Rifle Rust

Logan Guard

Private
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Location
Maryland
I was hunting the other day and it was wet out and it got me thinking, how well did the soldiers keep their rifles clean? What did they use to oil their weapons and did the lack of cleaning supplies ever cause issues with rust later in the war especially in the South?
 
I was hunting the other day and it was wet out and it got me thinking, how well did the soldiers keep their rifles clean? What did they use to oil their weapons and did the lack of cleaning supplies ever cause issues with rust later in the war especially in the South?
In general the men did a splendid job of maintaining their arms. Rags and scrap fabric were never an issue. Oil was readily available as well. In reality they kept their arms in better order than many re-enactors.
 
In addition to Johan's astute comments, the composition of steel on originals seems to have been different than most reproductions. I have alternately carried an original and repro depending on unit and time period; the original ('51 cadet that I bought sporterized and had John Zimmerman stretch and restock) rarely rusts during a weekend of wet weather, while my repros seem to rust while I watch.

Soldiers would use rags and oil when available, when oil was not handy, fire ash made a very good cleaner for a barrel and metal parts. The ash acts as a sort of "Flitz" and has just enough abrasion to keep the barrel bright, it can be mixed with water and works rather well. Keep in mind that they had plenty of time on their hands, when they weren't on the move.

I have also stored my guns temporarily in the basement and the originals do not rust, while the cheap Japanese steel is covered. I have learned to coat them with olive oil when storing in the basement.
 
I believe the barrels and fittings of the majority of original muskets were made of iron, rather than steel. The barrels used on the muskets of the now defunct Euroarms company were made out of modern machine gun grade steel.
J.
You are correct, I use the term incorrectly all the time, most of the iron actually came from Great Britain in the 40s and 50s; there is something about its composition that resists rust, not to say that they never do, just that compared to my repos there is no comparison. Most Mississippis and Colts were made of steel from the Bessemer process as well as some carbines such as the Burnside, those do not tend to rust either. Lincoln put high tariffs on foreign steel and iron, making it unfeasible to import during the war.
 
The Austro-Hungarian Army used pure olive oil and mutton tallow on their Sytem Augustin tubelock and System Lorenz percussion weapons. I suspect that the other armies of the time used similar natural materials to lubricate and preserve the metal and wood of their weapons. There would have been few, if any, petrolium based products available.

Regards,
Don Dixon
 
Civil War-era military arms would certainly rust and soldiers took great pains to prevent this from happening. Pvt Edward Wightman of the 9th NY Volunteers noted:

"Our spare time is generally spent scrubbing up the equipment. Rifles are atomized, screw drivers, emery paper, buckskin, oil, etc. brought into requisition as a mass got up on short notice comparable with house cleaning. Daubs of rust and dust get in your nose, and your hands become coal-colored when there is no water to wash. In some circumstances, one feels as if he had been dipped in cobwebs." (Longacre, ed., From Antietam to Fort Fisher, p. 58)

The US Government (Rules for the Management and Cleaning of the Rifle Musket, Model 1855, 1862, p. 24) recommended the following for cleaning the piece in the field:

"It is not essential for the musket to be dismounted every time that it is cleaned . . . it can be perfectly cleaned as follows: Put a piece of rag or soft leather on the top of the cone, let the hammer down upon it: pour a gill [four ounces] of water into the muzzle carefully, so that it does not run down the outside: put a plug of wood into the muzzle, and shake the gun up and down, changing the water repeatedly until it runs clear. Then withdraw the leather and stand the musket on the muzzle a few moments, then wipe out the barrel by screwing the wiper, sometimes erroneously referred to as the "worm," onto the end of the ramrod and putting a piece of dry cloth or tow around it, sufficient to prevent it from chafing the grooves of the barrel: wipe the barrel quite dry, changing . . . the cloth two or three times, and also wiper the exterior of the lock and the outside of the barrel around the cone and cone-seat, first with a damp rag, then with a dry one, and lastly with a rag that has been lightly oiled. In this way, all the dirt from firing may be removed without taking out a screw. If, however, the hammer works stiffly or grates upon the tumbler, the lock must be immediately taken off and the parts cleaned and touched with oil."

My favorite account is from Leander Stillwell, 61st Illinois, who while camping at Bolivar, Tennessee, mid-July, 1862 noted in his memoirs (p. 90):

"We were required to keep all the metal parts (except the butt-plate) as bright and shining as silver dollars. I have put in many an hour working on my gun [an Austrian rifle-musket] with an old rag and powdered dirt, and a corn cob, or pine stick, polishing the barrel, the bands, lockplate and trigger-guard until they were fit to pass inspection. The inside of the barrel we would keep clean by the use of a greased wiper and plenty of hot water. In doing this, we would ordinarily, with our screwdrivers, take the gun to pieces, and remove from the stock all metal pieces. . . . We soon learned to take care of our pieces in a rain by thoroughly greasing them with a piece of bacon, which would largely prevent rust from striking in."

Stillwell was issued the Austrian Rifle model of 1854, which he calls "a wicked good shooter." He is one of the few to comment favorable on what we call the M-54 Lorenz today.
 
