Ramrod usage at force on force events

[OhioBlue16]

Today it was announced that a large event for the 2025 reenacting season (Nine Hours in Hell) will not be allowing ramming. This came after saying it was going to be allowed at the event prior.

So what is your take on this? I personally think ramming should be allowed. I think the dangers are exaggerated to an extensive degree, with most "evidence" against it being "well back at the 135th Gettysburg someone shot a ramrod, I was lucky to have lived". If you are properly following load in 9 times, you never take your hand off the rammer. I have been to plenty of force on force events that use ramrods and not a single rammer went flying.

There is also plenty of video evidence of someone shooting their ramrod out of their musket using blanks, the only time it went a considerable distance was when he was "duck hunting". Accounts from the war about ramrods being shot are due to the projectile in the barrel. Shooting blanks isn't the same.

 

[RedRover]

It's all theoretical until it happens. The danger is not exaggerated. And every time something bad happens where someone accidentally shoots off their ramrods, it was unnecessary, because ramrods are not necessary for reenactments.

There is over a century of reenactment experience that says rammers are a no go where the mitigation of risks is a priority.


From West Virginia, 1878:

From a GAR sham battle, 1883:

There are some events where ramrods must be left in camp, simply because some reenactors want to do things their way, and ram, even when prohibited, and some have sent them flying. I was informed decades ago that there aren't many reenactors around with tales to tell of firing off their ramrods inadvertently, because it's the quickest way to prove you're not a reenactor, and they are shuffled off to other hobbies...

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Rammers are used all the time in the campaigner community, as are bayonets, even in force on force reenactments. To my knowledge there haven't been any notable incidents regarding either, although I must admit I haven't attended a campaigner event in a few years.

From what I've seen, the issue is more complex for mainstream events, which increases the danger. To me it all comes down to event size and planning, and the level of authentic drill the participants are able to perform.

Some factors for this are that mainstream events tend to be larger, patching together groups from all over whose quality control of their members can be spotty at times. Due to space limitations, engagements take place at a much closer range than was realistically done, and often happen with spectators close to the action.

In contrast, campaigner style events (generally) tend to be smaller, thus have more quality control over the participants. Those participants tend to be more dedicated to performing authentic, correct drill, and the events take place in spaces large enough to accurately recreate the scale of battle. If you notice, that rammer went about 25-30 yards (hard to tell from video). But with an average engagement of 75-150 yards, no rammer is going that far, unless maybe if you're aiming at a sixty degree angle like some reenactors do.

So to answer your question, I think both rammers and bayonets should be used in reenactments - in planned scenarios with drill performed by carefully vetted living historians. But for the purposes of large scale battle at unrealistic range in front of spectators? Probably not a great idea.

 

[RedRover]

Rammers are used all the time in the campaigner community, as are bayonets, even in force on force reenactments. To my knowledge there haven't been any notable incidents regarding either, although I must admit I haven't attended a campaigner event in a few years.

From what I've seen, the issue is more complex for mainstream events, which increases the danger. To me it all comes down to event size and planning, and the level of authentic drill the participants are able to perform.

Even in the 1860s drills, soldiers were killed or injured by ramrods.

Pvt. Arminius Bill of the 66th Illinois Western Sharp Shooters, recorded an incident in his diary about a man who skipped step No. 6. It was on Dec. 2, 1861, during a "sham battle" between Union forces at Benton Barracks near St. Louis; "One infantry man was killed by the man behind him in the rear rank who became excited & forgot to withdraw his ramrod. The gun went off & drove the ramrod through the head of the man in front."

From the history of the 24th Michigan.

I agree that all reenactors should be drilled in the loading with the ramrod, if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the public in living history, etc., and understand the period arms etc. I have no criticism to offer events/participants which choose to employ them in opposing forces type reenactment events where the risks are understood. However, I am wary of the claims that it is necessarily safe even with trained soldiers or reenactors.

It just takes one such accident to shut down an event, a group, etc.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Even in the 1860s drills, soldiers were killed or injured by ramrods.

Pvt. Arminius Bill of the 66th Illinois Western Sharp Shooters, recorded an incident in his diary about a man who skipped step No. 6. It was on Dec. 2, 1861, during a "sham battle" between Union forces at Benton Barracks near St. Louis; "One infantry man was killed by the man behind him in the rear rank who became excited & forgot to withdraw his ramrod. The gun went off & drove the ramrod through the head of the man in front."

From the history of the 24th Michigan.

View attachment 536789

I agree that all reenactors should be drilled in the loading with the ramrod, if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the public in living history, etc., and understand the period arms etc. I have no criticism to offer events/participants which choose to employ them in opposing forces type reenactment events where the risks are understood. However, I am wary of the claims that it is necessarily safe even with trained soldiers or reenactors.

It just takes one such accident to shut down an event, a group, etc.

