Springfields 1855 vs 1861 sights

[Dave Fox]

The peep sight, located near the shooter's eye, is a far superior combat sight. Pretty-much every expert in the discipline concurs. Cost savings, if any, are a secondary consideration.

 

[Dave Fox]

While the British army finally got serious about marksmanship in the 1850’s, and apparently got results, it would have been a very rare soldier ( maybe one in a hundred or less ) that could get even occasional hits on an individual enemy soldiers that he aimed at beyond 4 or 5 hundred yard

 

[maillemaker]

Not necessarily arguing against your statement that British soldiers were effective in the Crimean War because they were well trained and disciplined, friend Statheman, but as the new P.1853 rifled-muskets were often substituted for older, obsolescent weapons in the field during that horribly botched war, when did either British troops or commanders actually have opportunity to gain familiarity with the novel concept of an adjustable rear sight and the necessity of accurate range estimation? It might be supposed the effectiveness of the P.53 in Crimea had more to do with the Russian tactic of advancing in dense hard to miss columns than with cool use of rifled arms by red coat Tommie

I believe it is Brett Gibbon's book, The Destroying Angel, where he goes into some detail of the evolution of the P51 and how British troops were trained to use it. As I recall, indeed they were trained in range estimation and awards were given out to those best at it, including a stadia device that could be used for estimating ranges.

While the British army finally got serious about marksmanship in the 1850’s, and apparently got results, it would have been a very rare soldier ( maybe one in a hundred or less ) that could get even occasional hits on an individual enemy soldiers that he aimed at beyond 4 or 5 hundred yards.

This was generally not the intent. Rather, a platoon of soldiers - 50 men in the 19th Century British Infantry - could get off 3 shots a minute. That would put 150 rounds a minute , or 2.5 rounds every second, onto an area the size of a cannon crew. This could and did effectively drive the cannon crews from their guns. British soldiers and officers were trained in range estimation and knew how to adjust their sights and aim such that the object being fired at was within the "dangerous space" created by the highly parabolic trajectories.

 

[Dave Fox]

It is an inaccurate(!) stereotype to picture the Redcoat, even in the hay day of the Brown Bess, to be indifferent to individual marksmanship. In his chapter on the subject in "Small Arms of the British Forces in America 1664 to 1815", De Witt Bailey opens with "One of the most misunderstood, underresearched and undervalued aspects of the British army of the 18th Century is its marksmanship" (page273).

 

[Widows Son]

My goodness, hasn’t a question about old rifle sights extended into other interesting areas!

To get back to the original intention…I (me, personally..) think the technology of the ‘53 Enfield & ‘61 Springfield rifles were about equal, except for the sights. A properly trained soldier with a P53 Enfield had an advantage.

 

[Artificer]

My goodness, hasn’t a question about old rifle sights extended into other interesting areas!

To get back to the original intention…I (me, personally..) think the technology of the ‘53 Enfield & ‘61 Springfield rifles were about equal, except for the sights. A properly trained soldier with a P53 Enfield had an advantage.

Indeed and the finest example of that I know of was on the morning of May 9, 1864 during the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House.

Confederate Sharpshooters had been peppering a portion of the line that U.S. Major General Sedgwick's forces moved into and had already wounded U.S. General William Morris.

…the enemy opened a sprinkling fire, partly from sharp-shooters. As the bullets whistled by, some of the men dodged. The General said, laughingly, “What! what! men, dodging this way for single bullets! what will you do when they open fire along the whole line? I am ashamed of you. They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.” A few seconds after, a man who had been separated from his regiment passed directly in front of the General, and at the same moment a sharpshooter’s bullet passed with a long shrill whistle very close, and the soldier, who was then just in front of the General, dodged to the ground. The General touched him gently with his foot, and said, “Why, my man, I am ashamed of you, dodging that way,” and repeated the remark, “they couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.” The man got up and saluted, and said, good-naturedly, “General, I dodged a shell once, and if I hadn’t dodged, it would have taken my head clean off. I believe in dodging.”

The General and some of the men in the rifle pits who had heard that remark laughed, and the General replied “all right my man; go to your place.”

Another of the same kind of bullets passed while I was standing talking to the General in a low voice, about something which I have never since been able to recall. Then a third time the same shrill whistle closing with a dull heavy stroke interrupted me, and I remember distinctly that I commenced to say, “General, they are firing explosive bullets,” when his face turned slowly to me and the blood spurting from his left cheek under the eye in a steady stream, brought to me the first knowledge of our great disaster. He fell in my direction, and I was so close to him that my effort to support him failed, and I went to the ground with him.

When Grant heard the news, he could hardly believe it. "Is he really dead?" he asked, later remarking that Sedgwick’s death was "greater than the loss of a whole division of troops."

I've walked that area of the battlefield many times and no matter what has been said in the past, the actual distance between where the Confederate Sharpshooters were and where MG Sedgwick fell was close to 900 yards. Also, there were none of the Whitworth Rifles used on that part of the battle, so those shots were all done by 3 band, P 1853 Rifle Muskets using the Ladder Rear Sights.

