What Type Of Weapons?

[on again]

Georgia soldier picture at

Elijah G Clifton (1830-1904) - Find a Grave...

Co B 55 Ala Inf CSA

www.findagrave.com

What type of rifle is he holding?

Is that a Square D Knife he is holding?

 

[JackADriscoll]

That looks like a fowling type older rifle. The knife I'm unsure on

 

[Rhea Cole]

Link to Library of Congress:

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/pnp/ppmsca/31300/31311r.jpg

Unidentified man with large knife, pistol, sword & long gun. Knife is consistent with the D guard blacksmith knives given to the 44th Mississippi.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/pnp/ppmsca/40000/40073v.jpg

Sgt. A. M. Chandler Company F 44th Mississippi infantry Regiment & family slave Silas Chandler. They are holding large knives presented to the company made by local blacksmith. The pepper box pistol & long gun are photographer's props.

Redirect Notice

These images should give you some idea of how common it was for soldiers to pose with photographers' props.

Conclusion: In the case of the Chandler brothers the large "fighting knives" they carry were their own. The rest of the weapons were photographer's props. Chandler's knife still exists because Silas probably carried it home on one of his returns for food & clothing. Others were cast away as nothing but dead weight. That is where photographers got their props.

The image in question has a clue. If you look carefully at A. M. Chandler's collar, it is a dark colored standing collar that has been turned down. The thread image has a dark collar.

The long gun in the image is consistent with the shotgun Silas Chandler is holding. The thread image has been flopped left to right by the camera lens.

There considerable, but not conclusive, evidence that the soldier in the thread image was in the 44th Mississippi. The long gun could well be the same shotgun Silas Chandler is holding.

I used links so that the images will be as sharp as possible. Hope on again finds this useful.

Note: The photo of the Chandler brothers has been widely used to depict an armed slave who fought. This is link to a well written essay on this subject:

The Story Behind the Photo Used to Push the Black Confederate Lie

I found this article from Adam Serwer of BuzzFeed on the famous photo of Andrew Chandler with his slave, Silas Chandler, a photo used by confederate heritage liars to push the great lie that there …

studycivilwar.wordpress.com

 

[Old Soldier]

The rifle is a civilian half-stocked arm, probably used for hunting. It does have a backsight of some sort which may have ranged flip sights attached, so is likely to be a rifle. Many CSA initially armed themselves with anything available,including shotguns of various types, The knife - as many have said in other threads - was often a photographers prop or something they bought locally - a 'soldiers weapon'. It probably ended up getting dumped on a long march - far too heavy and cumbersome!

This is my 'cleaned' image of Rhea's link = Sgt. Andrew Martin Chandler (r) with his family slave, Silas Chandler

Taken in 1862, the knives and the shotgun were their's but the pistols may well have been props (pepperbox, Colt Navy and a Beaumont Adams 100-bore). Most early photos show their subjects with large knives and pistols - with few military rifles and equipment seen. They had joined the Palo Alto Confederates, later the 44th Mississippi Infantry Regiment.

Both made it through with Sgt Chandler captured early on by the Union (Camp Chase OH) before exhange and rejoining the regiment then getting seriously wounded at Chickamauga (d 1920). and Silas went through unharmed and made a name for himself as a carpenter in West Point MS after the war (d 1919).
(full story: https://www.loc.gov/rr//print/coll/SoldierbiosChandler.html)

 

[CSuniforms]

Very common in the early days of the Civil War for a soldier to show up with a Civilian firearm. Pleas from the Governors or the Military Boards for the populace to donate or sell their civilian guns to the State for the new Volunteers numerous. Shotguns, hunting rifles and old flintlocks were seen on the Battlefields of Mills Springs and Shiloh. That was all they had. Bowie knives and fighting knives were very very popular in 1861. The belief that the Union Army all had rifles-- that the only way to win was with a big knife and to close in to hand to hand combat! Truth!

 

[bayonet]

The rifle is a civilian half-stocked arm, probably used for hunting. It does have a backsight of some sort which may have ranged flip sights attached, so is likely to be a rifle. Many CSA initially armed themselves with anything available,including shotguns of various types, The knife - as many have said in other threads - was often a photographers prop or something they bought locally - a 'soldiers weapon'. It probably ended up getting dumped on a long march - far too heavy and cumbersome!

This is my 'cleaned' image of Rhea's link = Sgt. Andrew Martin Chandler (r) with his family slave, Silas Chandler
View attachment 518304
Taken in 1862, the knives and the shotgun were their's but the pistols may well have been props (pepperbox, Colt Navy and a Beaumont Adams 100-bore). Most early photos show their subjects with large knives and pistols - with few military rifles and equipment seen. They had joined the Palo Alto Confederates, later the 44th Mississippi Infantry Regiment.

