Richmond Razee Rifle?

[BillO]

Not sure on the spelling or what a razee rifle is. I've got someone selling one and I don't have a clue except it's a 2 bander with long range sights and a 1855 lock. Anybody have an idea what this might be?

 

[AndyHall]

See:
http://www.n-ssa.org/vbforum/archive/index.php/t-2892.html

Don't worry too much with comparing the dimensions of the SAC-approved C.S. Macon carbines. Those dimensions ONLY apply to reproductions of C.S. Macon 'Razeed' Carbines not to original specimens. But even with that caveat while there exist descriptions of the "razee" carbines produced by Richmond Armory as well as numerous extant specimens that can be compared with the standards implemented, we do not have any such documentation on the muskets salvaged by at C.S. Macon Armory, or any exact quantities.

While there are hundreds of examples of both wartime "razee" carbines and muskets cut-down into shotguns in the post-war era, still other cut-down muskets as so-called 'cadet' guns, little information survives to the identity of such examples. I have seen (and own) numerous examples of both M1816 muskets and M1842 muskets that have been reduced in length, some even having had the barrels re-tapered for virtually the entire length so as to accept a socket bayonet (a modification having little use for hunting or sport), no one can guarantee with any certainty whether these muskets were actually altered during the war.

Although some have suggested how such modifications may have been done to make-up a "cadet" version or possibly for veteran's ceremonial use, seldom do we find more than one extant specimen to clearly establish any uniform or standard pattern was in use had it been done for a cadet academy or ceremonial use. Certainly there are such examples of "cadet" models made-up by Bannerman these were also advertized in his catalogues so we at least have an idea of what those guns looked like as well as still others made either in reduced proportion or lightened in weight by the Liege trade but these examples are not those that I am referring.

It's one thing to find examples of cut-down muskets which have had the barrel and stock shortened, and the front band moved back, either leaving the middle band with its swivel intact or eliminating the band entirely. Some of these include "Special" model arms that were modified by the national armories at Springfield and Harpers Ferry, such as the now popular Fremont rifles that were cut-down versions of the Model 1842 rifled musket. However, other examples are occasionally found which have had the barrel re-tapered to accept a socket bayonet fall into an unknown category. They have the appearance of a military arm because they are equipped with a socket or sword bayonet, yet, are not so uniform in appearance to be such because in many instances there is a great variety of barrel lengths and also model types. Such examples of this type are pictured in the link below, and do not necessarily conform with the SAC-approved examples.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13647&p=53129&hilit=richmond#p53129 (http://n-ssa.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13647&p=53129&hilit=richmond#p53129)

According to the late Howie Madaus who in 1990 examined the Remington-Maynard conversion pictured, he believed it to be one of the salvaged muskets altered at Macon, and had my 35-mm camera's internal thru-the-lens light meter not been 3 f-stops off and had I been able to have supplied him with a good photo, it too would have been illustrated in Murphy and Madaus (1996) Confederate Rifles & Muskets just as was the one that is illustrated as supposedly altered at New Orleans with the sword bayonet bar (at top of p549) from a private collection formerly in Marietta, GA. It's the one allegedly fitted for a Cook & Brothers sword bayonet, or shall we say, it will fit a C&B sword bayonet or a Pattern 1856 Lancaster sword bayonet, the sword bar only accepts a very narrow slot and will not accept the later Pattern 1858/60 sword bayonet.

The other example below it (from the Milwaukee Public Museum), has a 28 ½ inch barrel that was re-tapered to accept a socket bayonet, and is equipped with a bayonet stud on the underside of the barrel, evidently to accept an 1842 socket bayonet, while the stud for an M1816 is normally located atop the barrel. On page 443 of Confederate Rifles & Muskets features a Model 1842 musket with a 34-inch barrel, and is like one of the SAC-approved specifications for the 34-inch Macon carbine or musketoon. It is fitted for socket bayonet. The specimen as featured on p445 is very similar to the Model 1842 shown in the link, where the front band has been moved back and the band spring re-inletted about an inch forward of the middle band spring, and which is fitted for a socket bayonet.

