Weapons used by Regiment

[Wawyasto]

As I'm tracking down ancestors who served during the CW I'm also trying to determine what weapons were issued to their regiments. The Coates and Thomas book on Civil War Sall Arms has been a big help but one Regiment, the 32nd Illinois, isn't listed. The Illinois Adjutant General's report shows them to have been issued smoothbore muskets at Cairo, Illinois "altered from flintlock" which I would assume would have been 1816 muskets.

Was wondering if anyone had better sources for information to confirm the type and if these were later replaced.

Thanks!

 

[captaindrew]

That was a pretty common issue early on. I don't know the specifics of that regiment but I'm sure they were replaced before too long. I bet somebody on here might have a source to find out when.

 

[captaindrew]

Out of my own curiosity I searched around a little and according to these guys they received Enfields by the fall of 62. https://www.altonjaegerguards.org/32nd-ills-vols-inf.html Seems pretty consistent with a few of the other Western theater Illinois regiments I was browsing through. Paging @johan_steele I bet he could probably confirm this.

 

[limberbox]

Check out Arming the Suckers by Ken Bauman (Morningside 1989), pp.105-07, from your local library or better yet find a used copy online.. Great resource for Illinois units and well worth the price.

The 32nd had quite a variety of arms. Started off with smoothbore muskets altered from flint to percussion, augmented by 170 "French rifles" in early 1862. By the end of that year they had 230 .577 Enfield Rifle-Muskets, 36 Dresden & Suhl Rifle-Muskets and 11 U.S. Rifle-Muskets (possibly m.1855 but more likely m.1861's). Varied somewhat quarter to quarter thereafter, and with small numbers (18 to 40) .58 cal. French Rifle-Muskets with triangular bayonets or .577 French Light Rifles (aka Liege rifles). From 2d Qtr 1864 on they carried almost exclusively U.S. Rifle-Muskets (Springfields), probably m.1861 or m.1863 but precise model is not specified, along with a few odds and ends.

Bauman predominantly relied on the summaries the Ordnance Bureau created from individual company quarterly returns. Those are available from NARA as Microfilm Publication M1281 (now available digitally for about $125 per "roll" (eight "rolls" total of which 5 cover the infantry, 2 the cavalry and 1 the artillery, for U.S. Vols. and Regulars). Seven or eight quarters are covered (can vary by state) beginning 4Q62. While a very rich and fairly comprehensive resource, the summaries combined multiple arms and models into single categories so can lack specificity. They also can contain transcription errors (such as the switching back and forth in different quarters between the different French weapons -- that is likely due to transcription errors by the Ordnance clerks). Note also that not all companies reported all quarters (or returns were lost), so in looking at regimental totals always check to see how many of the ten companies actually reported that quarter and adjust accordingly to make a full regimental estimate.

See further the detailed recent posts 19 and 25-28 from this very recent thread:

Was a soldier allowed to exchange their weapon for a different one? | Small Arms & Ammunition

I’ve read that the Spencer carbine was highly prized by cavalry soldiers, but it was not issued to all of them. Would it have been possible for a soldier to exchange their weapon for a better one like the Spencer?

civilwartalk.com

 

[Wawyasto]

That was a pretty common issue early on. I don't know the specifics of that regiment but I'm sure they were replaced before too long. I bet somebody on here might have a source to find out when.

Interesting...

Check out Arming the Suckers by Ken Bauman (Morningside 1989), pp.105-07, from your local library or better yet find a used copy online.. Great resource for Illinois units and well worth the price.

The 32nd had quite a variety of arms. Started off with smoothbore muskets altered from flint to percussion, augmented by 170 "French rifles" in early 1862. By the end of that year they had 230 .577 Enfield Rifle-Muskets, 36 Dresden & Suhl Rifle-Muskets and 11 U.S. Rifle-Muskets (possibly m.1855 but more likely m.1861's). Varied somewhat quarter to quarter thereafter, and with small numbers (18 to 40) .58 cal. French Rifle-Muskets with triangular bayonets or .577 French Light Rifles (aka Liege rifles). From 2d Qtr 1864 on they carried almost exclusively U.S. Rifle-Muskets (Springfields), probably m.1861 or m.1863 but precise model is not specified, along with a few odds and ends.

Bauman predominantly relied on the summaries the Ordnance Bureau created from individual company quarterly returns. Those are available from NARA as Microfilm Publication M1281 (now available digitally for about $125 per "roll" (eight "rolls" total of which 5 cover the infantry, 2 the cavalry and 1 the artillery, for U.S. Vols. and Regulars). Seven or eight quarters are covered (can vary by state) beginning 4Q62. While a very rich and fairly comprehensive resource, the summaries combined multiple arms and models into single categories so can lack specificity. They also can contain transcription errors (such as the switching back and forth in different quarters between the different French weapons -- that is likely due to transcription errors by the Ordnance clerks). Note also that not all companies reported all quarters (or returns were lost), so in looking at regimental totals always check to see how many of the ten companies actually reported that quarter and adjust accordingly to make a full regimental estimate.