Both made it through with Sgt Chandler captured early on by the Union (Camp Chase OH) before exhange and rejoining the regiment then getting seriously wounded at Chickamauga (d 1920). and Silas went through unharmed and made a name for himself as a carpenter in West Point MS after the war (d 1919).
(full story: https://www.loc.gov/rr//print/coll/SoldierbiosChandler.html)

The slight grin on that Slaves face I wonder if he's thinking what he'd really like to do with that bowie knife and shotgun. The look on the Sergeants face is "I'm not sure it was a good idea to arm my Slave"!

 

[Rhea Cole]

Very common in the early days of the Civil War for a soldier to show up with a Civilian firearm. Pleas from the Governors or the Military Boards for the populace to donate or sell their civilian guns to the State for the new Volunteers numerous. Shotguns, hunting rifles and old flintlocks were seen on the Battlefields of Mills Springs and Shiloh. That was all they had. Bowie knives and fighting knives were very very popular in 1861. The belief that the Union Army all had rifles-- that the only way to win was with a big knife and to close in to hand to hand combat! Truth!

View attachment 518358

Thomas' pursuers, knee deep in clinging mud, found huge fighting knives & other naive employmentia scattered everywhere. The worthless smoothbores, some recovered from the New Orleans Battlefield, were wrapped around trees & fence posts. In the decorous words of the day, throwing away military decorator items & muskets that could not be fired in the damp conditions of the battle was accompanied by, "… the swearing of great oaths…"

 

[Rhea Cole]

The slight grin on that Slaves face I wonder if he's thinking what he'd really like to do with that bowie knife and shotgun. The look on the Sergeants face is "I'm not sure it was a good idea to arm my Slave"!

The story of the Chandler brothers during the war & post war is very well documented. It is a living family tradition.

At the end of my post up thread is a very good essay about the counterfactual attempt to make Silas Chandler an armed soldier & loyal confederate.

 

[Old Soldier]

The slight grin on that Slaves face I wonder if he's thinking what he'd really like to do with that bowie knife and shotgun. The look on the Sergeants face is "I'm not sure it was a good idea to arm my Slave"!

They seemed like good mates actually. Silas saved Andrew (his master) from a leg amputation after Chickamauga and Andrew ensured he had good quarters inthe field. I get the impression that not all 'slaves' were treated like slaves, but more like unpaid servants, colleagues even. Most seem to have just accepted the situation and made the most of it - as if they could do anything to change it!. Silas was a house servant not a field worker.

We are always led to believe that a slave's life was hard work and punishments until they died since only the extremes were noted and photographed. Many families had less than a dozen, knew them all, and looked after them. Sure, we hate the idea of buying and selling people - it is hardly civilised or 'freedom', but for some of the freed slaves afer the war, freedom turned out to be a double edged sword. Not all were allowed to enjoy that freedom as they had never been educated or trained to think for themselves and basically found themselves second class citizens - often the lowest of the low.

 

[R. Porter]

In the original post, the firearm appears to have a full length octagonal barrel, rear sight, back action lock, half stock, two keys to hold the stock to the barrel, and a set-trigger. This is consistent with a plains rifle made after about 1840.

A plains rifle was usually 40 to 55 caliber, making the barrel heavy. Most of the time the barrel was no longer than about 30 inches. The larger caliber barrels were held to the stock by two keys. In the East smaller caliber rifles were more popular, being used for deer and smaller game or target shooting. Since they weren't being carried on horseback as often they were not dropped and broken as often. Barrels were longer and stocks tended to be full length, more delicate and held to the barrel by pins rather than keys.

Assuming the OP shows a plains rifle, one might guess that its owner spent some time hunting buffalo on the plains or, if in the East, hunting bear. He might have been a target shooter, but the rifle doesn't show any enhanced targeting ability. It may have been a studio prop, but I think it might have been too expensive unless the photographer picked it up for very cheap somehow. If so, one might guess that the photographer spent some time plying his trade around St. Louis before the war. Probably the most likely scenario is that it is the private weapon of the subject of the portrait.

As always, I'm not an expert. Unfortunately my sources for this information are not readily available so I can't backup my speculations.

 

[Rhea Cole]

In the original post, the firearm appears to have a full length octagonal barrel, rear sight, back action lock, half stock, two keys to hold the stock to the barrel, and a set-trigger. This is consistent with a plains rifle made after about 1840.

A plains rifle was usually 40 to 55 caliber, making the barrel heavy. Most of the time the barrel was no longer than about 30 inches. The larger caliber barrels were held to the stock by two keys. In the East smaller caliber rifles were more popular, being used for deer and smaller game or target shooting. Since they weren't being carried on horseback as often they were not dropped and broken as often. Barrels were longer and stocks tended to be full length, more delicate and held to the barrel by pins rather than keys.

Assuming the OP shows a plains rifle, one might guess that its owner spent some time hunting buffalo on the plains or, if in the East, hunting bear. He might have been a target shooter, but the rifle doesn't show any enhanced targeting ability. It may have been a studio prop, but I think it might have been too expensive unless the photographer picked it up for very cheap somehow. If so, one might guess that the photographer spent some time plying his trade around St. Louis before the war. Probably the most likely scenario is that it is the private weapon of the subject of the portrait.

