1816 Springfield Question

[FlinterNick]

I’m doing a little research on the 1816 Springfield Musket. The musket produced in the highest numbers in the USA.

The musket borrowed a lot of designs from the French Charleville 1777 model with several differences.

The shorter 42 inch barrel and a button head ramrod.

So the stock was heavily modified to a more straight profile.

Why was the comb so shallow or non-existent ? Was this found to improve aiming ? Or was this so that more guns could be manufactured from walnut heartwood ?

Thanks

 

[Le Loup]

I’m doing a little research on the 1816 Springfield Musket. The musket produced in the highest numbers in the USA.

The musket borrowed a lot of designs from the French Charleville 1777 model with several differences.

The shorter 42 inch barrel and a button head ramrod.

So the stock was heavily modified to a more straight profile.

Why was the comb so shallow or non-existent ? Was this found to improve aiming ? Or was this so that more guns could be manufactured from walnut heartwood ?

Thanks

Military muskets were not designed to be aimed, only pointed. This was because of the method used at the time of mass firing from a line into a mass of enemy military. No training in accuracy was required, as in the previous use of the bow.
Keith.

 

[Artificer]

So the stock was heavily modified to a more straight profile.

Why was the comb so shallow or non-existent ? Was this found to improve aiming ? Or was this so that more guns could be manufactured from walnut heartwood ?

Thanks

Hi Nick,

First, the British Army began actively training their Soldiers to actually aim their muskets around the time of the FIW. Shooting Contests were often held where the winners received small cash prizes, a pouch of tobacco and some other rewards from their Company or Regimental Commanders. So the old myth that during the AWI, Americans actually aimed their muskets and British Regulars merely pointed their muskets, is just not historically accurate. Also, General Mad Anthony Wayne in his famous "Boot/Recruit" Training Camp "Legionville" near present day Pittsburgh, PA - also concentrated to some serious degree on marksmanship training (for the period) with his Musket armed Troops in the Winter of 1792/3.

I'm sure you are aware part of the reason British Ordnance straightened the stocks on the P1756 Brown Bess was both a cost savings measure and also as a way to lighten the stocks. That plus the Straight Grain of the "Walnut Tree Plank" wood - made the stocks structurally stronger and more resistant to cracking/breaking in Bayonet Fighting and even the normal wear and tear in garrison and combat action. When they straightened the stock, that also meant they had to lower the comb so the Soldier would not get bashed in the cheek during recoil.

Of course the M1795 and further American Muskets were copied after various styles of French Muskets, also with straighter stocks, but no doubt for the same reasons we can document the British did it. Since I cannot read/write French, I have not been able to document this from French Sources. Perhaps other Forum Members can do it?

In North America, our Black Walnut is not quite as sturdy as the "English Walnut" used by British Ordnance. Our Hard/Sugar Maple is very close to English Walnut in the qualities desired for a gun stock, but even fully realizing this, the American government chose Black Walnut as the Most Preferred Wood for gun stocks on our Martial Arms from the M1795 right up through the M14. In all that time, there was an American Ordnance demand for straight grain stocks, again for structural strength and resistance to damage. (The only time they HAD to stray from that policy was during WWII, when there just wasn't enough straight grain wood for the millions of M1 Garands and other small arms needed.)

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

Good info Gus.

I have the Long Land Patterns by Kit Ravensheer. The 1740 musket did have a slightly lower comb and drop. I think there were a few reasons for that design. One the forestock was beefed up because the steel rammer allowed for a smaller diameter rod hole, so it would increase the wood between the rod channel and the forestock, this of course required a new cut pattern, so lifting the butt stock to a higher profile deliberalty gave the ordance more stocks from a single perceive of heartwood walnut. Having held both patterns, you really don’t get the feel that the 1756 is harder to shoot than the 1740 with a single round, HOWEVER the 1756 does have at least 1.5 extra lbs of weight on it because the stock was overal larger, and the lock was slightly bigger too, the casted pipes were thicker and the steel rod added more weight. The 1740 musket has a lot of wood, but the larger diameter wooden rod makes the musket much more of a Fowler like feel, with a weight of around 9 - 9.5 lbs, the 1740 is a nice musket to shoot with decent balance. One other thing about the 1740 pattern that shifted to the 1756 pattern was the ‘transitional’ Brown Bess long land of 1746/1748. Some ordance contractors were making the 1740 with a steel rammer, they simply did this by taking a 1740 pattern stock and drilling a smaller rodhole, later pattterns were also designed with a more customized stock pattern, with the butt stock shape my best prerogative is that these were very expensive to make with the 1740 lock and stock. The 1756 was just more cost effective, everything was straightened, the lock, the stock etc. The 1756 Long Land is very much a beast of musket, I once saw an auction for a Coach Harness / Kit Ravensheer 1756 Bess, this used the 1762 Pedersoli Grace Lock, an absolutly stunning musket.

