Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Was: 1812 Firearms issued to non-Federal US troops/ accuracy

Expand Messages
  • d_squared6
    Ok-- I have been watching this off and on all day and decided I have nothing better to do than jump in.... Larry-- Accuracy can very well start with
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Ok-- I have been watching this off and on all day and decided I have nothing better to do than jump in....

      Larry-- Accuracy can very well start with vocabulary. While some poor folks may still have had the misfortune to be issued the now-ancient French-made flintlocks created at the late Royal arsenal at Charleville, it is likely that most of those would have passed on by 1812. Yes....I have seen original 1812-vintage weapons with "Charleville" still stamped on them, so don't bother splitting hairs. Yes, there were some. That being said, most US, musket-toting types were using a US musket manufactured in one of the US arsenals-- Springfield, MA or Harpers Ferry, Va. So let's leave the Charleville talk to the Rev. War or F&I community, shall we?

      That being finished, ideally militia units in the US were supposed to be issued weapons from federal stores when "federalized." Obviously this did not always happen, but if one cannot find specific information on the unit one is doing, it is a good premise from which to start. Ironically, there were more than a few Americans using Brown Besses as well-- the US had bought up a bunch in the early 19th century. Artillery men in particular seem to have gotten these-- and we all know about artillerymen having bigger balls, so I won't go there. Congratulations....you're .06 caliber (or so) less dead if you are hit by an American musket ball.....whatever.

      That the Royals would have accepted captured weapons that didn't take the ammunition they had (and with little opportunity to replenish) suggests that they would have been in dire straits indeed. Maybe they were.....I haven't done the research on that. But isn't all this missing the spirit of the original question?

      Thanks for getting moose poo on us Mark!

      D2




      L2 wrote:

      > With the capture of Fort Detroit, the Crown Forces captured many stands of US weapons (Charlevilles) were issued to units stationed in Southwestern Ontario. It is not a stretch that the 1st (Royal Scots) Regiment may have gotten some of these weapons.. . . >
      > Yrs.,
      > L2
      >
      >
    • Ray Hobbs
      List: This post does not deal with British regulars, but with militia - the 1st Lincoln to be precise. It is also documented, a feature which is often missing
      Message 2 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        List:
        This post does not deal with British regulars, but with militia - the 1st Lincoln to be precise. It is also documented, a feature which is often missing in such discussion. In Feb. 1813 two companies of the 1st Lincs were issued with French muskets. Four months earlier, in Nov. 1812, there is a list of ammunition - either English or French. The origin of these muskets is not documented, and therefore is not speculated.
        Yr Humble and Obedt. Svt
        Ray Hobbs, Maj.
        AdC to Col Williams


        RG 8, Series �C�, Vol. 1701, p. 230

        The State of Arms and Accoutrements of Capt. Laws Company

        Muskets 28 All french except one
        Bayonets 28 half of which do not fit well
        Scabbards 28 16 of which have no belts
        Cartridge Boxes 28 12 of which are Belly Boxes
        The Muskets are all in good repair

        Feby. 2nd 1813 M. McClellan, Capt.

        State of Arms and Accoutrements Capt. McClennan�s Company

        Muskets 34 All french
        Bayo0nets 34 11 of which do not fit
        Scabbards 26 3 of which have no belts
        Cartridge Boxes 34 11 of which are Belly Boxes and have no straps.

        4 Muskets are out of Repair in the Locks

        2nd Feby, 1813 Martin McClennan, Capt.
        1st Regt. Lincoln Mil.


        RG 8, Series �C�, Vol. 1701, p. 217

        Return of Ammunition issued xxx two kegs French English

        Rounds of
        French English
        Capt. James Crooks � 300
        � John McEwen � 100
        � John Jones 192 �
        � Martin McClennan 30 `�
        � George Ball` 320 �

        20 Nov. 1812.


        To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
        From: ucpm_gunner@...
        Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:18:53 +0000
        Subject: Re: Was: 1812 Firearms issued to non-Federal US troops/ accuracy




























        I am forced to agree with Kevin. It is not reasonable in any way to assume that a single soldier in any British unit (or small minority of soldiers), would have been allowed to carry a weapon for which the unit's standard issued ammunition was not useable. Perhaps in the heat of a battle, a soldier might pick up a discarded enemy musket and use it, but he would dispose of it afterward, or more likely, it would be confiscated.



