Confederate "Country Rifles"

Also before it gets brought up, I kind of doubt there were soldiers casting bullets in camp. To have enough for a campaign a company or regiment would require and unbelievable amount of lead and time, and most of their time in camp was filled with drill, picket duty, and so on thus they wouldn't have had time to cast 40 individual rounds, and when they ran out mid battle they wouldn't be able to be re-supplied during or after. Its just a headache I don't see happening.

Not counting how a unit would never be able to execute the military drill with citizen hunting gear.
I have to disagree as in the camps here which were late war I have found a LOT of evidence that the CS troops were indeed making there own ammo. I have found molds, bars and balls of lead and ladles. I have also found piles of Spencer hulls that were unfired and I believe that the bullets were pulled and the lead and powder used.
DSCN2337.JPG
DSCN2338.JPG
DSCN2339.JPG
DSCN2340.JPG
 
As late as the Battle of Shiloh in April 1862, many of Johnston's regiments, such as the Sixth and Seventh Arkansas, were improperly equipped with sporting rifles, non descript muskets, and flintlocks. when the Seventeenth Tennessee received some better arms, the colonel offered his old flintlocks to the Thirty-seventh Tennessee. They were improvement of nothing and were accepted. It was estimated that not one-third of the cavalry had arms, and those who did had a medley of pistols, carbines and shotguns, chiefly the latter," Some weeks after Shiloh nearly 53 percent of A.P. Stewart's division still shouldered old smoothbore percussion muskets, and 103 had flintlocks. The Forty-seventh Tennessee had ten different calibers in use. pp42

The countryside was scoured for anything that would shoot, but it was estimated that one-fourth of these weapons were worthless even after repair. pp40 This was in KY

In September 1861, Brigadier General William H Carroll, in east Tennessee, seized more than 2,000 country rifles and them sent to Memphis, Nashville, and Murphreesboro for alteration. By mid December he had received back only 400 shotguns and flintlocks from Memphis, and these he described as worthless.pp39

All from Soldiering In The Army Of Tennessee by Larry J. Daniel
 
I'll admit, I'm not the most well read on these, plus I've also been trying to remember an article God only knows where, that went into detail on these things stored in a Georgia armory, and not used due to them being unsafe after conversion to I think .54 caliber. I remember it mentioning pikes issued out first, may not have even been an article but some kind of online write up somewhere, and I've about given up combing the OR's trying to find it. So anyone knows what I'm on about I'd appreciate any more info. I've searched on and off for ten years to rediscover it so I'm not holding my breath.

Getting on to the title, does anyone know how common "country rifles" were used? I personally don't think much as they were non-standard calibers and probably varied quite a bit. CS arsenals and laboratories had their hands full making ammunition for more standard military arms and couldn't mess with them. Too many people have taken well to do manufacturers and custom rifle builders word they existed as "They were everywhere and donated by the wagonload" and I have a hard time believing it.

For example, one of my personal favorite first hand accounts by one John C. Porter of the 18th TX Infantry:

"In September...we took up line of march to DeValls Bluff, on the White River [Arkansas] from the apparent anxiety of the officers, they must have expected the enemy, though we were poorly prepared to meet them, as we had not yet drawn arms, and our equipage then was real ludicrous; and after we learned what real service was, we had hearty laughs over our DeVall expedition. Our arms consisted of shotguns and squirrel rifles that we had carried from home. Some had locks, some none, some without any hammers. But we and our officers were brave enough, after giving each man a pocket full of bullets, and a canteen of powder to the company, to start to meet the foe. After encountering heavy rains, and a miry roads, we arrived at the Bluff. Camped, stacked our arms after a fasion, but they soon fell down, whereupon Col. Culberson ordered them taken to a large gate fifty yards distant, and stacked against that, for fear someone might get shot."

Later on:

"Maj. King of our Regiment, rejoined us; he had been to Richmond, Virginia, to procure arms for for the Regiment. At the old camp, we resumed our drill and guard duty.......Here the, the guns described, were replaced by the ones Maj. King had procured."

p. 18-19 "Texans in Gray: A Regimental History of the Civil War"

(Also I used to think it laughable that guns from Richmond ended up with Texas troops in 1862 Arkansas with Porter mistaken, but have since learned four Tredegar M1862 2.25in Mountain Rifles and a LOT of other supplies got that area of Arkansas from Richmond at that time thanks to the efforts of General Hindman. Plus I've read one first hand account Federal account from the Battle of Prairie Grove of a dead Confederate soldier's gun marked "C.S. Richmond V.A." so who knows they may have!)

