High Hump Richmond Rifle

[rice1817]

Gentlemen:

I have a lead on a James River Armory M1855 Type I Richmond Rifle with the Hoyt barrel. It has the dummy Maynard priming mechanism and uses regular musket caps.

I read where there were complaints from the field that the high hump made for difficult capping, so later models of this rifle cut down the high hump (razeed it) to allow for more capping clearance.

Has anybody had any experience with these, and is capping a problem, or is it only a problem under combat conditions?

 

[jdstrang]

I just got my type I '55 Harper's Ferry rifle tuned in. As you know, it is essentially the same rifle.

The high hump presents two unforeseen issues; neither is insurmountable.

First, capping does require more attention than on any of my other muskets. The hump does interfere with the wings, but not disconcertingly so. A firm push with the thumb sets the cap securely into place -- and there's no risk that a cap will slip off once the wings are wedged against the hump. I have not yet used it in competition, but practice has shown me that this minor obstacle can be overcome easily.

Second, the hump prevents the use of the socket nipple wrench I have used for several years. There's not enough clearance to get the socket around the shoulders. So I went to the local Big Box and bought a nice little quarter-inch open-end wrench, which works fine.

These peculiarities aside, I agree with the folks that the James River Web site [url] http://www.jamesriverarmory.com/Model 1855 Harpers Ferry Rifles.htm[/url]
mentions as finding the '55 rifle the most attractive of all the CW firearms. It is beautiful in both form and function, and mine -- not a James River but with a Whitacre barrel that follows the original 3-groove, progressive 1-72 rifling -- shoots as good as it looks.

I'm not sure why they ground the humps off, but it would make sense that, after the Maynard system proved itself unsuitable for combat and hand-capping became a necessity, the easiest solution would be simply to do away with the interfering hump.

 

[jaxenro]

My understanding from reading somewhere is the original Richmond rifles were made on captured tooling and as they didn't have access to the Maynard primers they eliminated the hump as the original dies wore out to ease and speed production as it was useless to them anyway.

 

[rice1817]

Seems like a bit of a pain, but the price is sure right. I also read that the original Richmond muskets were made from battlefield captures and parts from the Harpers Ferry Arsenal. That is why they used the 1855 locks but with no tape primers, they just used caps. Later, when they started making their own locks from the captured tooling, they kept the high hump plate but left out the mechanism for the primer, and then finally got rid of the hump.

 

[Tumblernotch]

That's right. The second pattern or "low hump" was a result of the use of new dies. I have a Richmond that I had built in '83 with the low hump. I've been going through the "Official Records" looking for any correspondence concerning the change. I really don't know why the Richmond Armory didn't use the new tooling believed to be at Harper's Ferry for the '61 Model unless they didn't want to retool the stocking machines to cut a different lock mortise for a different lock. There is a little more wood removed for a humpback plate than for a standard plate. I also read somewhere years ago (and am looking for that source) that they shortened the height of the lock to save iron. That would make sense and combined with wanting to leave metal where a gap would be in the wood if they made a standard type plate could explain the "low hump" plate. And, it would also be easier to cap. (I'll look for any correspondence concerning that too). It seems to me though that it would have been simpler and cheaper to set the mortising machines up to cut out the stock for the regular plate. But, that's just me.

When Virginia loaned the rifle machinery to North Carolina to be used at Fayetteville, that armory also used dies for the '55 (high hump), then shortened or lowered the hump. After 1862, you see that the Fayetteville lock had basically the same shape as the 1861 Model as well as a distinctive S-shaped hammer. It is believed by some that Fayetteville actually received the lock plate dies intended for the manufacture of the M1861 rifles and muskets. I'm still looking for any proof of that. It is entirely possible because the design change was made in 1860 and tooling was being made for the new model by the time the Virginia troops captured the Armory.