"Stillwell was issued the Austrian Rifle model of 1854, which he calls "a wicked good shooter." He is one of the few to comment favorable on what we call the M-54 Lorenz today."

When one examines documentation from the more than 500 Federal regiments who were armed during the war with some number of Austro-Hungarian weapons there are a number of very favorable comments about the weapons. The operative distinction between units where Muster 1854 System Lorenz weapons were bad mouthed and units whose troops spoke favorably about the weapons was that in the units where favorable comment was made the troops had actually been trained by their commanders on how to shoot their weapons as opposed to merely fire them. Marksmanship training - particularly including range time -- made all the difference in the world. But, in armies composed of rank amateurs, such training was generally notable in its absence.

This was a lesson the Army did not learn in the Civil War, and has done its best to forget after every subsequent war. Marksmanship trainng is expensive in terms of both time and ammunition, and you have to have instructors who have a clue.

Regards,
Don Dixon
 
As for using "urine" to brown military barrels....not in the U.S. There is a specific formula spelled out in the 1862 Ordnance Manual and urine is not part of the formula!

Browning is just another form of Blueing which are both a controlled oxidation of the iron.

You remember how GrandMa would season her new iron skillet. I think some of these old guns also became seasoned in the same way because of the oils they used on their guns. One of my favorite lube is called "Bore Butter". It smells like popcorn because, I guess, it is made much like butter. I believe after using it for a few years, this product is seasoning the steel.
 
U.S. Arsenal browning was not controlled oxidation. It was a chemical formula that was actually painted onto the surface. There was also a timetable schedule to have the arms periodically returned to the Arsenals to have the coating removed and reapplied. This information is from the U.S. Ordnance Manual of 1862. The methods used today to brown barrels in humidity boxes, etc., should not be confused with the military method of 150 years ago.
J.
 
"Stillwell was issued the Austrian Rifle model of 1854, which he calls "a wicked good shooter." He is one of the few to comment favorable on what we call the M-54 Lorenz today."

When one examines documentation from the more than 500 Federal regiments who were armed during the war with some number of Austro-Hungarian weapons there are a number of very favorable comments about the weapons. The operative distinction between units where Muster 1854 System Lorenz weapons were bad mouthed and units whose troops spoke favorably about the weapons was that in the units where favorable comment was made the troops had actually been trained by their commanders on how to shoot their weapons as opposed to merely fire them. Marksmanship training - particularly including range time -- made all the difference in the world. But, in armies composed of rank amateurs, such training was generally notable in its absence.

This was a lesson the Army did not learn in the Civil War, and has done its best to forget after every subsequent war. Marksmanship trainng is expensive in terms of both time and ammunition, and you have to have instructors who have a clue.

Regards,
Don Dixon

This may be a topic for another thread, but a lack of training was certainly part of it. Another factor is that in addition the correction ammunition for the Austrian Rifle was not imported. It was designed to use solid based ammunition, not the hollow based minie balls. Josef Lorenz was an artillery officer in the Austrian Army and designed the ballistics for their infantry rifle along the lines of rifled artillery, of which the Austrians made some of the finest in Europe. See the following from a post on this forum from five years ago:


Having worked on the German to English translation of the Austrian (M-1854 Lorenz) Officer's Manual, "Osterrichische Infanterie - Feurgewehr, Wien, 1857," which was never done during the Civil War-era, there are good reasons why the Lorenz was considered a second class weapon. The original caliber of the Austrian Lorenz M 1854 was 13.9 mm, which was close to .54. It is actually .55 as pointed out ablove. The barrel diameters on Lorenz guns rebored in Europe or America, or manufactured specifically for the American market, varied with samples noted in .55, .57, .577, .58 and .59 calibers.

Agreed, part of the reason for the mixed report card on the Austrian Lorenz is that incorrectly sized ammunition was issued. However, in addition the majority (about 80%) of the M-1854s came with block sights set dead on for 300 schritt, which is the Austrian equivalent of a yard...meaning one pace. However, 300 schritt is only 225 yds. The "Osterrichische Infanterie - Feurgewehr, Wien, 1857," explains all this and how to use the sights to hit a target at various distances over or under 300 schritt. Of course, the manual was never translated into English until fairly recently.

It was also claimed (in Echoes of Glory...but I have read it elsewhere, too) that the bolster collected carbon and it fouled quickly. This is true of most muzzleloading black powder infantry arms, and I don't know why that would be a particular defect of the M-1854. The bolster on the Austrian Lorenz rifles that I have inspected seem straightforward enough...reminds me of the P53 Enfield. In fact, a nickname for the Lorenz was the Austrian Enfield due to the similarities in the minds of soldiers who had them. I have a theory about that, since many of the Lorenz M-1854 sold to America were Austrian government guns (unlike the Enfield...next to none of which were British Government guns) that had seen service in the various European campaigns, they were beaters to begin with. The M-1854s were available because the Austrians were upgrading to their new model 1862. They sold the old inventory of M-1854s overseas, and some of the guns were apparently sub-standard. No surprise there, either. By the way, the model 1862 was not exported to the US or CS during the Civil War. Any Austrian Lorenz dated (1)862 or after would be a commercial contractor produced M-1854, of which there are many examples.

