Report of Major R - Intel



Major Raleigh E. Colston’s Reports

&

The Proceedings of

The Virginia Armory Commission

1860

(Abridged)

SUBTITLED:

THE ‘VIRGINIA MODEL MUSKET’- “THE RIFLE-MUSKET THAT NEVER WAS...”

[pic]

With Introduction and Comments

By

Southron Sanders

The John Brown Raid on the U.S. Armory at Harpers Ferry, Virginia in October of 1859 struck Virginia and the South like a thunderclap. Decades of sectional rivalries and abolitionist agitation against the Southern states seemed to be ready to explode into war. Unfortunately, Virginia found itself in the very epicenter of this national political crisis.

Whatever the future held in store for Virginia, Governor John Letcher was determined that the Commonwealth would be well defended. To this end, Governor Letcher supported an act of the Virginia Assembly that was passed on January 21st, 1860. The legislation called for the purchase and manufacture of munitions and arms of war. A clause in the act called for the creation of an Armory Commission to oversee these preparations for war and for the rebuilding of the old Richmond Armory.

This commission was appointed and it consisted of three distinguished Virginians: Philip St. George Cocke, Francis H. Smith and George W. Randolph. The commission worked with lightning speed. The old Virginia Armory buildings that had been virtually abandoned for decades was inspected by the commissioners and then contracts were quickly let for its complete renovation. Workers soon swarmed throughout the old armory as the sounds of hammers and saws signified the beginning of speedy work for the complete restoration of the old armory complex.

Major Colston of the Virginia Military Institute faculty was ordered by the Armory Commission to test and report his findings on a variety of then current, military small arms. After Major Colston delivered his reports, the Armory Commission reviewed his findings.

The commission consulted with not only numerous military officers, but also Virginian James Burton; the former Superintendent of the Enfield Armory, recently returned home from England. Burton was serving as an advisor for the commission. The state’s recently hired Master Armorer, Salmon Adams, was also consulted. The Armory Commission considered all the facts carefully and then specified the actual design of the new rifle musket to be adopted and manufactured. The new arm was named the “Virginia Model Musket” and was to be made in the Richmond Armory.

Master Armorer, Salmon B. Adams, was hurriedly dispatched to Springfield Armory to supervise the building of the prototype Virginia Model Musket. After Adams the prototype was completed, it was then brought back to Richmond so James Burton and his assistants could make all of the necessary production drawings for the arm.

Leaning heavily on Burton’s advice, the commissioners also negotiated and signed contracts for the purchase of the latest design of gun making machinery to equip the Richmond Armory for production of the Virginia Model Musket.

On December 14th, 1860 the commissioners submitted a formal report to the Governor of their activities. This report was published by the state as: Document No. 1, Appendix to The Governors Message for 1861.

For Civil War historians, the Virginia Armory Commission report makes absolutely fascinating reading. When you read Major Colston’s reports, keep in mind that he is giving his opinion as a professional military officer in 1860 as to the merits and faults of those arms that he tested. Unlike Major Colston, we have the benefit of 148 years of hindsight regarding the history and the use of those arms in the Civil War that Major Colston so hurriedly tested in 1860.

Photo Courtesy of the Virginia Military Institute Archives

Raleigh E. Colston was born in Paris, France in 1825. His mother was the Duchess of Valmey, the ex-wife of one of Napoleon’s Marshals. He was the adopted son of Dr. Raleigh E. Colston, originally from Virginia. Dr. Colston was the Duchess’ second husband and resided in France with her.

As a young man, Colston immigrated to Virginia in 1842, and graduated 4th in his class at VMI in 1846. He became a Professor at VMI. He was selected by the Virginia Armory Commission in 1860 to conduct tests on a variety of military small arms and submit detailed reports of his findings.

In 1862 Colston was commissioned as a Colonel of the 16th Virginia Regiment. He rendered outstanding service in the Peninsular Campaign of 1862 and by 1863 was promoted to the rank of General. He commanded a division in Stonewall Jackson’s famous flank attack at Chancellorsville in May of 1863.

In 1864 Colston served in the defense of Petersburg and was in command of Lynchburg, VA at the end of the war. General Colston died in Richmond, Virginia in 1896 and is buried in that city in the Hollywood Cemetery. Actor J. Scott Watkins played the role of General Colston in the 2003 Civil War epic movie: Gods & Generals.

Doc. No. 1.

Report of Major R.E. Colston, Virginia Military Institute, to the

Commissioners on the Virginia Armory-Submitted June 28, 1860.

By the direction of the chairman of the armory committee, I have been engaged in a series of experiments upon small arms of various kinds, with a view to ascertain their relative merits. These experiments have not as yet been pursued to an extent sufficient to render them decisive upon many points, owing to the shortness of the time elapsed since they were begun, and in some cases to the want of a sufficient quantity of ammunition. Nevertheless, I have the honor to submit to the commissioners the following report…

…For the purpose of comparing the efficiency of the new arms with that of the old musket, I selected one of the latter, had it transformed from flint to percussion, straightened and smoothed out, and fitted with a breech sight. It was thus placed in the most favorable condition for a trial of its powers. The arm was made at the Richmond armory in 1819, and was 42 inches in length: caliber intended for the standard of .69 of an inch, but measuring about .70. The charge was the service charge of 110 grains of musket powder, and one round ball. The target was a screen measuring 20 by 12 feet. The distance was 325 yards, and the firing was from the shoulder and the rest.