        It would be far more likely that British militia units might have been equipped from old stores of 2nd pattern Besses. In the event that a militia unit would be equipped with captured weapons, they would almost certainly have been universally issued to at least one identifiable sub-unit (ie. a company) to ensure ammunition interchangeability.



        Dale



        --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Windsor <kevin.windsor@...> wrote:

        >

        >

        > HUGE STRETCH!!!! MONSTER STRETCH!!!!



















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • d_squared6
        Ray-- Thank you for once again being a voice of reason. And thanks for the interesting documentation. Yes....always nice to have real proof of what one is
        Message 3 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Ray--

          Thank you for once again being a voice of reason. And thanks for the interesting documentation. Yes....always nice to have "real" proof of what one is wagging one's tongue about. I particularly enjoyed the comments about the various accoutrements-- bayonets that don't fit muskets, cartridge and belly boxes without straps, etc. etc. Sounds like these guys worked at an historic site!! I wonder what reaction would accompany a group of fellows who dared to turn out to an event, based on such documentation.....more moose poo I suspect. Thanks again!

          D2
        • larrylozon
          Dale Go to www.fortyfirst.org Click on HISTORY Scroll down to A Detroit Prize List This portion includes the Staff, 41st, 49th, Royal Newfoundland
          Message 4 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Dale

            Go to www.fortyfirst.org
            Click on "HISTORY"
            Scroll down to "A Detroit Prize List"

            This portion includes the Staff, 41st, 49th, Royal Newfoundland Fencibles, and two lists relating to the 1st Essex Militia. This transcription therefore does not contain information for the Royal Artillerymen who were present; nor for sailors of the Provincial Marine ..."

            What is also not listed is that many Militias that were issued cast off 41st coats (in order to fool the USA Troops that the attackers were British Regulars) were charged the amount of a new red coat.

            I hope this helps

            My research has nothing of how the soldiers issued the Charlevilles were grouped.

            Yrs.,
            L2


            --- "Dale" wrote:

            "Is there any record of how the soldiers issued the Charlevilles were grouped?..."
          • James
            ... [snip] ... A scrupulous regard for honesty, and the honour of my Regiment, the 41st, requires me to state: 1) I have never come across a record of any
            Message 5 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "larrylozon" [snip]
              > How did the 41st Regiment exist at Fort Malden with tents marked US4th and Charleville muskets?
              >
              [snip]
              >
              > Records State: August 15-16, 1812, capture of Ft. Detroit by
              > 41st Regt., 49th Regt., [and a bunch of fencible and militia units]


              A scrupulous regard for honesty, and the honour of "my" Regiment, the 41st, requires me to state:

              1) I have never come across a record of any sort indicating that members of the 41st Regiment were issued American muskets. They helped *capture* many stands of same at Fort Detroit, but that is not the same as having these arms issued to members of the 41st for use in combat.

              2) the main strike force of the Right Division (being a varying number of companies of the 41st) was usually billeted in buildings in Sandwich, not stationed at Fort Malden, for the relevant periods during the war postdating the capture of Detroit, namely, August 1812 to September 1813. I have no idea where any captured American tents might have ended up, but they were not being utilized by the 41st. When the Right Division besieged Fort Meigs in April/May 1813, it is recorded that they had no tents or shelter at all, other than what crude shelters could be improvised from materials at hand.

              3) the 49th's contribution to the capture of Detroit consisted of General Brock's batman. And of course General Brock himself, although by that point he was acting in the capacity of a general officer hence not attached to any specific regiment...

              Jim Yaworsky
              41st
            • Mark Dickerson
              Just to clarify, I never stated that the Royal Scots were issued French muskets. I said that I as a re-enactor, carried a French musket for the 12 years that
              Message 6 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Just to clarify, I never stated that the Royal Scots were issued French
                muskets. I said that I as a re-enactor, carried a French musket for the 12
                years that I was in the line before my elevation to officer status.



                I guess my point is, that if a new group of people from Rev War want to
                start up a militia unit from the United States and participate in the 1812
                bicentennial events, then (IMHO) using a second pattern bess, or a
                charleville would be acceptable. It saves the cost of buying a new
                Springfield or later patter of Brown Bess, and the public and re-enactors
                most likely will not be able to see the difference.



