Lorenz Rifle

[johan_steele]

Not disagreeing with your basic point, but wasn't the Lorenz rifle only standardized by the Austrians in 1854? "20 years old" in the 1860s would be impossible.

My understanding is the initial batches purchased as surplus from Austrian Army stocks were available because the Austrians were switching from the existing design with iron barrels to a modified version with steel barrels, and these weapons - a few years old at most - were generally regarded as well made and reliable (although not with truly interchangeable parts, since they were not made on the equivalent of the Springfield and similar standards of production.)

However, the version of the Lorenz made by Austrian manufacturers specifically for the arms trade in 1861-63 tended to be of much more varied quality, including caliber, and these are among the weapons that were seen as second-rate.

Best,

The term Lorenz should cover the 1854 but many a complainer only knew the weapon as Austrian & blanket referenced as them as Lorenz. Like today many can't tell an AK from an Uzi the same was true then.

It is also important to remember that the CS judged the Lorenz the equal to the P53... Even with the incorrect ammo. Like the P53 the Lorenz was generally hand made with the quality control issues inherent. The Lorenz was a good wwweapon but neither side bothered to translate or acquire the correct ammo.

 

[TFSmith121]

The term Lorenz should cover the 1854 but many a complainer only knew the weapon as Austrian & blanket referenced as them as Lorenz. Like today many can't tell an AK from an Uzi the same was true then.

It is also important to remember that the CS judged the Lorenz the equal to the P53... Even with the incorrect ammo. Like the P53 the Lorenz was generally hand made with the quality control issues inherent. The Lorenz was a good wwweapon but neither side bothered to translate or acquire the correct ammo.

Fair point.

Yeah, the use of terminology was not exactly precise, was it? As different as the types were, "musket," "rifled musket," "rifle," and "rifle musket" - or "rifle-musket" - tended to be used almost interchangeably in documents of the day, which makes trying to discern exactly what was on hand at any given point something more of an art than science, at least based on the source.

Best,

 

[Jobe Holiday]

My experience is such that the Austrian Lorenz Rifle Muskets which were produced for the Austrian government troops were very well done and provide the best chance for interchanging parts without too much difficulty. These arms are identified by the Austrian Eagle stamped on the tail of the lock plate. The Lorenz type arms which were quickly assembled for sale to the North American buyers were an assemblage of miscellaneous non-standard parts. These arms do not have the Austrian Eagle on the lock plate. If you ever get the opportunity to compare examples of these two types of arms you will very quickly be able to discern the difference in quality between them.
J.

 

[TFSmith121]

My experience is such that the Austrian Lorenz Rifle Muskets which were produced for the Austrian government troops were very well done and provide the best chance for interchanging parts without too much difficulty. These arms are identified by the Austrian Eagle stamped on the tail of the lock plate. The Lorenz type arms which were quickly assembled for sale to the North American buyers were an assemblage of miscellaneous non-standard parts. These arms do not have the Austrian Eagle on the lock plate. If you ever get the opportunity to compare examples of these two types of arms you will very quickly be able to discern the difference in quality between them.
J.

How do they compare to CW Justice's 4,000 "sporting rifles"?

Best,

 

[Jobe Holiday]

I don't quite understand the reference to "CW Justice's sporting rifles". Could you expand that a bit for me?
Thanks!
J.

 

[Tennessee_Mountainman]

Which is pretty what was said in the previous post...

Quite a few of the European firearms manufactured for export and purchased in 1863, even some of the Birmingham- and Leige-made variants of the P53 Enfields were shoddy goods, based on what I've read. The late-war Austrian-made Lorenz' don't seem to be vastly out of line. US troops traded up from percussion M1822s and M1842s when good quality Enfields were available, but they turned in Enfields for M1855, M1861, and M1863 Springfields when those became available; even Richmond-made copies of the US standard models were preferred to Enfields at times.

The surplus weapons originally manufactured for the Austrian army were reported have been reliable weapons; the use of US-standard .54 ammunition appears to be one of the most significant issues, from what I've read.

Don Dixon's posts on this weapon seem pretty definitive.

Best,

Thanks!

 

[TFSmith121]

I don't quite understand the reference to "CW Justice's sporting rifles". Could you expand that a bit for me?
Thanks!
J.

The much maligned product of (PS, not CW) Justice's Philadelphia workshop; my understanding is they were generally about the most reviled of all the "new" weapons manufactured in the US in response to the Ordnance Department's orders in 1861, that there were only enough of them (~4,000) for four Pennsylvania regiments, were rapidly replaced, and that they were better regarded as "sporting" weapons than anything resembling a M1861 rifle musket, even as a "contract" version.

But I may be incorrect.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Thanks!

You are quite welcome.

Best,

 

[Jobe Holiday]

Thank you, TFSmith, now I understand you meant "P.S. Justice"! The Lorenz built for export generally appear much the same as far as model type is concerned. The Justice built musket's vary widely one from the other. As for quality, the historic period complaints about the Justice arms seem to outweigh those of the Lorenz and are much more vicious in nature. There are two schools of thought on P.S. Justice. One feels that he was a misguided patriot trying to assist in getting armed troops to the field as fast as possible. The other claims he was nothing more than a common wartime profiteer. There may be some truth to that since he was called before the 37th Congress to explain the charges of profiteering.
J.

 

[TFSmith121]

Thank you, TFSmith, now I understand you meant "P.S. Justice"! The Lorenz built for export generally appear much the same as far as model type is concerned. The Justice built musket's vary widely one from the other. As for quality, the historic period complaints about the Justice arms seem to outweigh those of the Lorenz and are much more vicious in nature. There are two schools of thought on P.S. Justice. One feels that he was a misguided patriot trying to assist in getting armed troops to the field as fast as possible. The other claims he was nothing more than a common wartime profiteer. There may be some truth to that since he was called before the 37th Congress to explain the charges of profiteering.
J.

Sorry; my apologies for the typo. Not sure why I thought CW.

The most interesting thing about the situation with Justice to me, in the sense of the scale of the US industrial mobilization, is how few weapons were produced by his shop and how much attention they seem to get from some - against hundreds of thousands, Arsenal-made and Contract, M1861s and M1863 (much less the M1855s and M1841s), Colt and Remington rifles, plus the imports, 4,000 rifles of questionable utility is a rounding error.

Best,