The right cartridge box

[major bill]

The North and South issued different cartridge boxes for use with different long arms. This makes sense, but did units receive new cartridge boxes when the unit received new arms. For example, the Confederacy made ammunition boxes for Austrian arms but it would seem difficult to get the proper ammunition box to the right units.

Then suppose some men "lost" their Austrian or smoothbore arms and found better British arms. Did the men also find the proper cartridge boxes to go with their new weapons? So a blockade runner makes it in with a shipment of Austrian arms and a unit needed the arms. Did the Confederacy have warehouses with various cartridge boxes ready to issue? Did the unit who needed arms have to wait for the proper cartridge boxes to be produced? Much the same could be the same for the Union except they had better logical support. Still some Union soldiers would have picked up new arms and need the proper cartridge boxes.

 

[major bill]

 

[major bill]

 

[Tin cup]

Officially the Confederacy settled on a box that was basically a .69 sized box! they had a lot of trouble getting Confederate, or English made Enfield cartridges to fit the .58 cal box, so they sent out this circular stating the size of the box needed.

Kevin Dally

 

[major bill]

I have seen where the Confederacy made some cartridge boxes for Austrian muskets

 

[Package4]

The North and South issued different cartridge boxes for use with different long arms. This makes sense, but did units receive new cartridge boxes when the unit received new arms. For example, the Confederacy made ammunition boxes for Austrian arms but it would seem difficult to get the proper ammunition box to the right units.

Then suppose some men "lost" their Austrian or smoothbore arms and found better British arms. Did the men also find the proper cartridge boxes to go with their new weapons? So a blockade runner makes it in with a shipment of Austrian arms and a unit needed the arms. Did the Confederacy have warehouses with various cartridge boxes ready to issue? Did the unit who needed arms have to wait for the proper cartridge boxes to be produced? Much the same could be the same for the Union except they had better logical support. Still some Union soldiers would have picked up new arms and need the proper cartridge boxes.

I have to believe that most of the logistical issues were solved with the single tin non partitioned insert, in this way if the cartridge didn't fit vertically it could be laid down horizontally. I have seen quite a few single piece tins where partitions were removed as well. I would imagine that this was the case until there was a definitive spec mentioned in Kevin Dally's Macon circular, where they settled on the .69 cal box that would enable any cartridge to fit. Removal of tins was very common as well and then any cartridge would fit.

 

[Tin cup]

I have to believe that most of the logistical issues were solved with the single tin non partitioned insert, in this way if the cartridge didn't fit vertically it could be laid down horizontally. I have seen quite a few single piece tins where partitions were removed as well. I would imagine that this was the case until there was a definitive spec mentioned in Kevin Dally's Macon circular, where they settled on the .69 cal box that would enable any cartridge to fit. Removal of tins was very common as well and then any cartridge would fit.

Could you site a source for removing tins by the confederate soldier?

Kevin Dally

 

[Package4]

Could you site a source for removing tins by the confederate soldier?

Kevin Dally

Absolutely, it may take me some time, but I recall two different sources, one a Union soldier commenting on the lack of tins and another that was Southern, speaking about the removal. In addition the number of extant Southern made boxes without tins is not positive proof, but far outweigh the number of Federal boxes without tins, of course there is no way of knowing when the tins were removed. I just have to remember where I read both.......

 

[Package4]

Could you site a source for removing tins by the confederate soldier?

Kevin Dally

Kevin,

Until I can find the references, which will certainly take some time, I would refer you to battlefield pictures that can be studied in extreme detail from the Library of Congress site. One can literally see the wrinkles on a soldiers knuckles. Two pictures that I believe prove that tins were taken out are the "Sharpshooter" at Devil's Den and a Ft. Mahone Confederate soldier with a severe head wound. The former it is quite easy to see that the tins have been removed as the box is concave, exactly when the tins were removed would be the question. The Ft Mahone soldier has a pigskin box with no evidence of tin(s), but there could be a smaller set substituted for the originals. Many early war and captured boxes were .58 cal and soldiers were issued Enfields, there is a fit problem. Some of the dead in the Petersburg trenches have Enfields and .58 boxes, what would be the remedy? Granted the pictures were taken hours or even days after the battle and scavengers, souvenir hunters and photographers using props had been on the scene, but I find the evidence compelling. The CS knew they had a problem, to the point that they were considering the reworking of imported Enfield cartridges to fit the boxes.

