Before The Uniform, More Occupational Photographs



sprinfield.JPG


Thank you and SO wait a minute!! The paper packet, pouring down the muzzle, adding the ball, ( I'm not trying to use the right words, no point if I don't know them ) packing it in there- that was the reality. The movies use this? I mean, it's a great gun! Makes me smile a little since those simple, light bolt action .22's were what Dad made us learn with- to a little kid's eye, someone kept something very, very simple in design. Bet a million dollars a 6 year old's thumb would have a struggle though.

I know historians complain about Hollywood and inaccuracy. This seems pretty far off track.
 
View attachment 105468

Thank you and SO wait a minute!! The paper packet, pouring down the muzzle, adding the ball, ( I'm not trying to use the right words, no point if I don't know them ) packing it in there- that was the reality. The movies use this? I mean, it's a great gun! Makes me smile a little since those simple, light bolt action .22's were what Dad made us learn with- to a little kid's eye, someone kept something very, very simple in design. Bet a million dollars a 6 year old's thumb would have a struggle though.

I know historians complain about Hollywood and inaccuracy. This seems pretty far off track.

Breach loading rifles did exist during the Civil War (see the larger version of my Avatar below). This would have been similar in concept to the "trap door" model that you have in your image with the rifle loaded from the "back" rather than the "top". These rifles were not very common during the war and the traditional "muzzle loader" with a paper powder cartridge and "Minnie ball" was used by almost all soldiers.

I suspect that Hollywood used these later weapons in Westerns where it made sense and then when they needed weapons for the occasional CW movie they just grabbed ones that they already had on hand. The true and correct breach loading style weapons (as with my ggg-grandfather below) was rare during the war, but increasingly more common after the war, since most movie goers are not history/gun experts as well they felt they could get away with it.

John_W_Knott_w2.jpg
 
The ones where the photographer painted in a detail after the fact have a really noticeable "fake" look to them. In my opinion it was a simple change to add a piece of white cloth and you have your milk pouring. No need to do any "extra" work after the photograph is taken.
--------------------------
After looking again the milk does look like cloth & not paint. Like I said before CWIC good catch!
Ee
 
View attachment 105468

Thank you and SO wait a minute!! The paper packet, pouring down the muzzle, adding the ball, ( I'm not trying to use the right words, no point if I don't know them ) packing it in there- that was the reality. The movies use this? I mean, it's a great gun! Makes me smile a little since those simple, light bolt action .22's were what Dad made us learn with- to a little kid's eye, someone kept something very, very simple in design. Bet a million dollars a 6 year old's thumb would have a struggle though.

I know historians complain about Hollywood and inaccuracy. This seems pretty far off track.
If the camera moves in close they will use the paper cartridge. But for a general view of the firing line the Trapdoor is the one.
There was a trap door made in 1866 which missed the CW. I don't know if it is allowed in the N-SSA matches or not.
The site below is from the NRA museum. If you ever have a chance, they have a remarkable and beautiful place there in Northern Va.

http://www.nramuseum.org/guns/the-g...-springfield-allin-conversion-model-1866.aspx
 
Found a good one on wikipedia (lots of zoom available).

Portrait_of_a_Daguerreotypist%2C_1845.jpg


A daguerreotype of a daguerreotypist displaying daguerreotypes he daguerreotyped ... too much inception. An unknown daguerreotypist, dated 1845.

Interesting about this one. You get an idea of how big the originals would be in comparison to him. Since the actual finished version of this image would only about 2" x 3" the sample images his is displaying must have been microscopic in the original. Since this one has plenty of zoom you can see that the quality of the images, even in 1845 allowed you to go to a much finer detail than you can on modern images.

Nice find.
 
Found a good one on wikipedia (lots of zoom available).

Portrait_of_a_Daguerreotypist%2C_1845.jpg


A daguerreotype of a daguerreotypist displaying daguerreotypes he daguerreotyped ... too much inception. An unknown daguerreotypist, dated 1845.

What an interesting photo, @GELongstreet. I notice that the center portrait in the top row appears to be a picture of a painting, unless the daguerreotypist was fortunate to capture a horse in a dramatic pose, which I am guessing wouldn't have been technically possible at that time. Was it common to take photographs of painted portraits in the 19th century? I don't recall having seen any others, at least not presented as he shows it here.
 
Back
Top