wahkahchimaol.com
45 Cal.
- Joined
- May 17, 2009
- Messages
- 593
- Reaction score
- 14
Scots Jim that is amazing and mind-boggling! If only those guns could talk!
-
This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.
Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades -
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
Ohio CW Musket
- Thread starter vtbuck223
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
The Ohio Mark
Leading Up To 1861
According to the Executive Documents, for the year 1859, dated November 15, 1859, there were 2,657 muskets and 763 rifles in the hands of the militia from various counties for which the state had no bonds. Accordingly, there were 539 muskets and 125 rifles in the hands of the militia who had given bond “as required by law”. Although this little clip of information is just the tip of the iceberg the underlying truth is that Ohio was plagued with many issues: the militia; the militia laws; the distribution of and the storage/safe keeping of public arms. Although not conclusive these issues may help an individual understand why the state chose to mark its arms. The point of when and why remains unknown but evidence thus far points to the years of either 1863 or 1864.
Due to the amount of information and the available space permitted it is impossible to cover a wide range of material needed for this topic. Therefore I will try to provide as much information when necessary.
The story of the Ohio Mark, if you will permit me to call it that, has a vague beginning and no end. After researching this topic for a number of years I haven’t come across any defining/definite proof regarding the Ohio Mark and its use. Hearsay has the mark being used prior to the Civil War while others imply that the state used it in 1861 only to drop its use due to the amount or time and effort needed. Others point to the fact that the arms found with the Ohio Mark were issued to the state in 1861 by the United States. From here I will only report what I have found thus far and will leave it up to the reader to decide in the end.
To begin we should start from the very beginning. There are numerous reports, especially those found in the Executive Documents, where the Quarter Master and the Adjutant General were frustrated with the system. Here are a few examples:
For the Year 1825
In 1825 the Quartermaster General reported that he had 6,473 arms on hand. This total amounted to total number of arms received in 1819 (1,200) and 1823 (5,273). It was also stated that a large portion of arms remained at each original places of deposit. It was also reported that nearly one half of the arms had been drawn out for upwards of a year. The arms were distributed evenly to Painesville, Steubenville, Portsmouth, Cincinnati, and Columbus. The Quartermaster stated that due to the defect in the current law he was uncertain how many arms had been drawn by the captains of companies through the state. However, the state did have an idea of how many arms it had but it didn’t mention the 3,155 arms received prior to 1816.
For the Year 1840: February 24, 1840
From the early beginnings to about the 1820s the State of Ohio was divided into 10 Divisions that consisted of Infantry, cavalry, and artillery. Sometime around 1826 or possibly 1833, that number increased to 17 Divisions. In 1837 the Divisions were sub-divided and extended to 23 Divisions. The number of arms provided to the militia depended on the population of the state.
It is also interesting to note that most of the arms were kept in the old state prison which the Quartermaster was using as an arsenal. The Quartermaster went on to report that he hoped the legislature would provide further means to repair the old prison and enclose the surrounding grounds. Because the arms could not be controlled for safe-keeping and want of repairs the Quartermaster General, Niswanger, sought to have all arms drawn from the state arsenal at Columbus at the militias’ own expense and have bond for double the amount of contract price for safe keeping and redelivery of said arms in good condition. Prior to this time, the evidence suggests the arms were distributed to each division who in turn distributed them to each brigade. The brigade quartermaster than distributed the arms to the companies. It was said that some arms were kept in storage at different points throughout the state. The state would then pay individuals for either storage of or repair and cleaning of arms when necessary which turned out to be a great expense to the state.
For the Year 1846
The Adjutant General reported the there seemed no permanency in the present militia organization. In some parts of the State quite an interest is felt - in others, comparatively, nothing. If the citizens take some care in upholding and fostering the militia that is taken in destroying it, we would now be doing well. More than a third of the militia has no arms and nearly all the accoutrements to the arms entirely lost, namely bayonets and scabbards, cartridge boxes, and the like.
On December 31, 1845 the Adjutant General reported that there was at least 147,300 Infantry or unarmed militia. The Light Infantry was reported to be 6,506 with 6,851 muskets in use and 15,417 distributed. Riflemen reported a strength of 15,438 with 4,040 rifles in use and 7,002 rifles distributed. A combined strength of all departments was 176,147 which was less than reported in 1841 which was 180,000. Inclosing, the Adjutant General hoped the Legislature would refurnish the equipment lost which would encourage the promotion of the volunteer corps, and secure the enumeration, fully, of the unarmed militia, it is hoped a much larger force will be reported next years.
For the Year 1849: November 15, 1849
The Quartermaster in 1849 reported that the books in the office contained no record of the distribution of the arms prior to the year 1843. It didn’t give any account of the arms received from the United States and that the public arms were scattered all over the country and going fast to destruction. An inventory of arms and equipment held in Columbus was taken and found that a great portion of arms in the worst possible condition.
For the Year 1850: November 22, 1850
In 1850 it was written that nearly 1,400 arms were lying in the Arsenal in need of immediate attention. The Quartermaster wrote that it is impossible to make any very correct estimate of the number of public arms, now distributed through the State, or suggestion as to their condition. This statement should have been alarming at the time and gives evidence that the state, by this time had no idea what had been distributed.
The Quartermaster reported that that there was at least 1,000 to 1,500 stands of arms issued to each division and that more than half of this number (at least 14,375 arms) were lying in Court Houses, Warehouses, and barns, fast disappearing and going to loss by rust and private use. The Quartermaster went on to report that there were 2,200 muskets in good order, the majority being Harpers Ferry and Springfield muskets in the state arsenal.
For the Year 1851: December 16, 1851
The Quartermaster wrote that a large number of muskets and rifles, now in the Arsenal, are in bad condition, having been heretofore distributed to divisions and since returned in bad order. Rifles were lying in boxes in such a poor place that had never been open required to have them opened for cleaning and repacked. He went on to say that the arms could not be taken care of unless money was appropriated for their care and that he would have to lock up the arsenal and let them rust and rot without the necessary funding.
The Quartermaster was showing signs of frustration at this time not only for the number of arms needing repair but that the militia’s strength, which was used to receive arms for the general government, had not made proper returns for some years which denied the state more arms than what it was receiving and that the state could have received a much larger proportion of the public arms.
His frustration ran even deeper when he couldn’t give reliable information on the distribution of arms to the several divisions of the state. By acts passed by the state legislature beginning in 1837 and then again in 1844 the public arms were received from the Ordnance Department, and scattered through the state, with no law requiring any officer to report in regard to their condition or safety. By the act of March 12, 1844, vol. 42, O. L., the training of the militia was dispensed with, and provisions made for volunteer companies. After this passage of that law, the military spirit in this state dwindled to almost nothing. General confusion and disorder in the military organization prevailed. All military spirit was lost, and companies broke up and threw aside their arms without protection. During the confused state of things, no returns have been made of the strength of the militia for the last five or six years.
The Quartermaster went on by explaining that he couldn’t make a very correct estimate of arms unprotected by agents. But he believed that nearly $500,000 worth of public property was lying in barns, warehouses fast going to destruction, and still a matter of considerable expense to the state and that no bonds have been taken for its safe keeping and redelivery. From here it’s quite clear that the Quartermaster General, Andrews, vents his frustration as to why the state is allowing this problem to persist without taking the proper measures to defend the country or the state when needed.
When speaking of the militia Andrews quoted the new constitution that all white male citizens, resident of the State, being eighteen years of age, and under the age of forty years, shall be enrolled in the militia, and perform military duty, in such a manner, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States, as may be prescribed by law. However, he went on to explain that it is thought by some individuals of influence and position, that a military organization in this state is expensive, useless, and unnecessary; and that it would be better if the public arms were thrown into the Scioto, and the taxes of the people saved from such expense. Disagreeing, he continued by saying it would be an act of pride and self preservation, to organize the militia upon such a basis aw would either call into active duty the whole body of the militia, or build up a system of independent companies that would be an honor to the state.
Annual Report for the Year 1856: January 26, 1856
In January 1856 Quartermaster General Andrews reported the kinds and arms in the State Arsenal were nearly all in good order. He also reported that there were no records of arms distribution prior to the year 1843. This seems to have been a recurring problem with each new Quartermaster General. Having no documentation of arms received by the state since 1808 Andrews applied to the Ordnance Department for a copy of the account with the State, which was furnished, and the same has been entered in a suitable book in this office.
It’s also notable to mention at this point that the state seemed, for several years since, to have rotated its arms with the several divisions ensuring that the newer arms were replacing the older ones from time to time. It also seems that the state had tried to rein in the unused arms discussed previously. But, Andrews does mention that he still had no idea what had been issued prior to the year 1843. This will be a problem that will persist for a few more years until Quartermaster Wood attempts to solve the issue once and for all. However, it won’t be until 1863 until the state finally solves it issues when the state takes complete control of its arms and equipment.
More to follow”¦ Ran out of time. I'm not sure if anyone has an interest on this topic. If there is an interest I will respond with more information if not I will stop here. Having trouble sleeping? Read some more.
Leading Up To 1861
According to the Executive Documents, for the year 1859, dated November 15, 1859, there were 2,657 muskets and 763 rifles in the hands of the militia from various counties for which the state had no bonds. Accordingly, there were 539 muskets and 125 rifles in the hands of the militia who had given bond “as required by law”. Although this little clip of information is just the tip of the iceberg the underlying truth is that Ohio was plagued with many issues: the militia; the militia laws; the distribution of and the storage/safe keeping of public arms. Although not conclusive these issues may help an individual understand why the state chose to mark its arms. The point of when and why remains unknown but evidence thus far points to the years of either 1863 or 1864.
Due to the amount of information and the available space permitted it is impossible to cover a wide range of material needed for this topic. Therefore I will try to provide as much information when necessary.
The story of the Ohio Mark, if you will permit me to call it that, has a vague beginning and no end. After researching this topic for a number of years I haven’t come across any defining/definite proof regarding the Ohio Mark and its use. Hearsay has the mark being used prior to the Civil War while others imply that the state used it in 1861 only to drop its use due to the amount or time and effort needed. Others point to the fact that the arms found with the Ohio Mark were issued to the state in 1861 by the United States. From here I will only report what I have found thus far and will leave it up to the reader to decide in the end.
To begin we should start from the very beginning. There are numerous reports, especially those found in the Executive Documents, where the Quarter Master and the Adjutant General were frustrated with the system. Here are a few examples:
For the Year 1825
In 1825 the Quartermaster General reported that he had 6,473 arms on hand. This total amounted to total number of arms received in 1819 (1,200) and 1823 (5,273). It was also stated that a large portion of arms remained at each original places of deposit. It was also reported that nearly one half of the arms had been drawn out for upwards of a year. The arms were distributed evenly to Painesville, Steubenville, Portsmouth, Cincinnati, and Columbus. The Quartermaster stated that due to the defect in the current law he was uncertain how many arms had been drawn by the captains of companies through the state. However, the state did have an idea of how many arms it had but it didn’t mention the 3,155 arms received prior to 1816.
For the Year 1840: February 24, 1840
From the early beginnings to about the 1820s the State of Ohio was divided into 10 Divisions that consisted of Infantry, cavalry, and artillery. Sometime around 1826 or possibly 1833, that number increased to 17 Divisions. In 1837 the Divisions were sub-divided and extended to 23 Divisions. The number of arms provided to the militia depended on the population of the state.