I don't think anyone would argue that anything involving black powder, sharp objects, and fire is necessarily "safe." But it does raise my hackles when people dismiss using ramrods and bayonets out of hand, when I've personally experienced it many, many times without issue.

 

[captaindrew]

I have no problems with it personally, been to plenty of events where it was encouraged with no issues. I can understand though why powers that be would ban it, one incident would be a mess. And you have to factor in insurance requirements, land owner and/or park staff concerns, you have to answer to a lot of others when putting on events.

 

[bayonet]

In a perfect world use ramrods for events. BUT sadly when I reenacted many years ago there were Boneheads & Knuckleheads who during huge major events you could not trust them to do anything safe let alone return their ramrod correctly after ramming. One Character while the Regiment was online firing had his musket pointed skyward while the rest of us were pointed straight on. It looked ridiculous. I yelled at him what the heck you doing? Numnuts informed the Captain did not trust him firing straight on so he was told to point it skyward. Can't make this S up!

 

[bayonet]

Rammers are used all the time in the campaigner community, as are bayonets, even in force on force reenactments. To my knowledge there haven't been any notable incidents regarding either, although I must admit I haven't attended a campaigner event in a few years.

From what I've seen, the issue is more complex for mainstream events, which increases the danger. To me it all comes down to event size and planning, and the level of authentic drill the participants are able to perform.

Some factors for this are that mainstream events tend to be larger, patching together groups from all over whose quality control of their members can be spotty at times. Due to space limitations, engagements take place at a much closer range than was realistically done, and often happen with spectators close to the action.

In contrast, campaigner style events (generally) tend to be smaller, thus have more quality control over the participants. Those participants tend to be more dedicated to performing authentic, correct drill, and the events take place in spaces large enough to accurately recreate the scale of battle. If you notice, that rammer went about 25-30 yards (hard to tell from video). But with an average engagement of 75-150 yards, no rammer is going that far, unless maybe if you're aiming at a sixty degree angle like some reenactors do.

So to answer your question, I think both rammers and bayonets should be used in reenactments - in planned scenarios with drill performed by carefully vetted living historians. But for the purposes of large scale battle at unrealistic range in front of spectators? Probably not a great idea.

Oh not sure about that. Been to events many years ago where we were firing at each other from the same distance as that guys targets. You see how deep that ramrod went into the ground! You want that hitting you in your middle leg!

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Oh not sure about that. Been to events many years ago where we were firing at each other from the same distance as that guys targets. You see how deep that ramrod went into the ground! You want that hitting you in your middle leg!

That's kind of my point. The distance that rammer was fired, while commonly encountered at mainstream events, is much closer than realistically took place during the civil war.

So if that's the case, if we are cramming reenactors into an area where they are required to engage at 30 yards, just for the sake of "that's all the space we have if we want spectators," we need to ask ourselves as living historians, what are we actually teaching here, or am I just doing this because it's fun and I wanna burn powder?

 

[Lampasas Bill]

Almost anything can happen when reenactors get excited. Years ago, at the reenactment of Pilot Knob, Missouri, we held a "tactical" on Saturday morning. The Confederates were to capture the Yankee outposts as we fell back through the woods to our fort. As we neared the fort, Confederate cavalry burst out of the bushes with revolvers cocked. A less-experienced Union infantryman fired back without removing his tampion (it was a misty morning), which bounced off a cavalryman's chest. No one had been hurt--yet--but it looked like bloodshed was in the offing before cooler heads prevailed. The Confederates were not amused.

 

[Rhea Cole]

I have witnessed several grim accidents & have heard descriptions from witnesses of others. There is a good reason why all it takes is one casualty to shut down a venue permanently. Insurance, assuming anyone will write a policy, is ruinously high. Nobody in their right mind will take on the financial risk.

I am a red leg, so have no dog in the ramrod fight. I have no doubt that getting whacked by a ramrod would be extremely unpleasant, however, the term "… traumatic amputation …" is never included in the accident report. Sad to say, by following basic safety procedures like no ram rods, almost none of the grim incidents listed in the link would have happened.

Link:

http://www.njacc.info/cannon_accidents.pdf

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Nobody in their right mind will take on the financial risk.

This is patently false, as there is a very significant portion of the hobby these days that (as I've said before) use both rammer and bayonet without incident.

Almost anything can happen when reenactors get excited. Years ago, at the reenactment of Pilot Knob, Missouri, we held a "tactical" on Saturday morning. The Confederates were to capture the Yankee outposts as we fell back through the woods to our fort. As we neared the fort, Confederate cavalry burst out of the bushes with revolvers cocked. A less-experienced Union infantryman fired back without removing his tampion (it was a misty morning), which bounced off a cavalryman's chest. No one had been hurt--yet--but it looked like bloodshed was in the offing before cooler heads prevailed. The Confederates were not amused.