The American Springfields I find are more direct copies of the French Locks. The barrels and stocks are similar but smaller in size. The only thing that puzzled me was the 1816’s total lack of a comb I would think that would make the gun easier to aim but raising the butt higher would force the muzzle down, so I never understood the profile of the 1816, in fact I see the 1835 and 1840 muskets as a perfection of the 1816, they dropped the butt a little and raised the comb, allowing for a more straight shot. The French on the other hand kept the larger butt stock with the cheek recess profile.

Nick

 

[DEROS]

The American Springfields I find are more direct copies of the French Locks. The barrels and stocks are similar but smaller in size. The only thing that puzzled me was the 1816’s total lack of a comb I would think that would make the gun easier to aim but raising the butt higher would force the muzzle down, so I never understood the profile of the 1816, in fact I see the 1835 and 1840 muskets as a perfection of the 1816, they dropped the butt a little and raised the comb, allowing for a more straight shot. The French on the other hand kept the larger butt stock with the cheek recess profile.

Nick--The buttstock comb of the Model 1816 Springfield was not eliminated, but in fact extended forward to intersect with the wrist. This was done because the Ordnance Dept felt that this area of the stock was weak and prone to breakage. For a lengthy discussion of the Model 1816 Springfield see pages 78 thru 100 of Kent Johns book Springfield Armory Infantry Muskets 1795-1844 published in 2015 by Mowbray Publishing

 

[Artificer]

Nick--The buttstock comb of the Model 1816 Springfield was not eliminated, but in fact extended forward to intersect with the wrist. This was done because the Ordnance Dept felt that this area of the stock was weak and prone to breakage. For a lengthy discussion of the Model 1816 Springfield see pages 78 thru 100 of Kent Johns book Springfield Armory Infantry Muskets 1795-1844 published in 2015 by Mowbray Publishing

I just purchased my copy while visiting Springfield Armory National Historical Site, two Fridays ago. It goes the same kind of voluminous photographic details as "The Brown Bess" by Goldstein and Mowbray and is the reason why I purchased it. It is an amazing book and well worth adding to one's library, if interested in American Martial Flintlock Muskets.

Gus

 

[Stantheman86]

Like pretty much every military weapon, design changes usually = Cost Saving.

The reasons for the change were all outlined above but also, I think the Ordnance Dept just wanted a simpler , beefier musket. The nicely turned wrist area of the 1795 was just not required and wasted man hours.

The era of the Industrial Revolution was in full swing and we wanted to streamline the arms making process vs the old way of making "pretty and classy French based" weapons, even though the 1816 was still based on French designs.

 

[DEROS]

The reasons for the change were all outlined above but also, I think the Ordnance Dept just wanted a simpler , beefier musket. The nicely turned wrist area of the 1795 was just not required and wasted man hours.

During the development stage of the M1816 at Springfield and Harpers Ferry Roswell Lee, Superintendent at Springfield, wrote a letter,dated Aug.6 1816,to John Stubblefield Superintendent at Harpers Ferry concerning the design of three prototypes made at Springfield and sent to Harpers Ferry. "The comb of the Stock is extended about an inch & half, with a view to strengthening the handle of the Musket where it frequently breaks."--Springfield Armory Infantry Muskets 1795-1844, page 147

This was the first documented reference to extending the comb of the stock.