As always, I'm not an expert. Unfortunately my sources for this information are not readily available so I can't backup my speculations.

I am curious, why would a long rifle be less likely a studio prop than a pepper box pistol, revolver, saber or canteen?

 

[R. Porter]

I am curious, why would a long rifle be less likely a studio prop than a pepper box pistol, revolver, saber or canteen?

Because I suppose an honest to goodness plains rifle to be much more expensive than a surplus musket, and perhaps less common than a handgun, canteen, saber, or Bowie knife. I would suspect the photographer to put his money into his camera, chemicals and storefront (or horse, wagon and backdrop if traveling.) But that's a supposition on my part because i don't know actual costs and availability of the items you mention or of photographic props generally from the Civil War period. As I said, I'm not an expert; and I'm open to other input. I would really like to know if there is a formula or rule of thumb for judging something to be a soldier's actual gear or a photographic prop either in a portrait or in a post conflict battlefield image.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Because I suppose an honest to goodness plains rifle to be much more expensive than a surplus musket, and perhaps less common than a handgun, canteen, saber, or Bowie knife. I would suspect the photographer to put his money into his camera, chemicals and storefront (or horse, wagon and backdrop if traveling.) But that's a supposition on my part because i don't know actual costs and availability of the items you mention or of photographic props generally from the Civil War period. As I said, I'm not an expert; and I'm open to other input. I would really like to know if there is a formula or rule of thumb for judging something to be a soldier's actual gear or a photographic prop either in a portrait or in a post conflict battlefield image.

Having seen I don't know how many photographers' props, my rule of thumb is that nothing but a Klingon blaster would surprise me.

 

[JackADriscoll]

Having seen I don't know how many photographers' props, my rule of thumb is that nothing but a Klingon blaster would surprise me.

I'm waiting to see a batlev

 

[JackADriscoll]

I look more at the background. If it's clearly in a studio and not a photographer that visited camp I assume they're all props.

 

[Rhea Cole]

I'm waiting to see a batlev

I want to see one of these things..,

…or maybe…

… or here we go!

Hotel des Invalides, Paris

 

[R. Porter]

A duck foot, The Kurgan's plug bayonet or an early prototype of the krummlauf? But those props would take all the attention away from the soldier in the portrait.

 

[CSuniforms]

I am curious, why would a long rifle be less likely a studio prop than a pepper box pistol, revolver, saber or canteen?

Because they were issued guns like this from the State and paid in some circumstances to bring their guns from home. The whole idea of photo props is more of Northern thing than a Southern thing.

 

[Old Soldier]

Because I suppose an honest to goodness plains rifle to be much more expensive than a surplus musket, and perhaps less common than a handgun, canteen, saber, or Bowie knife. I would suspect the photographer to put his money into his camera, chemicals and storefront (or horse, wagon and backdrop if traveling.) But that's a supposition on my part because i don't know actual costs and availability of the items you mention or of photographic props generally from the Civil War period. As I said, I'm not an expert; and I'm open to other input. I would really like to know if there is a formula or rule of thumb for judging something to be a soldier's actual gear or a photographic prop either in a portrait or in a post conflict battlefield image.

The rule usually is that it can be identified as a military issue weapon or piece of kit. No military weapons at this time were half-stocked or double barrelled. If we see a civilian firearm, it usually dates it to the early period - the first year. If the background look like a painting with little perspective - it probably is. There are no action photos at this time - every last one is posed. Exposure times were so long any movement blurred the photo - hence some of the rather blurry socket bayonets. Portaits are often seated but anyone standing had a frame behind them to keep them still, even some of the seated ones too! (You can often see the base on the floor behind them.)

So if you haven't been issued your kit - or not allowed to take it out of camp - just some form of uniform (often just a cap or hat), you HAVE to make it look warry , hence the props. That rifle may have been the photographers personal gun. In an earlier thread I showed a photo where a militia Sergeant Major is photgraphed with an issue (M1855) rifle and bayonet - even though his belt held his issue sword and TWO pistols in holsters. He never carried a rifle and bayonet.

1861 Union Sgt Maj 7th NY State Militia (look behind his feet)

Ambrotype and tintype can be great fun trying to work out what is what as they are mirror images. (See the Chandlers above) Some photographers got their subjects to change their kit around and hold their weapons in the other hand, some just got them to swap hands. Nearly all were re-touched to cover up a reversed cap badge and belt or cross-strap badge since these were direct positive photos onto glass or metal, ie, no negative and print.

Group photos became common towards the end of the war - whole companies. You can tell the ones that moved. (Exposure time was between 2 - 10 seconds depending on the chemicals, the camera and the ambient light)

 

[RetiredCanuck]

I'm looking at the uniform. To my eyes looks, like he is wearing typical pre-war militia grey? But what caught my eye was the placement of his stripes over the elbow area.