In the Field 6-pound cannons.

I'd have to check but my recollection is that technically the 2d Conn Light had 4 "14 lb." James rifles with a 3.8" bore rather than the 3.67's - just to further confuse things. (I referred to the 1st Minn. Light - they had the 3.67" "James" guns). In any event those were, as noted, virtually gone from the A of the P well before then. I think the 2d Conn also had 2 M1841 12 lb. field howitzers - which were also rapidly being weeded out. Gettysburg pretty much marked the end of their service with the A of the P - when they were transferred to Louisiana in early 1864 they were issued 3" ordnance rifles.

I may have misread that or it could even be wrong. I read it on an article I read about the 6-pndr guns a couple months back, I don't remember the article.
 
I may have misread that or it could even be wrong. I read it on an article I read about the 6-pndr guns a couple months back, I don't remember the article.
The whole "James" rifle issue is confusing. If I told you that the terminology and definitions are 100% clear to me, I'd be lying. The 6 lb./12 lb./14 lb. lingo can be misleading and unreliable. The only safe criterion is the bore. And I've seen primary accounts where I don't think the gunners knew for certain what they had. Time for the calipers .... and even then you may not get exact 3.67" or 3.8" readings. The two problems with these guns were wear and James's projectiles, which proved inferior. If i recall correctly, outfits that had them converted to another projectile (Hotchkiss? I'd have to check). The 1st Minnesota boys, in the very first time they were under fire, had two of these pieces fail in about 10 minutes or so as they were being flanked by Rebel infantry (one at the screw and one when the projectile jammed - my deduction is loosening of the sabot or similar, but who knows). Incredibly for complete rookies, some headed back into the mess at Pittsburg Landing, mounted the good tube on the good carriage, and rejoined the battery at the bluff for the final line on April 6. They probably held a big party when they finally got their ordnance rifles ... 😎
 
The whole "James" rifle issue is confusing. If I told you that the terminology and definitions are 100% clear to me, I'd be lying. The 6 lb./12 lb./14 lb. lingo can be misleading and unreliable. The only safe criterion is the bore. And I've seen primary accounts where I don't think the gunners knew for certain what they had. Time for the calipers .... and even then you may not get exact 3.67" or 3.8" readings. The two problems with these guns were wear and James's projectiles, which proved inferior. If i recall correctly, outfits that had them converted to another projectile (Hotchkiss? I'd have to check). The 1st Minnesota boys, in the very first time they were under fire, had two of these pieces fail in about 10 minutes or so as they were being flanked by Rebel infantry (one at the screw and one when the projectile jammed - my deduction is loosening of the sabot or similar, but who knows). Incredibly for complete rookies, some headed back into the mess at Pittsburg Landing, mounted the good tube on the good carriage, and rejoined the battery at the bluff for the final line on April 6. They probably held a big party when they finally got their ordnance rifles ... 😎
Yeah that is a whole thing to unpack. I tried reading up on the "Jamaes" conversions, and I came away with the realization that it's really convoluted and most experts have trouble with it.
 
Yeah that is a whole thing to unpack. I tried reading up on the "Jamaes" conversions, and I came away with the realization that it's really convoluted and most experts have trouble with it.
Agree - because the numbers were so limited, and became more so during the war, it's easier to just move on. I know what Henry Hunt thought of the 12 lb. M1841 field howitzer and the 20 lb. Parrott - I haven't come across anything by him about the "James" rifle subject, but I'd wager a princely sum on what he would have concluded.
 
for the union, some of the 6-pdrs were sent back to arsenals and rifled for the James projectile and sent back in the field. - an early form of recycling....
Could many of those 'recycled' guns have been bored up tp 3.8-inch caliber? I notice that Hotchkiss manufactured shells for a 3.8-inch James rifle, and that some of the same pattern were for 3.67-inch.
 
Could many of those 'recycled' guns have been bored up tp 3.8-inch caliber? I notice that Hotchkiss manufactured shells for a 3.8-inch James rifle, and that some of the same pattern were for 3.67-inch.
There was no reason to re-note obsolete bronze cannon. Melting down the metal of three 6 pdr cannon could cast into two very effective 12 pnd Napoleon canon-howitzers.
 
Yeah that is a whole thing to unpack. I tried reading up on the "Jamaes" conversions, and I came away with the realization that it's really convoluted and most experts have trouble with it.
I have come to the conclusion that it was all a secret code, making sense only to the initiated ordnance officers. FE, a gun rifled for Britten projectiles is designated by the shell weight. Change the shell weight, and bingo, a new designation. So a 6.4-inch 48pdr becomes a 6.4-inch 58pdr, or 68pdr, or 70pdr. But the same gun rifled for Scott projectiles would be designated by the weight of the shot, so the 6.4-inch becomes a 100pdr! It's the old 'can't tell the players without a score card' situation.
 