Result-Smooth bored Musket:

Number of shots fired, - 50

Number of hits, - 1

The deviations were enormous. The firing was performed with the utmost care. With the same charge, the same elevation and steady rest, some of the balls passed 40 or 50 feet above the target, and others fell as much below. The lateral deviations were greater, reaching in some cases to more than 100 feet.

This trial was quite sufficient to demonstrate the inefficiency of the smooth bored musket and round ball. The windage which must exist in this arm to render its loading possible after 50 or 60 shots, is one of the causes of its inaccuracy. The ball goes along the barrel battering from one site of it to the other, and whichever side it touches last on leaving the muzzle it deviates in the opposite direction.

The arm of which I propose to take as the standard of comparison of the patent arms, is the [U.S. Model 1855] Harpers Ferry Rifle of the latest model, sometimes called the U.S. Minie-Rifle.

I used this weapon with loose ammunition, loading from a flask. As no paper is ever put in with the load in using cartridges, it was useless to have any made. I used a target 8 feet, 8 inches square. The distance was 500 yards. The charge was the service load of 60 grains, and the Harpers Ferry [Minie] ball. The firing, was from the shoulder and rest. Out of one hunded rounds, ninety balls struck the target directly, and one by ricochet…55 out of 91 struck in a space of four feet square, of which the bull’s eye formed the center. Some four or five of the balls which missed the target fell within a few feet of it, owing to the fact that in loading with a flask it frequently happens that unless care is taken, the charger is not quite filled and a difference of a few grains of powder would in that distance cause a fall of three or four feet..

Result-Arm, U.S.[ Model 1855] Harpers Ferry Rifle-Musket-size of target, 8 feet, 8 inches by 8 feet, 8 inches:

Number of shots. - 100

Number of hits. - 90

(And one by ricochet) – no wind blowing.)

Remarks – By the time that the firing was concluded, the rifle had been fired over two hundred times (having been used and not cleaned)… The distance of 500 yards was selected, because some of the arms which I wished to try were not sighted for a greater range…

Arm, U.S. Harpers Ferry [Model 1855] Rifle-Musket altered to breech loading, by Merrill’s Patent- target, 8 feet, 8 inches, by 8 feet, 8 inches-distance 500 yards.

Number of shots, - 100

Number of hits, - 81

Remarks – The difference in the number of hits between this arm and the unaltered Harpers Ferry rifle arose, I have no doubt; from the difference in the locks, the first arm being very hard on the trigger, and the latter quite easy…

[These are some of the factors that Major Colston thought should be taken into account by the Armory Commission in selecting an arm to adopt:]

Cost – This is a most important consideration with respect of arms of war…Some of the arms examined, which are excellent in themselves are utterly precluded on account of the great cost both of the arms and their ammunition…

Facility of loading. – So far as the introduction of the charge into the gun is concerned, there is no [muzzle loading] arm which is loaded with greater ease than the U.S. [Model 1855] Minie rifle…

Rapidity of firing. – The patent breech loading arms claim a great superiority in this respect. There is no denying that they fire much more rapidly than the muzzle loading arms. But it is the universal opinion of military writers, that with the muzzle loading arms, troops fire too fast already. It is the great effort of officers in action to restrain the firing of the troops of the line. “Much firing (says Bugeaud) is the characteristic of bad infantry.” The effects of the new arms are immense at long ranges, but only when used coolly and deliberately. To fire ten or more times per minute, as some of the patent arms can do, would add greatly to the smoke and the noise of battle, but very little to the execution done… Military writers say that nothing is more common, than for troops to expend their whole stock of ammunition in a few minutes, and before the decisive moment for action comes; and frequently at the most critical time, the cry runs along the lines that ammunition is exhausted. An example of this was seen in the Crimean war, at the Battle of Inkerman, where the division of Sir George Catheart was broke with great loss, before ten o’clock in the morning, before the battle was half fought, owing in a great measure to the ammunition being entirely exhausted …It is true, that in the defense of posts a rapid firing is sometimes of great advantage; but general rules cannot bend to exceptional circumstances…

Maynard’s Rifle- This arm is extremely powerful, considering its dimensions, but from my experiments with it, it does not realize what is claimed for it. Its make is utterly unsuited for military service, being entirely too delicate and too light. The mode in which the sight is fixed is very objectionable. It would be very easy to remedy many of these faults, by fitting it with a heavier stock (with rings), which would afford the means of slinging it, and it would diminish its recoil at the same time adding to its solidity; also by fixing a different style of sight to the barrel instead of the stock. The objection to the price would still remain. As for loading, the same remarks apply as above. The arm is useless without a brass cartridge, or at least a loader…Of all the arms which I have tried which load with a peculiar cartridge case, I think the principle of breaking off of this one is the best. This arm missed fire a number of times.

