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

[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!

[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.