It is also interesting to note that most of the arms were kept in the old state prison which the Quartermaster was using as an arsenal. The Quartermaster went on to report that he hoped the legislature would provide further means to repair the old prison and enclose the surrounding grounds. Because the arms could not be controlled for safe-keeping and want of repairs the Quartermaster General, Niswanger, sought to have all arms drawn from the state arsenal at Columbus at the militias’ own expense and have bond for double the amount of contract price for safe keeping and redelivery of said arms in good condition. Prior to this time, the evidence suggests the arms were distributed to each division who in turn distributed them to each brigade. The brigade quartermaster than distributed the arms to the companies. It was said that some arms were kept in storage at different points throughout the state. The state would then pay individuals for either storage of or repair and cleaning of arms when necessary which turned out to be a great expense to the state.
For the Year 1846
The Adjutant General reported the there seemed no permanency in the present militia organization. In some parts of the State quite an interest is felt - in others, comparatively, nothing. If the citizens take some care in upholding and fostering the militia that is taken in destroying it, we would now be doing well. More than a third of the militia has no arms and nearly all the accoutrements to the arms entirely lost, namely bayonets and scabbards, cartridge boxes, and the like.
On December 31, 1845 the Adjutant General reported that there was at least 147,300 Infantry or unarmed militia. The Light Infantry was reported to be 6,506 with 6,851 muskets in use and 15,417 distributed. Riflemen reported a strength of 15,438 with 4,040 rifles in use and 7,002 rifles distributed. A combined strength of all departments was 176,147 which was less than reported in 1841 which was 180,000. Inclosing, the Adjutant General hoped the Legislature would refurnish the equipment lost which would encourage the promotion of the volunteer corps, and secure the enumeration, fully, of the unarmed militia, it is hoped a much larger force will be reported next years.
For the Year 1849: November 15, 1849
The Quartermaster in 1849 reported that the books in the office contained no record of the distribution of the arms prior to the year 1843. It didn’t give any account of the arms received from the United States and that the public arms were scattered all over the country and going fast to destruction. An inventory of arms and equipment held in Columbus was taken and found that a great portion of arms in the worst possible condition.
For the Year 1850: November 22, 1850
In 1850 it was written that nearly 1,400 arms were lying in the Arsenal in need of immediate attention. The Quartermaster wrote that it is impossible to make any very correct estimate of the number of public arms, now distributed through the State, or suggestion as to their condition. This statement should have been alarming at the time and gives evidence that the state, by this time had no idea what had been distributed.
The Quartermaster reported that that there was at least 1,000 to 1,500 stands of arms issued to each division and that more than half of this number (at least 14,375 arms) were lying in Court Houses, Warehouses, and barns, fast disappearing and going to loss by rust and private use. The Quartermaster went on to report that there were 2,200 muskets in good order, the majority being Harpers Ferry and Springfield muskets in the state arsenal.
For the Year 1851: December 16, 1851
The Quartermaster wrote that a large number of muskets and rifles, now in the Arsenal, are in bad condition, having been heretofore distributed to divisions and since returned in bad order. Rifles were lying in boxes in such a poor place that had never been open required to have them opened for cleaning and repacked. He went on to say that the arms could not be taken care of unless money was appropriated for their care and that he would have to lock up the arsenal and let them rust and rot without the necessary funding.
The Quartermaster was showing signs of frustration at this time not only for the number of arms needing repair but that the militia’s strength, which was used to receive arms for the general government, had not made proper returns for some years which denied the state more arms than what it was receiving and that the state could have received a much larger proportion of the public arms.
His frustration ran even deeper when he couldn’t give reliable information on the distribution of arms to the several divisions of the state. By acts passed by the state legislature beginning in 1837 and then again in 1844 the public arms were received from the Ordnance Department, and scattered through the state, with no law requiring any officer to report in regard to their condition or safety. By the act of March 12, 1844, vol. 42, O. L., the training of the militia was dispensed with, and provisions made for volunteer companies. After this passage of that law, the military spirit in this state dwindled to almost nothing. General confusion and disorder in the military organization prevailed. All military spirit was lost, and companies broke up and threw aside their arms without protection. During the confused state of things, no returns have been made of the strength of the militia for the last five or six years.
The Quartermaster went on by explaining that he couldn’t make a very correct estimate of arms unprotected by agents. But he believed that nearly $500,000 worth of public property was lying in barns, warehouses fast going to destruction, and still a matter of considerable expense to the state and that no bonds have been taken for its safe keeping and redelivery. From here it’s quite clear that the Quartermaster General, Andrews, vents his frustration as to why the state is allowing this problem to persist without taking the proper measures to defend the country or the state when needed.
When speaking of the militia Andrews quoted the new constitution that all white male citizens, resident of the State, being eighteen years of age, and under the age of forty years, shall be enrolled in the militia, and perform military duty, in such a manner, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States, as may be prescribed by law. However, he went on to explain that it is thought by some individuals of influence and position, that a military organization in this state is expensive, useless, and unnecessary; and that it would be better if the public arms were thrown into the Scioto, and the taxes of the people saved from such expense. Disagreeing, he continued by saying it would be an act of pride and self preservation, to organize the militia upon such a basis aw would either call into active duty the whole body of the militia, or build up a system of independent companies that would be an honor to the state.
Annual Report for the Year 1856: January 26, 1856
In January 1856 Quartermaster General Andrews reported the kinds and arms in the State Arsenal were nearly all in good order. He also reported that there were no records of arms distribution prior to the year 1843. This seems to have been a recurring problem with each new Quartermaster General. Having no documentation of arms received by the state since 1808 Andrews applied to the Ordnance Department for a copy of the account with the State, which was furnished, and the same has been entered in a suitable book in this office.
It’s also notable to mention at this point that the state seemed, for several years since, to have rotated its arms with the several divisions ensuring that the newer arms were replacing the older ones from time to time. It also seems that the state had tried to rein in the unused arms discussed previously. But, Andrews does mention that he still had no idea what had been issued prior to the year 1843. This will be a problem that will persist for a few more years until Quartermaster Wood attempts to solve the issue once and for all. However, it won’t be until 1863 until the state finally solves it issues when the state takes complete control of its arms and equipment.
More to follow”¦ Ran out of time. I'm not sure if anyone has an interest on this topic. If there is an interest I will respond with more information if not I will stop here. Having trouble sleeping? Read some more.
wahkahchimaol.com
45 Cal.
- Joined
- May 17, 2009
- Messages
- 593
- Reaction score
- 14
I'm interested. We who are relatively uneducated think that the whole Civil War was fought with 1861 Springfield Rifle-muskets. Actually you are showing us that there was a continuum of firearms use and development and that there were even...FLINTLOCKS...in the early days of the war. I had no idea that .69 caliber guns were so widespread and that they even put rifled barrels on 1816's. Now THOSE guns would have a lot to say if they could talk! Did any of these .69 caliber guns in any capacity last all the way through the war? And what happened to them AFTER the civil war.
Last edited by a moderator:
I find it very interesting myself.I've studied what arms were used to arm Illinois troops and Fremont's arms purchases off and on for years.Fascinating stuff.Some units carried smoothbores of one sort or another till the end of the war.A lot of Illinois troops carried Austrian smoothbores pretty much up till the end.The number of imported and converted muskets carried during the war is amazing.The Springfield Rifled Musket and the Enfield were in the majority for sure,especially for Federal troops,state units are a whole different story.
wahkahchim said:
They didn't put rifled barrels on them,they rifled the existing smoothbore barrels.On the ones I have had a chance to look at the rifling is very shallow.
Many units in the Western Theatre were armed with various smoothbore muskets till late in the war,some till the end.Being more familiar with Illinois units,many of the Quarterly Ordnance Stores Reports still listed U.S.RM M1816 altered to percussion into late 1863 and the 1st half of 1864 before dropping off the QOSR.
As to what happened to them post war,they were sold as surplus by the thousands and remained on the market for years.Many of them smooth bored and sold as cheap shotguns.Hartley & Grahams circa 1885 catalog lists such guns-
Musket M1822 Cone in barrel Smooth Bore Bright and Well Cleaned @ $1.60
Springfield Model 1842 altered to shotgun @ $2.20
This one is interesting-
Model 1822 Patent Breech SmoothBore @$1.67
The one conversion using a patent breech were the ones converted to Maynard Tape Primer and Rifled.
Not everyone going west had a Winchester Rifle and a Colt's Revolver.For a homesteader they weren't a bad choice.A ball and shot gun,round ball for larger game and defense,shot for small game and birds.And they didn't cost much.
Many Klatch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 3,498
- Reaction score
- 265
In Grant's Memoirs he mentions that his Federal troops were armed with smoothbores at Vicksburg. He liked the fact that when they were in a shooting match with the Rebels that the Federal troops were sending 4 ball down range with each shot (buck and ball) while the Rebels with rifles were only sending one shot back.
After Vicksburg fell, Grant says that the Rebels marched in and stacked their arms. Then the Federal troops marched in stacked their smoothbores and then took up the stacked rifles and marched out as Rifle Regiments.
Many Klatch
After Vicksburg fell, Grant says that the Rebels marched in and stacked their arms. Then the Federal troops marched in stacked their smoothbores and then took up the stacked rifles and marched out as Rifle Regiments.
Many Klatch
Va.Manuf.06
58 Cal.
Ohio Mark, thanks for the excellent posts so far in this thread and please do continue. You mention Schmidt's fine book, have you read Moller's latest, American Military Shoulder Arms, Volume III: Flintlock Alterations and Muzzleloading Percussion Shoulder Arms, 1840-1865? If not, you are in for a treat.
We need to keep in mind how important the smoothbored musket was to both sides in the American Civil War. The Army of the Potomac used large numbers of them at Gettysburg, as a matter of fact, the troops opposing Picket's Charge on the third day used them very effectively.
We need to keep in mind how important the smoothbored musket was to both sides in the American Civil War. The Army of the Potomac used large numbers of them at Gettysburg, as a matter of fact, the troops opposing Picket's Charge on the third day used them very effectively.
wahkahchimaol.com
45 Cal.
- Joined
- May 17, 2009
- Messages
- 593
- Reaction score
- 14
So there were 1860 Henrys, Spencers, and altered smoothbore muskets on the same field of battle. Amazing. That would be like having some units in Iraq armed with M-1 Garands, some with AK's, and some with M-4's. Amazing. What a mix!
