-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Remington 1863 Zouave vs. Harpers Ferry 1841
- Thread starter rice1817
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
The Hoyt-barreled version of the 1841 is rifled 1-60, 7 grooves. This is his standard twist. Seems a little slow for minie balls, but that is what they use in competition! Standard repop (Euroarms) seems to be rifled 1-66, 3 0r 7 groove depending on caliber.
Tumblernotch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 3,370
- Reaction score
- 11
Actually 1 in 60 ain't too slow for the Minie. The original 1855 Rifles and Rifle-muskets were grooved 1 turn in 6 feet. The pistols were grooved 1 in 4. Experiments were made with progressive twist, but it was found that the bullet wanted to strip.
As for the 2 banders being "too short for line infantry" as one of the earlier posters said, I can only agree with VA Man. 06 and some others. Most of the contract arms actually manufactured in the Confederacy were 2 band rifles. Not to mention all the Austrian Lorenz and Jaegers, Enfield Sergeants rifles, etc. Reenactors have a nasty habit of not presenting their pieces according to the Manuals, especially while oblique firing and my old unit was one who phased out the short rifles because of this as well as for the sake of uniformity. I'm sure the same thing happened during the War with inexperienced and excited troops. But remember, the rifle's barrel was only 7 inches shorter than the rifle-musket's, 9 inches shorter than the rifled musket (example: 16's and '42's). That's not a big deal if you watch what you're doing. It can be if you don't. The biggest problem is cap flash and cap fragments. That's where the biggest danger is, and that happens no matter how long the gun is. That cap is LOUD and those fragments do sting!
Joe P. you make some good points there. A lot of surplus made it's way to the farmers both East and West. Cheap reliable weapons. Hundreds of thousands of muskets as well as repeaters also made their way back to Europe being sold to France to use against the Prussians in their little spat and also to "Third World" countries in Africa and South America. In fact, I've read that is where most of the Zouaves went after being smoothbored in a larger caliber. Supposedly they were made into trade guns. Apparently quite a few remained here, but you would think there would be more around.
I guess after the War was going on for a while, the North pretty much armed their cavalry with breechloaders and repeaters, but early on some units would have used ML rifles and carbines. Of course Confederate cavalry used ML's extensively, including rifles. If I remember right the 62nd VA Mounted Infantry even used rifle-muskets, at least a part did. I may be mis-remembering there, if I am, somebody correct me.
And by the way, I've seen what Schuyler, Hartley and Graham and some of the other dealers paid for surplus guns and ammo, and it just about makes me sick. What makes me sicker is that most of those guns that went to Europe stayed there. :cursing:
As for the 2 banders being "too short for line infantry" as one of the earlier posters said, I can only agree with VA Man. 06 and some others. Most of the contract arms actually manufactured in the Confederacy were 2 band rifles. Not to mention all the Austrian Lorenz and Jaegers, Enfield Sergeants rifles, etc. Reenactors have a nasty habit of not presenting their pieces according to the Manuals, especially while oblique firing and my old unit was one who phased out the short rifles because of this as well as for the sake of uniformity. I'm sure the same thing happened during the War with inexperienced and excited troops. But remember, the rifle's barrel was only 7 inches shorter than the rifle-musket's, 9 inches shorter than the rifled musket (example: 16's and '42's). That's not a big deal if you watch what you're doing. It can be if you don't. The biggest problem is cap flash and cap fragments. That's where the biggest danger is, and that happens no matter how long the gun is. That cap is LOUD and those fragments do sting!
Joe P. you make some good points there. A lot of surplus made it's way to the farmers both East and West. Cheap reliable weapons. Hundreds of thousands of muskets as well as repeaters also made their way back to Europe being sold to France to use against the Prussians in their little spat and also to "Third World" countries in Africa and South America. In fact, I've read that is where most of the Zouaves went after being smoothbored in a larger caliber. Supposedly they were made into trade guns. Apparently quite a few remained here, but you would think there would be more around.
I guess after the War was going on for a while, the North pretty much armed their cavalry with breechloaders and repeaters, but early on some units would have used ML rifles and carbines. Of course Confederate cavalry used ML's extensively, including rifles. If I remember right the 62nd VA Mounted Infantry even used rifle-muskets, at least a part did. I may be mis-remembering there, if I am, somebody correct me.
And by the way, I've seen what Schuyler, Hartley and Graham and some of the other dealers paid for surplus guns and ammo, and it just about makes me sick. What makes me sicker is that most of those guns that went to Europe stayed there. :cursing:
PanzerOfJustice
32 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2005
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 0
If you think a 2 bander is too short, then I invite you to be in the front rank and a left or right oblique is ordered. The muzzle will be inches from your face. This is why both governments wanted full length rifle muskets. When the Zouave appeared, the Federal government had more then enough proper length firearms. The Confederacy did not and took whatever they got.