But see, this kind of further reinforces my point…what is the purpose of a "tactical" such as this other than to fulfill someone's fantasies? Granted, I was not there, but having done this sort of thing for going on 35 years now, these sorts of engagements rarely mimic anything close to reality in scale, tactics, or otherwise. So to me it's just a bit of a stretch to say "people are going to get hurt if you…" when the "if you" isn't really "what they."

 

[Trooper "D"]

Today it was announced that a large event for the 2025 reenacting season (Nine Hours in Hell) will not be allowing ramming. This came after saying it was going to be allowed at the event prior.

So what is your take on this? I personally think ramming should be allowed. I think the dangers are exaggerated to an extensive degree, with most "evidence" against it being "well back at the 135th Gettysburg someone shot a ramrod, I was lucky to have lived". If you are properly following load in 9 times, you never take your hand off the rammer. I have been to plenty of force on force events that use ramrods and not a single rammer went flying.

There is also plenty of video evidence of someone shooting their ramrod out of their musket using blanks, the only time it went a considerable distance was when he was "duck hunting". Accounts from the war about ramrods being shot are due to the projectile in the barrel. Shooting blanks isn't the same.

Back in the late '70s or early '80s we had a unit that did the load by 9 times and they were allowed to do that on the field while every one else didn't use ramrods. I can see the concern and the 9 times is a good answer for in line firing by company.
I find the fire risk from ramming the cartridge papers down on top of the load to be more of a concern here out West. I give you the recent Palisades for reference.
My worry is the level of skill and dedication that different organizations present. Yahoos abound. Whether FARBism or Safety there is always that one guy or one group that we shouldn't trust.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Back in the late '70s or early '80s we had a unit that did the load by 9 times and they were allowed to do that on the field while every one else didn't use ramrods. I can see the concern and the 9 times is a good answer for in line firing by company.
I find the fire risk from ramming the cartridge papers down on top of the load to be more of a concern here out West. I give you the recent Palisades for reference.
My worry is the level of skill and dedication that different organizations present. Yahoos abound. Whether FARBism or Safety there is always that one guy or one group that we shouldn't trust.

You nailed it. Last event I participated in after the first scenario a cannon crew of yahoo's were escorted off the property by security & from the area by a sheriff's car.

Groups, infantry or artillery, who do not drill correctly put themselves, others & the very ability to have events in peril.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

You nailed it. Last event I participated in after the first scenario a cannon crew of yahoo's were escorted off the property by security & from the area by a sheriff's car.

Groups, infantry or artillery, who do not drill correctly put themselves, others & the very ability to have events in peril.

How much responsibility do the event hosts and organizers hold in making sure participants know what they're doing and have enough room to do it safely?

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Safety must be ensured. I guess reality has its place too, but only with proper safety oversight.

 

[Trooper "D"]

You nailed it. Last event I participated in after the first scenario a cannon crew of yahoo's were escorted off the property by security & from the area by a sheriff's car.

Groups, infantry or artillery, who do not drill correctly put themselves, others & the very ability to have events in peril.

There is a story here in Arizona of some unit that was firing high with live ammunition to give the enemy the realism of bullets whistling overhead and striking trees. Not sure how true that its but something to think about and inspect cartridge boxes for ammunition. Nobody does that any longer it seems.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

There is a story here in Arizona of some unit that was firing high with live ammunition to give the enemy the realism of bullets whistling overhead and striking trees. Not sure how true that its but something to think about and inspect cartridge boxes for ammunition. Nobody does that any longer it seems.

Yes....and they shouldn't.

 

[Trooper "D"]

Yes....and they shouldn't.

They shouldn't inspect ammunition?

 

[Rhea Cole]

There is a story here in Arizona of some unit that was firing high with live ammunition to give the enemy the realism of bullets whistling overhead and striking trees. Not sure how true that its but something to think about and inspect cartridge boxes for ammunition. Nobody does that any longer it seems.

Just in case someone wants to hear bullets zing overhead…

When I was in high schools neighbor lovingly built a flintlock pistol from a kit. He cut in historically correct brass inlays.

My mom got a frantic call from his wife asking for my dad & me the come help.

He test fired his creation for the first time by aiming at a telephone pole in the back yard. The ball, about the size of my thumbnail bounced off the pole & hit him in the lower leg.

Dad applied first aid & I helped bundle him in to the back seat of their car for her panic stricken dash to the hospital.

I shared a hospital room at the Gorgas Hospital in the Canal Zone with a special Forces sergeant. He was an instructor at the School of the Americas. While crouching safely behind a log barrier a student detonated a charge. The sergeant distinctly heard something zip overhead & whack a tree.

The spring loaded firing mechanism that some of us are familiar with recoiled off the tree & hit him in the back just above his heart. Only extreme exertion by a medic & helicopter crew saved his life. A nurse said it was only the blood left in his fingers & toes that saved his life.