Ohio Mark
1861
I will continue from where I left off in my last post. Some readers may have seen that Ohio was in a very confusing state of affairs. I will include here a list of muskets received by the United States prior to 1861:
FLINTLOCK MUSKETS ISSUED TO OHIO
Ohio Historical Society ”“ Series 2226 BV989 and Records Group 156, Entry 117
Statement of the number of small arms, Field Artillery, etc, furnished to the State of Ohio under the Law of 23rd April 1808, from its passage to the year 1849 inclusive --
From 1808 to 1816 ”“ 3,155
1819 ”“ 1,200 musket
1823 ”“ 5,273 muskets 1,284 Pistols
1826 ”“ 4,182 Pistols
1829 ”“ 1,465 muskets
1830 ”“ 3,382 Rifles
1831 ”“ 1,217 muskets 42 Pistols
1832 ”“ 1,216 muskets
1835 ”“ 130 Carbines 3,180 Pistols
1837 ”“ 222 Rifles 2,152 Pistols
1839 ”“ 2,280 muskets 1,800 Rifles
1840 ”“ 1,220 muskets
1841 ”“ 1,180 muskets
1843 ”“ 1,400 (These may have been rifles)
1844 ”“ 550 muskets 280 Rifles 250 Pistols
1845 ”“ 280 muskets
1846 ”“ 900 muskets
1848 ”“ 1,820 muskets
1849 ”“ 960 muskets
Ordnance Officer
Washington Feby. 1, 1854
A.K. Craig
Col of Ordnance
ALTERED MUSKETS AND RIFLES ISSUED TO OHIO IN THE 1850s
Ohio Historical Society ”“ Series 2226 BV989 and Records Group 156, Entry 117
Statement of the number of Small Arms under the Law of 1808 from the year 1850
1850 ”“ 473 Muskets 300 Rifles (Percussion) 200 Carbines
1851 ”“ 300 Rifles 320 Cavalry Pistols 100 Colt Pistols
1852 ”“ 10 Colt Pistols
1853 ”“ 20 Muskets 100 Cavalry Pistols 100 Colt Pistols
Total: 493 Muskets
600 Rifles
420 Cavalry Pistols
210 Cavalry Pistols
QUOTA OF ARMS FROM 1854 TO 1860
Ohio Historical Society ”“ Series 2226 BV989
February 1, 1854
From the Watervliet Arsenal
100 Muskets Complete Percussion 1st Class Contract Bright
215 Muskets Complete Percussion 2nd Class Contract Brown
30 Carbines Halls Patent
120 Pistols Percussion
Pages 8-9
1855
585 Muskets N.A. Bright. Altered
Page 11
1855 Continued
210 Rifles Percussion New
The State of Ohio in account with the United States
Sept 19, 1856
300 Percussion Muskets
300 Percussion Rifles
100 Sappers Musketoons
60 Colt’s Bett Pistols
Page 16
The State of Ohio in account with the United States
August 24, 1857
550 Percussion Muskets
200 Long Range Rifles (In a memorandum of 20 April 1861 Allegheny Arsenal reported a Long Range Rifle as a: Long Range Model of 1855 Caliber .58. However, in an abstract statement of 1857 from the Quarter Master General, the above rifle appears as a Model 1854, with Sword Bayonet.)
Page 18
The State of Ohio in account with the United States
August 29, 1858
700 Percussion Muskets
Page 20
The State of Ohio in account with the United States
April 29, 1859
From the Springfield Arsenal
April 29, 1859 300 Rifle Muskets (Model 1855) (In a Memorandum of 20 April 1861 Allegheny Arsenal reported a Rifle Musket as a: Rifle caliber .58 (Springfield Manufactory).)
1 Rifle Musket Cadet
25,000 Maynard’s Primers
From the New York Arsenal
Nov 16, 1859
1 Rifle Colt’s Patent with appendages
1 Cavalry Carbine Colts patent with appendages
1 Artillery Carbine with Sword Bayonet with appendages
2 Carbines Pistols Colts Drag. Patent with Carbine Bullet (Pistol) Stock
1 Carbine Sharps Patent with appendages
Page 26
The State of Ohio in account with the United States
June 1, 1860
From the Allegheny Arsenal
600 Rifle Muskets with appendages @ $13.93 ---- $8,358.00 (This shipment was more than likely a shipment of the Model 1855)
Page 28
This bit of information is also needed in Order to give the reader an idea what had transpired in Ohio from 1857-1860:
Ohio Historical Society
Series 8 GRVF 1520
Muskets & Rifles Prior to 1861
Page 1
May 9, 1857 Sold 2 Flint Rifles to J Watson $5.00 front cover
Page 2
August 29 M C Silley 1 Rifle @ 100 Paid 1.00
August 29 C Seibert 6 Rifles @100 Paid 6.00
August 29 J Marring 1 Rife @ 100 paid 1.00
August 31 J Ritz 1 Rifle @ 100 paid 1.00
August 31 J Ritz 1 Rifle @ 3.00 paid 3.00
Oct 5 J A Miller 1 Rifle @ 3.00 paid 3.00
Oct 5 John Righter 1 Rifle @ 3.00 paid 3.00
Oct 8 W R Stahl 1 Rifle @ 3.00 paid 3.00
Page 5
Columbus February 1, 1858
Arms and Equipment are on hand for sale or repair as may be Directed by the Governor
905 Flint Muskets $5.00 each
44 Percussion Muskets 800
Total 949
245 Flint Rifles $5.00
21 Percussion Rifles 800
Total 266
Page 7
Columbus Feb. 26th 1858
Received the Following ordnance and ordnance Stores shipped by D L Wood from Carroll Co O
43 Flint Muskets 27 Deringer Rifles”¦
J F Veeseames (1)
Received the Following Ordnance & Ordnance Stores from Cuyahoga Co O
62 Flint Muskets”¦ 47 Per Rifles
J F Veeseames
(1) This could very well be Jonathan F. Neereamer. Very little is known about this individual but his name does appear in the Quartermaster Report of November 15, 1849. Captain Jonathan F. Neereamer, as he was known in 1840, was assigned by Quartermaster P. H. Olmsted to superintend the cleaning of the arms and accoutrements.
Page 8
Columbus Ordnance 10th 1858
Received the Following ordnance and ordnance Stores shipped by D L Wood from Knox Co O
130 Flint Muskets 26 Flint Rifles”¦
J F Veeseames
Received Columbus Ohio March 17th 1858 five Boxes of Ordnance and Ordnance Stores from Newark Co O Containing
40 Flint Muskets 12 Flint Rifles”¦
J F Veeseames
Page 9
Received Columbus Ohio March 19th 1858 From Coshocton O 1 Box of Ordnance & Ordnance Store Containing
9 Flint Muskets”¦
Received Columbus Ohio March 21st 1858 The Following Ordnance and Ordnance Stores from Jefferson Co O
43 Muskets”¦
J F Veeseames
Received Columbus Ohio April 6th 1858 The Following Ordnance and Ordnance Stores from Zainesville Muskingum Co O Collected by Col Wood
175 Flint Muskets 44 Flint Rifles”¦
J F Veeseames
Page 10
Received Columbus Ohio April 19th 858 The Following Ordnance and Ordnance Stores from Fairfield Co O
249 Flint Muskets 16 Flint Rifles
J F Veeseames
Received Columbus Ohio April 21st 1858 The Following Ordnance and Ordnance Stores from Burton Geauga Co O Shipped by W M Ford
160 Flint Muskets
J F Veeseames
Received Columbus Ohio April 23rd 1858 The Following old arms found Medina O
21 Flint Muskets
J F Veeseames
Page 11
Received Columbus Ohio May 3rd 1858 from Belmont Co O The Following Ordnance and Ordnance Stores
226 Flint Muskets
2 Flint Rifles
J F Veeseames
Washington Co May 28th 1858
30 Flint Rifles 63 Muskets
Apprased up to this date June 23rd 1858
Page 12
Received Columbus Ohio June 25th 1858 from Lima Athens Co O The Following Ordnance and Ordnance Stores
116 Flint Muskets
J F Veeseames
Received Columbus Ohio August 20 1858 from Portsmouth Scioto Co O
96 Flint Muskets
J F Veeseames
Received Columbus August 22 from Pike Co. O
21 Flint Muskets
Shipped by Col Wood
J F Veeseames
Page 13
Received Columbus Ohio October 13th 1858 The Following Ordnance and Ordnance Stores shipped by Col Wood from Dayton Montgomery Co O
128 Musket
7 Rifles
J F Veeseames
Received Columbus Ohio The Following Ordnance and Ordnance Stores shipped by Col Wood from Drake Co O October 13th
35 Muskets
J F Veeseames
Tuscarawas Co Received Nov 1st 1858
37 Muskets
J F Veeseames
Columbiana Co O Received November 1st 1858
24 Muskets
J F Veeseames
Page 14
Stark Co O Recd Nov 1st 1858
124 Muskets
J F N
Monroe Co O Oct 25th 1858
18 Rifles
J F N
Cristhem O Recd July 14th 1858
15 Muskets
J F N
Cardington Monroe Co O July 1st 1858
13 Rifles
J F N
Perry Co O Sept 14th 1858
34 Muskets
J F N
Page 15
Memorandum of Arms Received as follows
1859
From Crawford County 14 Flint Lock Muskets
From Butler County 23 Flint Lock Muskets
From Clinton County 43 Flint Lock Muskets
From Lorain County 40 Cap Lock Rifles
From Crawford County 60 Cap Lock Muskets
Hamilton Co 60 Flint Muskets
Ross County 20 Cap Muskets, 75 Flint
Page 16
Seneca County 50 Cap Muskets
Muskingham County 60 Flint Muskets
Erie County Rifles Muskets
Portage County 40 Cap Lock Muskets
Page 17
Memorandum of Arms received in Arsenal from Col
1859
Nov 16 From Delaware Co 38 Rifles
1860
May 1 From Hamilton Co
16 Flint Muskets
16 Flint Rifles
20 Cap Rifles
May 12 Lucas Co
40 Cap Muskets
Page 19 & 20
Memorandum of Arms Received in Arsenal since Nov 15, 1860
From Cuyahoga Co 50 Muskets
From Hamilton Co 99 Muskets
From Coshocton Co 77 Muskets
From Monroe Co 40 Muskets
From Richland Co 37
303 (This is the total used for April 15, 1861)
Page 22
Memorandum of Arms Delivered from Arsenal from Nov 15, 1859
31 Rifles sold to Sikert &
147 Muskets 22 Rifles 6 Musketoons (these look like they were sold)
Delivered to Athens Co
40 Cap Lock Muskets
Delivered to C---
40 Cap Lock Muskets
This appears near the end of the log
Sale
Muskets 124
173
120
332
94
As you have seen the Quarter Master had passed through various counties collecting arms and depositing them back in the arsenal. By November 15, 1860 Ohio had exactly 882 Altered Muskets and 598 Rifle Muskets (M1855) in its arsenal. This gave the state a grand total of 1,480 muskets and rifles. By April 15, 1862 the state had the following in the arsenal:
Altered Muskets: 1,185
Rifle Muskets .58 cal.: 598
Total: 1,783 arms of all kinds for infantry
At the same time there were in the hands of the militia 2,767 muskets of all kinds giving the state a total of 4,550 muskets and rifles. This may sound like a lot but the state had been provided the following from 1808 to 1860:
27,967 muskets and
6,995 rifles
The state at this point could not account for more than 30,412 muskets and rifles. The reader should keep this all in mind because it will come into play when looking at the overall picture.
When war came in 1861 Ohio received the following from the United States:
April 30, 1861:
- Watervliet Arsenal: 8,180 Altered US Muskets
1,820 New Percussion Muskets (M1842)
- Transferred from Cleveland: 3,150 Altered Muskets (Springfield Armory)
- Transferred from Cleveland through Captain McCook: 7,000 Altered Muskets (Springfield Armory)
- State of Illinois: 4,800 Altered Muskets
- State of Illinois: 200 New Percussion Muskets
May 11, 1861
- Springfield Armory: 3,000 New Percussion
- Governor Curtain: 10,000 New Percussion Muskets (Watervliet Arsenal)
October 15, 1861 ”“ Washington Arsenal: 2,600 Altered Muskets
October 18, 1861 ”“ Washington Arsenal: 400 Altered Muskets
If you are having trouble keeping count the state received the following:
- Altered Muskets received in April 1861: 23,130 (all were smoothbore)
- New Percussion Muskets received in April 1861: 2,020 (all were smoothbore)
- New Percussion Muskets received in May 1861: 13,000 (all were smoothbore)
- Altered Muskets purchased by Capt. Stausberry in August 1861: 400 (nnknown)
- Altered Muskets received in October 1861: 3,000
- Altered Muskets collected within the state from April to December: 609
- New Percussion Muskets collected within the state from April to December: 373
- Rifle Muskets .58 cal. collected within the state from April to December: 225
See totals below
Altered Muskets: 27,139
New Percussion: 15,393
Rifle Musket.58 Cal.: 823
Grand Total of infantry arms in 1861: 43,355 (United States Arms)
Please note that there are no foreign arms listed. Although Ohio did receive Enfield muskets it is the only foreign arm that was present until October. The state began receiving Prussian muskets on October 25, 1861 with a total of 2,040 muskets by the end of the month.