Merrill’s Breech Loading Arms – Mr. Merrill claims no other advantage for his arms than the method of breech loading. This may be applied to any barrels. Among the arms submitted, are a U.S. musket and a U.S. Harper’s Ferry rifle altered to breech loading by this process.

I have no hesitation in saying that of all the breech loading arms I have seen, these seem to me the best suited for the purpose we have in view, and for the following reasons:

Cheapness – The inventor offers no arms for sale. We are not, therefore, obliged to buy his guns at his own price, as we would have to do if we bought… the Maynards. The guns can be made of any kind we choose at our armory, and very little additional machinery would be required to make the breech loading apparatus. The unlimited right of using the process by the state armory might be purchased from the inventor, or else a fixed sum paid him for each arm thus manufactured; and unless he charged extravagantly for the privilege, the additional cost to each arm would be small. I should suppose that a cavalry carbine of the same caliber as the musket or rifle, to be made at the armory, and having an effective range of at least 600 yards, might be made with Merrill’s improvement, at a cost not over $ 10 – but this is a mere conjecture, and would depend entirely on what the inventor charged.

Solidity – Merrill’s arrangement seems to offer great strength, and to be able to stand heavy charges. There does not seem to be any friction between the parts, which can lead to rapid wearing.

Simplicity – The breech loading apparatus is very simple, and easy to take to pieces and put together again for cleaning or oiling. I have not been able to detect any escape of gas. After firing over 100 shots, I wiped the piston rod with a white pocket handkerchief, and found not the slightest trace of powder dirt.

Ammunition – The great advantage of these arms over the others is that they can be used with the paper cartridge or with loose powder and ball, without any metallic or other cartridge case. This secures one of the indispensable conditions of an arm of war.

Another advantage of Mr. Merrill’s patent is the ease which it may be applied to other arms. Take for example the U.S. Minie-rifle altered by him. It has the same barrel, stock and lock. Nothing is removed but the old breech screw, and the arm is not in the least degree diminished in solidity, and hardly changed at all in appearance. It must be added to this, that this altered arm seems to have the same range and force with 50 grains of powder as the unaltered rifle with the regular charge of 60 grains.

If it should be thought advisable to give breech loading carbines to cavalry, and breech loading muskets and rifles to the sergeants of infantry, I would give the preference, so far as I am able to judge, to Mr. Merrill’s arms. But I must say that the experiments performed hitherto, while they induce me to give a positive opinion against certain arms, do not enable me to pronounce as positively in favor of any… With regard to Mr. Merrill’s arms, they have borne successfully the test of a few hundred shots. But they must be fired several thousand times at least, before a conclusive opinion can be formed.

The experiments in which I have been engaged were commenced only a few weeks ago, and carried on only during the leisure hours left me by other duties. I did not expect to present a report of them until they were finished, and they ought to extend over a period of several months. The report is therefore necessarily very incomplete, for not half the arms have been tried that ought to be.

Doc. No. 1

[MAJOR COLSTON’S ADDITIONAL REPORT]

Appendix to the Report on Small Arms October 8, 1860

Sir,

I have the honor to submit the results of some additional experiments with small arms, together with some general considerations bearing upon the selection of a model for the arms to be manufactured at the state armory…

Having studied the subject closely and long, and having fired several thousand shots with different arms, it has seemed to me, all things being considered, the conclusion of those officers who determined in favor of the Minie system of arms, were undoubtedly correct.

The advantages of this system are, 1st—Great range, penetration and accuracy. 2nd—Facility in loading [is] beyond any other system. (About 250 shots were fired by me, from a Harpers Ferry [Model 1855] rifle, without any cleaning, and allowing some days to elapse between every 50 or 60 shots, which would permit the dirt [fouling] to harden in the gun. The arm loaded as easily at the last shot as at the first, fired with the same accuracy, and never missed fire on single time.)

The disadvantages [of Minie Rifles] according to Wilcox are:

1st—Tearing of the balls, and leaving thus sometimes in the piece fragments that render it [the rifle] momentarily unfit for use. This occurs when the balls are moulded. This is not apt to occur with pressed [swaged] balls.

(I have fired several hundred, probably a thousand of the moulded balls, and no such “tearing” of the balls has ever taken place with me.)

2d—Complications of the cartridge, if the ball has a wedge.

3d—Deforming the ball during transportation, if it has no wedge.

(I believe that in the Harpers Ferry ball, a happy medium has been found between balls with a hollow so large as to leave the sides too thin, and thus lose their shape easily, and those with a hollow so small and sides so thick that the action of the powder could not

expand them. It is more than probable that the Harpers Ferry ball will resist all the accidents usual in transportation, as well as any other ball.)