 

[Stantheman86]

Anyone who has been in the military knows that "Joe" will find a way to break anything and you see some weapons with damage that leave you smacking your head.......

Joe apparently existed in the 1810s

"We have to move these heavy crates.....let's use our muskets"

 

[DaveC]

If you manage to go visit Springfield Armory in Massachusetts you'll be interested to see that starting in the 1820s and 1830s... Unless I'm mistaken... A water-powered machine driven by leather belts was developed to carve stock blanks by machine. A metal version of the future stock had various rollers moving around it, which in turn operated a series of cutting blades that worked on the rough-cut piece of walnut in the machine. This was a source of wonderment to European visitors, who marveled at much else in the American system of manufacturing and Yankee ingenuity.

Note too that the stock screws never changed as long as walnut stocks were used... Down to the M1 Garand!

 

[DEROS]

If you manage to go visit Springfield Armory in Massachusetts you'll be interested to see that starting in the 1820s and 1830s... Unless I'm mistaken... A water-powered machine driven by leather belts was developed to carve stock blanks by machine. A metal version of the future stock had various rollers moving around it, which in turn operated a series of cutting blades that worked on the rough-cut piece of walnut in the machine. This was a source of wonderment to European visitors, who marveled at much else in the American system of manufacturing and Yankee ingenuity.

Note too that the stock screws never changed as long as walnut stocks were used... Down to the M1 Garand!

That machine was developed by Thomas Blanchard in 1821-1822. It is a Tracer Lathe. Blanchard also developed other machines for Springfield using tracer technology such as vertical milling machines to mill the stock for the triggerguard, buttplate, and inletting for the lock. Blanchard worked for Whitney and Asa Waters, before going to Springfield.

 

[Stantheman86]

That's amazing that they had that technology back then, also I had noticed that it seems as if every US long arm shared at least some parts with its predecessor, such as stock screws, sling swivels, etc.

 

[Stantheman86]

The 1835, 1840 and 1842 may have been produced with later rifling/sighting in mind?

Also different shooting stances, I know the British used a "square" stance (ideally under perfect conditions) and Americans used a "boxer" style stance that is still trained today. This may affect decisions for the comb of the stock.

Since our first Infantrymen were trained by the Prussians and French I assume we obviously would copy their Drill and Ceremony, and shooting style.

It's obvious why we copied French muskets, since that's what we had used originally. I think the influence of the French muskets carried through all the way into the rifle-musket era, with the barrel bands, band springs, Armory Bright finish and stock style, as far as actual Springfield produced, line Infantry weapons. We used .69's in some capacity until 1865, making it our longest serving caliber to date, almost making the 100 year mark.

 

[FlinterNick]

Ok, I got the understanding now of the 1816 stock's engineering and design with the extended comb to bolster up the stock wrist, the French were similar in this design with the 1777 pattern, hence the reason for the cheek recess cutout. I'm not sure how that would have reduced the risk of stocks breaking, though .... that point of most guns is just inevitably weaker and a lot more depends on the cut of the walnut stock, when it was cut, how long it sat out and how much sap is in the wood.

The French would let their wood sit out for 6-7 years before using for stocks, this would eliminate most needless sap weight for a denser stock.

The handrail buttstock / comb shape of the Charleville 1763 and the 1795 Springfields was designed for shooter comfort, the handrail acted much like a cheek rest. The 1763 Charleville actually had a very large bulbous buttock that was reduced for aiming and found to be very comfortable, later generations of charlevilles 1766 were sent to America in the AWI and favored for this reason

The 1795 Springfields were not too far off from the Charlevilles of 1763 and 66, the handrail shape of the buttstocks were not as profound.

I held a Pedersoli 1816 at a shop and found it to be much less comfortable to shoot than a navy arms Charleville, the butt stock just doesn't have a natural feeling to it because the comb height is not there, the comb length is there ! as many of you pointed out which helps bolster the gunstock at the cost of being a more comfortable shooter.

The 1840 flintlock musket I have never tried and am considering for my next kit project from the Rifle shoppe.

I'll have to grab that book too by Springfield.