More to follow”¦..
1861
I will continue from where I left off in my last post. Some readers may have seen that Ohio was in a very confusing state of affairs. I will include here a list of muskets received by the United States prior to 1861:
FLINTLOCK MUSKETS ISSUED TO OHIO
Ohio Historical Society ”“ Series 2226 BV989 and Records Group 156, Entry 117
Statement of the number of small arms, Field Artillery, etc, furnished to the State of Ohio under the Law of 23rd April 1808, from its passage to the year 1849 inclusive --
From 1808 to 1816 ”“ 3,155
1819 ”“ 1,200 musket
1823 ”“ 5,273 muskets 1,284 Pistols
1826 ”“ 4,182 Pistols
1829 ”“ 1,465 muskets
1830 ”“ 3,382 Rifles
1831 ”“ 1,217 muskets 42 Pistols
1832 ”“ 1,216 muskets
1835 ”“ 130 Carbines 3,180 Pistols
1837 ”“ 222 Rifles 2,152 Pistols
1839 ”“ 2,280 muskets 1,800 Rifles
1840 ”“ 1,220 muskets
1841 ”“ 1,180 muskets
1843 ”“ 1,400 (These may have been rifles)
1844 ”“ 550 muskets 280 Rifles 250 Pistols
1845 ”“ 280 muskets
1846 ”“ 900 muskets
1848 ”“ 1,820 muskets
1849 ”“ 960 muskets
Ordnance Officer
Washington Feby. 1, 1854
A.K. Craig
Col of Ordnance
ALTERED MUSKETS AND RIFLES ISSUED TO OHIO IN THE 1850s
Ohio Historical Society ”“ Series 2226 BV989 and Records Group 156, Entry 117
Statement of the number of Small Arms under the Law of 1808 from the year 1850
1850 ”“ 473 Muskets 300 Rifles (Percussion) 200 Carbines
1851 ”“ 300 Rifles 320 Cavalry Pistols 100 Colt Pistols
1852 ”“ 10 Colt Pistols
1853 ”“ 20 Muskets 100 Cavalry Pistols 100 Colt Pistols
Total: 493 Muskets
600 Rifles
420 Cavalry Pistols
210 Cavalry Pistols
QUOTA OF ARMS FROM 1854 TO 1860
Ohio Historical Society ”“ Series 2226 BV989
February 1, 1854
From the Watervliet Arsenal
100 Muskets Complete Percussion 1st Class Contract Bright
215 Muskets Complete Percussion 2nd Class Contract Brown
30 Carbines Halls Patent
120 Pistols Percussion
Pages 8-9
1855
585 Muskets N.A. Bright. Altered
Page 11
1855 Continued
210 Rifles Percussion New
The State of Ohio in account with the United States
Sept 19, 1856
300 Percussion Muskets
300 Percussion Rifles
100 Sappers Musketoons
60 Colt’s Bett Pistols
Page 16
The State of Ohio in account with the United States
August 24, 1857
550 Percussion Muskets
200 Long Range Rifles (In a memorandum of 20 April 1861 Allegheny Arsenal reported a Long Range Rifle as a: Long Range Model of 1855 Caliber .58. However, in an abstract statement of 1857 from the Quarter Master General, the above rifle appears as a Model 1854, with Sword Bayonet.)
Page 18
The State of Ohio in account with the United States
August 29, 1858
700 Percussion Muskets
Page 20
The State of Ohio in account with the United States
April 29, 1859
From the Springfield Arsenal
April 29, 1859 300 Rifle Muskets (Model 1855) (In a Memorandum of 20 April 1861 Allegheny Arsenal reported a Rifle Musket as a: Rifle caliber .58 (Springfield Manufactory).)
1 Rifle Musket Cadet
25,000 Maynard’s Primers
From the New York Arsenal
Nov 16, 1859
1 Rifle Colt’s Patent with appendages
1 Cavalry Carbine Colts patent with appendages
1 Artillery Carbine with Sword Bayonet with appendages
2 Carbines Pistols Colts Drag. Patent with Carbine Bullet (Pistol) Stock
1 Carbine Sharps Patent with appendages
Page 26
The State of Ohio in account with the United States
June 1, 1860
From the Allegheny Arsenal
600 Rifle Muskets with appendages @ $13.93 ---- $8,358.00 (This shipment was more than likely a shipment of the Model 1855)
Page 28
This bit of information is also needed in Order to give the reader an idea what had transpired in Ohio from 1857-1860:
Ohio Historical Society
Series 8 GRVF 1520
Muskets & Rifles Prior to 1861
Page 1
May 9, 1857 Sold 2 Flint Rifles to J Watson $5.00 front cover
Page 2
August 29 M C Silley 1 Rifle @ 100 Paid 1.00
August 29 C Seibert 6 Rifles @100 Paid 6.00
August 29 J Marring 1 Rife @ 100 paid 1.00
August 31 J Ritz 1 Rifle @ 100 paid 1.00
August 31 J Ritz 1 Rifle @ 3.00 paid 3.00
Oct 5 J A Miller 1 Rifle @ 3.00 paid 3.00
Oct 5 John Righter 1 Rifle @ 3.00 paid 3.00
Oct 8 W R Stahl 1 Rifle @ 3.00 paid 3.00
Page 5
Columbus February 1, 1858
Arms and Equipment are on hand for sale or repair as may be Directed by the Governor
905 Flint Muskets $5.00 each
44 Percussion Muskets 800
Total 949
245 Flint Rifles $5.00
21 Percussion Rifles 800
Total 266
Page 7
Columbus Feb. 26th 1858
Received the Following ordnance and ordnance Stores shipped by D L Wood from Carroll Co O
43 Flint Muskets 27 Deringer Rifles”¦
J F Veeseames (1)
Received the Following Ordnance & Ordnance Stores from Cuyahoga Co O
62 Flint Muskets”¦ 47 Per Rifles
J F Veeseames
(1) This could very well be Jonathan F. Neereamer. Very little is known about this individual but his name does appear in the Quartermaster Report of November 15, 1849. Captain Jonathan F. Neereamer, as he was known in 1840, was assigned by Quartermaster P. H. Olmsted to superintend the cleaning of the arms and accoutrements.
Page 8
Columbus Ordnance 10th 1858
Received the Following ordnance and ordnance Stores shipped by D L Wood from Knox Co O
130 Flint Muskets 26 Flint Rifles”¦
J F Veeseames
Received Columbus Ohio March 17th 1858 five Boxes of Ordnance and Ordnance Stores from Newark Co O Containing
40 Flint Muskets 12 Flint Rifles”¦
J F Veeseames
Page 9
Received Columbus Ohio March 19th 1858 From Coshocton O 1 Box of Ordnance & Ordnance Store Containing
9 Flint Muskets”¦
Received Columbus Ohio March 21st 1858 The Following Ordnance and Ordnance Stores from Jefferson Co O
43 Muskets”¦
J F Veeseames
Received Columbus Ohio April 6th 1858 The Following Ordnance and Ordnance Stores from Zainesville Muskingum Co O Collected by Col Wood
175 Flint Muskets 44 Flint Rifles”¦
J F Veeseames
Page 10
Received Columbus Ohio April 19th 858 The Following Ordnance and Ordnance Stores from Fairfield Co O
249 Flint Muskets 16 Flint Rifles
J F Veeseames
Received Columbus Ohio April 21st 1858 The Following Ordnance and Ordnance Stores from Burton Geauga Co O Shipped by W M Ford
160 Flint Muskets
J F Veeseames
Received Columbus Ohio April 23rd 1858 The Following old arms found Medina O
21 Flint Muskets
J F Veeseames
Page 11
Received Columbus Ohio May 3rd 1858 from Belmont Co O The Following Ordnance and Ordnance Stores
226 Flint Muskets
2 Flint Rifles
J F Veeseames
Washington Co May 28th 1858
30 Flint Rifles 63 Muskets
Apprased up to this date June 23rd 1858
Page 12
Received Columbus Ohio June 25th 1858 from Lima Athens Co O The Following Ordnance and Ordnance Stores
116 Flint Muskets
J F Veeseames
Received Columbus Ohio August 20 1858 from Portsmouth Scioto Co O
96 Flint Muskets
J F Veeseames
Received Columbus August 22 from Pike Co. O
21 Flint Muskets
Shipped by Col Wood
J F Veeseames
Page 13
Received Columbus Ohio October 13th 1858 The Following Ordnance and Ordnance Stores shipped by Col Wood from Dayton Montgomery Co O
128 Musket
7 Rifles
J F Veeseames
Received Columbus Ohio The Following Ordnance and Ordnance Stores shipped by Col Wood from Drake Co O October 13th
35 Muskets
J F Veeseames
Tuscarawas Co Received Nov 1st 1858
37 Muskets
J F Veeseames
Columbiana Co O Received November 1st 1858
24 Muskets
J F Veeseames
Page 14
Stark Co O Recd Nov 1st 1858
124 Muskets
J F N
Monroe Co O Oct 25th 1858
18 Rifles
J F N
Cristhem O Recd July 14th 1858
15 Muskets
J F N
Cardington Monroe Co O July 1st 1858
13 Rifles
J F N
Perry Co O Sept 14th 1858
34 Muskets
J F N
Page 15
Memorandum of Arms Received as follows
1859
From Crawford County 14 Flint Lock Muskets
From Butler County 23 Flint Lock Muskets
From Clinton County 43 Flint Lock Muskets
From Lorain County 40 Cap Lock Rifles
From Crawford County 60 Cap Lock Muskets
Hamilton Co 60 Flint Muskets
Ross County 20 Cap Muskets, 75 Flint
Page 16
Seneca County 50 Cap Muskets
Muskingham County 60 Flint Muskets
Erie County Rifles Muskets
Portage County 40 Cap Lock Muskets
Page 17
Memorandum of Arms received in Arsenal from Col
1859
Nov 16 From Delaware Co 38 Rifles
1860
May 1 From Hamilton Co
16 Flint Muskets
16 Flint Rifles
20 Cap Rifles
May 12 Lucas Co
40 Cap Muskets
Page 19 & 20
Memorandum of Arms Received in Arsenal since Nov 15, 1860
From Cuyahoga Co 50 Muskets
From Hamilton Co 99 Muskets
From Coshocton Co 77 Muskets
From Monroe Co 40 Muskets
From Richland Co 37
303 (This is the total used for April 15, 1861)
Page 22
Memorandum of Arms Delivered from Arsenal from Nov 15, 1859
31 Rifles sold to Sikert &
147 Muskets 22 Rifles 6 Musketoons (these look like they were sold)
Delivered to Athens Co
40 Cap Lock Muskets
Delivered to C---
40 Cap Lock Muskets
This appears near the end of the log
Sale
Muskets 124
173
120
332
94
As you have seen the Quarter Master had passed through various counties collecting arms and depositing them back in the arsenal. By November 15, 1860 Ohio had exactly 882 Altered Muskets and 598 Rifle Muskets (M1855) in its arsenal. This gave the state a grand total of 1,480 muskets and rifles. By April 15, 1862 the state had the following in the arsenal:
Altered Muskets: 1,185
Rifle Muskets .58 cal.: 598
Total: 1,783 arms of all kinds for infantry
At the same time there were in the hands of the militia 2,767 muskets of all kinds giving the state a total of 4,550 muskets and rifles. This may sound like a lot but the state had been provided the following from 1808 to 1860:
27,967 muskets and
6,995 rifles
The state at this point could not account for more than 30,412 muskets and rifles. The reader should keep this all in mind because it will come into play when looking at the overall picture.