Also the Lorenz Rifle Musket, although having 2 bands, is a full length musket. (47 inches)
Also the Lorenz Rifle Musket, although having 2 bands, is a full length musket. (47 inches)
Tumblernotch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 3,370
- Reaction score
- 11
Well sir, I have been in the front rank many times. The only time we had a problem with muzzle blast was when some nimrod(s) in the rear rank didn't step forward with the proper foot in front when doing oblique facings, or when the rear rank wasn't closed up to the proper interval.
With the musket greater reach with the bayonet was available. Even when the rifle was equipped with the sword bayonet. Also, the fabrication of sword bayonets was much higher and used more material than the angular socket bayonet. In fact, the Confederates quit making the sword bayonets for the Fayetteville rifle and adapted it to use a socket bayonet by 1864. The basic reason that the Federal government opted for the rifle-musket was because of the need for uniformity. Once Springfield and the various contractors got up full production, the War Department started slowing down the import of even musket length arms, especially from Continental makers.
A full length Springfield Rifle musket is 56 inches long with a 40 inch barrel. The rifles made at Harper's Ferry had 33 inch barrels and were 48 3/4 inches long. Almost all contractor made 2 band rifles also had the 33 inch barrel. The '54 Lorenz had a longer 37 1/8 inch barrel but still fell under musket length.
With the musket greater reach with the bayonet was available. Even when the rifle was equipped with the sword bayonet. Also, the fabrication of sword bayonets was much higher and used more material than the angular socket bayonet. In fact, the Confederates quit making the sword bayonets for the Fayetteville rifle and adapted it to use a socket bayonet by 1864. The basic reason that the Federal government opted for the rifle-musket was because of the need for uniformity. Once Springfield and the various contractors got up full production, the War Department started slowing down the import of even musket length arms, especially from Continental makers.
A full length Springfield Rifle musket is 56 inches long with a 40 inch barrel. The rifles made at Harper's Ferry had 33 inch barrels and were 48 3/4 inches long. Almost all contractor made 2 band rifles also had the 33 inch barrel. The '54 Lorenz had a longer 37 1/8 inch barrel but still fell under musket length.
Va.Manuf.06
58 Cal.
Right you are KanawhaRanger! Training is the key and few reenactors have it or care. That is the only reason why most units and all mainstream events have banned the 33" barreled guns for years. Get in there tight and it is fine, but most just refuse to do the work and learn. Just hope the enemy doesn't get there with the bayonet on their longer guns.... :shocked2:
RedFeather
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,306
- Reaction score
- 42
Va.Manuf.06 said:
I haven't measured my Zoli Zouvae with the Dixie Yatagan (sp?) bayonette installed, but it does add quite a mite to the OAL. Things are like short swords! Anyway, they used to do fencing with muskets, so, after the intial engagement, I suppose the butt end was about as important as the other. Thinking about CW warfare tends to make one shivver!
the reason they look so close is because the 41 was used as a patteren for the zouave. only with some improvements; better sights a way to put a bayonet on the rifle. and in standard .58 cal. alot of the old 41's in the north were rebuilt and rerifled to .58.
as far as issue i don't know for sure but i have heard that they went to some reserve troops, that never made it into battle.
as far as giving to the indians i dont think so.
but i did see ads for them in bannerman and kirk catalogs for the people going west. some were bored smothe to use as shotguns.
i had a zouave and was going to shoot nssa and got a lot of greaf about it from the team members. so i sold it and got the 41 now they could not gripe because the 41 was used.
my 41 was an early repo. and it was in .58. it shot well. but then i had hoyt reline it too .54 and it really shoots. it has a 1-48 twist and shoots bullets and patch round ball.
i have handled and shot both the springfield and the enfield. i think the 41 and the zouave are better handeling rifles. easier and faster to load. but then i am 5'8" tall.
as far as issue i don't know for sure but i have heard that they went to some reserve troops, that never made it into battle.
as far as giving to the indians i dont think so.
but i did see ads for them in bannerman and kirk catalogs for the people going west. some were bored smothe to use as shotguns.
i had a zouave and was going to shoot nssa and got a lot of greaf about it from the team members. so i sold it and got the 41 now they could not gripe because the 41 was used.
my 41 was an early repo. and it was in .58. it shot well. but then i had hoyt reline it too .54 and it really shoots. it has a 1-48 twist and shoots bullets and patch round ball.
i have handled and shot both the springfield and the enfield. i think the 41 and the zouave are better handeling rifles. easier and faster to load. but then i am 5'8" tall.
