Respectfully disagree with you on this. For a small living history, they might be acceptable. But if you wanted to do a large event such as Gettysburg or Cedar Creek, they would be frowned upon ( if not turned away outright ). Also, it would be kind of problematic to stack arms since a Mississippi has the saber type bayonet instead of the more common socket type.And as far as re-enacting with a repro US 1841, there are many scenarios which would support their use throughout the US Civil War on both sides. If anybody claims two banders are discouraged, tell them to put you in the front rank.
He is referring to the Mississippi seeing a lot more use historically than usually thought and being more period correct for certain units than Enfields or Springfields.Respectfully disagree with you on this. For a small living history, they might be acceptable. But if you wanted to do a large event such as Gettysburg or Cedar Creek, they would be frowned upon ( if not turned away outright ). Also, it would be kind of problematic to stack arms since a Mississippi has the saber type bayonet instead of the more common socket type.
Agreed. There is a lot of evidence that the Mississippi Rifle and other 2 banders were very prevalent during the ACW. My own gr gr grandfather's regiment was equipped with 1841's for a couple of years. But in a modern setting, there's less of an opportunity to use them.He is referring to the Mississippi seeing a lot more use historically than usually thought and being more period correct for certain units than Enfields or Springfields.
He wrote a very good and informative article on the history of the guns and why why they should see more use in reenacting in the May/June 2007 issue of Civil War Historian. As I recall he mentioned how one New York unit at Gettysburg was armed entirely with modified Mississippi Rifles.
I used to reenact with a Mississippi when I started out and finally retired it for an Enfield when my officers berated me enough, often saying our unit historically didn't have them, it was unsafe and so on, BUT later an image of a man armed from the historical regiment turned up and guess what he was holding! Not an Enfield lol! The rifle really should see more use in reenacting, it is very underrepresented history wise.
Its kind of like something I said to an officer friend when we were bemoaning the constant politics of reenacting and him saying that "It's how its always been so we got to live with it." what I replied being, (actually one of the few times I said something smart),:Agreed. There is a lot of evidence that the Mississippi Rifle and other 2 banders were very prevalent during the ACW. My own gr gr grandfather's regiment was equipped with 1841's for a couple of years. But in a modern setting, there's less of an opportunity to use them.
I bought a used one in 88 when I first joined the N-SSA. I used it in competition for 25 years. Never had a single problem with it. The accuracy was pretty decent too. It's difficult to put a price on one today without checking it over. But I would say anywhere from $450 and down. They are not allowed for reenacting as it's a two bander but they are good for hunting or competition so there's a limited market for them. Here's mine, pretty much a wall hanger now.
500 is the price they wanna go with. Barrel is clean, no cracks. Got the desired W stamp so that is good. What makes the Bernadelli better than the Pedersoli (despite the price)?The older Bernadelli US 1841 repro is actually quite decent. Probably right behind the Antonio Zoli reproduction in terms of desirability. In other words, well ahead of the more current offerings. As far as cost, everything depends on the condition.
It seems as if the repros made after 2000 are of lesser quality. I have my Bernadelli Mississippi, a Euroarms Enfield, and an Armisport Springfield all made before 2000 and never had any mechanical issues. I bought a Euroarms JP Murray in 2005 ( whose accuracy is less than desirable ) that needed a new tumbler and sear after a couple of years. And one of my reenacting comrades bought an Armisport Springfield less than 5 years ago and had to replace his tumbler and sear within the first year. And the seller would not warranty it.That is a subject for another day I suppose. In general, the older Civil War reproduction rifles and muskets were of better quality in their earlier production runs. The molds, tools and dies were new and sharper. The markings were cleaner. The wood was a better grade and the fit/finish was better. As far as I know, those early Bernadelli US 1841s all had the notched rear sight. I think if you spent $500 for one of the older Italian-made Mississippi rifle reproductions in the condition you describe, you would not be sorry.
That sounds very good. I think I will buy it. I've always liked the M1841.That is a subject for another day I suppose. In general, the older Civil War reproduction rifles and muskets were of better quality in their earlier production runs. The molds, tools and dies were new and sharper. The markings were cleaner. The wood was a better grade and the fit/finish was better. As far as I know, those early Bernadelli US 1841s all had the notched rear sight. I think if you spent $500 for one of the older Italian-made Mississippi rifle reproductions in the condition you describe, you would not be sorry.
the variant that had the 1855 long range sight that started at 200 was soldered on, but you would need a taller front sight for it (which you could solder on as wellThat sounds very good. I think I will buy it. I've always liked the M1841.
A shame that they only sold them with the notched rear sight. I'm not mechanically enclined enough to attach the 1855 Springfield sight on the thing and there is no way in hell I could ever put a bayonet lug on it. And not being located in the US, there is no real option for any alternative sights anyway. So sadly no way to make it more historically accurate (as far as looks go). But no need to cry over spilled milk. It's still a beautiful rifle and I will use it for target shooting anyway so the sights are fine.
Thanks again for all your help!
Craig do you still have that article? would love to read it.Funny, I forgot about writing that old 2007 article in Civil War Historian, but that sounds right. I have long been a proponent of US 1841 use in various reenactment scenarios for many years, and consider them very much under-represented. And actually most of the Mississippi rifles don't have any provision for a bayonet for use in stacking arms at all. Just have to do what they did at time and lean it on the stack I suppose.
That was probably written fifteen years ago. I am afraid I do not still have the files. Sorry. Here is a pretty good monograph written by Curt Heinrich-Schmidt and me a little later on that would contain most of the same information:Craig do you still have that article? would love to read it.
He is referring to the Mississippi seeing a lot more use historically than usually thought and being more period correct for certain units than Enfields or Springfields.
He wrote a very good and informative article on the history of the guns and why why they should see more use in reenacting in the May/June 2007 issue of Civil War Historian. As I recall he mentioned how one New York unit at Gettysburg was armed entirely with modified Mississippi Rifles.
I used to reenact with a Mississippi when I started out and finally retired it for an Enfield when my officers berated me enough, often saying our unit historically didn't have them, it was unsafe and so on, BUT later an image of a man armed from the historical regiment turned up and guess what he was holding! Not an Enfield lol! The rifle really should see more use in reenacting, it is very underrepresented history wise.