4th—If the pieces are loaded, a rapid deterioration in case of rain. (All that is needed to guard against this is to carry the pieces horizontally, or in the position of “secure arms.”)

The only arms which seem to compete with the Minie arms for military service are the arms a’ tige. The Swiss federal rifle has the remarkable range and accuracy of any other. but loading with a patched pullet, it has the disadvantages of the old fashioned rifle—slowness of loading and comparatively rapid fouling.

The Minie system being determined upon as preferable to all others…The partial report previously submitted showed that the Harpers Ferry arms compared most favorably with the different patent breech loading arms offered to the commission, being superior in accuracy, range and penetration, and vastly inferior in cost.

The only foreign arm of war which has been obtained, is an English [P-53] rifled musket, made this year (1860), and corresponding in its weight, form and dimensions, with the Enfield model. A small quantity of ammunition was sent with it. The cartridge is made of very strong paper, glued so tight to the ball as to make it almost impossible to separate the one from the other. The ball, with paper around it, is too tight, but some portion always adhered to it and was found still adhering in balls that had been fired, and dug out of the soil. This makes the cartridge slow and troublesome to handle. Besides, the paper sticking to the ball impairs to some degree the accuracy of the firing. The English use the Critchett ball, (sic) (Note: the correct name is the Pritchett ball) without grooves at the base, although experience has proved, in the most conclusive manner, that the grooves have very great influence in keeping the ball straight [ in flight] The British arm is, on the whole, inferior to ours. The entire piece is heavier than ours, while its barrel is lighter than our barrel. The difference of weight is in the English stock, which is coarse and clumsy. The barrel is too much weakened at the breech by the cutting away of the metal for the insertion of the cone seat. The calibers are nearly the same; English .577 inch; American .58 inch. The bands on the English piece are lighter and handsomer than ours. The lock is much inferior. The main spring is weak, and the piece missed fire very often from the cap not exploding. The half cock or safety notch is better placed in our gun.

I fired the British rifled musket at the same sized target that had been used in the other experiments. Fifty shots were fired, of which 46 hit the target at 500 yards. The weather was calm, and the light excellent…

The following evening I fired the Harpers Ferry rifled musket. The weather had changed, and the light was so bad I could hardly see the front sight. Out of 50 shots I stuck the target 47 times. The powder charge which I used was a trifle too small, and the charge being too weak,.. the center of impact is a foot or two below the centre of the target.

No. of hits (English) - - - - 92 per 100

No. of hits (American) - - - 94 per 100

Although the Harpers Ferry arm gave slightly better results in this trial than the English, I felt certain that justice had not been done to it, owing to the difference in the weather and the light. I resolved to try both in identical circumstances, at a longer range. This time the difference was decisive. I fired 35 shots from each gun, the same evening, at 800 yards. The result was…

English, 35 shots - 4 hits, 11 per 100

American, 34 shots - 12 hits, 35 per 100

…The result confirming in a striking manner the conclusions of our army officers as to the superiority of our arms over the British…

Above is an artist’s conception of the design of the rifle-musket that Major Colston recommended in his reports to be adopted by Virginia and manufactured in the Richmond Armory. The Armory Commissioners, influenced by the prestige and expertise of James Burton, adopted instead a slightly modified P-53 Enfield design as the ‘Virginia Model Musket’ and thereby rejected Colton’s recommendation

When Virginia seceded from the union, units of the Virginia militia seized the U.S. Armory at Harpers Ferry on April 19, 1861. The production machinery for the U.S. Model 1855 rifle musket was soon moved and installed in the Richmond Armory. The “Richmond Rifle Muskets” produced there for the next four years were simply Model 1855’s with the Maynard Tape Primer system in the lock deleted. So, ironically, the Richmond Armory did end up producing an arm that was, with the exception of the length of the barrel and the rounded barrel bands, identical to the model Colston originally recommended to the Armory Commission in 1860!

______________________________________________________________________________________

The conclusions to be drawn from the facts and experiments mentioned, would seem to be these: The best model for he arms to be manufactured by the state, is one closely resembling the [Model 1855] Harpers Ferry rifled musket. It would probably be an improvement to shorten the barrel to 38 inches instead of 40, and if judged necessary, to increase the length of the bayonet slightly. While the barrel would be shortened two inches, it would be proper to increase the thickness, so that its total weight might remain the same. The arm would be better balanced and probably shoot better.

It would be of advantage to adopt bands similar to those used on the English musket.

The Maynard primer arrangement might be left out. The lock would be improved and lightened by it.

The Harpers Ferry ball should be retained, and the caliber of the Virginia musket should not be smaller than that of the U.S. musket. Our balls should be pressed [swaged] by machinery.

It is not probable that any other departure from the Harpers Ferry Model [1855] would be of advantage.

R. E. COLSTON

Major, V. M. Inst.

Col. C. F. Smith,

Chairman, Armory Commission.

*********************************

Doc. No. 1

[THE COMMISIONER’S REPORT]

STATE ARMS AND ARMORY

Richmond, [Va.] December 14, 1860

Sir,

The undersigned have the honor to submit a general report of their proceedings under the act of the general assembly making an appropriation for the purchase and manufacture of arms.

