Whitworth Rifle

[dplyed06]

I recently received my BA in History in December. Now my paper is completed I know there are questions about Sir Joseph Whitworth and his rifled musket. Hope this can clear some questions. Let me know your thoughts. This was my senior capstone project for my degree. Thank you

 

[Tailor Pete]

Very enlightening, and indeed it filled many gaps in my knowledge. Great job!

 

[JOHN42768]

Thanks

 

[Craig L Barry]

As an author of one of the sources you cited, let me compliment you on your scholarship. I hope you got a good grade on it. You can't be accused of laxity where the footnotes are concerned either. One small detail I would address is in the nomenclature used. A musket was the general term for a large caliber smoothbore arm, either in flint or percussion. A rifle was also known as a short rifle. These had a 33" barrel. A rifle-musket was different, a combination of a musket and a rifle. It was also called a long rifle in the English system. The barrel was 39" in length in the case of the 1853 Enfield. 40" in the case of the US models. A rifle and a rifle-musket were both designed to have rifling cut into the barrel and they were manufactured that way.

In contrast, "rifled musket" is the term generally used to refer to a large bore musket that was originally produced as a smoothbore but was later rifled and returned to service. An example would be the some of the .69 caliber US 1842s, a number of which also received long range rear sights when they were rifled.

I think the most common term for what Sir Joseph Whitworth produced was a rifle. Just to muddy the water further (this always confused me), the classic from Claud E. Fuller on the Civil War-era US model rifle-muskets was titled "The Rifled Musket."

 

[gary]

Congratulations.

I doubt if Reynolds was killed by a sharpshooter. It is more likely the bullet was fired by one of Archer's men who overshot at the Iron Brigade and struck Reynolds instead. As for Sedgwick, I don't think Powell slew him. Powell wrote, "I raised my sights and took the chance, and sir, he tumbled right off his horse." Charles Grace may have mentioned shooting an officer off his horse that day too. Sedgwick was on foot when he was slain (see statement of 16th Maine Adj. Albert Small) and this would refute either claim. Absent forensic evidence (like recovery of a sharpshooter bullet), we don't know exactly who fired the fatal bullet.

Re: Sumter, yankees were hit on Oct. 9 and 19th too. Sumter had been reduced to an infantry outpost and relied on other forts to defend it from ironclads. The distance from Sumter to Morris Island was 1390 yards and Confederates atop the ruins of Sumter could observe the Union soldiers working at (former Confederate) Battery Gregg which was on the northern end of Morris Island; facing Sumter's "Gorge" wall. Some distance may be added to the 1390 yards too because it is unlikely that any Union soldier would rest on the beach. It was too dangerous.

You may want to contact The Company of Military Historians and ask the Administrator Dave Sullivan for the article, Sharpshooters as Prisoners. The article examines one soldier's statement that went, "[Sharpshooters] are not likely often to be taken prisoners, as death is considered their just penalty; for as they are very seldom in a position to show mercy, so, in like manner, is mercy rarely shown to them." In fact, I encourage you to join as you seem to be interested in military matters. Its membership is composed of historians, curators, conservators, collectors and ordinary people who have an interest in military history. Either I (and I'm sure CivilWarTalk member Major Bill) will be happy to sponsor you.

Sniper was coined by the English in the 18th Century but the word did not enter common usage until the Boer War. While I've seen it used by Civil War soldiers, they either penned their works after WW I popularized the term or it cannot be determined when they wrote it or whether their editor replaced "sharpshooter" with "sniper." You may want to read the sidebar on page 117 of Sharpshooters: Marksmen Through the Ages.

Last, I wish I had written such an awesome paper when I was your age. If you can land a job with the National Park Service as a park ranger, do it! Get paid to have fun. Keep up the good work and remember, the learn'n never ends.

 

[Drew]

Well, this is a very timely thread, @dplyed06. I spent the better part of my day today at the Baltimore Antique Arms Show at the Maryland State Fairgrounds.

There was a Whitworth rifle on display there (not for sale). I must say, it was a beautiful rifle in near mint condition and the fit and finish was exquisite. I didn't dare ask to handle it (you broke it, you bought it, LOL). I'm kicking myself for not taking a picture of it.

Look forward to reading your paper!

 

[gary]

Regarding the ten companies of sharpshooter armed with Sharps rifle, that would be the First United States Sharp Shooters. The Second United States Sharp Shooters was only eight companies strong and this was because two companies of Massachusetts Sharp Shooters who were to join were given the opportunity to serve alongside Massachusetts regiments (and receive Massachusetts bounty money too). They also received the Sharps. Then the Minnesota company was detached from the 2nd and so it was only seven companies strong. Soldiers of the 13th Pennsylvania Reserves aka 42nd Pennsylvania aka Bucktails also received Sharps. Wiley Sword's book is very good on the subject. There are two very good modern histories of the Andrew Sharp Shooters.