Gus

 

[wganz]

I heartily concur with most of your post. I only concur the emboldened part above with the caveat BECAUSE the troops were not trained and practiced to the full potential of the '61 and even then the Generals did not think out of the box enough to use even basic marksmanship techniques the troops could have mastered rather easily.

Gus

And this was the impetus for Northern generals to form the NRA after the war ended.

 

[Artificer]

And this was the impetus for Northern generals to form the NRA after the war ended.

EXACTLY !!

Gus

 

[smoothshooter]

Not necessarily arguing against your statement that British soldiers were effective in the Crimean War because they were well trained and disciplined, friend Statheman, but as the new P.1853 rifled-muskets were often substituted for older, obsolescent weapons in the field during that horribly botched war, when did either British troops or commanders actually have opportunity to gain familiarity with the novel concept of an adjustable rear sight and the necessity of accurate range estimation? It might be supposed the effectiveness of the P.53 in Crimea had more to do with the Russian tactic of advancing in dense hard to miss columns than with cool use of rifled arms by red coat Tommies.

Agree. I would imagine the vast majority of those really long range hits were the result of shooting into massed formations of enemy troops.
Anyone studying British military history will soon discover that Britain’s armed forces were ( and are still ) always operating on a shoestring budget because the government has always been strapped for cash. That was the reason for their involvement in the Asian opium trade, and the establishment of the East India Company.
There is no way the Army would have had the money to make large numbers of expert riflemen. The few that undoubtedly existed would have been using shooting skills learned in civilian competition before going into the army.
While the Enfield rifled musket was definitely an improvement over anything that had existed before, very few shooters would have had the skills and eyesight to take full advantage of it.

 

[smoothshooter]

Agree. I would imagine the vast majority of those really long range hits were the result of shooting into massed formations of enemy troops.
Anyone studying British military history will soon discover that Britain’s armed forces were ( and are still ) always operating on a shoestring budget because the government has always been strapped for cash. That was the reason for their involvement in the Asian opium trade, and the establishment of the East India Company.
There is no way the Army would have had the budget to make large numbers of expert riflemen. The few that undoubtedly existed would have been using shooting skills learned in civilian competition before going into the army.
While the Enfield rifled musket was definitely an improvement over anything that had existed before, very few shooters would have had the skills and eyesight to take full advantage of it.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

The peep sight, located near the shooter's eye, is a far superior combat sight. Pretty-much every expert in the discipline concurs. Cost savings, if any, are a secondary consideration.

I believe it was war time expediency as well as cost considerations. I have a soft spot for the old "smelly".

 

[Artificer]

Agree. I would imagine the vast majority of those really long range hits were the result of shooting into massed formations of enemy troops.
Anyone studying British military history will soon discover that Britain’s armed forces were ( and are still ) always operating on a shoestring budget because the government has always been strapped for cash. That was the reason for their involvement in the Asian opium trade, and the establishment of the East India Company.
There is no way the Army would have had the money to make large numbers of expert riflemen. The few that undoubtedly existed would have been using shooting skills learned in civilian competition before going into the army.
While the Enfield rifled musket was definitely an improvement over anything that had existed before, very few shooters would have had the skills and eyesight to take full advantage of it.

I doubt it has changed in the 25 years since I retired, but it was often said the British/UK forces were the poorest equipped, but of the BEST TRAINED Armed Forces in the world. I found that to be quite true.

Further, one of the major strengths of British/UK Armed Forces were/are their corps of NCO's. It has never been enough to train troops well initially, but also to remind, inspire and supervise them to maintain and improve their skills as time goes on. That's the job of all NCO's and that includes instructing and keeping their Officers on a steady keel.

Gus

 

[APG]

I have problems using the sights on my Pedersoli 1861 Springfield. Let's just say that they are not designed for old eyes. If I was 40 years younger I'd have no problems whatsoever.

 

[shorthair]

Brother,

You are absolutely right, it was a backwards step in design. The official reasons were cost of the ladder sights and the simpler two leaf sight of the '61 were considered more than adequate in an Infantry Rifle.

OK, I think I'm going to get into trouble with some of my American bretheren, but it is far better to learn the facts and mistakes of history, so we don't keep making them.

The REAL reasons were unlike the British Army who took decisive action on lessons learned in the AWI and developed the Baker Rifle (which was far superior to any military rifle we had until the M1855), the American Army Generals never learned to think outside the box and effectively use Riflemen.

The tragedy was that after the M1855 came out, forward thinking Army Officers in the West actually TRAINED the troops in using the Ladder Sight and had them PRACTICE marksmanship to the point they were effectively engaging hostile Native Americans at distances out to and including 700 yards. I have not been able to document whether they were copying how the British Army was already training British Soldiers on Military Rifle Ranges with the P 1853 Rifle Musket when the '55 Springfield came out, or if the American Officers in the west came up with it on their own. (Somewhere in my library, I have a daguerreotype of a British Army Company training at one of the English Military Ranges in 1856.)

