- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Location
- South of the North 40
I blew my back out last week and have been laid up taking vacation time instead of workmans comp, today I was allowed a rare treat when a friend rolled me into his van and we spent the day in the MN Historical society.... I continued my quest for info on arm carried by the 3rd & 4th MN VI and felt I had to share my discoveries w/ some who might appreciate them.
Ironically the most complete records of Minesota Infantry Regiments are those of the 1st & 7th MN VI.
A price listing of items purchased by the 7th Regiment MN VI was quite intriguing to me. I was suprised to see leather canteen straps still being issued and had a devil of a time figuring out what an "axe helve" was. hehe do you all?
12 Nov 1863
Knapsack & Straps $1.85
Haversack unpainted $.33
Painted $.49
Axe $.98
Axe helve $.13
Canteen complete $.41
strap leather $.15
Shelter tent $3.78 (I'm assuming both halves)
As a Living Historian it is intereting to see how the prices have changed, even more fun to put them through an inflation calculator...
The 3rd MN VI was most certainly a full on garrison unit (being one of the largest Vetranized Infantry units west of the Appalachians fielding better than 800 men) reporting 28 wall tents and 262 common tents in the garrison equipage while at the same time the 5th MN VI reported just two wall tents for their hospital and no common tents!
Finally my only sucess on more on the arms issued to the 4th MN VI was an ordnance return fom April 62 showing 198 M1841/44/45 rifles & 80 M1817 rifles percussion conversion spread between three companies. 5 other Companies were whlly armed w/ M1816/22 Conversion Muskets and one company carrying "Bright Belgian" muskets. I found photographic evidence of men from B & E companies changing out M1816/22 Percusion conversion for M1841/45 w/ a hint that D company may have traded their M1817 rifles for M1841's and another company may have traded their "Bright Belgians" for M1841/45's... this brings the total M1841's to about 600 w/ the balance still being M1816/22 conversions. In 1863 the 4th MN may have been one of the Regts authorized by Genl Grant to trade in their old smoothbores for Captured P53's and a document sans date shows the 4th aquiring "180 stands Captured arms" I can assume these would be Enfields captured at Vicksburg.
Now as a bit of backgroud to those who don't know an M1861 from a hole in the wall. The M1861 & P53 Enfield were considered the epitome of military small arms in 1861. THe 4th MN VI had gained a reputation as a hard marching & hard fighting unit by the time of the Vicksburg Campaign and might well be considered a representative unit of the AoT US. In April of 62 they were still carrying a majority of arms made in 1816 & 1817 converted from Flintlock to Percussion along w/ one company carrying despised Belgian "pumpkin throwers." That means the Regiment had only two companies carrying anything newer than 20 years old in short only 2 out of 10 men were firing anything w/ a range past 100 yards. And by the time of Vicksburg only 5 of 10 were when the garrison of Vicksburg was almost completely armed w/ first rate arms w/ ranges in excess of 400 yards.
The M1841/44/45 was essentially the famed Mississippi bayonet rebored to .58 cal w/ a better rear sight and bayonet added. It was a first rate arm w/ a very high reknown; however it's only advantage over an M1861 was that it was considerably shorter... yet it was no lighter due to a thicker barrel.
By the fall of 1863 the Union had pretty much eliminated their small arms deficiencies and there were ample P53 Enfileds (near to 80,000 courtesy of the CS) and M1861's available in the ranks. Most older arms were returned to various arsenals and later reissued to the USCT. Most conventional wisdom states that upon vetranizing (fall of 63 to summer 64) most men were issued new M1861 or M1863 Springfields.
But a real kicker and quite a bit of confusion for me was finding a tintype showing Sgt John E Risedorph w/ an M1841 and a riflemans belt supposedly dated 1865 taken in Washington DC after the Grand Review! All of my reasoning says this has to be an incorrect date on the tintype.... until I found a muster out document showing a soldier from D Co purchasing an M1845 w/ saber bayonet upon his muster out! Could the 4th MN, or some of the men have managed to hold onto their M1841's?