By the provisions of the act, it was made their duty, first—To report a plan for putting the buildings of the armory at Richmond in a condition, by the introduction of machinery and otherwise, for the manufacture and repair of arms for the use of the militia of the state. Second—To purchase such arms, equipments and munitions as might be required for the “immediate” use of the state. For the first object the act appropriated $ 320,000.00 and for the latter, $ 189,000.00.

The undersigned, after organizing, entered at once upon the discharge of both branches of the duty assigned to them and in the month of February [1860] proceeded to Washington for the purpose of consulting the most experienced ordnance officers in the

service of the government. They [we commissioners] subsequently visited the government armories at Harpers Ferry and Springfield, the arsenals at Washington and Frankford, the navy yard at Washington, [and] the machine shops of Ames & Co., at Chicopee, [Mass.] and the West Point foundry. At all these places they were received with courtesy and had every facility afforded them for the discharge of their duties. They feel themselves especially indebted for advice and assistance to the Secretary of War, to Col. Craig, Major Ramsey and Capt. Maynadier of the Ordnance [Department],Capt. Dahlgren of the navy and Alfred M. Barbour, Esq., the superintendent of the Harpers Ferry armory…

THE ARMORY BUILDING.

So soon as the services of a master armorer were secured, the commissioners, having previously determined to manufacture the [Virginia Model] Rifled-Musket.[We] Caused a thorough examination of the armory buildings to be made, and a plan to be prepared for such changes as were necessary for the reception of machinery. …[We] found the original plan of the building well suited to the purpose, and the walls in good condition. There is in the west wing an overshot wheel of sufficient force to drive the machinery in one-half of the building, and [we] contemplate introducing a turbine wheel in the other wing to drive the rest of the machinery. An enlargement of the windows to give more light, the construction of an addition costing a few thousand dollars, together with new joists and floors in the entire building, will prepare in a satisfactory manner for the introduction and operation of the machinery necessary to manufacture rifled muskets….

THE MACHINERY

The commissioners caused a schedule of the machinery to be prepared by the master armorer, and they also procured a schedule of that manufactured [by the Ames Company] at Chicopee, [Mass.] for the London arms company, a corporation employed on a large scale in the manufacture of rifled muskets for the British government. Their next step was to find a reliable contractor to manufacture the machinery. No Southern company having manifested a wish to take the contract, and none, so far as the commissioners were informed, possessing any experience in the manufacture of such machinery, they negotiated a contract with Mr. James T. Ames of Chicopee, [Mass.]

and recommended it to you for ratification…Their reasons for selecting Mr. Ames…were his experience in such matters, his high personal character, and his well known pecuniary responsibility. Before the ratification of this contract, however, Messers. Joseph R. Anderson & Company [the Tredegar Iron Works] of Richmond having indicated a wish to put in a bid for the work, your Excellency referred Mr. Ames offer back to the commissioners, to be reconsidered in connection with such offer as Messers. Joseph R. Anderson & Company might make.[1]

The latter firm submitted a proposition so advantageous and exhibited such evidence of skill and enterprise in the execution of a large and difficult contract for machinery ordered by the U.S. government, that the commissioners no longer felt themselves free to let the contract out of the state…the commissioners themselves signed the contract [with the J. R. Anderson & Company] as the agents of the state…

It is estimated that it will require $ 380,000.00 to organize the armory and to manufacture 10,000 muskets per annum…The armory, by the terms of this contract is to go into operation on the 1st of December 1861…[2]

At the instance of the commissioners, orders were issued by the war department authorizing the contractors for our machinery to use the patterns in the government armories—a most important privilege-which not only expedites the work, but to some

extent... guarantees its quality.

Photo Courtesy of the National Park Service

James Henry Burton easily qualifies as one of the most prominent armorers of the 19th Century. His influence and accomplishment were substantial in the design and manufacture of many Civil War era small arms.

Burton was born in 1823 near Harpers Ferry, Virginia. He attended West Chester Academy in West Chester,

Burton biography, continued…

Pennsylvania and then he was apprenticed in a Baltimore machine shop. He went to work for the U.S. Armory at Harpers Ferry in 1844 in the Rifle Shop. During his tenure at Harpers Ferry, Burton was involved in the production of not only the .54 Caliber U.S. Model 1841 “Mississippi” Rifle, but also the U.S. Model 1842 Smoothbore .69 Caliber musket.

Burton was both talented and industrious. By the early 1850’s he was serving in the capacity as “Acting Master Armorer” at Harpers Ferry. Burton undertook a comprehensive set of experiments that resulted in him perfecting the design of a hollow base, spire point bullet that was adopted in 1855 by the U.S. Army for the 1855 series of arms. His bullet was the standard issue “Minie Ball” of the U.S. Army during the Civil War. Technically speaking, the U.S. hollow base bullet is usually called a “Minie Ball’ is actually, a ‘Burton Bullet!’ The design of the actual French Minie Ball is very different. The genius of the Burton’s design was, unlike the original French Minie Ball that used an iron cup installed in the base to aid in expansion; Burton’s bullet relied only on the force of the exploding gases of the powder charge to expand the skirt of his hollow base bullet to engage the rifling.