arquebus said:
this is what i was going to point out . . .the original mississippi had a more crude, fixed rear sight. of course some of the later models were fitted w/ a long range rear sight as well. i think james river makes both examples
the zouave/mississippi have a very muzzle-heavy feel . . . my p/h 2-band enfield balances much more evenly. HOWEVER, i have noted that a barrel-heavy feel can be very steady and advantageous for off-hand shooting . . . i started out shooting a zoauve, and i very well may have shot it better overall than my enfield. but the p/h sure is a nice rifle. just own several :grin: :thumbsup:
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2006
- Messages
- 808
- Reaction score
- 18
Does James River Armory have a website? I did a search & found one that sold armour, etc., but no reference to firearms that I could see. Was that the same people?
PS It's ok, I tried again with the correct spelling & found it!!
PS It's ok, I tried again with the correct spelling & found it!!
Tumblernotch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 3,370
- Reaction score
- 11
Hey Arquebus, what's the URL for James River Armory? I did a search too and all I found were references to them but no address. I'd like to see what all they're putting out.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2006
- Messages
- 808
- Reaction score
- 18
Last edited by a moderator:
Tumblernotch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 3,370
- Reaction score
- 11
Thanks a heap! I'll have to check this out. It's not like I can afford anything now anyway but I like to look!
And PappaBear I'll be keerful to turn my head and let the slobber fall to the floor instead of the keyboard. I learned long ago to look at really nice things out of the corner of my eye! :haha:
And PappaBear I'll be keerful to turn my head and let the slobber fall to the floor instead of the keyboard. I learned long ago to look at really nice things out of the corner of my eye! :haha:
From Civil War Guns by William B. Edwards, page 195:
"Remington's War Contribution
But it was not carbines, but rifles and muskets of the more conventional form, on which Remington's contribution to the Union cause must stand. It was on the Harper's Ferry modified, sometimes called "1862 Remington rifle" and the Springfields at $17, that Remington in causing prices to fall all along the line made his presence felt.
First came the famous Zouave rifles. Though most Zouave regiments went into battle in 1861 and 1862 with foreign arms or transformed Springfields, the title "Zouave rifle" has clung to this special weapon. It is much like the elegant French "Chasseurs de Vincennes" rifle in style and bright brass trim, so the name is apt if the association is not. Actual issue of the special Remingtons is not properly documented at this writing [1962]; a suspiciously large number of them seem to have found their way in brand new condition to the shops of Liege in the post-war trade, there to become bored smooth for shot and shipped out to Africa or South America at prices cheaper than junk guns cost to make. Like so many others of the special or limited issue weapons ordered in the first days of the war, they may have served most of the time reposing quietly in their arms chests, awaiting a call to duty that never came. Exactly 10,001 of these rifles and sword bayonets complete were delivered between April 18, 1863, and January 8, 1864. Though the contract price was $17, nearly 10 per cent were accepted only as arms of the second class at $16.90. The second contract for 2,500 rifles apparently was to ensure acceptance of rifles otherwise forfeited by reason of failure of the contractor to deliver in time, as provided by the confirmed contract for 10,000. The extra rifle is inferentially the model arm held by the inspector at the New York ordnance office."
I've heard that the rifle contract was awarded in the first place because Remington agreed to lower the price of the 1861 New Model Army revolver (aka the "1858" due to its patent date) if the rifle contract was accepted at the same time. Certainly by then the government didn't need another pattern of rifle to deal with. I've been told some Zouave rifles may have been issued to a few local militia units. What is certain is that it was never issued to regular or volunteer troops in the field.
The Zouave rifle was common in the early days of Civil War reenacting because it was available when the supply of originals and rifles using original parts was drying up. That it markedly resembled the 1841 "Mississippi" rifle was a plus, especially for Confederate reenactors, and of course, one could say that the originals really did exist during the war. The chief reason it and other two-band rifles are banned at most events is exactly as some here have said, most reenacting units don't train enough at firing in two ranks and the longer three-band muskets give them a safety margin to make up for their sloppy drill.
Guy
"Remington's War Contribution
But it was not carbines, but rifles and muskets of the more conventional form, on which Remington's contribution to the Union cause must stand. It was on the Harper's Ferry modified, sometimes called "1862 Remington rifle" and the Springfields at $17, that Remington in causing prices to fall all along the line made his presence felt.
