Three 1842's

Tin cup

Captain
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Location
Texas
An interesting photo of a Company of Federal Troops.

What interest's me is we see everyone with 1842 Muskets, most sighted/rifled, some smooth-bore.
In the close-up photo, I see three of those 1842's, the far right is smooth-bore, the middle one is clearly rifled with the typical long-range rear sight we normally recognize, but the third one on the left, looks like it has a rear sight that is more like that of an 1861 musket. If you look closely at the main photo in detail/enlarged, you see others with the same type rear sight.
Can anyone tell me if it's a variation of 1842 I may not familiar with?

Kevin Dally
Camp_of_Infantry._Decorated_and_Company_on_parade_-_NARA_-_524795.jpg
Camp_of_Infantry cropped.jpg
 
There is another musket with an 1858 style rear sight in the hands of the man just to the right of the officer on the left side of the frame.
George Moller states that some rifled and sighted M1842s are known to have 1858 style rear sights, but they are fairly scarce. He speculates that those sights are encountered on the 1,500 altered at Harpers Ferry and the 110 altered at Springfield in 1859, and quite probably all alterations performed post 1861, of which numerous reports and contracts point to. Moller lists 20,076 only rifled, and 23,683 rifled and sighted from 1856 to 1859.

March 16, 1861
Chief of Ordnance, Col. Craig to Harpers Ferry Superintendent M.A. Barbour
"In reply to your letter of inquiry of Mr. A. M. Ball relating to the position of the rear sight on the musket of .69 caliber, model of 1842, I have stated that the sight will be placed three inches from the breech as in the rifle musket of .58."

Thanks for the neat image,
Garrett
 
The smooth bore musket may not be a smooth bore. The government did not always place a rear sight on the M1842s it rifled and there are some contractors (Miles Greenwood) who also did not place rear sights on the muskets they rifled. My guess is that all the muskets in the picture are rifled; the logistics of having both .69 minie and round ball ammunition in the same company would be difficult.
 
I had in my collection a model 1816, rifled for .69 caliber, Maynard primer added when converted, but no rear sight of any kind. Considering the recoil of firing .69 minie balls the shooter probably shut his eyes and flinched anyway when he pulled the trigger. No rear (or even front) sight required for that.
 
W
An interesting photo of a Company of Federal Troops.

What interest's me is we see everyone with 1842 Muskets, most sighted/rifled, some smooth-bore.
In the close-up photo, I see three of those 1842's, the far right is smooth-bore, the middle one is clearly rifled with the typical long-range rear sight we normally recognize, but the third one on the left, looks like it has a rear sight that is more like that of an 1861 musket. If you look closely at the main photo in detail/enlarged, you see others with the same type rear sight.
Can anyone tell me if it's a variation of 1842 I may not familiar with?

Kevin DallyView attachment 118415 View attachment 118416
What a great photo, as an ACW uniform buff the picture has everything, roundabout, sack, frock, kepi, forage cap, slouch hat and rain cover. The private in the roundabout even has his cap box on the wrong side and looks to have a frame buckle. Another private has a side arm in lieu of a bayonet. This looks to be fairly early war, or newly recruited, but many of the frock coats have had their collars tailored/lowered for comfort. Absence of hat brass though might indicate 1862.
 
An interesting photo of a Company of Federal Troops.

What interest's me is we see everyone with 1842 Muskets, most sighted/rifled, some smooth-bore.
In the close-up photo, I see three of those 1842's, the far right is smooth-bore, the middle one is clearly rifled with the typical long-range rear sight we normally recognize, but the third one on the left, looks like it has a rear sight that is more like that of an 1861 musket. If you look closely at the main photo in detail/enlarged, you see others with the same type rear sight.
Can anyone tell me if it's a variation of 1842 I may not familiar with?

Kevin DallyView attachment 118415 View attachment 118416
Doing a little sleuthing it appears as if this is the 1st regiment of the Pennsylvania Reserve Corps known as the 30th PA 3 year regiment. The picture would have been taken in the Summer of 1862 when the regiment was a part of the 3rd Corps as indicated by the two diamonds on either side of the (arbor) B. The one has a lozenge in the center, which may indicate previous time in the 1st Corps.

I would also proffer that the second picture, company A, was most likely taken at the same time and that the men were proud of their captain, Mott Hooten, whose name appears on their arbor.

Both pictures indicate that the 30th was armed with 1842 Springfields, had a preference for both frock and sack coats, in addition to private purchase kepis and issue forage caps. Very little brass is evident on their hats, which would have been the second issue as the regiment at this time would have been in service for a little over a year.

The 30th was a hard fought regiment and is listed in Fox's 100 hardest fought regiments with 139 KIA; interesting is the fact that they only lost 66 to accident or disease.
 
Back
Top