From Dean Thomas Vol 4 "Roundball to Rimfire":

First the tins:

Mallet had been charged with the task of determining the sizes of cartridge box tins and Enfield cartridges. On December 7, 1863, he filed a report to Gorgas that is quite detailed, but one of his statements pretty much sums things up, "There is a great discrepancy in the dimensions of the cartridge box tins made at the different Arsenals." Mallet goes on to suggest that the box for the .69 smoothbore be adopted as standard since that size will certainly fit all smaller caliber cartridges. And will even allow soldiers to carry "...52 instead of 40 rounds of the...Enfield cartridge." Mallet presented another possibility, that of reducing the length of the cartridges to fit the current tins: "the length of the Enfield cartridges may...be brought down from 3.2 or 3.3 to 2.8 or 2.9...." He also notes that if this course is followed, that for all English cartridges imported in the future it would "necessary to break up and re-make all the English-made ammunition which we import."

Gorgas immediately approved the use of the .69 cal. cartridge box. (See pic of circular dated 12/7/63).

Second, the adoption of the "English pattern cartridges:

Following the discontinuation of the Gardner cartridge, Gorgas, on Jan 21, 1864, issued a circular to all the Laboratories directing the immediate adoption of the English pattern of Enfield cartridge where ever it is not already made.

Third topic, quit making "English pattern cartridges:

A letter from Gorgas in Richmond to Mallet dated March 19, 1864, reverses his Jan 21 circular by ordering "The fabrication of the English "Enfield" cartridge will be suspended until the first of October 1864, and all small arm ammunition will be put up after the old U.S. pattern."





https://www.loc.gov/item/91732531/

 

[Tin cup]

To make an Enfield style cartridge to the same (or about) length s a US style, you have to radically shorten the powder cylinder on the Enfield style cartridge, I know, I have done it. You can only get 60 grains of BP in that case, which is considerably less than the 75 grains of powder the Confederate Arsenals were ordered to fill their cartridges with. I figure this is the reason they didn't adopt the "shorter" style Enfield cartridge. Too many variances in powder density/weight.

You cannot make a Enfield bullet fit properly if it's not surrounded by lubed/waxed paper when loaded, it's just sized too small, and they have no means of holding lube. Accuracy would be nil.

Kevin Dally

 

[Package4]

To make an Enfield style cartridge to the same (or about) length s a US style, you have to radically shorten the powder cylinder on the Enfield style cartridge, I know, I have done it. You can only get 60 grains of BP in that case, which is considerably less than the 75 grains of powder the Confederate Arsenals were ordered to fill their cartridges with. I figure this is the reason they didn't adopt the "shorter" style Enfield cartridge. Too many variances in powder density/weight.

You cannot make a Enfield bullet fit properly if it's not surrounded by lubed/waxed paper when loaded, it's just sized too small, and they have no means of holding lube. Accuracy would be nil.

Kevin Dally

I think that the main point of their desire to shorten the cartridges is the size of existing cartridge boxes and fit. I never gave this much thought until this thread, but it is clear that this was a concern of the Confederate government. And if sizing was a problem, how did the soldier accommodate? A small sample size to be sure, but the dead in the pictures of Ft. Mahone seem to be armed with a preponderance of Enfields and there are quite a few .58 cal boxes in evidence.

I would never have even thought of this type of minutia before, but it was certainly a concern to the central government.

 

[captaindrew]

Would there have been a consideration that a lot of Confederate troops would be using captured or battlefield pick ups of Federal cartridge boxes that by mid war would be most likely be .58 caliber boxes?

 

[tbuckley]

Kevin,

Until I can find the references, which will certainly take some time, I would refer you to battlefield pictures that can be studied in extreme detail from the Library of Congress site. One can literally see the wrinkles on a soldiers knuckles. Two pictures that I believe prove that tins were taken out are the "Sharpshooter" at Devil's Den and a Ft. Mahone Confederate soldier with a severe head wound. The former it is quite easy to see that the tins have been removed as the box is concave, exactly when the tins were removed would be the question. The Ft Mahone soldier has a pigskin box with no evidence of tin(s), but there could be a smaller set substituted for the originals. Many early war and captured boxes were .58 cal and soldiers were issued Enfields, there is a fit problem. Some of the dead in the Petersburg trenches have Enfields and .58 boxes, what would be the remedy? Granted the pictures were taken hours or even days after the battle and scavengers, souvenir hunters and photographers using props had been on the scene, but I find the evidence compelling. The CS knew they had a problem, to the point that they were considering the reworking of imported Enfield cartridges to fit the boxes.

From Dean Thomas Vol 4 "Roundball to Rimfire":

First the tins:

Mallet had been charged with the task of determining the sizes of cartridge box tins and Enfield cartridges. On December 7, 1863, he filed a report to Gorgas that is quite detailed, but one of his statements pretty much sums things up, "There is a great discrepancy in the dimensions of the cartridge box tins made at the different Arsenals." Mallet goes on to suggest that the box for the .69 smoothbore be adopted as standard since that size will certainly fit all smaller caliber cartridges. And will even allow soldiers to carry "...52 instead of 40 rounds of the...Enfield cartridge." Mallet presented another possibility, that of reducing the length of the cartridges to fit the current tins: "the length of the Enfield cartridges may...be brought down from 3.2 or 3.3 to 2.8 or 2.9...." He also notes that if this course is followed, that for all English cartridges imported in the future it would "necessary to break up and re-make all the English-made ammunition which we import."