When war came in 1861 Ohio received the following from the United States:
April 30, 1861:
- Watervliet Arsenal: 8,180 Altered US Muskets
1,820 New Percussion Muskets (M1842)
- Transferred from Cleveland: 3,150 Altered Muskets (Springfield Armory)
- Transferred from Cleveland through Captain McCook: 7,000 Altered Muskets (Springfield Armory)
- State of Illinois: 4,800 Altered Muskets
- State of Illinois: 200 New Percussion Muskets
May 11, 1861
- Springfield Armory: 3,000 New Percussion
- Governor Curtain: 10,000 New Percussion Muskets (Watervliet Arsenal)
October 15, 1861 ”“ Washington Arsenal: 2,600 Altered Muskets
October 18, 1861 ”“ Washington Arsenal: 400 Altered Muskets
If you are having trouble keeping count the state received the following:
- Altered Muskets received in April 1861: 23,130 (all were smoothbore)
- New Percussion Muskets received in April 1861: 2,020 (all were smoothbore)
- New Percussion Muskets received in May 1861: 13,000 (all were smoothbore)
- Altered Muskets purchased by Capt. Stausberry in August 1861: 400 (nnknown)
- Altered Muskets received in October 1861: 3,000
- Altered Muskets collected within the state from April to December: 609
- New Percussion Muskets collected within the state from April to December: 373
- Rifle Muskets .58 cal. collected within the state from April to December: 225
See totals below
Altered Muskets: 27,139
New Percussion: 15,393
Rifle Musket.58 Cal.: 823
Grand Total of infantry arms in 1861: 43,355 (United States Arms)
Please note that there are no foreign arms listed. Although Ohio did receive Enfield muskets it is the only foreign arm that was present until October. The state began receiving Prussian muskets on October 25, 1861 with a total of 2,040 muskets by the end of the month.
More to follow”¦..
wahkahchimaol.com
45 Cal.
- Joined
- May 17, 2009
- Messages
- 593
- Reaction score
- 14
"At the same time there were in the hands of the militia 2,767 muskets of all kinds giving the state a total of 4,550 muskets and rifles. This may sound like a lot but the state had been provided the following from 1808 to 1860:
27,967 muskets and 6,995 rifles"
Where did these go? Do you think militia members just took them home? Also I assume that "musket" meant smoothbore whereas "rifle" in the 1850's or 1860's meant what we now call a rifled musket? Thanks.
27,967 muskets and 6,995 rifles"
Where did these go? Do you think militia members just took them home? Also I assume that "musket" meant smoothbore whereas "rifle" in the 1850's or 1860's meant what we now call a rifled musket? Thanks.
Not necessarily,when refering to rifles and muskets in that period it often had to do with barrel length.The Model 1855 was of two models,the M1855 Rifle and the M1855 Rifle Musket.The Rifle was of 33 inch barrel length,the Rifle Musket being 40 inches.The M1841 Rifle was of 33 inch barrel length,it would not have been refered to or listed as being a musket or rifle musket.
Given some of the dates Ohio received rifles I would be interested if specific models were mentioned,especially the dates in the 1830s.Hall's Rifles or possibly the Model 1817?
Given some of the dates Ohio received rifles I would be interested if specific models were mentioned,especially the dates in the 1830s.Hall's Rifles or possibly the Model 1817?
In most cases the records that I have come across muskets and rifles are not clearly defined. They were simply listed as rifles, muskets, etc. In the early years, as well as, in the 1850s the state and national armories (according to what I have seen in the national archives) do not specify type of arm. As in our case the Rifle Muskets were simly listed as Model 1855. Nothing more. The same applies to an altered musket. They were simply listed as muskets, and in some cases altered muskets. I have yet to see a shipment of muskets listed as having been recieved in the following - Hapers Ferry, Altered muskets, with locks dated 1822. Then again I'm looking at how Ohio represented them. At one point I thought the records in the archives would be a better source. I hoofed it over to Washington and took a look. On reports of the arsenals flintlocks were listed as flitlocks, and flintlock rifles were listed as flintlock rifles. I try to use period information rather then using modern identification. Were the 1855 muskets M1855 Rifles or M1855 Rifle Muskets. I do know to be honest. Specific models are not mentioned. If anyone is interested you will be able too view the annual reports by looking at the executive documents. Harpers Ferry,and Springfield muskets were identified but the reports didn't specify whether they were the M1816 or the M1822. The reports in later years actually do a better job describing the arms, however. As for the question of what happened to the other muskets; they were either lost, damaged, sold, walked off, stolen etc. Its part of the point to the whole story. Thanks for the interest. I should point out that this is only the tip of the iceberg. It's really isn't possible to include everthing. Thanks again.
Sorry, forgot to mention but I'm really concentrated on the Altered Musket. I included the .58 cal because its part of the next portion. M1841 rifles are seen in the records but I haven't gone into detail since the bigger bulk of arms that I'm trying to point out are the altered smoothbore muskets. Thanks again.
As far as I've been able to determine looking at period literature and documents the term Rifle or Rifled Musket didn't come into usage until the M1855.I've not found the terminology "Rifle Musket or the abbreviation "RM" as yet prior to 1855. Another sometimes confusing term is when arms are listed as "musket caliber" and "rifle caliber".Sometimes you run into the phrase "of musket barrel length" also in descriptions and specifications.Sometimes you have to make determination based on what was or had been issued up to the date of the document you are looking at and make an educated or not,LOL,guess.
Before you begin, please excuse any typing errors or misspelled words like sediments which should have been sentiments. It’s been a very long day.
By looking at the reports in 1861 it’s possible to determine where the arms came from. Its more than likely that most of the 8,180 altered muskets that came from the Watervliet Arsenal were made by P.&E. W. Blake. At least 10,150 muskets came from the Springfield Arsenal while an additional 3,000 muskets came from the Washington Arsenal. These arms were likely made by Harpers Ferry. And still there were 4,800 altered muskets received by the State of Illinois. If I remember correctly the State of Illinois collected most of the arms from the St. Louis Arsenal in early 1861. I think it was to keep them from falling into the wrong hands but I’m going by memory on this one and I may be incorrect. At this time it is not known whether these arms were produced by contract or by one of the national armories or both. What is known isthat Quarter Master General of Ohio, C. P. Buckingham, wrote this about the arms received from Illinois: “Of the arms received as above, (Springfield, Illinois) two thousand, only, were first class percussion muskets, the remainder being old arms of various dates altered from flintlocks. He mentioned 2,000 New Percussion but the actual number was 200.
While the state was able to purchase Enfield muskets it wasn’t able to procure enough to issue a significant quantity to any one regiment in 1861. To remedy the situation “it was deemed advisable to try the experiment of rifling, and otherwise improving the smooth bore muskets. An arrangement was made with Miles Greenwood, of Cincinnati, to execute the necessary alterations, at a cost of one dollar and twenty ”“five cents for each musket.
In addition to which, he was to affix breech sights to one-twentieth of the entire number, at an additional cost of one dollar and seventy-five cents each. The experiment was highly successful, and a large number, otherwise unserviceable arms, at this small cost, made popular and effective weapons. The “Greenwood Rifle,” as it has been popularly styled, has met with great favor among our troops. In precision and range it is said to be fully equal to the celebrated “Enfield,” while it carries a much heavier weight of metal, and is consequently much more destructive. The total number of muskets rifled and atlered, up to the date of this report, was twenty-five thousand, three hundred and twenty-four (25,324).” (I mentioned that twenty percent had rear sights added but the real number was one-twentieth not twenty percent.)
However, in at least two different accounts found in the same log record the following:
- Muskets sent to Miles Greenwood: 26,015
(18,118 Altered Muskets and 7,897 New Percussion)
-From Miles Greenwood to the State: 23,356 Rifled Muskets and 454 Altered Muskets These arms were considered either condemned or unserviceable.
The rifling process began in July and ended in November. I believe I mentioned that the state received its first rifled mukets in August 1861 but it was actually in July. The state delivered 1,100 musket to Miles Greenwood on July 4, 1861 and the state received its first shipment of 100 rifled muskets on July 25, 1861. However, according to another record it appears Miles Greenwood may have begun the process sometime in June 1861. The state received 59 muskets from Miles Greenwood on July 10, 1861 but these muskets are listed as “Collection of Arms” in the log and do not mention Miles Greenwood. Sometimes it is necessary to view at least three different logs in order to distinquish what had transpired.
I have included a couple of clips that may give the reader what was transpiring between the state and Miles Greenwood in 1861: (Sorry in advance if the copy and paste method doesn’t work correctly)
HEAD QUARTERS Ohio Militia and Volunteer Militia Columbus, Ohio July 2 1861
SEND THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE BY TELEGRAPH
To Brig Gen Bates
Camp D.
How many spare Muskets Brown & Bright can you send to Greenwood immediately to be rifled. Will try to carry out your suggestions
WD.
HEAD QUARTERS Ohio Militia and Volunteer Militia Columbus, Ohio July 5th 1861
SEND THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE BY TELEGRAPH
To M Greenwood
Cincinnati.
How many muskets rifled can you deliver at Camp Dennison to-morrow morning -
WD.
Western Union Telegraph Company
To D. L. Wood August 10 1861 Q M Gen’l By Telegraph from Cincinnati 1861
Will be out of muskets today please forward more immediately M. Greenwood
I included some clips from those who mention the Greenwood Musket:
The Forty-first Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry in The War of the
Rebellion 1861-1865, written by Robert L. Kimberly and Ephraim S. Halloway,
Chapter 1, Making the Regiment, page 13:
”¦The soldiers were coming to handle their guns with confidence, for it was not until they were pitted against the Confederate Enfield rifles that the uselessness of the Greenwood rifled muskets became apparent. This latter was the arm which had been furnished by the government, sorely pushed to outfit its gathering armies.
Page 46
While in the vicinity of Readyville, Tn. the 41st Ohio Regiment was issued Springfield Rifles. “The drill and parade ground was on a level field below the camps. There was some regulation target practice here, for at last the regiment had discarded the miserable Greenwood rifled muskets, and was supplied with Springfield rifles. The target practice was a great help in making the men familiar with their new weapons.”
2. The Story of a Regiment, written by E. Hannaford. Chapter 8,
To Elkwater, page 107:
A supply of old United States muskets, rifled by Miles Greenwood, of Cincinnati, and designed to replace the smooth-bore Springfield muskets issued the eight interior companies at Camp Dennison, awaited the men at camp, and the exchange was accordingly effected next day, calling forth many expressions of gratitude toward Mr. Larz Anderson, to whose exertions the regiment was largely indebted for its superior armament. Compared with the Enfield rifles, with which the flanking companies were armed, the Greenwood rifled muskets----caliber .69----were rather cumbrous and homely in appearance, but nevertheless proved serviceable and efficient weapons.