                Mark Dickerson







                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • tom4141fournier
                When reviewing the Procter Court Martial manuscripts and also American accounts of the pursuit up the Thames; came across the fact that the Right Division had
                Message 7 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  When reviewing the Procter Court Martial manuscripts and also American accounts of the pursuit up the Thames; came across the fact that the Right Division had stacked a large number of American muskets in a bullding just outside of modern day Chatham (Bowles..I think ...). The Americans put out the fire and regained many of their muskets lost at Detroit.

                  They had been lugged around but not necesaarily every used ...

                  Tom


                  --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "James" <yawors1@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "larrylozon" [snip]
                  > > How did the 41st Regiment exist at Fort Malden with tents marked US4th and Charleville muskets?
                  > >
                  > [snip]
                  > >
                  > > Records State: August 15-16, 1812, capture of Ft. Detroit by
                  > > 41st Regt., 49th Regt., [and a bunch of fencible and militia units]
                  >
                  >
                  > A scrupulous regard for honesty, and the honour of "my" Regiment, the 41st, requires me to state:
                  >
                  > 1) I have never come across a record of any sort indicating that members of the 41st Regiment were issued American muskets. They helped *capture* many stands of same at Fort Detroit, but that is not the same as having these arms issued to members of the 41st for use in combat.
                  >
                  > 2) the main strike force of the Right Division (being a varying number of companies of the 41st) was usually billeted in buildings in Sandwich, not stationed at Fort Malden, for the relevant periods during the war postdating the capture of Detroit, namely, August 1812 to September 1813. I have no idea where any captured American tents might have ended up, but they were not being utilized by the 41st. When the Right Division besieged Fort Meigs in April/May 1813, it is recorded that they had no tents or shelter at all, other than what crude shelters could be improvised from materials at hand.
                  >
                  > 3) the 49th's contribution to the capture of Detroit consisted of General Brock's batman. And of course General Brock himself, although by that point he was acting in the capacity of a general officer hence not attached to any specific regiment...
                  >
                  > Jim Yaworsky
                  > 41st
                  >
                • Mark Dickerson
                  Sometime in the late 1800 s or early 1900 s, the site of the General Myers had been located just outside Chatham. This is one of the gunboats that were burned
                  Message 8 of 22 , Nov 5, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Sometime in the late 1800's or early 1900's, the site of the General Myers
                    had been located just outside Chatham. This is one of the gunboats that
                    were burned by the British. Much of the boat remained preserved in the mud
                    of the river. It was put on display in Chatham where souvenir hunters and
                    the weather quickly destroyed it. BUT, according to local folklore, a very
                    numerous quantity of muskets were also found in the mud. Once again,
                    souvenir hunters made quick work of this discovery. I have no idea if these
                    were also American muskets from Detroit.



                    Mark Dickerson







                    From: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                    Of tom4141fournier
                    Sent: November 4, 2009 5:36 PM
                    To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: 1812 41st and American Muskets





                    When reviewing the Procter Court Martial manuscripts and also American
                    accounts of the pursuit up the Thames; came across the fact that the Right
                    Division had stacked a large number of American muskets in a bullding just
                    outside of modern day Chatham (Bowles..I think ...). The Americans put out
                    the fire and regained many of their muskets lost at Detroit.

                    They had been lugged around but not necesaarily every used ...

                    Tom







                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • James
                    ... One of the reasons Proctor was convicted at his court martial of professional negligence arose from the manner in which he conducted and organized the
                    Message 9 of 22 , Nov 5, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Dickerson" <mdickerson1@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > "Sometime in the late 1800's or early 1900's, the site of the General Myers had been located just outside Chatham. [snip] according to local folklore, a very numerous quantity of muskets were also found in the mud."


                      One of the reasons Proctor was convicted at his court martial of professional negligence arose from the manner in which he conducted and "organized" the retreat of the Right Division after the Battle of Lake Erie. The fun started when he couldn't make a firm decision on how far the Division was going to withdraw.

                      His initial plan was to set up a new base at "the Forks of the Thames", which, in 1813, usually referred to Chatham more often than London. Proctor had fantasies of setting up a new naval base there, and utilizing the "defences" of the spit of land between the Thames and McGregor's creek that is now Tecumseh Park.