 
Last edited:
A little off the original subject but I own an unusual 1854 Lorenz by Ferdinand Fruwirth dated 860 that is a very accurate shooter. This appears to be a standard 1854 but has double stage, double set triggers and a little finer front and rear sights. The tang bolt does not thread into the trigger plate but has a metal threaded block inlet above the trigger bar to receive a short threaded tang bolt. It has an excellent bore and a .560 hollow base bullet must be started with a short starter and the bullet rifles itself all the way down and shoots well. The triggers are very well made and the lock has a fly in the tumbler. Other than no swivels, the double triggers and fine sights, it is a standard 1854 Lorenz...
 
Craig,

The problem of fouling in the Muster 1854 System Lorenz rifle was not in the bolster, but in the breech.

When the French Army attempted to rifle its smoothbore muzzle loading weapons, it discovered that the metal at the muzzle of the barrel was too thin for uniform depth rifling grooves from breech to muzzle. So the French tried progressive rifling, in which the groove depth at the breech was deeper than at the muzzle. The metal of the barrels was thick enough to accommodate this design, and to everyone's surprise the weapons shot very well. The British adopted the progressive rifling concept when they adopted the Pattern 1853 rifle musket. As the chief technical specialist at the k.k Army's Vienna Arsenal, Ritter von Lorenz was undoubtedly aware of these technical developments, and made use of the concept in his design of the Muster 1854 rifle.

When Lorenz designed the Muster 1854, he designed it with an enlarged chamber section called a "Fall" in the breecch. In this 5.2 to 6.2 inch long chamber section the groove depth was made slightly deeper than that of the rest of the barrel. So, there was a short section of progressive rifling in the breech of the M1854. When the rifle was fired using System Lorenz ammunition, the bullet slugged up in this section and was then squezed down when it entered the barrel ahead of the chamber. (Page 4, M1854 Manual) This ensured that the bullet took the rifling of the barrel.

The problem was, the enlarged breech section needed to be very carefully cleaned. The Muster 1854 rifle manual directs that every soldier have a cleaning kit, and is emphatic about the need for NCOs and officers to carefully inspect their mens' arms to ensure that proper cleaning standards were maintained (M1854 Manual, passim). When Germans say "You will," there is no room for discussion. Of particular importance in this discussion is the German style cleaning jag which is screwed to the end of the ram rod and on which the cleaning patch is securely attached to scrub the barrel. The jag is necessary for properly cleaning a System Lorenz rifle. Standard American cleaning patches used on a barracks cleaning rod will almost always come off of the rod in the breech section [Fall].

The New York state Adjutant General kept very good records regarding the issue of equippment -- including cleaning gear -- to New York volunteer regiments. According to those records, the New York units issued Muster 1854 rifles never received the initial issue of System Lorenz cleaning gear as specified in the M1854 Manual. Assuming that this was typical of Federal units, the troops started off without the supplies necessary to properly clean their weapons. Losses of equipment in the field would have worsened the problem.

So, the Ordnanace Department never translated the M1854 Manual and didn't issue the troops adequate cleaning gear; just like the initial deployment of the M-16 rifle to Vietnam. But, it was , of course, the fault of the rifle.

Hawknknife,

Competition rifle shooting has long been a tradition in the mountains of Austria, what is now northern Italy, Switzerland, and southern Germany. An interesting article in the magazine published by the Italian black powder shooting association discussed a number of Muster 1854 Jägerstutzen which had been observed in the Tyrol of northern Italy -- which were Austrian provinces until after World War I -- which also had double set triggers and other modifications for competition. Based upon the article and your description of your rifle, I suspect that your rifle was a privately purchased military style rifle set up by the manufacturer for the purchaser for military rifle competiton.

Regards,
Don Dixon
 
Mr. Dixon, Yes that is one of my thoughts, the other is an alteration for the Western American trade as it has a full "Buckhorn " rear sight and a small front base with a fine sight dovetailed on the top. Anyway, it is well done by the likes of Carlos Gove in Denver or the Freund brothers. Nice little rifle musket.
 
The Austro-Hungarian Army used pure olive oil and mutton tallow on their Sytem Augustin tubelock and System Lorenz percussion weapons. I suspect that the other armies of the time used similar natural materials to lubricate and preserve the metal and wood of their weapons. There would have been few, if any, petrolium based products available.

Regards,
Don Dixon
I have wondered about this, myself. Petroleum was just coming into use in the North (Colonel Drake, western Pa. 1859) and probably unavailable in the South after 1861. Olive oil seems unlikely in the US especially in the Confederacy as I don't think it was yet popular for cooking and would have to be imported, anyway. I don't know if peanut oil could yet be rendered from the nuts in this pre Carver period. Whale oil made a superb lubricant, though a bit on the pricey side, and again not likely available in the South. Oil made from bear fat was popular during the American Revolution and may still have been in the 1860's. I wonder if anyone has made a serious study of what lubricants were available to the average soldier (or industry) of the ACW. If any readers know of such please post it.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top