First came the famous Zouave rifles. Though most Zouave regiments went into battle in 1861 and 1862 with foreign arms or transformed Springfields, the title "Zouave rifle" has clung to this special weapon. It is much like the elegant French "Chasseurs de Vincennes" rifle in style and bright brass trim, so the name is apt if the association is not. Actual issue of the special Remingtons is not properly documented at this writing [1962]; a suspiciously large number of them seem to have found their way in brand new condition to the shops of Liege in the post-war trade, there to become bored smooth for shot and shipped out to Africa or South America at prices cheaper than junk guns cost to make. Like so many others of the special or limited issue weapons ordered in the first days of the war, they may have served most of the time reposing quietly in their arms chests, awaiting a call to duty that never came. Exactly 10,001 of these rifles and sword bayonets complete were delivered between April 18, 1863, and January 8, 1864. Though the contract price was $17, nearly 10 per cent were accepted only as arms of the second class at $16.90. The second contract for 2,500 rifles apparently was to ensure acceptance of rifles otherwise forfeited by reason of failure of the contractor to deliver in time, as provided by the confirmed contract for 10,000. The extra rifle is inferentially the model arm held by the inspector at the New York ordnance office."
I've heard that the rifle contract was awarded in the first place because Remington agreed to lower the price of the 1861 New Model Army revolver (aka the "1858" due to its patent date) if the rifle contract was accepted at the same time. Certainly by then the government didn't need another pattern of rifle to deal with. I've been told some Zouave rifles may have been issued to a few local militia units. What is certain is that it was never issued to regular or volunteer troops in the field.
The Zouave rifle was common in the early days of Civil War reenacting because it was available when the supply of originals and rifles using original parts was drying up. That it markedly resembled the 1841 "Mississippi" rifle was a plus, especially for Confederate reenactors, and of course, one could say that the originals really did exist during the war. The chief reason it and other two-band rifles are banned at most events is exactly as some here have said, most reenacting units don't train enough at firing in two ranks and the longer three-band muskets give them a safety margin to make up for their sloppy drill.
Guy
Tumblernotch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 3,370
- Reaction score
- 11
I have that book! I enjoy reading it and have used it for reference many times although sometimes Edwards didn't quite have a few things right. I still wish I had the experience he has had with collecting and studying these guns.
I agree with what was said about the "Zouave". It was thought to have quite an "appeal" with the American "Zouave" regiments, but I guess by the time they were bought by the government those regiments had for the most part armed with standard Springfields and Enfields. Also, by that time many of the Zouave regiments had had the "shine" knocked off of them and were perfectly satisfied to use what they had been issued.
I started out in reenacting with a cheap $69 Zouave that I bought in a local department store. It didn't even have the maker's name on it. This was back in '75. I sold it later to a new recruit and I wish I had it back. It shot roundball like a house afire. It could have easily been converted to a C. Chapman or a Mendenhall, Jones and Gardner or even an Asheville Armory rifle with a little work to the buttstock area.
Other than finding out what the different units were originally armed with, I'd say the main reason for getting away from all 2 banders was what we have been mentioning; the inability of rear rank soldiers to follow proper instructions concerning their intervals and foot placement. We as Sergeants in my unit hammered it into our guys until they got it right. Another problem was simply uniformity. When 2 and 3 banders are mixed it makes for a very uneven line, both in appearance and in going through the various drills. Another problem is in stacking arms. Unless you grouped all the 2 banders together so that they could be properly stacked, that odd man 2 bander had to be a leaner. It takes 2 files to make a simple stack and if 2 of them are 2 band and 2 are 3, well, you can't make a stack.
I agree with what was said about the "Zouave". It was thought to have quite an "appeal" with the American "Zouave" regiments, but I guess by the time they were bought by the government those regiments had for the most part armed with standard Springfields and Enfields. Also, by that time many of the Zouave regiments had had the "shine" knocked off of them and were perfectly satisfied to use what they had been issued.
I started out in reenacting with a cheap $69 Zouave that I bought in a local department store. It didn't even have the maker's name on it. This was back in '75. I sold it later to a new recruit and I wish I had it back. It shot roundball like a house afire. It could have easily been converted to a C. Chapman or a Mendenhall, Jones and Gardner or even an Asheville Armory rifle with a little work to the buttstock area.
Other than finding out what the different units were originally armed with, I'd say the main reason for getting away from all 2 banders was what we have been mentioning; the inability of rear rank soldiers to follow proper instructions concerning their intervals and foot placement. We as Sergeants in my unit hammered it into our guys until they got it right. Another problem was simply uniformity. When 2 and 3 banders are mixed it makes for a very uneven line, both in appearance and in going through the various drills. Another problem is in stacking arms. Unless you grouped all the 2 banders together so that they could be properly stacked, that odd man 2 bander had to be a leaner. It takes 2 files to make a simple stack and if 2 of them are 2 band and 2 are 3, well, you can't make a stack.