                      The fact was, there physically wasn't much at Chatham in 1813, no matter what Proctor's Ordnance maps might have shown, and the supply route down the Thames could be interdicted at will by American landings on the north shore of Lake Erie. Plus, it is doubtful if there was enough "lift" capacity on the Burlington Heights-Brantford-Burford-London-Chatham route to keep the Division and its Indian allies supplied in any event. Eventually, Proctor realized this, and Burford became the next preferred new base, with an interim stop planned for Moraviantown to try and shake off any American pursuit.

                      In the stages when "the plan" was to retreat to Chatham, Proctor had all the supplies of the Right Division laboriously ferried there. This included items like captured American muskets, and some serious naval and "fortress" artillery pieces. Not much food, though. This took several weeks to accomplish, and is one of the contributing reasons why the Right Division would take a pasting at Moraviantown. If Proctor had been realistic from the get-go, the Right Division could have made a clean get-away while Harrison was carefully organizing his offensive after the Battle of Lake Erie.

                      Anyway, after much effort and time being expended in ferrying all these assorted supplies to Chatham, the upshot was that they were all either captured by Harrison's men, or dumped in the Thames, when it became apparent that setting up shop at Chatham was not going to happen, and a further retreat was necessary. As hard as it had been to get these materials to Chatham, it was impossible to "save" them and move them much further upriver.

                      Witnesses at Proctor's court martial who had actually worked on these supply "arrangements" were, needless to say, not happy about the way things had gone down...

                      Jim Yaworsky
                      41st
                    • usmarine1814
                      No facts here just some rationale that I came up with Perhaps territorial militia were carrying their personal arms. Many of these could have been those
                      Message 10 of 22 , Nov 6, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        No facts here just some rationale that I came up with


                        Perhaps territorial militia were carrying their personal arms. Many of these could have been those carried by them or their family members in the AWI thus a Charleville or even and old committe of public safty weapon is POSSIBLE and PLAUSABLE but I am not sure how PROBABLE.
                        What this makes me think of is Mr. Burns from Gettysburg PA. He is the War of 1812 Militia member who was present at Baltimore in 1814 and then in 1863 participated at Gettysburg(not sure how much.) Yet the photo of him clearly shows the musket he was supposed to have carried to both engagements. It is definately a flintlock. It looks like some sort of private purchase though. Not sure what it is.
                        Just for thought.. no real evidence one way or the other..but Iam sure research could reveal the answers...it often does
                        YHOS
                        Colin Murphy
                        USS CON 1812 MG
                        USMCHC

                        --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, John Ogden <johnjogden@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > We are under the impression that various private contract muskets deriving
                        > from the Springfield (hence French 1768) pattern were being used, but we are
                        > hoping that we can use repro-weapons already in our possession so as to
                        > avoid the extra cash outlay.
                        >
                        > On 11/3/09, richard lytle <richard6616@...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > John,
                        > >
                        > > Try looking for 1795 Harpers Ferry muskets and rifles. I believe that the
                        > > different territorial militia's may have been supplied with them. I think
                        > > that the Mississippi Territorial Militia specifically carried them prior to
                        > > 1812. If my memory is correct, the Harpers Ferry model was actually the
                        > > Springfield model just made at Harpers Ferry but I do not recall the dates
                        > > that production there started.
                        > >
                        > > Richard Lytle
                        > >
                        > > --- On Tue, 11/3/09, John Ogden <johnjogden@...<johnjogden%40gmail.com>>
                        > > wrote:
                        > >
                        > > From: John Ogden <johnjogden@... <johnjogden%40gmail.com>>
                        > > Subject: 1812 Firearms issued to non-Federal US troops
                        > > To: "warof1812" <WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com <WarOf1812%40yahoogroups.com>>
                        > > Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 12:42 PM
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > All,
                        > >
                        > > As a matter of curiosity, I and a few others were wondering if anyone
                        > > could give us some insight (or at least a place to start researching) into
                        > > what patterns of weapons would have been commonly carried by US forces such
                        > > as the Tennessee/Kentucky militia that Andrew Jackson had to find muskets
                        > > for in New Orleans or alternatively what a locally raised unit such as the
                        > > Pittsburgh Blues would have been given. We are operating under the
                        > > assumption that they were using some sort of milspec musket, possibly older
                        > > pieces and designs (but how old: RevWar? F&I? older still?), but this could
                        > > be an error. There are some people down my way looking to get a company up
                        > > and running before the bicentennial of the war overtakes us, and they're
                        > > trying to see how much of their existing kits can be cross-purposed. RevWar
                        > > era firelocks abound, but 1795 Springfields are pretty scarce...
                        > >
                        > > --
                        > > John J. Ogden
                        > >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --
                        > John J. Ogden
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • Sanford
                        I m a new member of this group and have been lurking for a short while. I have been a rev war reenactor for about 12 years in New England but recently moved
                        Message 11 of 22 , Nov 6, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I'm a new member of this group and have been lurking for a short while. I have been a rev war reenactor for about 12 years in New England but recently moved to the mid West and so am pursuing a War of 1812 impression.