Clearly such examples as these considerably more advanced tools and special knowledge to deal with the added complexity of these modifications. It also required use of a metal lathe to re-taper the barrel, evinced by "dog-marks" scattered over the barrel surface. But were these examples made or modified during the Civil War? While correspondence is found relating to the cavalry carbines utilizing U.S. Model 1842 musket stocks, there is no similar correspondence regarding the Model 1816 musket, nor was there any attempt to manufacture replacement Model 1816 stocks like there was Model 1842 stocks and even though there was stock machinery to make the latter, certain parts had been lost in transit such that without those parts new stocks could not be produced. Consequently, no Model 1842 stocks were manufactured at Richmond or Macon during the war.

While Davies' book on Richmond Armory provides a myriad of documentation on the Cavalry Carbines in both .69 and .58 caliber, including documenting the 25-inch barrel length of the rifle caliber version and addition of a rear swivel in the butt, other than the extant examples of these two models, it is merely assumed that these constitute a official pattern. However, the exact pattern of the Macon "razeed" carbines is rather vague in the references made to them in official correspondence.​

 

[BillO]

Thanks. So a "razeed" rifle is simply an altered rifle?

 

[AndyHall]

I would think so.

In old naval terms (that would have been understood in the mid-19th century), a "razee" was a large sailing warship, a ship-of-the-line, that had one gun deck removed to make the ship comparable in size and number of guns to a frigate. But the resulting ship would have heavier guns than a frigate, and thicker hull timbers.

Maybe what they're talking about is cutting down a conventional musket to make a carbine, but I'm quickly getting out of my depth here. Many others here will interpret this better than I can.

 

[AndyHall]

Although, what little I can follow of the discussion above is that a Richmond "razee" was something that was done at the armory there, presumably to sizeable number of weapons -- not a home-made one-off.

 

[BillO]

That's what I took from it as well. The gun I was questioning isn't a carbine but a musket but I guess the term applies as well.

 

[Jobe Holiday]

AndyHall - With all due respect, sir:

The three (3) sizes of "Macon" battlefield salvaged arms the N-SSA has adopted for their use are all real sizes, and were all taken from a compilation of a two (2) year long survey of private collections in Georgia. All arms surveyed were photographed and dimensioned. The three sizes the N-SSA adopted were the most common sizes of original C.S. altered arms found in a survey of 100+ C.S. salvaged arms. And, yes, the term "Macon" is an arbitrary appellation by the gentlemen from Georgia who did the survey. You are a very knowledgeable person, and obviously have Paul's book, so you also know the standing C.S. orders regarding battlefield salvaged arms, which was also quoted in Murphy and Madaus.

BillO - AndyHall's description of term "Razee" is correct, and means that something has been radically altered from the original configuration, and once done the item in question is referred to as having been "Razeed". This is a very old and historic term which was often used in reference to sailing ships which have had the superstructure removed, quite often done to provide a larger fighting platform for additional on deck cannons. You can find references to ships having been "Razeed" as far back as the very early 1600's.

The arm you have inquired about is a replica of the battlefield salvaged arms done during the Civil War, at the Richmond Armory. Paul Davies documented them very well in his landmark work, "C.S. Armory Richmond", and also that James Burton used the term "Razee" while at the Richmond Armory. There are enough original examples in collections, plus the day books from the Armory, that show Richmond followed a consistent size and pattern when they altered battlefield damaged rifle muskets into two band versions. This salvage work was later applied to new production, two band short rifles, when using stocks and barrels that had been damaged in manufacture.

This is a good discussion, with no offence intended to anyone!

J.

 

[Cato3rd]

Richmond followed a consistent size and pattern when they altered battlefield damaged rifle muskets into two band versions. This salvage work was later applied to new production, two band short rifles, when using stocks and barrels that had been damaged in manufacture.

Sorry in advance for resurrecting an 11+ yr old thread

But thank you for this confirmation. I've been researching a 1863 Richmond 2 band (short rifle?) low hump rifle that is for sale by a dealer. It has a brass buttplate and nose cap with a 1863 dated lock. I don't have the Paul Davies book but from my research, the short rifles should all have 1864 locks. But if it's an armory repair then that would make sense in its configuration of being a 1863 2 band.