There was great concern among both the Virginia and Confederate Ordnance Dept.'s dealing with what machinery was sent to Richmond and what was sent to Fayetteville. There is quite a bit of correspondence between the departments as well as the Secretary of War and the Governor of Virginia and some of it got a little bit heated, especially as concerned the Virginia Ordnance chief, Dimmock. (The machinery was owned by Virginia as it had captured it as soon as the convention ratified the Articles of Secession). Virginia then loaned the rifle machinery to North Carolina. The Confederate War Dept. wanted to send the musket machinery farther south where it would be safer, but Virginia said "Either use it in Richmond or not at all." Later of course, it was turned over to the Central government with the provision that after the War it would revert to state ownership.

If it wasn't for James Burton along with Solomon Adams, neither weapon would have probably been made. There was also a lot of concern that tools belonging to the musket factory would be sent to North Carolina and rifle making tools would be kept at Richmond and Burton had to make sure that armorers were on hand to sort things out because anyone else wouldn't know the difference. They had their hands full keeping everything sorted out so that each plant had the proper tools and machinery. All turned out well and the two factories turned out the best homegrown weapons the Confederacy made.

 

[rice1817]

Ranger, let me ask you this: I ended up buying the rifle....could not pass it up at the price he was asking....but why would JRA put a non-functioning Maynard primer door on this piece? If it is supposed to represent a firearm made from captured stores, would not the trapdoor be functional? I am asking JRA if it is possible, and even NSSA legal, to exchange the lock with the non-functioning door for one with just the high hump and no door. I realized that you cannot get Maynard primers, and there is really no use for a functioning door, but still it would be nice to have an exact copy and not one that is made up cosmetically to be an exact copy.

 

[jdstrang]

It's less expensive to put a "dummy" (non-opening) Maynard door on the lockplate, for one thing. Good repro lockplates with functioning Maynard doors cost several bucks more.

Most JRA CW rifles - and all of those advertised as skirmish guns - are N-SSA sanctioned as they come from the shop. He is careful to get board approval before offering them. Subbing out a high-hump plate with no door would threaten its N-SSA acceptability, but you should check with the association's Small Arms Committee, John Holland chair, for the definitive answer. He can easily be reached under the Civil War Arms section of the N-SSA bulletin board at:[url] http://www.n-ssa.net/phpbb[/url]/

 

[Tumblernotch]

I'm like you in that I would prefer a gun with all the parts working as in the originals. But you and pappabear both answered that question. If the primers are not available why make the lock fully functional? There are several extra parts required in a Maynard lock and it would cost substantially more to produce. I've heard that somebody has actually trimmed toy cap pistol tape and used it in a Maynard lock. However, how well that would work depends on whether the spacing of the primer lines up with the timing of the lock. Also, the quality of cap pistol tape is very low and other than demonstrating how it works would be pretty worthless.

Some of the early "Richmond" muskets were fabricated using parts on hand at Harpers Ferry and included the Maynard lock. Some of these were locks though milled for the roll of tape, were missing internal parts and the slit where the tape came out over the cone was not milled out. In other words, they were non-functioning locks.

I don't know how the N-SSA feels about exchanging plates, but if you put a high hump plate on there, all you are doing is turning a '55 into a pre '62 Richmond. (If yours is a 3 band rifle musket. If it's a 2 band [brass] rifle, you're converting to a pre '62 Fayetteville rifle). A high hump Richmond is simply marked "Richmond VA" toward the front of the plate at the bottom with the date "1861" behind the hammer. The "low hump" plate evolved in 1862 and those have "CS" added over "Richmond VA" after the Central Gov. took over the armory. You shouldn't have any problem with approval if you're shooting in competition, but as pappabear says, you might want to check about that. The Richmond is a direct copy of the Harpers Ferry rifle-musket, but there were some variations in materials used. For instance, some Richmonds had brass buttplates, while many used iron, &c.

Also, a small handful of early Harpers Ferry made Confederate muskets had unmarked plain high hump plates and Eli Whitney Jr. made some high hump contract muskets that look exactly like the Richmond. He did the same thing the Confederates did and simply used unmilled Maynard plates.