Remington 1863 Zouave vs. Harpers Ferry 1841

[rice1817]

Gentlemen:
After a very good thread in this forum on identifying the pattern 1816 musket, I started looking at pics of Civil War firearms. I noticed a lot of similarity between the Zouave and the 1841 "Mississippi" rifle. The most obvious difference to my layman's eye was in the front barrel band. Other than that, they look just about the same. Both have two bands, similar patchboxes. Any major differences? I am kicking around the idea of picking one of these up with a Hoyt barrel from James River Armory and was looking for some input.

Mark

 

[jdstrang]

Zouaves are among the fine rifles of the period. But If you have the chance, try out the feel of the trigger before you buy.

I mean, the Zouave trigger is set at a different angle than most CW guns (but about the same as a Mississippi) in that it slants rearward more than an Enfield or a Springfield, etc. It gives the feeling that your finger might "slip off" the trigger before the sear breaks.

One way to counter that feeling is to engage the trigger with your finger at its very bottom tip, rather than more towards the center as you might with most rifles. But if that angle doesn't bother you, the guns are otherwise very good.

Doesn't James River produce some splendid pieces? I've had the opportunity to handle every variant he's made in the past three years. Each is a remarkable reproduction. He's truly an up-and-coming period gunmaker.

 

[rice1817]

Local NSSA guy turned me on to them. He has a .54 Mississippi that he showed me. Beautiful work, defarbed, recontoured, all for a very reasonable price. He showed me a "before" piece and the "after" piece and once compared side by side, the differences were obvious.

My question was actually aimed more toward identifying cosmetic differences between the two weapons, not that what you offered was not of value! The trigger issue never occurred to me, but I am sure I can adjust to the style needed to squeeze it properly. On the surface, it just seemed to me that all Remington did was take the 1841 pattern and upgrade a few parts, and change the caliber to .58.

I am not committed to the '41, but I do want a 2-bander. Enfields are out: they do not fit my shooting style with the high comb. I also do not like the rear sight to close to my eye, as I do not focus that well with the sight too close. The Mississipi seems to have the sight further forward than the Springfields. I also like the 1855 Richmond, another 2 bander for that reason, although I am not really partial to the high hump lock on that one for aesthetic reasons.

 

[Tumblernotch]

Hi Mark, At least as far as the originals go, about the only real difference between the M1841 Harpers Ferry and the Zouave were the stock design, ramrod and bands. When Remington produced the "Zouave" (U.S. Model 1862 Rifle), all they did was marry the lock and barrel of the '41 to the stock and furniture of the M1855 Harpers Ferry Rifle. They also used the folding sight found on the '61 rifle musket. The bands, other than being brass are the same as found on the 1863 Type II Springfield. It was a very well made arm, but for some reason was never issued to troops in the field. That's a factor to consider if you want to use one for reenacting or historical impressions. I believe they are still allowed for NSSA competition. Pappa Bear correct me if I'm wrong. From what can be seen, most were exported after the War, but some stayed here. Also, the original 1841's were .54 cal. and were loaded with patched roundball. Many were reamed up to .58 and used with the Minie. I've always preferred the looks of the Mississippi, but the Zouave is more comfortable to aim and shoot, at least to me.

I know how you feel about the Enfields. There's not enough drop in the butt to be comfortable. But they are dandy rifles. I had a Richmond RM made back in '83 long before they were available from the major makers and when I did, I had the option of either the Richmond or the Fayetteville rifle. That was the Confederate version of the M1855 Harpers Ferry rifle made by the machines captured there. At first it was made with the same type "humpback" lock as the Richmond, but after 1862 they started using the standard lock used on the '61-'63 Springfields along with an S- shaped hammer. The guy who built my musket was also offering these and they were beautiful rifles. The 2 band Richmond you speak of would be the musketoon which is basically the same arm, but very few of them were made during the War.

You might ask around and see if anyone is making the Fayetteville with the later lock and hammer. I've not kept up with repro arms producers enough to help you with that. Looks like I need to start catching up. You may also be able to find someone who sells blank locks that you can stamp and maybe even the hammer. It is of a very pronounced and unique curve.

Hope this helps!
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[rice1817]

Thanks, Ranger. That was the type of info I was looking for. :grin: :grin: I already do some F and I re-enacting, but am more interested in the Civil War gun as a shooter.....and from what I am told if you want a shooter you want a Hoyt barreled model from James River!

 

[jdstrang]

If you want to see and handle just about every variant there is of these shootable CW guns, come on down to the 115th Spring Nationals of the N-SSA at Winchester, Va., May 16-20. Visitors are welcomed and encouraged and, while you cannot shoot, you certainly can visit the dozen or so gun-selling sutlers -- including James River. You'll get more hands-on there on a Saturday afternoon than you will in a month of Sundays anywhere else! :grin:

 

[arquebus]

Most of the Mississippi Rifles I've seen have a fixed rear sight, whereas the Zouave has the Springfield-type folding leaf style. I have seen a couple of original M.1841s with the adjustable 'long-range' rear sight, don't know if that would be available after market item, but if it was that would make it a very shootable rifle. I have an as-issued Euroarms Zouave & am very happy with it as far as accuracy goes. Like you, the Enfield stocks don't suit my build, plus I prefer the heavier barrel of the Zouave.

 

[rice1817]

I must have overlooked it the first time through, but JRA is offering indeed offering the Fayettville Rifle with either the early or late model lock. I think that I just may have to mosey down to the next big NSSA shoot and have me a look-around! :thumbsup:

 

[jdstrang]

You for sure won't regret it -- although your wallet might! :rotf:

 

[Tumblernotch]

I wondered if anyone was still building those! It was a beautifully built weapon to start with and the early repros by Blair Taylor, who built my Richmond were the same. He offered it and the Richmond with either walnut or cherry stocks. i chose the Richmond with a cherry stock since I needed a 3 bander anyway. Our unit was in the process of phasing out the short rifle. Like I said, the Fayetteville was simply a copy of the US M1855 Harpers Ferry rifle which with the Maynard primer lock would also be a great addition to a feller's private arsenal!