So, if you shoot in your original or repro .58 caliber rifle or rifle-musket, a Lyman 575213 (Old Style or New Style) Minie Ball, a Gardner, a Lee, a Hodgdon or any other of the numerous hollow based “Minie Ball” designs, you are really just shooting a variation of James Burton’s invention!

In 1854 the Ames Company of Chicopee, Massachusetts signed a contract for the delivery and ‘set up’ of gun making machinery for the British Royal Small Arms Factory in Enfield, England. Ames hired Burton to go to England and supervise the installation and ‘set up’ of this machinery.

After he went to work in England, the British authorities were so impressed with Burton’s knowledge and efficiency that in short order he was hired and promoted to Superintendent of the entire armory. Under Burton’s expert management, the RSAF Enfield was turning out 1,000, fully interchangeable, P-53 Enfield Rifle-Muskets per week by 1857.

Burton resigned his position at Enfield in 1860 and returned to his native Virginia. He went to work for the Tredegar concern of Richmond and served as an advisor to the Virginia Armory Commission. With the outbreak of the war, Burton received a Lieutenant Colonel’s commission and was assigned to the Ordnance Department. James Burton was instrumental in getting the arms making machinery captured at Harpers Ferry set up and running in the Richmond Armory to produce the Richmond Rifle-Musket.

By 1862 Burton had relocated to Macon, Georgia. He began building for the Confederacy, what was planned to be the largest small arms factory in the world. Confederate Enfield Rifles were to be made at Macon. In 1863 Burton sailed to England to order Enfield production machinery from the English machine tool firm of Greenwood & Batley.

Burton was also a ‘silent’ partner in the Southern firm of Spiller & Burr that manufactured revolvers under contract with the Confederacy. By the Spring of 1865, when the war ended, the Macon Enfield factory was still unfinished and the Confederate Enfield was not yet in production. Most of the Enfield production machinery ordered from England had not yet even arrived in Macon.

Burton returned to England and went to work for Greenwood & Batley. After he retired, Burton purchased a farm near Winchester, Virginia. Burton died in Winchester, VA in 1894 and is buried in the Mount Hebron Cemetery in that city.

Ironically, the home range of the North-South Skirmish Association, Fort Shenandoah; is located within easy driving distance of Mr. Burton’s gravesite. Every year, at Fort Shenandoah, in “Skirmish” competition untold hundreds of thousands of the numerous modern variations of the hollow based “Burton ball” are fired in N-SSA match competition, using original and reproduction Springfield, Richmond and Enfield rifles and similar rifle-muskets. Although Mr. Burton is long gone, his work and genius lives on.

The Armory Commission Report, Continued:

An additional guarantee of success has recently been given by the engagement with Messers. Joseph R. Anderson & Co. of Mr. James Burton, the late Master Armorer of the great British armory at Enfield—born in Virginia, trained at Harpers Ferry, and held in such esteem by the British government, that they paid him a salary of $ 5,000.00 per annum. Mr. Burton was forced by the climate to leave England, and has brought his great skill and experience directly to the service of his native state. Under the joint supervision of our competent master armorer, Mr. Salmon Adams and of Mr. Burton, the machinery produced by Messers. Joseph R. Anderson and Co. bids fair to equal any in the world.

THE VIRGINIA MODEL MUSKET

Before making the machinery, it was necessary to prepare a model of the arm to be manufactured. After consulting the principal ordnance officers of the army, and learning from the war department, through our Senator, the Hon. James M. Mason, the usage of the European armies, and after a course of experiments with muzzle loading and breech loading arms at the Virginia Military Institute, conducted by Major Colston of the institute, and already reported to you, the commissioners determined to adhere to the muzzle loading rifled musket for infantry of the line. In this conclusion, they follow the example of the American and European armies, and the advice of all the military men whom they have consulted. The reasons for it are well set forth in the elaborate and interesting reports of Major Colston.

Having determined the character of the arm, and its general conformity to the British and American regulation muskets, it became necessary to settle its details. In doing this, the commissioners consulted the master armorer, Mr. Adams, and requested Mr. Burton’s opinion of the relative merits of the British and American muskets. After a careful examination and comparison of an Enfield musket, brought over by himself, and a United States musket made at Harpers Ferry, he [Burton] made a report to the commissioners, containing numerous valuable suggestions, which, with the appropriation of Mr. Adams, were adopted. The result was, a musket conforming in its interior to the United States musket, and in its exterior to the Enfield musket, with some changes for the better from both. A detailed description of it will accompany this report.

By permission of the Secretary of War, the model musket is making at the Springfield Armory, under the directions of Mr. Adams, and will soon be completed...[3]

Description of the ‘Virginia Model Musket’[4]

[pic]

Stock—Conforms very nearly to the Enfield stock. An alteration is made in the shape of the butt, at the point where the toe of the butt plate rests.