All of this stuff is confusing with "new" old parts put together by the Richmond armory. It's a good price on the rifle, basically the price of the lock. I just wanted to know what I'm buying before pulling the trigger on it

 

[OldSarge79]

From Page 214, C.S. Armory Richmond, by Davies:
First reference to "Rifles, short" was in August, 1864. In the appendix to the production is noted "Richmond rifles from Old Parts."
The term "Old Parts" would probably, and almost certainly include lock plates, which was common anyway for virtually all Richmond arms.
So yes, I would think that although two-band rifles weren't made until 1864, some had 1863-dated lock plates.

The problem, however, with Richmond arms is trying to determine whether the mixture of parts happened at the armory or decades later.
Look to see if the patina or signs of wear are consistent on the various parts. Be very careful with Richmonds.

 

[Cato3rd]

From Page 214, C.S. Armory Richmond, by Davies:
First reference to "Rifles, short" was in August, 1864. In the appendix to the production is noted "Richmond rifles from Old Parts."
The term "Old Parts" would probably, and almost certainly include lock plates, which was common anyway for virtually all Richmond arms.
So yes, I would think that although two-band rifles weren't made until 1864, some had 1863-dated lock plates.

The problem, however, with Richmond arms is trying to determine whether the mixture of parts happened at the armory or decades later.
Look to see if the patina or signs of wear are consistent on the various parts. Be very careful with Richmonds.

Thank you Sarge for the clarification/insight. I really do appreciate you looking that up for me in the Davies' book.Those are great points when considering buying it. Collecting confed firearms requires a lot of scrutiny and I don't want a good price to distract me from issues/concerns

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

Excellent thread to bring up!
The links in that 2014 posting are broken. Has anyone tried to find new ones?

 

[OldSarge79]

If you are still interested in the gun, let me make a few suggestions. You may already know some or all of this, but if you can inspect it personally, some things to look for:
The brass butt plate and nose cap are a good start. The nose cap should be screwed, not riveted.
There should be no inspector's cartouche on the flat.
Remove the lock plate and look for the "mule shoe" with no slot for the Maynard tape. Also look at the patina/finish of the bit cut out for the lock plate hump itself. Does it look newer than the rest of the lock plate cutout or is it the same?
The barrel should be exactly 33 inches. Does the bore look like it may have been shortened or does it look like it was made that length?
The front sight should be the Richmond "pinched" type, which would preclude use of a Model 1855 or Richmond bayonet.
If you can remove the rear sight, look for the Richmond "slot" on the barrel.
Look for a close fit of the barrel in the stock, especially at the breech and the barrel tang.

Davies also shows a number of Richmond rifles with "old parts" such as Springfield lock plates and other Federal parts.
Murphy and Madaus in Confederate Rifles & Muskets, differentiate between rifles made with "old parts" from June 1864 to Aug 1864, and "Rifles New" beginning in Sept 1864. These "Rifles New" should, I would think, be more consistent in their make-up.

I talked to Tim Prince last summer at the Doswell show about Richmonds. He told me that he prefers not to deal with them as they are such a mine field and stated that even some of the reference books are inaccurate. As we all know, he values accuracy on what he sells and doesn't want to risk his reputation with something he can't be certain of. That told me a lot.

I bought a Richmond Armory musketoon on gunbroker.com last year and only felt confident about it because the musketoon actually has a unique lack of a flat around the lock plate and on the opposite side. If it hadn't been for that unique feature, I would never have taken the plunge.
Here is my post on it:

Recent Find Thread 'Richmond Musketoon'

Aug 19, 2025

For over a year I've been looking for a decent Richmond musket to go with my Richmond bayonet, but am very careful in the search, too many faked, altered and non-original parts.
Two or three months ago, I came across what was advertised as a cut-down Richmond musket that someone had reamed out to make a smoothbore. I gave it a quick perusal, asked for a few more photos, such as the lock cut-out, barrel bands, etc. The guy never sent the photos and I moved on. There are a lot of altered muskets out there.
About three weeks ago, I looked at it again. Lo and behold, the photos I had asked for...

• OldSarge79
• Replies: 17
• Forum: Small Arms & Ammunition

• 
• 

All other Richmond models are potentially easily altered or added to.

 

[gary]

As applied to ships, a razed ship was a ship where a deck or two removed, making it a razee. This was to make the ship lighter and convert it from a ship of the line to more of a frigate. I did not know the term was applied to firearms too; meaning the barrel was shortened.