I'd like to get over to the big shoot at Winchester myself. It's been many years since I've been there and it's a great place to shop as well as watch the competition. I also need to check out this James River Armory and see what all they have. Happy shopping and shooting!

 

[JV Puleo]

You're certainly right about the Zouave not being issued. I've never heard why either. Just recently a photograph surfaced of two soldiers armed with them duiring the war and I once had one in my possession (it wasn't mine) with a good provenance to a Connecticut soldier (it still had the sling, bayonet & scabbard)...I think the photo is a Connecticut regiment also but beyond that there apparently isn't a shread of proof they were issued so the number that did get into circulation must have been tiny. Lots of them were sold after the war as surpluss so a surprising number of them are found in "as new" condition. I've seen at least 4, two of which came from the same house and were known to have been bought in Providence, RI around 1912 from a well known gun shop.
While it probably has no bearing on reproduction arms, its interesting that my old shooting friends, all of whom shot only original guns, were anxious to get a Zouave. It was the only CW rifle that could be found in unfired condition and the assumption was that it would be a great shooer. It didn't turn out that way, for what reason I don't know. Both of the gentlemen I'm thinking of regularly shot M1841 Mississippi's and agreed it was a much more accurate rifle.

Joe Puleo

 

[PanzerOfJustice]

The reason why the Zouave was not issued was that it was too short to fire from the rear rank, and thus infantry couldn't use it. No one had a use so they were kept in storage until after the war when they were given to Native Americans.

 

[tmdreb]

The reason why the Zouave was not issued was that it was too short to fire from the rear rank, and thus infantry couldn't use it. No one had a use so they were kept in storage until after the war when they were given to Native Americans.

I promise I'm not trying to start a fight, but the "too short" explanation relates more to modern reenacting than usage during the ACW. They did use plenty of Mississippi Rifles, for example.

 

[Okwaho]

The reason why the Zouave was not issued was that it was too short to fire from the rear rank, and thus infantry couldn't use it. No one had a use so they were kept in storage until after the war when they were given to Native Americans.

What documentation is there for the proposition that Zoave rifles were given to Indians after the Civil War?It doesn't seem logical that the U.S. Government {an organization not famous for its philanthropic nature toward Indians}would have presented them with large numbers of guns with which to resist the White man from taking their lands.
Tom Patton

 

[DanChamberlain]

What is the twist rate of the repro Mississippi in .54?

Dan

 

[RedFeather]

The reason why the Zouave was not issued was that it was too short to fire from the rear rank, and thus infantry couldn't use it. No one had a use so they were kept in storage until after the war when they were given to Native Americans.

Just finished an excellent, although depressing book about the Apaches. If their experience is any indication of how the US government treated Indians, you can bet they did not issue Zouaves to them. I have heard that a lot may have been sporterized as surplus along with other muskets.

I used to know an old feller who shot (maybe still does) an original Zouave up at Winchester. He said it was quite accurate.

 

[PanzerOfJustice]

As for the documentation, I have none, I heard it from somewhere, that it was a deal in exchange for land or something. I may be incorrect, but remember by this time the zouave was obsolete.

The Harpers Ferry 1841 was used by riflemen and cavalry to an extent, it was not used by line infantry as it was too short. The U.S. Army was in need of weapons for line infantry, not riflemen or cavalry. (They had sharps, etc)

 

[JV Puleo]

I don't seem to remember any significant number of indian used Zouaves being surrendered. I don't doubt that some reached indians but that was because they were sold as sruplus through the big dealers like Schuyler Hartley & Graham who shipped huge numbers of muzzle loaders west well into the 1880s. Hollywood notwhithstanding, relatively few western farmers, ranchers and ordinary folks in general bothered to buy expensive repeaters like the Winchester...muzzle loaders remained in use for many years after the war, and this with substantial numbers of war-time breech loaders also available cheaply.
As to the length thing, I hesitate to say this but I think thats silly. There were all sorts of rifles of approximately the same length including the Mississippi as mentioned above, Austrian rifles and short Enfields in regular use by infantry.
Rifles were not popular with cavalry either although they used them when there was nothing else or they were issued a really terrible carbine of which there were several.
Joe Puleo

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

As for the documentation, I have none, I heard it from somewhere, that it was a deal in exchange for land or something. I may be incorrect, but remember by this time the zouave was obsolete.

The Harpers Ferry 1841 was used by riflemen and cavalry to an extent, it was not used by line infantry as it was too short. The U.S. Army was in need of weapons for line infantry, not riflemen or cavalry. (They had sharps, etc)

The problem with the Remington rifle, the so called Zouave, was that it was not of a standard pattern and repair and maintenance would have been a nightmare, pure and simple. By the time it went into production, the standard rifle musket was in full production by Springfield and a large number of contractors and the non standard weapon was no longer needed.. As far as "too short", that is a reenactorism, the two band M1841 rifle as well as others saw a fair amount of use by the infantry of both sides, especially early in the War. Trained soldiers had no problem using it when fighting in ranks, the problem comes when reenactors who refuse to learn and follow proper dril start popping off blanks in the ears of their front rank compatriots. The full length rifle musket was preferred as for the length of the weapon with bayonet fixed more anything else, the bayonet was still an important and effective weapon on the battlefield at the time and caused far more casualties than many modern historians seem to want to admit.

 

[torn moc]

wow.......