Page 187: Camp Wickliffe
”¦General Nelson ordered an exchange of arms throughout the division”¦ Accordingly, on the 12th of January, the Sixth Ohio transferred three hundred and eighty-three of its “Greenwood muskets” to the Fiftieth Indiana, and two hundred and seventy-four to the Fifteenth Indiana, receiving, in exchange, Enfield and Belgian rifles. Many of the latter were in bad condition, and never proved equal, in point of serviceability, to the old “flint-locks altered.”
Series 147 Adjutant General Ohio Historical Society
September 14, 1861
L.A. Harris, Colonel Commanding Post, Camp Dennison, Hamilton County, Ohio. To Governor William Dennison. Letter calling Dennison's attention to the condition of the arms at present being furnished to the troops at Camp Dennison; stating that it was a subject upon which the men felt strongly and a matter which called for immediate and prompt attention, that the Enfield rifle furnished to the flanking companies was undoubtedly the very best weapon ever used by troops, that the Greenwood musket in its present unfinished and incomplete condition was in his estimation very inferior to the improved smooth bore musket, that the Greenwood musket had been adapted to the rifle ball without any alteration being made in the lock, spring or bayonet and required a force of from five to eight pounds upon the trigger to discharge the piece, and that any rifled gun in his estimation should be fitted for accurate firing; asking why the old musket should be superseded if it was true, as some army officers affirmed, that accuracy of aim was neither necessary or desirable at close quarters; and stating that the Greenwood musket was not provided with a guide sight or hausse without which it was absolutely impossible to use the weapon to advantage, that he wanted his regiment armed with Enfield rifles for the flanking companies and Springfield rifled muskets for the battalion companies, that he believed if weapons of this character were placed in the hands of men accustomed to the use of firearms from infancy, it would prove destructive to the enemy and inspire the men with additional confidence, and that the Greenwood guns issued to Colonel [Thomas H.] Ford were in many instances almost worthless.
2 pp. [Series 147-9: 123]
On November 12, 1861, Colonel J[ohn] M. Connell, commanding the 17th
Regiment, Ohio Volunteer Infantry, Headquarters, Camp Calvert, London, Kentucky wrote:
with the exception of the flank companies, ”¦the altered flintlock rifled muskets, that some of these muskets were worthless and all were unsafe, that the muskets had no guide sights, that they had tested the muskets at target practice and found them to be worthless as arms of precision, that when the muskets executed properly it was by accident, ”¦that the altered flintlock musket was dangerous, that after expelling the minie ball with terrific force a few times, in many instances the filling in the old vent was blown out with enough force to kill anyone standing nearby, that he would infinitely prefer the improved Springfield smoothbore musket and buck and ball cartridge, and that his officers threatened to demand a board of inspection to condemn their arms.
4 pp. [Series 147-18: 55] Ohio Adjutant General
With everything noted thus far I will include this little clip written by the Quarter Master General in 1861:
“All the bills for purchases by the State will be charged to the United States, and the distribution of the stores reported to the United States in our property return, so that the State is acting merely as agent for, or co-operating with, the General Government.
I presume it is not expected that any of the property thus turned over to the United States troops will ever be returned directly to the State.”
It is interesting to note that Ohio did not purchase the arms from the United States and it did not own the arms that were provided in 1861. The arms did not belong to the state they belonged to the United States. It’s also interesting to note that the state was acting as an agent “for, or co-operating with, the General Government”. It is true the state purchased arms like the Enfield but the state was reimbursed for the amount purchased. It is somewhat reasonable to say that Ohio could not have stamped any arm since they belonged to the United States ”“ not Ohio. The property that the Quarter Master General is referring to may be the arms which belonged to Ohio before the war and were issued to the troops who left the state.
It may be possible to determine when the Ohio Mark was applied and at which time it was used. We know that the Ohio Mark appears on Old Harpers Ferry and Springfield muskets with locks dated from 1810-1817. There may be more but I am not aware if the mark appears outside these dates. Maybe someone else could provide a little more information than what is written here. The Ohio Mark appears on the left lower side of the barrel. It’s reasonable to presume that these arms were stamped at the arsenal prior to being issued to the state.
March 6, 1824
Article 22. Arms or military equipment designed for the use of any State or Territory, furnished under the act of April 1808. For Arming and equipping the militia, will be particularly distinguished from those which may be issued for other service. They should, when practicable, be legibly marked with the name of the State or Territory for whose use they are furnished, before they are sent from the United States Arsenals.
U.S. Military Flintlock Muskets And Their Bayonets ”“ The later years
By looking at the reports in 1861 it’s possible to determine where the arms came from. Its more than likely that most of the 8,180 altered muskets that came from the Watervliet Arsenal were made by P.&E. W. Blake. At least 10,150 muskets came from the Springfield Arsenal while an additional 3,000 muskets came from the Washington Arsenal. These arms were likely made by Harpers Ferry. And still there were 4,800 altered muskets received by the State of Illinois. If I remember correctly the State of Illinois collected most of the arms from the St. Louis Arsenal in early 1861. I think it was to keep them from falling into the wrong hands but I’m going by memory on this one and I may be incorrect. At this time it is not known whether these arms were produced by contract or by one of the national armories or both. What is known isthat Quarter Master General of Ohio, C. P. Buckingham, wrote this about the arms received from Illinois: “Of the arms received as above, (Springfield, Illinois) two thousand, only, were first class percussion muskets, the remainder being old arms of various dates altered from flintlocks. He mentioned 2,000 New Percussion but the actual number was 200.
While the state was able to purchase Enfield muskets it wasn’t able to procure enough to issue a significant quantity to any one regiment in 1861. To remedy the situation “it was deemed advisable to try the experiment of rifling, and otherwise improving the smooth bore muskets. An arrangement was made with Miles Greenwood, of Cincinnati, to execute the necessary alterations, at a cost of one dollar and twenty ”“five cents for each musket.
In addition to which, he was to affix breech sights to one-twentieth of the entire number, at an additional cost of one dollar and seventy-five cents each. The experiment was highly successful, and a large number, otherwise unserviceable arms, at this small cost, made popular and effective weapons. The “Greenwood Rifle,” as it has been popularly styled, has met with great favor among our troops. In precision and range it is said to be fully equal to the celebrated “Enfield,” while it carries a much heavier weight of metal, and is consequently much more destructive. The total number of muskets rifled and atlered, up to the date of this report, was twenty-five thousand, three hundred and twenty-four (25,324).” (I mentioned that twenty percent had rear sights added but the real number was one-twentieth not twenty percent.)
However, in at least two different accounts found in the same log record the following:
- Muskets sent to Miles Greenwood: 26,015
(18,118 Altered Muskets and 7,897 New Percussion)
-From Miles Greenwood to the State: 23,356 Rifled Muskets and 454 Altered Muskets These arms were considered either condemned or unserviceable.
The rifling process began in July and ended in November. I believe I mentioned that the state received its first rifled mukets in August 1861 but it was actually in July. The state delivered 1,100 musket to Miles Greenwood on July 4, 1861 and the state received its first shipment of 100 rifled muskets on July 25, 1861. However, according to another record it appears Miles Greenwood may have begun the process sometime in June 1861. The state received 59 muskets from Miles Greenwood on July 10, 1861 but these muskets are listed as “Collection of Arms” in the log and do not mention Miles Greenwood. Sometimes it is necessary to view at least three different logs in order to distinquish what had transpired.
I have included a couple of clips that may give the reader what was transpiring between the state and Miles Greenwood in 1861: (Sorry in advance if the copy and paste method doesn’t work correctly)
HEAD QUARTERS Ohio Militia and Volunteer Militia Columbus, Ohio July 2 1861
SEND THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE BY TELEGRAPH
To Brig Gen Bates
Camp D.
How many spare Muskets Brown & Bright can you send to Greenwood immediately to be rifled. Will try to carry out your suggestions
WD.
HEAD QUARTERS Ohio Militia and Volunteer Militia Columbus, Ohio July 5th 1861
SEND THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE BY TELEGRAPH
To M Greenwood
Cincinnati.
How many muskets rifled can you deliver at Camp Dennison to-morrow morning -
WD.
Western Union Telegraph Company
To D. L. Wood August 10 1861 Q M Gen’l By Telegraph from Cincinnati 1861
Will be out of muskets today please forward more immediately M. Greenwood
I included some clips from those who mention the Greenwood Musket:
The Forty-first Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry in The War of the
Rebellion 1861-1865, written by Robert L. Kimberly and Ephraim S. Halloway,
Chapter 1, Making the Regiment, page 13:
”¦The soldiers were coming to handle their guns with confidence, for it was not until they were pitted against the Confederate Enfield rifles that the uselessness of the Greenwood rifled muskets became apparent. This latter was the arm which had been furnished by the government, sorely pushed to outfit its gathering armies.
Page 46
While in the vicinity of Readyville, Tn. the 41st Ohio Regiment was issued Springfield Rifles. “The drill and parade ground was on a level field below the camps. There was some regulation target practice here, for at last the regiment had discarded the miserable Greenwood rifled muskets, and was supplied with Springfield rifles. The target practice was a great help in making the men familiar with their new weapons.”
2. The Story of a Regiment, written by E. Hannaford. Chapter 8,
To Elkwater, page 107:
A supply of old United States muskets, rifled by Miles Greenwood, of Cincinnati, and designed to replace the smooth-bore Springfield muskets issued the eight interior companies at Camp Dennison, awaited the men at camp, and the exchange was accordingly effected next day, calling forth many expressions of gratitude toward Mr. Larz Anderson, to whose exertions the regiment was largely indebted for its superior armament. Compared with the Enfield rifles, with which the flanking companies were armed, the Greenwood rifled muskets----caliber .69----were rather cumbrous and homely in appearance, but nevertheless proved serviceable and efficient weapons.
Page 187: Camp Wickliffe
”¦General Nelson ordered an exchange of arms throughout the division”¦ Accordingly, on the 12th of January, the Sixth Ohio transferred three hundred and eighty-three of its “Greenwood muskets” to the Fiftieth Indiana, and two hundred and seventy-four to the Fifteenth Indiana, receiving, in exchange, Enfield and Belgian rifles. Many of the latter were in bad condition, and never proved equal, in point of serviceability, to the old “flint-locks altered.”
Series 147 Adjutant General Ohio Historical Society
September 14, 1861
L.A. Harris, Colonel Commanding Post, Camp Dennison, Hamilton County, Ohio. To Governor William Dennison. Letter calling Dennison's attention to the condition of the arms at present being furnished to the troops at Camp Dennison; stating that it was a subject upon which the men felt strongly and a matter which called for immediate and prompt attention, that the Enfield rifle furnished to the flanking companies was undoubtedly the very best weapon ever used by troops, that the Greenwood musket in its present unfinished and incomplete condition was in his estimation very inferior to the improved smooth bore musket, that the Greenwood musket had been adapted to the rifle ball without any alteration being made in the lock, spring or bayonet and required a force of from five to eight pounds upon the trigger to discharge the piece, and that any rifled gun in his estimation should be fitted for accurate firing; asking why the old musket should be superseded if it was true, as some army officers affirmed, that accuracy of aim was neither necessary or desirable at close quarters; and stating that the Greenwood musket was not provided with a guide sight or hausse without which it was absolutely impossible to use the weapon to advantage, that he wanted his regiment armed with Enfield rifles for the flanking companies and Springfield rifled muskets for the battalion companies, that he believed if weapons of this character were placed in the hands of men accustomed to the use of firearms from infancy, it would prove destructive to the enemy and inspire the men with additional confidence, and that the Greenwood guns issued to Colonel [Thomas H.] Ford were in many instances almost worthless.