Barrel—Length 40 inches, same as the “U.S.” Exterior form same as the Enfield; barrel to weight 4 oz. more than the Enfield; this additional weight to be distributed from the lower band to the muzzle; barrel to be browned.

Tip of stock—Material , brass, same as the Enfield.

Rod Spring—Same as the Enfield.

Lock—Same as the Enfield, except the comb of the hammer, which will be less, both vertically and horizontally.

Bands—Convex adjustable screw bands, after the style of the Enfield.

Butt plate—Material, brass. Lateral and longitudinal curvatures will vary slightly from the Enfield. One curve from the heel to the toe will be observed, in order to facilitate the manufacture.

Butt screws—Same as the “U.S.”

Side and tang screws—Will vary a little from the Enfield.

Ramrod—Same length as the “U.S.” Diameter of the body, .24 inches; head countersunk so as to accommodate the shape of the “U.S. “ bullet, a small hole drilled nearly 5/8 of an inch from the end of the head.

Bayonet—Form of blade same as the Enfield; socket same as the “U.S.”

Leaf sight—Same as the “U.S.”

(Author’s Note: The Springfield made prototype of the Virginia Model Musket was taken apart and “pieced out” and sent to the various machine tool firms that were building the production machinery to produce those parts. This was a standard practice during the era. Needless to say, those Virginia Model Musket parts have probably been “long lost.”)

The ‘Fortunes of War’ Intervene to Foil Production of the ‘Virginia Model Musket’

When the armory commissioners signed that contract in the latter part of 1860 with the J.R. Anderson & Company for the production machinery to equip the Richmond Armory, both parties realized that it would require almost a year to get the machinery built and installed in the Richmond Armory. The contract called for the Richmond Armory to actually begin production of the ‘Virginia Model Musket’ by the 1st of December 1861.

Unfortunately, the unfolding national political crisis accelerated much faster than anyone had previously thought.. In April of 1861 the Virginia Convention adopted the Ordnance of Secession. Then the Virginia Militia seized the federal armory at Harpers Ferry. By a stroke of very good fortune, Virginia literally acquired an almost fully intact arms making plant overnight.

As quickly as possible the Harpers Ferry machinery was removed to Richmond and the Rifle-Musket machinery was installed in the Richmond Armory. By October of 1861 the Richmond Armory was producing arms.

The need for military arms was so desperate that in the early days of the war even technically obsolete smoothbore, flintlock muskets were dragged out of storage and issued out to eager volunteers. James Burton and his assistants working at the Richmond Armory did not have the luxury of time to modify the Harpers Ferry machinery to turn out an Enfield style arm. i.e., the Virginia Model Musket.

Outside of deleting the troublesome Maynard Tape Primer arrangement, Richmond produced the same arm the Harpers Ferry machinery was adapted to produce- the Model 1855 Rifle-Musket Today we call that arm the Richmond Rifle-Musket.

The Macon ‘Mystery’ Enfields

The grand scheme of the Confederate Ordnance Department from 1862 onwards was to mass produce Enfield Rifles in Macon, Georgia. The Macon Armory, if it had been completed, would have been the largest small arms plant in the world. Unfortunately, for the Confederate Cause, the war was over before the first Enfield was ever produced in Macon.

Colonel James Burton, then Superintendent of Confederate Armories, traveled to England in 1863 to order Enfield production machinery from the machine tool firm of Greenwood & Batley. Arms students have often assumed that the arm to be produced at Macon was going to be a standard P-53 Enfield, but that is without considering James Burton’s ideas and preferences.

It is reasonable to assume that Burton planned on producing an Enfield at Macon that was a clone of the Virginia Model Musket design he had championed before the Virginia Commissioners. However, until additional documentation comes forth, the exact design of the Macon Enfields will remain a “Mystery.” The Greenwood & Batley records survive to this day in an archive in England. Consulting those records would most likely shed some light on the exact model of the Enfield to be manufactured at Macon on G&B machinery.

Unfortunately for the Confederate Cause, the Macon Armory did not get into production by the end of the war. That being said, at least one version of the Virginia Model Musket finally entered production before the war ended!

A Carbine Version of ‘The Virginia Model Musket’?

Although the ‘Virginia Model Rifle-Musket’ never entered production at the Richmond Armory, and the jury is still out on what exact version of the Enfield was going to be made at the Macon Armory, a modified version of the ‘Virginia Model Musket’ did finally enter production! This arm is the Tallassee Carbine that was made on the carbine machinery shipped down to Alabama from the Richmond Armory in the final year of the war. James Burton’s efforts to get his ideal adaptation of the Enfield into production finally met with some success.

[pic]

The Tallassee Carbine was manufactured in a former cotton mill in Tallassee, Alabama. It was the only Southern version [and a highly modified one at that] of the Virginia Model Rifle-Musket ever manufactured!