There were earlier precedents of riflemen deliberately shooting officers too. You may want to read up on the British Fifth Battalion, Royal American Regiment or the 60th, later renamed the King's Royal Rifle Corps, the 95 Rifle Regiment, and elements of the King's German Legion. Even before them were the riflemen of the Continental Army and the American militia. The best known victim of the Revolutionary War American rifleman was General Fraser at Saratoga (Freeman's Farm).

 

[ResearchPress]

A good topic for research, and a difficult one from a British perspective in getting access to primary source information. You asked for thoughts... so please see the following and take them in the spirit intended of sharing knowledge.


"The British government was aware of a pressing war, and ordered 23,000 Minié rifles on the opening day of the Exhibition."

You open with reference to the New York Industrial Exhibition of 1853. However, I think that the order you are referring to is that made in June 1851 for 23,000 barrels from several contractors for the P.51 Minié rifle. This was at the time of The Great Exhibition in London's Crystal Palace, May - October 1851, not the New York Exhibition.

The reason Whitworth and other members of the Commission ended up travelling so much in the US was that the opening of the New York exhibition was postponed for several weeks.

"The British government granted the committee 15,000 pounds to outfit the Enfield factory with American machinery."

The context of this sentence infers that it was the British Commission to the New York Industrial Exhibition of 1853 that were outfitting the Enfield factory. The General Report of the British Commissioners was dated December 1853. The purchasing mission was from a different committee, post-dates the report and did not include Whitworth.

The 1851 Minié rifle had a smaller bore (.702) than you note and did not fire a round ball (your note 29).

"Mr. Whitworth was working on developing his rifled cannon at the time, but he made time to help Enfield at the request of the government."

Your time-line is wrong. Whitworth's work on rifled cannon post-dates his work on small-arms.

"He was more than happy to help because he believed he knew the problems with the rifle."
..... ...
"With the conclusion of the visual inspection he knew that he would have to test the rifle in a controlled environment."

Whitworth had no prior work on small arm and did not know the 'problems with the rifle'. He had been requested to help with machinery, but hesitated. He visited gun-makers and found so much contradictory information he could not come to any satisfactory conclusions. His experiments then followed, during which time various barrel length, rifling pitch and bullet length combinations were trialed. It was based on his experiments that he reached his conclusions.

"… he took a step back and reimagined the rifled musket's barrel."

With regards to the polygonal rifling there was no reimagining – others had done this before him.

The 1857 trials took place at the School of Musketry, Hythe – not College Hill Arsenal. Firing was from a machine rest.

"the cost of one Whitworth rifled musket was equal to the price of four Enfield rifled muskets."

Oft repeated and I believe misunderstood. The high cost was for supplying a regiment, and Whitworth had no manufactury of his own at the time for mass production. He had recommended that rifles be mass produced at Enfield, without incurring increased expense, although an additional 5s would be well spent on the barrel.

Testing in 1857/58 is discussed, following which you write off adoption of the Whitworth. Official trials however continued way beyond that date (Government reports were published in 1861, 1863 and 1867). Both the Pattern 1862 and 1863 Whitworth rifles were manufactured (being set up at RSAF Enfield) and were trialled – the latter extensively through troop trials in 1865 & 66.


David

 

[Lanyard Puller]

Thank you, David !

The "Baltimore" Whitworth on display was indeed in excellent condition but is an engraved commercial match rifle, having nothing to do with the British military Whitworths and certainly not a Confederate import. I must admit that I also lust for it also every time I see that display.

 

[UCVRelics]

Great Job and Congrats on a excellent paper and your BA in history.

 

[dplyed06]

Mr. Barry,
I thank you for your comments and your volume series of books was of great help to me for the project. I had seen it both ways and I made a early choice I will have to continue to make adjustments on the paper.
Thank you

 

[dplyed06]

Capt. Gary
Thank you for your reply and clarification. I have requested the article from the Company of Military Historians. I also thank you for your comments. I am very interested in military history. I will have to do more research and expand on this topic further and fill in more details that I had to leave out due to size limits. I have looked into the Parks services for new employment, historian, and archivist jobs something will pan out in time I am sure.

 

[dplyed06]

David from Research Press,
Thank you for many details. I welcome the comments I value them for sure. I will make corrections to paper and thank you for placing me on the correct tracks. I know that a lot of the information had to be restricted and cut back also due to length limits on my project. It will be fun to get back in the books and not have size limits.

 

[dplyed06]

Thank you all for reading the paper and dropping a message one way or the other.

 

[Cpl. Smith]

great paper!