2 pp. [Series 147-9: 123]
On November 12, 1861, Colonel J[ohn] M. Connell, commanding the 17th
Regiment, Ohio Volunteer Infantry, Headquarters, Camp Calvert, London, Kentucky wrote:
with the exception of the flank companies, ”¦the altered flintlock rifled muskets, that some of these muskets were worthless and all were unsafe, that the muskets had no guide sights, that they had tested the muskets at target practice and found them to be worthless as arms of precision, that when the muskets executed properly it was by accident, ”¦that the altered flintlock musket was dangerous, that after expelling the minie ball with terrific force a few times, in many instances the filling in the old vent was blown out with enough force to kill anyone standing nearby, that he would infinitely prefer the improved Springfield smoothbore musket and buck and ball cartridge, and that his officers threatened to demand a board of inspection to condemn their arms.
4 pp. [Series 147-18: 55] Ohio Adjutant General
With everything noted thus far I will include this little clip written by the Quarter Master General in 1861:
“All the bills for purchases by the State will be charged to the United States, and the distribution of the stores reported to the United States in our property return, so that the State is acting merely as agent for, or co-operating with, the General Government.
I presume it is not expected that any of the property thus turned over to the United States troops will ever be returned directly to the State.”
It is interesting to note that Ohio did not purchase the arms from the United States and it did not own the arms that were provided in 1861. The arms did not belong to the state they belonged to the United States. It’s also interesting to note that the state was acting as an agent “for, or co-operating with, the General Government”. It is true the state purchased arms like the Enfield but the state was reimbursed for the amount purchased. It is somewhat reasonable to say that Ohio could not have stamped any arm since they belonged to the United States ”“ not Ohio. The property that the Quarter Master General is referring to may be the arms which belonged to Ohio before the war and were issued to the troops who left the state.
It may be possible to determine when the Ohio Mark was applied and at which time it was used. We know that the Ohio Mark appears on Old Harpers Ferry and Springfield muskets with locks dated from 1810-1817. There may be more but I am not aware if the mark appears outside these dates. Maybe someone else could provide a little more information than what is written here. The Ohio Mark appears on the left lower side of the barrel. It’s reasonable to presume that these arms were stamped at the arsenal prior to being issued to the state.
March 6, 1824
Article 22. Arms or military equipment designed for the use of any State or Territory, furnished under the act of April 1808. For Arming and equipping the militia, will be particularly distinguished from those which may be issued for other service. They should, when practicable, be legibly marked with the name of the State or Territory for whose use they are furnished, before they are sent from the United States Arsenals.
U.S. Military Flintlock Muskets And Their Bayonets ”“ The later years
Before you begin, please excuse any typing errors like the word sediments which should have been sentiments. It’s been a very long day.
By looking at the reports in 1861 it’s possible to determine where the arms came from. Its more than likely that most of the 8,180 altered muskets that came from the Watervliet Arsenal were made by P.&E. W. Blake. At least 10,150 muskets came from the Springfield Arsenal while an additional 3,000 muskets came from the Washington Arsenal. These arms were likely made by Harpers Ferry. And still there were 4,800 altered muskets received by the State of Illinois. If I remember correctly the State of Illinois collected most of the arms from the St. Louis Arsenal in early 1861. I think it was to keep them from falling into the wrong hands but I’m going by memory on this one and I may be incorrect. At this time it is not known whether these arms were produced by contract or by one of the national armories or both. What is known isthat Quarter Master General of Ohio, C. P. Buckingham, wrote this about the arms received from Illinois: “Of the arms received as above, (Springfield, Illinois) two thousand, only, were first class percussion muskets, the remainder being old arms of various dates altered from flintlocks. He mentioned 2,000 New Percussion but the actual number was 200.
While the state was able to purchase Enfield muskets it wasn’t able to procure enough to issue a significant quantity to any one regiment in 1861. To remedy the situation “it was deemed advisable to try the experiment of rifling, and otherwise improving the smooth bore muskets. An arrangement was made with Miles Greenwood, of Cincinnati, to execute the necessary alterations, at a cost of one dollar and twenty ”“five cents for each musket.
In addition to which, he was to affix breech sights to one-twentieth of the entire number, at an additional cost of one dollar and seventy-five cents each. The experiment was highly successful, and a large number, otherwise unserviceable arms, at this small cost, made popular and effective weapons. The “Greenwood Rifle,” as it has been popularly styled, has met with great favor among our troops. In precision and range it is said to be fully equal to the celebrated “Enfield,” while it carries a much heavier weight of metal, and is consequently much more destructive. The total number of muskets rifled and atlered, up to the date of this report, was twenty-five thousand, three hundred and twenty-four (25,324).” (I mentioned that twenty percent had rear sights added but the real number was one-twentieth not twenty percent.)
However, in at least two different accounts found in the same log record the following:
- Muskets sent to Miles Greenwood: 26,015
(18,118 Altered Muskets and 7,897 New Percussion)
-From Miles Greenwood to the State: 23,356 Rifled Muskets and 454 Altered Muskets These arms were considered either condemned or unserviceable.
The rifling process began in July and ended in November. I believe I mentioned that the state received its first rifled mukets in August 1861 but it was actually in July. The state delivered 1,100 musket to Miles Greenwood on July 4, 1861 and the state received its first shipment of 100 rifled muskets on July 25, 1861. However, according to another record it appears Miles Greenwood may have begun the process sometime in June 1861. The state received 59 muskets from Miles Greenwood on July 10, 1861 but these muskets are listed as “Collection of Arms” in the log and do not mention Miles Greenwood. Sometimes it is necessary to view at least three different logs in order to distinquish what had transpired.
I have included a couple of clips that may give the reader what was transpiring between the state and Miles Greenwood in 1861: (Sorry in advance if the copy and paste method doesn’t work correctly)
HEAD QUARTERS Ohio Militia and Volunteer Militia Columbus, Ohio July 2 1861
SEND THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE BY TELEGRAPH
To Brig Gen Bates
Camp D.
How many spare Muskets Brown & Bright can you send to Greenwood immediately to be rifled. Will try to carry out your suggestions
WD.
HEAD QUARTERS Ohio Militia and Volunteer Militia Columbus, Ohio July 5th 1861
SEND THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE BY TELEGRAPH
To M Greenwood
Cincinnati.
How many muskets rifled can you deliver at Camp Dennison to-morrow morning -
WD.
Western Union Telegraph Company
To D. L. Wood August 10 1861 Q M Gen’l By Telegraph from Cincinnati 1861
Will be out of muskets today please forward more immediately M. Greenwood
I included some clips from those who mention the Greenwood Musket:
The Forty-first Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry in The War of the
Rebellion 1861-1865, written by Robert L. Kimberly and Ephraim S. Halloway,
Chapter 1, Making the Regiment, page 13:
”¦The soldiers were coming to handle their guns with confidence, for it was not until they were pitted against the Confederate Enfield rifles that the uselessness of the Greenwood rifled muskets became apparent. This latter was the arm which had been furnished by the government, sorely pushed to outfit its gathering armies.
Page 46
While in the vicinity of Readyville, Tn. the 41st Ohio Regiment was issued Springfield Rifles. “The drill and parade ground was on a level field below the camps. There was some regulation target practice here, for at last the regiment had discarded the miserable Greenwood rifled muskets, and was supplied with Springfield rifles. The target practice was a great help in making the men familiar with their new weapons.”
2. The Story of a Regiment, written by E. Hannaford. Chapter 8,
To Elkwater, page 107:
A supply of old United States muskets, rifled by Miles Greenwood, of Cincinnati, and designed to replace the smooth-bore Springfield muskets issued the eight interior companies at Camp Dennison, awaited the men at camp, and the exchange was accordingly effected next day, calling forth many expressions of gratitude toward Mr. Larz Anderson, to whose exertions the regiment was largely indebted for its superior armament. Compared with the Enfield rifles, with which the flanking companies were armed, the Greenwood rifled muskets----caliber .69----were rather cumbrous and homely in appearance, but nevertheless proved serviceable and efficient weapons.
Page 187: Camp Wickliffe
”¦General Nelson ordered an exchange of arms throughout the division”¦ Accordingly, on the 12th of January, the Sixth Ohio transferred three hundred and eighty-three of its “Greenwood muskets” to the Fiftieth Indiana, and two hundred and seventy-four to the Fifteenth Indiana, receiving, in exchange, Enfield and Belgian rifles. Many of the latter were in bad condition, and never proved equal, in point of serviceability, to the old “flint-locks altered.”
Series 147 Adjutant General Ohio Historical Society
September 14, 1861
L.A. Harris, Colonel Commanding Post, Camp Dennison, Hamilton County, Ohio. To Governor William Dennison. Letter calling Dennison's attention to the condition of the arms at present being furnished to the troops at Camp Dennison; stating that it was a subject upon which the men felt strongly and a matter which called for immediate and prompt attention, that the Enfield rifle furnished to the flanking companies was undoubtedly the very best weapon ever used by troops, that the Greenwood musket in its present unfinished and incomplete condition was in his estimation very inferior to the improved smooth bore musket, that the Greenwood musket had been adapted to the rifle ball without any alteration being made in the lock, spring or bayonet and required a force of from five to eight pounds upon the trigger to discharge the piece, and that any rifled gun in his estimation should be fitted for accurate firing; asking why the old musket should be superseded if it was true, as some army officers affirmed, that accuracy of aim was neither necessary or desirable at close quarters; and stating that the Greenwood musket was not provided with a guide sight or hausse without which it was absolutely impossible to use the weapon to advantage, that he wanted his regiment armed with Enfield rifles for the flanking companies and Springfield rifled muskets for the battalion companies, that he believed if weapons of this character were placed in the hands of men accustomed to the use of firearms from infancy, it would prove destructive to the enemy and inspire the men with additional confidence, and that the Greenwood guns issued to Colonel [Thomas H.] Ford were in many instances almost worthless.
2 pp. [Series 147-9: 123]
On November 12, 1861, Colonel J[ohn] M. Connell, commanding the 17th
Regiment, Ohio Volunteer Infantry, Headquarters, Camp Calvert, London, Kentucky wrote:
with the exception of the flank companies, ”¦the altered flintlock rifled muskets, that some of these muskets were worthless and all were unsafe, that the muskets had no guide sights, that they had tested the muskets at target practice and found them to be worthless as arms of precision, that when the muskets executed properly it was by accident, ”¦that the altered flintlock musket was dangerous, that after expelling the minie ball with terrific force a few times, in many instances the filling in the old vent was blown out with enough force to kill anyone standing nearby, that he would infinitely prefer the improved Springfield smoothbore musket and buck and ball cartridge, and that his officers threatened to demand a board of inspection to condemn their arms.
4 pp. [Series 147-18: 55] Ohio Adjutant General
With everything noted thus far I will include this little clip written by the Quarter Master General in 1861:
“All the bills for purchases by the State will be charged to the United States, and the distribution of the stores reported to the United States in our property return, so that the State is acting merely as agent for, or co-operating with, the General Government.