According to Dr. John Murphy, in his classic work, Confederate Carbines and Musketoons, records indicate that the 500 Tallassee Carbines were manufactured before the factory shut down were ordered delivered to the Macon Arsenal in April of 1865. This was the very last month of the war in the Eastern Theater. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any Tallahassee carbines ever fired a single shot in anger.

So, that is the story of the ‘Virginia Model Musket.’ The arm is the only officially adopted, Civil War military arm that was never mass produced. The Virginia Model Musket truly is; ‘The Rifle-Musket that Never Was!”

______________________________________________________________________

While some writers and historians credit Sam Colt with designing the Special Model of 1861 Rifle-Musket, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that indicated the Virginia Model Musket served as the inspiration for the U.S. Special Model of 1861.

1. Both the Virginia Model Musket and the U.S. Special Model of 1861 Rifle-Muskets are hybrid designs, containing design features of both the American Springfield and British Enfield Rifle-Muskets. Both designs are very similar to each other and in some respects, identical.

2. The prototypes for both the Virginia Model Musket and the U.S. Special Model of 1861 Rifle Muskets were made at Springfield Armory and it is very likely that many of the same armory employees that worked on the Virginia Model Musket prototype later worked on making the prototype for the U.S. Special Model of 1861 Rifle-Musket.

3. The Ames Company was in the process of building machine tools designed to manufacture the Virginia Model Musket for installation in the Richmond Armory when Virginia seceded from the Union. Obviously, after that happened, the machinery could not be delivered. Most likely that machinery was slightly modified and used to produce Special Model of 1861 Rifle-Muskets at either Colt, LG&Y or Amoskeag.

So, the grand irony is that while the Virginia Model Musket never made it into production in the Confederacy, the Yankee rifle-musket it most likely inspired was made by the many tens of thousands by three different Northern manufacturers to arm the Union. That is quite a legacy for a Southern design!

-----------------------

[1] In actual fact, when it became public knowledge that the “Yankee” firm of James T. Ames in Chicopee,

Massachusetts firm was going to be awarded the Richmond Armory machinery contract, a political uproar ensued in the press in Richmond and Virginia. The Armory Commissioners, sensing the hot political winds blowing, quickly reversed course and awarded the machinery contract to the J.R. Anderson & Company of Richmond.

The J.R. Anderson & Company then quietly sub-let the contract to Ames for the barrel and stock making machinery for the Virginia Model Musket. See From Under Iron Eyelids, The Biography of James Henry Burton Armorer to Three Nations, by Thomas K. Tate published by Authorhouse Press, Bloomington, Indiana. 2005, p. 158.

[2] The war broke out before the barrel and stock production machinery sub-contracted to the Ames Company could be delivered to the Virginia armory. Presumably, that machinery was modified, finished and then sold to one of the numerous Northern firms that received large contracts for the production of U.S. Rifle Muskets after the war began.

[3] Due to the national political crisis and even though Virginia had not yet seceded from the union; when Salmon Adams arrived in at Springfield Armory in November of 1860; he got a rather chilly official reception. Colonel H.K. Craig, the commander of the armory, refused to allow Adams to have drawings of any of the arms making machine tools at Springfield and also refused to give Adams any assistance in building the prototype Virginia Model Musket.

Springfield’s pervious, long standing policy had been to make machine tool drawings available to any company or government that requested them. This policy also included providing assistance in building prototype arms.

Adams knew of this policy because he had been previously employed at Springfield Armory for fifteen years before accepting the Master Armorer job in Virginia. Adams wrote a letter of complaint to the lame duck, Secretary of War, Southerner John B. Floyd. In response, Floyd sent Colonel Craig a direct order. Adams was finally given the assistance he needed for building the prototype Virginia Model Musket and drawings he requested. See: From Under Iron Eyelids by Thomas K. Tate, pp. 151-152.

Author’s Note: Contrary to the generally accepted idea by arms students that the U.S. Special Model 1861 Rifle Musket was designed in the Colt Armory in Hartford, Connecticut (Colt contracted for and delivered 75,000 Special Model 1861’s during the war,) the prototype Special Model 1861 was actually built at Springfield Armory in 1861. See: Trapdoor Springfield by Malden D. Waite & Bernard D. Ernest, Beinfield Publishing, North Hollywood, California; 1980, p. 68.

There is also a Special Model 1861 lockplate in existence marked: “Springfield” and “1861” which is probably the lockplate from that Springfield Armory made Special Model of 1861 prototype. See: Robert M. Reilly, United States Military Small Arms, 1816-1865, THE GUN ROOM PRESS, Highland Park, N.J.; 1970, p. 88.

Both the Virginia Model Musket and the U.S. Special Model of 1861 are hybrid designs, combining design features from both the Enfield and Springfield.

[4] Another factor that might have influenced the Armory Commission to adopt an Enfield style arm is that James Burton had brought back from England a complete set of P-53 Enfield production drawings. See: The Burton Papers, on file at Yale University Library.

-----------------------

Photo Courtesy of the National Park Service

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download