Gorgas immediately approved the use of the .69 cal. cartridge box. (See pic of circular dated 12/7/63).

Second, the adoption of the "English pattern cartridges:

Following the discontinuation of the Gardner cartridge, Gorgas, on Jan 21, 1864, issued a circular to all the Laboratories directing the immediate adoption of the English pattern of Enfield cartridge where ever it is not already made.

Third topic, quit making "English pattern cartridges:

A letter from Gorgas in Richmond to Mallet dated March 19, 1864, reverses his Jan 21 circular by ordering "The fabrication of the English "Enfield" cartridge will be suspended until the first of October 1864, and all small arm ammunition will be put up after the old U.S. pattern."





https://www.loc.gov/item/91732531/

I have often wondered about how Confederate infantrymen would have had to adjust to the possibility of being issued cartridges made in the "English style", Gardner cartridges, and US style cartridges (either captured or CS made). I would guess that a .69 cartridge box without inserts might have been a way to accommodate the different types.

 

[Package4]

I have often wondered about how Confederate infantrymen would have had to adjust to the possibility of being issued cartridges made in the "English style", Gardner cartridges, and US style cartridges (either captured or CS made). I would guess that a .69 cartridge box without inserts might have been a way to accommodate the different types.

I believe that the .69 box with inserts would accommodate all, the problem they faced was getting the boxes manufactured and into the field. They resorted to oilcloth/tarred canvas accouterments towards the later stages of the war and those appear to be in the .69 configuration.

 

[Package4]

To make an Enfield style cartridge to the same (or about) length s a US style, you have to radically shorten the powder cylinder on the Enfield style cartridge, I know, I have done it. You can only get 60 grains of BP in that case, which is considerably less than the 75 grains of powder the Confederate Arsenals were ordered to fill their cartridges with. I figure this is the reason they didn't adopt the "shorter" style Enfield cartridge. Too many variances in powder density/weight.

You cannot make a Enfield bullet fit properly if it's not surrounded by lubed/waxed paper when loaded, it's just sized too small, and they have no means of holding lube. Accuracy would be nil.

Kevin Dally

This has me really thinking, I know, dangerous. Looking at extant collections and different reference books, particularly "Gettysburg Battlefield Relics and Souvenirs" O'Donnell, Hazzard & Boardman, there are no fewer than 3 US .58 cal. cartridge boxes with the flap cut off, all found on the Gettysburg battlefield. Prevailing wisdom is that these were captured boxes and the flap was cut off for ease of access. What if the flaps were actually cut off to allow an easier fit of an Enfield cartridge in a .58 style box? The removal of the flap allows the inside flap to ride higher, possibly allowing the additional .5" or so required for the cartridge to fit utilizing the existing tins. I never bought the ease of access idea as a reenactor, never had issue with the outer flap getting in the way. Another theory is the use of the flap for leather patching (shoes, belts, suspender ears etc.)

Of the 11 Confederate boxes, in the book, identified as having been picked up soon after the battle, or recovered during exhumation, 3 were of the type with the flap cut off and one has evidence of being reworked by an arsenal or saddler. I know small sample size, but it got me thinking..........

For those that may not be aware of what I am talking about I am including pictures of one of this type box in my collection:

 

[Cpl. Smith]

This has me really thinking, I know, dangerous. Looking at extant collections and different reference books, particularly "Gettysburg Battlefield Relics and Souvenirs" O'Donnell, Hazzard & Boardman, there are no fewer than 3 US .58 cal. cartridge boxes with the flap cut off, all found on the Gettysburg battlefield. Prevailing wisdom is that these were captured boxes and the flap was cut off for ease of access. What if the flaps were actually cut off to allow an easier fit of an Enfield cartridge in a .58 style box? The removal of the flap allows the inside flap to ride higher, possibly allowing the additional .5" or so required for the cartridge to fit utilizing the existing tins. I never bought the ease of access idea as a reenactor, never had issue with the outer flap getting in the way. Another theory is the use of the flap for leather patching (shoes, belts, suspender ears etc.)

Of the 11 Confederate boxes, in the book, identified as having been picked up soon after the battle, or recovered during exhumation, 3 were of the type with the flap cut off and one has evidence of being reworked by an arsenal or saddler. I know small sample size, but it got me thinking..........

For those that may not be aware of what I am talking about I am including pictures of one of this type box in my collection:

View attachment 163680 View attachment 163681

Cool box.