 

[DEROS]

In the 18th and 19th Centuries, when the troops performed what was called the "Exercise of the Musket", they would hit the buttplate hard on the ground when performing, what I learned in 1968, as "order arms". I'm sure that was the cause of a lot of breakage of the stock at the wrist.

 

[Stantheman86]

This carried through into the Military School and ROTC stuff, because to this day the State College ROTC programs use old M1 Garands with brown plastic stocks, because years and hundreds of Cadets slamming rifle butts down during drills was breaking stocks.

 

[Artificer]

That machine was developed by Thomas Blanchard in 1821-1822. It is a Tracer Lathe. Blanchard also developed other machines for Springfield using tracer technology such as vertical milling machines to mill the stock for the triggerguard, buttplate, and inletting for the lock. Blanchard worked for Whitney and Asa Waters, before going to Springfield.

The one at Springfield Armory is indeed a Blanchard and dated 1828. I first saw it when I first visited the NHS site in 1984, but they only had the basic "frame" of the machine back then. Later on they restored more parts including the "wooden barrel" near the bottom and I have to say I did not know what that was for and it "bugged" me for a long time. Very, VERY fortunately they had a retired Mechanical Engineer who does volunteer work there, explaining some machines they have in a roped off display area and I ran across him during the after hours reception a couple weeks ago. After I gave him more info on their barrel straightening machine, I asked him about the Blanchard. Turns out that "wooden barrel" is a gear reduction device and I could have kicked myself for not thinking of that before. Had a GREAT time talking to that retired Mechanical Engineer during that reception.

I had read of the "Water Shops" at Springfield many times over the years, but never quite realized the extent of them. This time, we drove "behind" the Armory Complex to see if there was any evidence of them still remaining. Though the land is now streets and business/residential, there remains a depression where probably the water storage pond was for the Upper Water Shop. The Mechanical Engineer talked about how each day the sluice gates were opened for the water to flow, turn the water wheels and run the belt driven trip hammers and other machinery. What I didn't realize was as the water ran off the first water wheel for the Upper Water Shop, it filled the water storage for the Middle Water Shop and thus powered those water wheels. Then as the water ran off the Middle Water Wheel/s, the water run off filled the water storage pond for the Lower Water Shop. All this in the early "Teens" of the 19th century through the 1820's and beyond. They were still using the Water shops for production in WWII.

Gus

 

[DEROS]

[QUOTE="
I had read of the "Water Shops" at Springfield many times over the years, but never quite realized the extent of them. This time, we drove "behind" the Armory Complex to see if there was any evidence of them still remaining. Though the land is now streets and business/residential, there remains a depression where probably the water storage pond was for the Upper Water Shop. The Mechanical Engineer talked about how each day the sluice gates were opened for the water to flow, turn the water wheels and run the belt driven trip hammers and other machinery. What I didn't realize was as the water ran off the first water wheel for the Upper Water Shop, it filled the water storage for the Middle Water Shop and thus powered those water wheels. Then as the water ran off the Middle Water Wheel/s, the water run off filled the water storage pond for the Lower Water Shop. All this in the early "Teens" of the 19th century through the 1820's and beyond. They were still using the Water shops for production in WWII.

Gus[/QUOTE]
The last time I was at the Armory, which was 2015, they still had a diorama of the Watershops. I used to fish in the Watershops pond when I was a kid.

 

[Artificer]

[QUOTE="
They were still using the Water shops for production in WWII.

Gus

The last time I was at the Armory, which was 2015, they still had a diorama of the Watershops. I used to fish in the Watershops pond when I was a kid.[/QUOTE]

It was surrounded by the hill and enough shade trees it would still be a nice place to fish, but I think the pond is dry now.

Wished I had seen the diorama of the Water Shops in the Museum. I didn't have a lot of time to look this trip, though, so I probably walked right past it.

Gus

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Thomas Blanchard was a prolific inventor and highly successful with his designs for wood turning of complex shapes from ax handles to gun stocks.

As far as the Blanchard stock turning lathe, at one time, the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C had a complete example set up and capable of operation. In fact, they had a video of it in operation running as part of the display when I was last there about 15 or 20 years ago. This example may well have been the one now on display at Springfield.