                          I have been following this thread with some interest and I would like to comment on the use of the term "Charleville musket" in this time period.

                          This term could well apply to the arms of the US forces around 1812, at least by the US Government. Maj Hicks, in his work "U.S. Military Firearms" (1962) shows a typical contract of 1798 which states:

                          "The said Arms shall be delivered at (BLANK) in the State of (BLANK) and shall be made after the Charleville model. …"

                          The above quote from a contract of 1798 is, of course, a bit early for our period but habit and language die hard.

                          Then, on the 1st of Jan 1799 a receipt from a Mr Rhodes: "Received of John S. Dexter, Supervisor for the District of Rhode Island, One Musquet, with Bayonet complete, of the Charleville pattern, …"

                          Maj Hicks also states under the heading "Contract Muskets of 1808":

                          "It must be kept in mind that the arms manufacturing armories were known at that time as the "Charleville pattern." Then too some of the real French Model 1763 muskets were given out as patterns."

                          Peter Schmidt, in his work "U.S. Military Flintlock Muskets, And Their Bayonets, The early years 1790 – 1815" includes a letter from the Commissary General of Purchases dated 25 May 1812 requesting the storekeeper at Springfield armory, John Chaffee, to provide a complete inventory of all the ordnance at Springfield. In response to this request Mr Chaffee conducted an inventory and stated that there were 70,201 muskets on hand and that 1,406 of them were French, English, and Dutch; he further stated that many muskets required inspection prior to being issued. As a result of this inspection the French muskets seemed to be in better condition than the Springfield muskets.

                          Included in the inventory of Springfield armory completed in 1812, there was a total of 40,391 serviceable "Springfield" muskets (both from the national armory and from contractors) and 1,000 serviceable French muskets.

                          Finally, Mr Schmidt includes a letter dated 19 Dec 1803 from the Superintendents Office, Philadelphia to Geo. Ingels, Military Storekeeper, U S Arsenal [Schuylkill]:

                          "Sir, Be pleased to deliver to Tench Coxe Esqr, Purveyor of public Supplies One Charleville Musket with Bayonet complete, and one good Rifle, also One Bayonet Scabbard with Belt, to be retained in his office as patterns."

                          Mr Schmidt speculates that this musket was most likely one from Harpers Ferry used as a pattern for the 1808 contracts.

                          I realize that the `official' language had changed by 1812, my intention here is to show that the term "Charleville musket" was in use by the US government shortly before 1812 to describe the official muskets and therefore the term may well have still been in general use. In addition, given the fairly large numbers of "French" muskets stored at Springfield there is a very real possibility they were issued to the Army for the war. And of course, all of the muskets up to the Model 1816 were based on the French Mle 1763 Leger (aka: 1766/68) provided in great quantity to the United States during the AWI and generally called "Charleville" regardless of which of the three manufacturies they actually were produced at.

                          John, back to your original question and your statement that Model 1795 Springfields are pretty scarce. You can swap out the lockplate from a Charleville Model 1763 (aka 1766/68) with one from the Rifle Shoppe with just a bit of work. Or, if you want to go with an India gun, www.militaryheritage.com has a Springfield for $560.00 US, and Dixie Gun Works has Petersolis' M 1795 for $1,250.00..

                          Just thought I'd throw my two cents worth in.

                          Sandy Walker
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.