When our own UnCivil War broke out, there was almost NO training whatsoever in Marksmanship with the '61 Springfield. This even after the initial rushing to get troops into the war and when they actually had time to do it. American Generals on both sides continued Napoleonic Tactics and almost none of them ever got near the accuracy out of their Rifle Muskets that was possible, with the exception of Berdan's Sharpshooters. (Yes, I know they usually used different rifles, but with ladder or other better sights.)

I have almost desperately searched for historic documentation that someone on either side came up with some of even the most basic marksmanship training or techniques for the standard Regiments, but have never found any. Of course with the limited resources of the South, it is somewhat understandable, but the Yankee Army was always almost swimming in supplies and funding and they almost never did it with the exception of the Sharpshooters.

Fraternally yours,
Gus

Some of the justification was likely cost vs production speed added to the method of battle being at close range made long range by the average soldier rare, so why spend money on an ability that was seldom used.

 

[shorthair]

The peep sight, located near the shooter's eye, is a far superior combat sight. Pretty-much every expert in the discipline concurs. Cost savings, if any, are a secondary consideration.

It would be great if function was the primary reason, but bean counters make the spending decisions for the poor soldiers in the field, and then hide in their office as far from the battle as possible and make up reasons for why it's not thier fault when weapons don't work like they claimed.

 

[Stantheman86]

Indeed and the finest example of that I know of was on the morning of May 9, 1864 during the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House.

Confederate Sharpshooters had been peppering a portion of the line that U.S. Major General Sedgwick's forces moved into and had already wounded U.S. General William Morris.

…the enemy opened a sprinkling fire, partly from sharp-shooters. As the bullets whistled by, some of the men dodged. The General said, laughingly, “What! what! men, dodging this way for single bullets! what will you do when they open fire along the whole line? I am ashamed of you. They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.” A few seconds after, a man who had been separated from his regiment passed directly in front of the General, and at the same moment a sharpshooter’s bullet passed with a long shrill whistle very close, and the soldier, who was then just in front of the General, dodged to the ground. The General touched him gently with his foot, and said, “Why, my man, I am ashamed of you, dodging that way,” and repeated the remark, “they couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.” The man got up and saluted, and said, good-naturedly, “General, I dodged a shell once, and if I hadn’t dodged, it would have taken my head clean off. I believe in dodging.”

The General and some of the men in the rifle pits who had heard that remark laughed, and the General replied “all right my man; go to your place.”

Another of the same kind of bullets passed while I was standing talking to the General in a low voice, about something which I have never since been able to recall. Then a third time the same shrill whistle closing with a dull heavy stroke interrupted me, and I remember distinctly that I commenced to say, “General, they are firing explosive bullets,” when his face turned slowly to me and the blood spurting from his left cheek under the eye in a steady stream, brought to me the first knowledge of our great disaster. He fell in my direction, and I was so close to him that my effort to support him failed, and I went to the ground with him.

When Grant heard the news, he could hardly believe it. "Is he really dead?" he asked, later remarking that Sedgwick’s death was "greater than the loss of a whole division of troops."

I've walked that area of the battlefield many times and no matter what has been said in the past, the actual distance between where the Confederate Sharpshooters were and where MG Sedgwick fell was close to 900 yards. Also, there were none of the Whitworth Rifles used on that part of the battle, so those shots were all done by 3 band, P 1853 Rifle Muskets using the Ladder Rear Sights.

Gus

The whistling sound was also known the be from the hexagonal Whitworth bullet, but we'll never really know.

 

[Artificer]

The whistling sound was also known the be from the hexagonal Whitworth bullet, but we'll never really know.

Except as I mentioned earlier, no Confederate Sharpshooters armed with Whitworths were known to have been near that spot on the battlefield, this by original reports and records. I guess it's possible one or two might have been sent there during the battle away from their assigned areas by their commanders, but there is no record of it.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

The tragedy was that after the M1855 came out, forward thinking Army Officers in the West actually TRAINED the troops in using the Ladder Sight and had them PRACTICE marksmanship to the point they were effectively engaging hostile Native Americans at distances out to and including 700 yards. I have not been able to document whether they were copying how the British Army was already training British Soldiers on Military Rifle Ranges with the P 1853 Rifle Musket when the '55 Springfield came out, or if the American Officers in the west came up with it on their own. (Somewhere in my library, I have a daguerreotype of a British Army Company training at one of the English Military Ranges in 1856.)

The British Small Arms School at Hythe was still fairly "new" when the P 1853 Rifle Musket was adopted, but I just found out from my recently acquired copy of Blackmore, it was in operation and used to test even the earliest made P 1853's.

I'm not sure when the U.S. Army built the first rifle ranges similar to Hythe, but I think it wasn't until sometime after our UnCivil War.

Gus