Shiloh NMP has several examples of 6 pounder bronze cannons that were converted to 3.96" rifles.
Regards
David

Here is an Alger, Model 1841 converted to a 3.67" rifle. This gun is positoned at Waterhouse's 1st Illinois Light Artillery, Battery E position at Rhea Field. It is position number 208 on the Trailhead Graphics Map.
1616031241498.png


Here is a close up of the maw
1616031974749.png
 
Shiloh NMP has several examples of 6 pounder bronze cannons that were converted to 3.96" rifles.
Regards
David

Here is an Alger, Model 1841 converted to a 3.67" rifle. This gun is positoned at Waterhouse's 1st Illinois Light Artillery, Battery E position at Rhea Field. It is position number 208 on the Trailhead Graphics Map.
View attachment 394606

Here is a close up of the maw
View attachment 394616

There's also one at Brice's Crossroads, and a couple I know of at Wilson's Creek.
 
I realize it ain't "proof," but Drew, Ironmaker to the Confederacy, details the melting of the 6-pdrs into 12's, especially on page 189. Yes, its just a book, but he references the ORs, Pendleton's papers and the Tredegar Receiving and Production records.

In January and February, 1863, Tredegar averaged 8 Napoleons per month. Lee wanted, and got, 70 before the spring season. The slow production had been in the lack of copper and tin; the production increase was the result of melting the 6-pdrs.
If there was a shortage of material to make bronze Napoleons, then was the difference made up by manufacturing Napoleons out of iron?
 
If there was a shortage of material to make bronze Napoleons, then was the difference made up by manufacturing Napoleons out of iron?
Most of the South's Napoleons were captures and melts of 6 pdrs. Domestic production of copper and imported tin allowed some production until the copper from Ducktown, TN was cut off. The production of iron Napoleons was an effort to continue production without the copper.
 
Could many of those 'recycled' guns have been bored up tp 3.8-inch caliber? I notice that Hotchkiss manufactured shells for a 3.8-inch James rifle, and that some of the same pattern were for 3.67-inch.
Due to the defects in the James projectiles, batteries with "James" rifles generally substituted the Hotchkiss. But long-term the "future" was to exchange them for 3" ordnance rifles or 12 lb. Napoleons.
 
I suspect a lot of 6 pdrs went on to be used in second and third line roles: guarding strategic points like RR bridges, or prison camps, or being used at training camps. And state militias still had a preference for them, Ohio ordered a battery of six pounders and a battery of twelve pounder Napoleons in 1864. Iron 6 pdrs, being already obsolete, seem to have largely survived intact. It’d be interesting to see how many old guns were actually melted down to cast new ones...
 
I have come to the conclusion that it was all a secret code, making sense only to the initiated ordnance officers. FE, a gun rifled for Britten projectiles is designated by the shell weight. Change the shell weight, and bingo, a new designation. So a 6.4-inch 48pdr becomes a 6.4-inch 58pdr, or 68pdr, or 70pdr. But the same gun rifled for Scott projectiles would be designated by the weight of the shot, so the 6.4-inch becomes a 100pdr! It's the old 'can't tell the players without a score card' situation.
Just to add more confusion, these guns varied in the number of grooves in the rifling, from 7 to 15. Then there's the "Type 1" and "Type 2" references, as well as the question whether a particular gun is a "true" James rifle.

If I recall correctly, the 1st Minn. Light's monument at Shiloh is flanked by two 3.8's, but (at least according to one of the battery's officers) they had four 3.67's at the battle. I'm not sure that there are any useful "scorecards".
 
This is from the Official Records regarding the artillery in the Department of the Cumberland in Feb 1863. The batteries have quite a mix of guns - 12-pdr napoleons, 6-pdr bronze, bronze james, 3" Ordnance rifles ( listed as wrought iron) and parrotts. ( if the link does not take you directly to the table, it's page 967)
Department of the Cumberland Artillery
 
This is from the Official Records regarding the artillery in the Department of the Cumberland in Feb 1863. The batteries have quite a mix of guns - 12-pdr napoleons, 6-pdr bronze, bronze james, 3" Ordnance rifles ( listed as wrought iron) and parrotts. ( if the link does not take you directly to the table, it's page 967)
Department of the Cumberland Artillery
One interesting fact is that so long as "James" rifles continued to be used, a battery was rarely outfitted with only that gun - it also usually had a complement of Napoleons, Ordnance Rifles, M1841 Field Howitzers, or Parrotts. Just to add to the logistical headaches of a battery commander regarding ordnance, range and tactics.
 
... If I recall correctly, the 1st Minn. Light's monument at Shiloh is flanked by two 3.8's, but (at least according to one of the battery's officers) they had four 3.67's at the battle. I'm not sure that there are any useful "scorecards".
DSC06091.JPG
 
one interesting item in the link I posted, is that a majority of the batteries had 2 smoothbores and 4 rifles. There were a few exceptions, but not too many.
 
There was no reason to re-note obsolete bronze cannon. Melting down the metal of three 6 pdr cannon could cast into two very effective 12 pnd Napoleon canon-howitzers.

Recasting the 6-pdrs would require a foundry, most of which were already producing new guns and were quite busy. A well equipped arsenal could rifle the older 6-pdr guns for the james projectiles with a much faster turn-around time than a re-cast. With a re-cast, you not only had to melt and cast the cannon, but also do all of the required finishing work ( turning trunnions, finishing the bore, polishing. etc.) where rifling a 6-pdr only required the rifling process and re-proofing.
 
Back
Top