See further the detailed recent posts 19 and 25-28 from this very recent thread:

Was a soldier allowed to exchange their weapon for a different one? | Small Arms & Ammunition

I’ve read that the Spencer carbine was highly prized by cavalry soldiers, but it was not issued to all of them. Would it have been possible for a soldier to exchange their weapon for a better one like the Spencer?

civilwartalk.com

My great-great uncle, Henry C. Rains, enlisted in the 32nd in October of 1864, so he probably ended up with a Springfield musket.

 

[Wawyasto]

That was a pretty common issue early on. I don't know the specifics of that regiment but I'm sure they were replaced before too long. I bet somebody on here might have a source to find out when.

Interesting. Most of my Rains descendents enlisted in the 89th but a couple were transferred to the 59th to complete their 3 year enlistments when the 89th was mustered out. Book shows that unit issued M1842 rifled muskets. I'm wodering if there's any history of them being replaced that late into the war.

 

[limberbox]

Bauman shows the 59th re-equipped with Springfields in 2Q64; 89th formed late enough that it always carried almost exclusively Springfields, though 18-91 Enfields also shown some quarters. (see pp. 44-46, 175-76)

I would imagine the State Archives in Springfield has finding aids available online. Try searching "Ordnance" or "Quarterly Returns Ordnance" and see if you get any hits on your regiments of interest. The Record Group to search in is likely that of the Adjutant General of the state. Nothing better than finding an actual return from your ancestor's company. Oftentimes they will include even more detailed vouchers that are attachments to the returns.

No returns of my ancestor's company in the 3rd Iowa Cavalry survived to make it into the Quarterly Summaries in M1281, but in visiting the Archives in Des Moines I found a voucher from his company. Anytime an issue or turnover of arms occurred, or there was a change over in company command, the offices involved had to sign vouchers. Those were then attached to that quarter's company return.

 

[captaindrew]

Bauman shows the 59th re-equipped with Springfields in 2Q64; 89th formed late enough that it always carried almost exclusively Springfields, though 18-91 Enfields also shown some quarters. (see pp. 44-46, 175-76)

I would imagine the State Archives in Springfield has finding aids available online. Try searching "Ordnance" or "Quarterly Returns Ordnance" and see if you get any hits on your regiments of interest. The Record Group to search in is likely that of the Adjutant General of the state. Nothing better than finding an actual return from your ancestor's company. Oftentimes they will include even more detailed vouchers that are attachments to the returns.

No returns of my ancestor's company in the 3rd Iowa Cavalry survived to make it into the Quarterly Summaries in M1281, but in visiting the Archives in Des Moines I found a voucher from his company. Anytime an issue or turnover of arms occurred, or there was a change over in company command, the offices involved had to sign vouchers. Those were then attached to that quarter's company return.

Thanks for the detailed replies, interesting stuff.

 

[Wawyasto]

Check out Arming the Suckers by Ken Bauman (Morningside 1989), pp.105-07, from your local library or better yet find a used copy online.. Great resource for Illinois units and well worth the price.

I just did a search on Amazon for this book, OH MY GOD I need some help up off the floor...

I think I'll see if there's a copy in my State Library system.

 

[Wawyasto]

Bauman shows the 59th re-equipped with Springfields in 2Q64; 89th formed late enough that it always carried almost exclusively Springfields, though 18-91 Enfields also shown some quarters. (see pp. 44-46, 175-76)

61's, 55's or does it say?

Per what I can find my G-G grandfather and his cousin Leroy were both transferred to the 59th on 6/10/65 once the 89th mustered out.

 

[limberbox]

61's, 55's or does it say?

Per what I can find my G-G grandfather and his cousin Leroy were both transferred to the 59th on 6/10/65 once the 89th mustered out.

Does not say. However, if I recall correctly, m.1855 production halted in about July 1861 and production shifted to the simpler m. 1861. Only a little over 70,000 total m.1855's were produced 1857-1861 (less than 10,000 in 1861) per v. III of Moller.

In contrast, while only 33,572 m.1861's were produced in 1861, 173,609 were produced at Springfield in 1862 alone, with another 57,748 made in the first half of 1863, after which production shifted to m.1863's. Contractor deliveries of m.1861's came later and only 11,354 such arms were made by seven manufacturers in 1862, but that rose to 179,300 from eighteen manufacturers in 1863 and 211,500 from fourteen manufacturers in 1864 before tailing off to 45,160 from five manufacturers in 1865.

Springfield production of m.1863's was 183,064 in 1863 and 90,201 in 1864 (plus 157,463 m.1863 second model aka m.1864 that year and 96,877 in 1865). Contractor manufactures added some but not significantly more to those m.1863 totals.

That is why I say it is more likely the Springfields they carried were m.1861's or m.1863's. (Special Model 1861's are not included above because they tended to stay put in the arsenals and depots since they were not completely interchangeable with the standard model 1861's.) Now, which model and were they Springfield-built or made by contractors, and if so which one? To find that out you need to read published and unpublished regimentals, memoirs and collections of letters, and go through the ordnance records and regimental records in the State Archives, libraries and/or NARA.

Happy Hunting!