The quote I put up from Porter to me illustrates the problems with "Country Rifles" in Confederate service, plus that they were replaced as soon as possible. So with all that, what am I missing? How could there possibly be widespread use of such arms? Militarized and the calibers changed to a standard one, maybe, but I have a hard time seeing these guns as a viable weapon, even in the Confederate Army.
I would think that the number of “Pickett” bullets found in Southern Camps might answer your question. I guess the real question is whether these camps are early, mid or late.

Edit: I guess I should have mentioned Dimmick and Picket bullets as well.
 
Last edited:
I've often wondered what they mean when they declare weapons worthless......after all we are predominantly talking single shot muzzleloaders whether civilian or military.

I can see where civilian flintlocks or smoothbores would be as obsolete as military flintlocks or smoothbores without conversion.

But if one had a pre-war Mississippi rifle and a pre-war Hawken, what would give the Mississippi rifle huge advantages to call a Hawken obsolete or worthless?
 
I suspect that often a soldier complaining his equipment is "worthless" is similar to a child complaining the uneaten vegetable on the child's plate is "Yucky" - the soldier hopes to get a new, up-to-date model instead of what he was issued, and the child hopes his broccoli is removed and replaced with dessert.
 
Wallcate_com - Don Troiani-Paintings (11).jpg

TN gathered up all civilians guns who would let them go. Confiscated guns from Unionist. Sent them to Nashville, repaired them and issued them. This was during the secessionist winter. Governor Harris put TN on a War footing before Secession.

I suspect at Fort Henry, Donaldson, Shiloh and the earlier western engagements, anything that could be Loaded was used.
States everywhere seemed to have done it early in the war, and I suspect this was more a mad patriotic/panicky rush than an actual long term strategy. I know Holly Springs is famous for militarizing citizen rifles converting them to a standard caliber, sling swivels, and to use bayonets, and I'd bet that was the usual fate of the guns before being issued.
The so-called "Country Rifles" including swamped barrel hunting rifles show up in early war images, although one could argue some of those could be studio props. There are a number of accounts of men bringing their hunting rifles and shotguns from home when they enlisted. For one thing, the perception at the beginning of the Civil War was that it was likely to be a short affair and many early volunteer enlistments were for 90 days.
Only slightly related to the topic at hand, but I was reminded by this thread of a conversation @Rusk County Avengers and I had at Shiloh. At that time I recommended to him this print by Don Troiani called Men of Arkansas which does a good job depicting the early-war mix of weapons that might be found within a single Confederate regiment at the time of the battle there as described above by @uaskme: there are M.'16/22 both in flint and conversions, Hall rifles, as well as shotguns.
 
Last edited:
Shotguns might have been effective at close range, but most "country rifles" were of a smaller caliber, and therefore less effective at causing damage than a military caliber weapon. This may have been one of many reasons they were deemed worthless, or at least less desirable.
 
View attachment 380717



Only slightly related to the topic at hand, but I was reminded by this thread of a conversation @Rusk County Avengers and I had at Shiloh. At that time I recommended to him this print by Don Troiani called Men of Arkansas which does a good job depicting the early-war mix of weapons that might be found within a single Confederate regiment at the time of the battle there as described above by @uaskme: there are M.'16/22 both in flint and conversions, Hall rifles, as well as shotguns.

I've been through the researched lists of weapons at Shiloh, and I think it was either in Arkansas and Mississippi regiments, (I think two or three), that there were "country rifles" present, but I think those troops were freshly raised and held back some.

Folks keep looking for civilian hunting rifles in the ranks, but to my mind anyone with experience with them ought to know its down right suicidal to go into battle with one. Patched round balls, short starters, getting too fowled to load after usually around five shots, plus taking longer to load than a Minie rifle-musket to the point of maybe one round a minute versus three. Its plum insane to count on such arms for CW combat, and the officers in charge knew it too, and probably did everything possible to avoid it.

Shotguns are completely different story though.
 
I've often wondered what they mean when they declare weapons worthless......after all we are predominantly talking single shot muzzleloaders whether civilian or military.

I can see where civilian flintlocks or smoothbores would be as obsolete as military flintlocks or smoothbores without conversion.

But if one had a pre-war Mississippi rifle and a pre-war Hawken, what would give the Mississippi rifle huge advantages to call a Hawken obsolete or worthless?
I would suspect what would deem one "worthless" to the ordnance and quartermaster folks would be the non uniformity of the caliber, inability to use a "uniform" cartridge or musket cap, no bayonet lug, no interchangeability of parts, etc. Country rifles would have come in a huge variety of calibers, Hawkens were made in every caliber from .40 to .62 and who knows what else so ammunition supply would have been problematic.
 
Back
Top