Assistance needed with rifle information, please

Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10
#1
Folks,
I am looking for information on rifles/muskets carried by the Pa 67th in the second battle of Winchester. I have been told it probably was an 1861-63 Springfield, 1853 Enfield, or possibly a Lorenz. I am very new to this site, but folks seem so friendly.
Can anyone give me ideas where I might research this? I have been looking for originals of these models to purchase, but so far no luck. Any classified sites you can recommend would be much appreciated (I am searching N-SSA, MLF, and some others).
Dave
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
561
#3
In Frederick P. Todd's American Military Equipage 1851 - 1872, Vol. II State Forces it shows the 67th Pennsylvania in 1862 as having Austrian Rifle Muskets Caliber .58 and in 1863-64 they had Enfields.
The Austrians would have been the M1854 Lorenz rifle that had been re-bored to .58.
Also, welcome from eastern Ohio.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10
#4
In Frederick P. Todd's American Military Equipage 1851 - 1872, Vol. II State Forces it shows the 67th Pennsylvania in 1862 as having Austrian Rifle Muskets Caliber .58 and in 1863-64 they had Enfields.
The Austrians would have been the M1854 Lorenz rifle that had been re-bored to .58.
Also, welcome from eastern Ohio.
 

ucvrelics

Captain
Forum Host
Joined
May 7, 2016
Messages
6,073
Location
Alabama
#7
Once you figure out what they had or what you want I would start doing your research, oh did I mention RESEARCH and hit the major guns shows. Look around for awhile and get the feel of the ones you see condition price etc and then make your decision from there. As my Grand Pappy always told, "Boy don't go off half cocked, Wait awhile weigh all options then go OFF FULL COCKED"
 

johan_steele

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
14,635
Location
South of the North 40
#8
Folks,
I am looking for information on rifles/muskets carried by the Pa 67th in the second battle of Winchester. I have been told it probably was an 1861-63 Springfield, 1853 Enfield, or possibly a Lorenz. I am very new to this site, but folks seem so friendly.
Can anyone give me ideas where I might research this? I have been looking for originals of these models to purchase, but so far no luck. Any classified sites you can recommend would be much appreciated (I am searching N-SSA, MLF, and some others).
Dave
Those sites are good starts. I might also suggest Lodgwood or Gunderson Militaria.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,021
Location
Murfreesboro, TN
#9
As Jobe says, the 1854 Austrian rifles were found in a variety of bore sizes from .547 to .59. And it is a great idea to check the records to see what ammunition was issued to the 67th PA during the conflict. Don Dixon is an expert who has done considerable research and posts here often perhaps he could elaborate.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
390
Location
Fairfax, VA, USA
#11
The Quarterly Ordnance Report ledgers for 31 March 1863 show the nine companies of the 67th Pennsylvania Infantry which reported their arms as holding 796 .54 caliber, Muster 1854, Type II, System Lorenz rifle muskets. In the Quarterly Ordnance Report for 30 June 1863, six companies reported their "stores" as lost. One of those companies reported one .577 first class Enfield, and another company reported holding 37 first class Enfields in .577 caliber. There were no reports for the remaining three companies.

In balance, I would conclude that the 67th was probably armed completely, or almost completely, with .54 caliber, Muster 1854, Type II, System Lorenz rifle muskets, at the 2nd Battle of Winchester on 13-15 June 1863, since much of the regiment was captured there. It is likely that the few Enfields the regiment held at the end of June were issued after 2nd Winchester.

So, the 67th made a substantial arms donation to the Confederacy, which is one of the reasons why trying to figure out who had what ordnance is so difficult.

Regards,
Don Dixon
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
390
Location
Fairfax, VA, USA
#13
@Don Dixon. Where did you find the Quarterly Ordnance Reports? That's a great research tool.
The National Archives microfilmed the Quarterly Ordnance Report ledgers [Record Group 156, Entry 159 = Microfilm 1281] from the 4th quarter of 1862 through the 1st quarter of 1865. There are no earlier ledgers. The 4th quarter of 1862 and the 1st quarter of 1865 both contain somewhat limited reporting, probably due to the War Department's disorganization as the Federal Army continued to stand up in 1862 and was being demobilized in 1865. In the other quarters, not all regiments reported or were recorded, and in regiments that did report, the report may not contain all companies [See my comments on the 67th, above]. Some of the clerks' handwriting is very bad, and some of the microfilm work was less than top quality.

You can get the set in either microfilm or CD. The seven CD discs cost over $1K when I bought mine as part of my Austrian weapons research. They're probably more now. Main Archives in Washington has a microfilm copy researchers can use. In fact, that's the only way you can see the ledgers now. Some of the other Archives branches [not College Park, MD] may have it as well. Where else one could see them I don't know.

I posted the information on the 67th only because I had it readily available based upon my Austrian rifle research. Perhaps I should offer my research services for a suitable fee :smile:.

Regards,
Don Dixon
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
132
Location
North Canton, Ohio
#15
I echo Don Dixon's post. The quarterly records are a phenomenal source of information on federal regiments. They can often times confirm/deny similar information found in regimental histories, letters, and reminiscences. I don't believe there's anything similar for confederate units, though.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
390
Location
Fairfax, VA, USA
#16
I don't believe there's anything similar for confederate units, though.
The Confederate ordnance manual plagiarized the U.S. Army ordnance manual, and submission of quarterly ordnance reports was required. I've seen references in diaries to Confederate officers having completed and submitted them. But, if the reports were ever compiled and survived the war no one has found them.

The closest surviving documents are Confederate Inspector General reports. By mid-1864 the Confederate Army had developed a standard printed form for reporting inspections of combat arms units. The Inspection Circular accompanying the form directed that regiments were to be inspected three times a month by the brigade inspector general, brigades twice a month by the division inspector general, and divisions once a month by the corps inspector general. In so far as possible, these inspectors general were to work together to avoid harassing the troops.

The top of one page of the inspection form contained the following, rather self-explanatory blocks:

“Arms . . . Kind
Caliber
Unserviceable
Deficient
“Condition of Arms . . . Clean ____________________________________________
Dirty ____________________________________________

Assuming that all his troops are armed, the two most important small arms logistical considerations for a commander are ammunition and spare parts resupply. Consequently, a relatively bright Confederate inspector general would have listed the type/model, caliber, and number of small arms present in a unit, as well as their condition. This was critical since large numbers of the small arms in Confederate units were not the product of interchangeable parts manufacture, and most Confederate infantry and cavalry units were not uniformly armed. Clearly numbers of the inspectors general were not relatively bright, however, because their reports contain the following in the arms block:

No description at all.
“Rifles
“Rifle muskets
“Rifles, Various
“Rifled arms
“Rifles .54, .57, .58”

While some Confederate inspection reports from the last year of the war were helpful in identifying Confederate units at the regimental or lower level equipped with Austrian arms, other reports were utterly useless to me, and probably to the Confederate commanders to whom they were addressed. Given the mythology of the Southern soldier as a gaunt, ragged man who maintained his weapon with meticulous care, one of the things which I found interesting in the reports was the large number of occasions in which units’ arms were characterized by the inspecting officers as being “dirty.” Fouling in muzzleloading arms is a particular problem because it makes them difficult to load, and because the corrosive properties of black powder fouling will render weapons unserviceable in very short order. Keeping equipment serviceable requires constant supervision of troops by a unit’s noncommissioned officers and officers. Ill-trained, incompetent, or unmotivated NCOs and officers are either not equipped to provide such supervision or are unprepared to do so, and the condition of a unit’s equipment is a clear sign of the competence of its leadership.

Regards,
Don Dixon
 
Last edited:

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top