retains 95%+ of applied original brown lacquer finish. The tang is marked "1850". Top left of breech marked "US SK VP". Left barrel breech flat is marked "STEEL" and "B". Bottom of breech and tang plug both marked with "X" and four punch marks.

[Grump]

Took a harder look and this 1850 is indeed at 1:72 twist.

"Almost" a half-turn in 30 inches of rod travel was not as close as I thought.

So we have only two data points on Whitney barrels, 48" and 72".

Makes me wonder what twist the one used in the 1855 tests with Minie type boolits really had...

[fouronesix]

Makes me wonder what twist the one used in the 1855 tests with Minie type boolits really had...
Good question.
Around the 1855 "transition period", some of the M1841s were altered to "long range" specs. Much of that was simply a change to a long range rear sight and changing the ramrod tip to a Minié profile…. but leaving them at 54 cal.

Some of the testing could have even been using M1841s reamed and rifled to 58 caliber… somewhere around 1856-7??

Plus, who knows about the record keeping at that time?

I too had to measure the twist in mine more than once to be certain.
A good cleaning rod with a bearing handle and tight jagged patch seems to work best. I use a plunge depth of 24". Insert the jagged and lubed patch into the muzzle and run the length of the bore a few times to make sure of full engagement and free rotation. Starting with jag fully engaged in muzzle, mark rod at muzzle and again at 24". If exactly 1/2 turn at 24", then it's 48" twist. If exactly 1/3 turn at 24", then it's 72" twist.

[Southron]

Actually, James Burton, the "Acting Master Armorer" at the Harpers Ferry Arsenal conducted a detailed series of experiments that eventually led to the adoption of the Model 1855 series of arms firing the "American Minie Ball."

His experiments are described in a book published by the U.S. Ordnance Department:

REPORTS OF EXPERIMENTS
with
SMALL ARMS
for
THE MILITARY SERVICE
by
OFFICERS OF THE ORDNANCE
DEPARTMENT
U.S. ARMY

------------------

PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHORITY OF
THE SECRETARY OF WAR

****************************
WASHINGTON
1856


Dean S. Thomas of Thomas Publications in Gettysburg has reprinted the book. You can Google his website.

[fouronesix]

Both Harper's Ferry and Springfield were doing the "testing" during the 1855 transition period. Some British P1853s were used in addition to experimental rifled arms ranging from 54 to 70 caliber with varying numbers/configs of rifling grooves. The technique for making the basic barrel along with the machines to rifle the bores were refined. It's obvious the British P53 .577 and their version of the hollow base conical played a part in the US standardization of the slow twist, rifled 58 caliber firing a Minié. The resulting standard US 58 cal rifled arm was the M1855. Then of course followed the M1861 and 63. All three models are very similar in design and function with only small differences and modifications based on field use experiences and pressures for mass production during the Civil War.

I've never figured out the adoption of the Maynard tape primer system for the M1855 other than it "seemed" like a good idea at the time (or the result of slick salesmanship). The realities of the battlefield quickly demonstrated the obvious weakness of the system.

[Good Cheer]

Actually, James Burton, the "Acting Master Armorer" at the Harpers Ferry Arsenal conducted a detailed series of experiments that eventually led to the adoption of the Model 1855 series of arms firing the "American Minie Ball."

His experiments are described in a book published by the U.S. Ordnance Department:

REPORTS OF EXPERIMENTS
with
SMALL ARMS
for
THE MILITARY SERVICE
by
OFFICERS OF THE ORDNANCE
DEPARTMENT
U.S. ARMY

------------------

PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHORITY OF
THE SECRETARY OF WAR

****************************
WASHINGTON
1856


Dean S. Thomas of Thomas Publications in Gettysburg has reprinted the book. You can Google his website.

Downloaded a pdf copy of the report years ago. Great reading and a huge amount of info on the subject matter.
If you ever want to see how wrong present day understanding of hollow based bullets can be, just read the report. Jeff Davis did good.

Oh, and about the powder charges for the 1842, the slow twist used for minies is great for round ball and the heavy charges originally used with ball (pre-minies) is plenty stout for hunting anything in the lower 48. As noted above the 450 or so grain ball and 80 some odd grains of black is about like a 45-70, except the boolit is pre-expanded!
:razz:

[Southron]

The main problem with the M1855 Maynard Tape Primer [the invention that was slightly modified decades later by toy makers to produce the modern "Cap Pistol" that made it possible for you to play Cowboys & Indians as a kid!]

Back to the M1855, the main problem was that in wet weather the paper tape primers tended to fall apart. So, the Ordnance Department modified the M1855 to do away with the Tape Primer system and Hence, the U.S. Model 1861 Rifle-Musket.

Just when the Maynard Tape Primer was dropped by the Ordnance Department, along came an invention that would have solved the problem with the paper tapes that became waterlogged in wet weather: A Maynard Tape Primer Tape made out of waterproof metallic FOIL!

[fouronesix]

Besides the weather issue, the whole tape advance system, under fouled battle conditions and hard use was neither robust nor reliable. If a tape slipped, got out of time, tore, got fouled or jammed in any manner the gun was rendered unusable until the system could be cleared or the tape re-set or replaced. After all, the system incorporates a very thin flat spring to hold the tape in place while a push "advance hand" advances the tape as the hammer is pulled to full cock. Also, the simplest, easiest and least time consuming part of loading and firing is putting a cap on the nipple. If it were truly a workable system even with some form of upgraded tape, seems like it would have been used for the M1861 or M1863.

I have and shoot an M1855. Not with the tape primer system of course since original tapes are extremely rare, collectible and expensive. The saving grace of the 1855 in battle was the fact that it functioned just fine with a normal musket cap. When using a winged musket cap at least one or two of the tab wings need to be pinched down to clear the tape dispenser lip on the device. The older Italian and some other musket caps don't have wings so work very well.

Here's an M1855 with a wingless cap on the nipple.

[Grump]

Got all excited over the article in the latest Dillon catalog on the 1842 smoothbore musket, THAT's what most Peace Flasks threw powder charges for!

Forgot what I had learned earlier this year. Price of posting late into the night, I guess.

Re-reading some of my sources, perhaps the better approach would be to get/make a cartridge box for the round balls and the 70-gr powder charge...and learn to put them together.

Ah, more stuff to research. Joy.

[fouronesix]

Thanks for the info. Post #25 seems pretty reasonable and at least some confirmation I'm not going crazy. :)

[carbine]

Don't know if this is out of line, but have you tried the BB over at N-SSA.org? All they do are muskets and the Mississippi is very popular there.

[fouronesix]

Hi Grump,

While there was likely a strong relationship between the US M1842 and the Peace Flask, I don't think it was an exclusive one. The M1842 years of production were 1844-55. While the Peace flask years of production were 1837-58. Ames production 1837-46 and Batty production 1847-58.

On page 85 of "The Powder Flask Book" by Riling, there is a handy chart entitled, "Chronology of US Army Rifles and Metal Flasks 1800-1860" which shows the relationships between US long arms and flasks. Footnoted at the bottom of chart it reads "Flintlock rifles remained in service until about 1848, although officially superseded in 1841. The older flasks were issued as long as flintlock rifles remained in service. The newer ones were issued with percussion or altered rifles so that both types were probably used concurrently until after the Mixican War". It should be noted that the term "rifle" in this context refers to any long arm, whether rifled or smoothbore.