One of those annoying detail mysteries that I've been working on for quite a while.
Ironically the most complete records of Minesota Infantry Regiments are those of the 1st & 7th MN VI.
A price listing of items purchased by the 7th Regiment MN VI was quite intriguing to me. I was suprised to see leather canteen straps still being issued and had a devil of a time figuring out what an "axe helve" was. hehe do you all?
12 Nov 1863
Knapsack & Straps $1.85
Haversack unpainted $.33
Painted $.49
Axe $.98
Axe helve $.13
Canteen complete $.41
strap leather $.15
Shelter tent $3.78 (I'm assuming both halves)
As a Living Historian it is intereting to see how the prices have changed, even more fun to put them through an inflation calculator...
The 3rd MN VI was most certainly a full on garrison unit (being one of the largest Vetranized Infantry units west of the Appalachians fielding better than 800 men) reporting 28 wall tents and 262 common tents in the garrison equipage while at the same time the 5th MN VI reported just two wall tents for their hospital and no common tents!
Finally my only sucess on more on the arms issued to the 4th MN VI was an ordnance return fom April 62 showing 198 M1841/44/45 rifles & 80 M1817 rifles percussion conversion spread between three companies. 5 other Companies were whlly armed w/ M1816/22 Conversion Muskets and one company carrying "Bright Belgian" muskets. I found photographic evidence of men from B & E companies changing out M1816/22 Percusion conversion for M1841/45 w/ a hint that D company may have traded their M1817 rifles for M1841's and another company may have traded their "Bright Belgians" for M1841/45's... this brings the total M1841's to about 600 w/ the balance still being M1816/22 conversions. In 1863 the 4th MN may have been one of the Regts authorized by Genl Grant to trade in their old smoothbores for Captured P53's and a document sans date shows the 4th aquiring "180 stands Captured arms" I can assume these would be Enfields captured at Vicksburg.
Now as a bit of backgroud to those who don't know an M1861 from a hole in the wall. The M1861 & P53 Enfield were considered the epitome of military small arms in 1861. THe 4th MN VI had gained a reputation as a hard marching & hard fighting unit by the time of the Vicksburg Campaign and might well be considered a representative unit of the AoT US. In April of 62 they were still carrying a majority of arms made in 1816 & 1817 converted from Flintlock to Percussion along w/ one company carrying despised Belgian "pumpkin throwers." That means the Regiment had only two companies carrying anything newer than 20 years old in short only 2 out of 10 men were firing anything w/ a range past 100 yards. And by the time of Vicksburg only 5 of 10 were when the garrison of Vicksburg was almost completely armed w/ first rate arms w/ ranges in excess of 400 yards.
The M1841/44/45 was essentially the famed Mississippi bayonet rebored to .58 cal w/ a better rear sight and bayonet added. It was a first rate arm w/ a very high reknown; however it's only advantage over an M1861 was that it was considerably shorter... yet it was no lighter due to a thicker barrel.
By the fall of 1863 the Union had pretty much eliminated their small arms deficiencies and there were ample P53 Enfileds (near to 80,000 courtesy of the CS) and M1861's available in the ranks. Most older arms were returned to various arsenals and later reissued to the USCT. Most conventional wisdom states that upon vetranizing (fall of 63 to summer 64) most men were issued new M1861 or M1863 Springfields.
But a real kicker and quite a bit of confusion for me was finding a tintype showing Sgt John E Risedorph w/ an M1841 and a riflemans belt supposedly dated 1865 taken in Washington DC after the Grand Review! All of my reasoning says this has to be an incorrect date on the tintype.... until I found a muster out document showing a soldier from D Co purchasing an M1845 w/ saber bayonet upon his muster out! Could the 4th MN, or some of the men have managed to hold onto their M1841's?
One of those annoying detail mysteries that I've been working on for quite a while.
And did they even have woodsheds back when dinosours roamed the earth?
Bringing the