I presume it is not expected that any of the property thus turned over to the United States troops will ever be returned directly to the State.”
It is interesting to note that Ohio did not purchase the arms from the United States and it did not own the arms that were provided in 1861. The arms did not belong to the state they belonged to the United States. It’s also interesting to note that the state was acting as an agent “for, or co-operating with, the General Government”. It is true the state purchased arms like the Enfield but the state was reimbursed for the amount purchased. It is somewhat reasonable to say that Ohio could not have stamped any arm since they belonged to the United States ”“ not Ohio. The property that the Quarter Master General is referring to may be the arms which belonged to Ohio before the war and were issued to the troops who left the state.
It may be possible to determine when the Ohio Mark was applied and at which time it was used. We know that the Ohio Mark appears on Old Harpers Ferry and Springfield muskets with locks dated from 1810-1817. There may be more but I am not aware if the mark appears outside these dates. Maybe someone else could provide a little more information than what is written here. The Ohio Mark appears on the left lower side of the barrel. It’s reasonable to presume that these arms were stamped at the arsenal prior to being issued to the state.
March 6, 1824
Article 22. Arms or military equipment designed for the use of any State or Territory, furnished under the act of April 1808. For Arming and equipping the militia, will be particularly distinguished from those which may be issued for other service. They should, when practicable, be legibly marked with the name of the State or Territory for whose use they are furnished, before they are sent from the United States Arsenals.
U.S. Military Flintlock Muskets And Their Bayonets ”“ The later years, 1816 through The Civil War Page 250
I’m not sure if I’m reading this correctly but it appears the arms were stamped prior to being issued to the states. However, the stamping of arms may have done by the individual state. This is where the story becomes a little confusing. However, it is very possible that the mark found on the barrels of older flintlocks is from an early time in the state’s history.
The second and most common Ohio Mark is found on Civil War muskets that were issued during the war. This mark is found on the left side of the stock and behind the tang. Some older flintlock muskets also have this same mark. It’s only an educated guess but the mark found on older flintlocks should not be confused with those found Civil War arms. They are simply one and the same and would have been stamped at the same time that the other Civil War arms were marked. Ohio retrieved at least 100 flintlocks on June 3, 1861 from a collection of arms within the state and collected 80 flintlock muskets on August 21, 1861 which had been captured in western Virginia. It’s probable that more flintlocks were rounded up since the records in some cases do not specify altered muskets from flintlock muskets. This is a list of Ohio regiments that received an issue of flintlock muskets in 1861: (I initially had written two regiments but there were actually three)
September 6, 1861:
15th Ohio Regiment: either 120 or 125 flintlocks
Returned October 11, 1861
November 4, 1861:
74th Ohio Regiment ”“ 200
69th Ohio Regiment ”“ 180 (Initially shown as altered muskets but by using another source 80 were actually flintlocks.) Records do not indicate when these arms were returned but it is highly probable that they were returned sometime in 1862. The 69th was issued 980 Austrian Rifles between March 19, 1862 and March 22, 1862. The 74th was provided 780 Prussian Rifles .69 Cal. Brown in February 1862 and 300 Prussian Smoothbore Muskets in May 1862.
I will include this clip as a key reminder what had transpired in 1863 and to show those arms that are commonly found with the Ohio Mark:
Ohio Historical Society
FLM 293
Executive Documents, annual reports of Ohio 1863
Page 536
About the first of August application was made to the Secretary of War to relieve the State authorities from any further charge of ordnance stores belonging to the General Government”¦ The transfer was perfected on the first of October 1863, since which time all stores belonging to the General Government, though retained in the State Arsenal, have been under the exclusive control of the Ordnance Department at Washington, and issues therefrom made by a regular Ordnance officer of the United States”¦ The only care and responsibility of this department, as to Ordnance, is now confined to the arms, accoutrements and ammunition received by the transfer from the General Government.
Page 613
Memorandum of stores transferred by the United States to the State of Ohio “on account of any quota due or to become due, under the law of 1808, for arming and equipping the whole body of the Militia,” with the value thereof, as appraised by Captains Todd and Treadwell of the Ordnance Department, under instructions from the Chief of Ordnance. Transfer made September 24, 1863.
320 U.S. rifles, sword bay’t, cal. 54, serviceable at $17...$5,440 00
176 U.S. rifles, sword bay’t, cal. 54, bay’ts wanting, at $12..2,112 00
329 U.S. rifles, no bayonet, cal. 54, want repairs, at $12”¦”¦3,948 00
700 light French rifles, sword bayonet, new, at $18.50”¦”¦..12,950 00
1,500 U.S. rifle muskets, altered, cal. 69, want repairs, at $4”¦6,000 00
154 U.S. rifle muskets, altered, cal. 69, irreparable”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦
1,939 U.S. rifle muskets, model’42, cal. 69, serviceable, at $12”¦”¦23,268 00
182 U.S. rifle muskets, model’42, cal. 69, want repairs, at $12......2,184 00
1,210 Austrian rifle muskets, cal. 58, serviceable, at $10”¦”¦”¦...12,100 00
1,661 Austrian rifle muskets, cal. 54, serviceable, at $9”¦”¦”¦”¦.14,949 00
2,178 Austrian rifle muskets, cal. 54, want repairs, at $9”¦”¦”¦”¦19,602 00
632 Belgian rifle muskets, cal. 69, serviceable, at $9”¦”¦”¦”¦..5,688 00
38 Belgian rifle muskets, cal. 69, irreparable ”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦...
2,402 French rifle-muskets, cal. 69, want repairs, at $8”¦”¦”¦”¦19,216 00
100 French rifle-muskets, cal. 69, irreparable”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦.
2,346 French rifle-muskets, cal. 71, want repairs, at $8”¦”¦”¦”¦18,763 00
400 Jager rifles, sword bayonet, cal. 54, serviceable, at $10”¦”¦4,000 00
567 U.S. smooth bore muskets, model’42, serviceable, at $9”¦5,103 00
392 U.S. smooth bore muskets, model’42, want repairs, at $9”¦3,523 00
4,096 U.S. smooth bore muskets, model’22, want repairs, at $4”¦.16,384 00
549 U.S. smooth bore muskets, model’22, irreparable”¦”¦”¦”¦..
194 Prus. and Sax’y rifle-mus., cal. 70-71, serviceable, at $8”¦..1,552 00
1,454 Prus. and Sax’y smooth bore muskets, cal. 70-71, serviceable, at$7.50...10,905 00
4,212 Prus. and Sax’y smooth bore muskets, cal. 70-71, want repairs, at $5.00..21,060 00
783 Prus. and Sax’y smooth bore muskets, cal. 70-71, irreparable..............
$208,757 00
From which is deducted the sum of 75 cents each on 26,890 arms as the average cost of repairing them, equal to”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦ 20,167 50
Cost of muskets and rifles”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦. $188,589 50
In conclusion the best evidence that may show why the Ohio Mark is found on Civil War muskets comes from the Annual Report of the Quartermaster-General of Ohio for the year 1864.
Included in the inventory of materials and tools are “2 Stamps Ohio”. In order to distinguish its arms from that of the United States the state began to mark its property accordingly. However, taking into consideration what had transpired in Ohio through the years leading up to the Civil War other factors may have played a part.
You may remember that the state struggled with several issues which included the militia, the militia laws, issuance of arms, and the safe-keeping/storage of public arms. It could not account for thousands of arms that had apparently disappeared at one time or another. In 1863 the state would finally create a system for the safe keeping of public arms and how they would be issued and accounted for. Since it isn’t possible to go into a lengthy explanation on how exactly the state revamped the system it is possible to give a couple of reasons. The state reorganized how the militia would be run, how it would be managed in terms, that could easily be followed and understood by all. And then there was the paper trail. It was no longer a guessing game who was responsible and accountable for equipment issued. Each company commander would have to give bond prior to any arms being issued. It appears that the system was finally working, for the most part, the way it was meant to work.
There were some difficulties when units were called into federal service in 1864. It wasn’t clear among the officers if the men should report for muster with their arms issued by the state or if the federal government was responsible for equipping the men. Some men reported with their muskets while others left them at home. For Ohio the arms issued by the state were to be left behind and placed back in the arsenal until the unit returned home. The lists of arms transferred to the state in 1863 are the ones commonly seen with the Ohio Mark and those used by the militia and what became the National Guard.
As for the flintlock muskets they appear in annual reports for a number of years until they are finally sold along with the remaining Civil War arms. However, all of the information above is merely an educated guess. As of today, no information has surfaced that would clearly indicate why the arms were marked. The measures taken to stamp the arms would make an individual believe that such a task would have been reported. It wasn’t. No orders, no remarks”¦ nothing. Unless someone else has seen something that may explain why it was used? Anyone? And so the story remains without an end.
I am seeking information on Ohio Marked arms and if anyone has pictures to share I would be interested to add them to my collection. And Thanks Again
By looking at the reports in 1861 it’s possible to determine where the arms came from. Its more than likely that most of the 8,180 altered muskets that came from the Watervliet Arsenal were made by P.&E. W. Blake. At least 10,150 muskets came from the Springfield Arsenal while an additional 3,000 muskets came from the Washington Arsenal. These arms were likely made by Harpers Ferry. And still there were 4,800 altered muskets received by the State of Illinois. If I remember correctly the State of Illinois collected most of the arms from the St. Louis Arsenal in early 1861. I think it was to keep them from falling into the wrong hands but I’m going by memory on this one and I may be incorrect. At this time it is not known whether these arms were produced by contract or by one of the national armories or both. What is known isthat Quarter Master General of Ohio, C. P. Buckingham, wrote this about the arms received from Illinois: “Of the arms received as above, (Springfield, Illinois) two thousand, only, were first class percussion muskets, the remainder being old arms of various dates altered from flintlocks. He mentioned 2,000 New Percussion but the actual number was 200.
While the state was able to purchase Enfield muskets it wasn’t able to procure enough to issue a significant quantity to any one regiment in 1861. To remedy the situation “it was deemed advisable to try the experiment of rifling, and otherwise improving the smooth bore muskets. An arrangement was made with Miles Greenwood, of Cincinnati, to execute the necessary alterations, at a cost of one dollar and twenty ”“five cents for each musket.
In addition to which, he was to affix breech sights to one-twentieth of the entire number, at an additional cost of one dollar and seventy-five cents each. The experiment was highly successful, and a large number, otherwise unserviceable arms, at this small cost, made popular and effective weapons. The “Greenwood Rifle,” as it has been popularly styled, has met with great favor among our troops. In precision and range it is said to be fully equal to the celebrated “Enfield,” while it carries a much heavier weight of metal, and is consequently much more destructive. The total number of muskets rifled and atlered, up to the date of this report, was twenty-five thousand, three hundred and twenty-four (25,324).” (I mentioned that twenty percent had rear sights added but the real number was one-twentieth not twenty percent.)
However, in at least two different accounts found in the same log record the following:
- Muskets sent to Miles Greenwood: 26,015
(18,118 Altered Muskets and 7,897 New Percussion)
-From Miles Greenwood to the State: 23,356 Rifled Muskets and 454 Altered Muskets These arms were considered either condemned or unserviceable.
The rifling process began in July and ended in November. I believe I mentioned that the state received its first rifled mukets in August 1861 but it was actually in July. The state delivered 1,100 musket to Miles Greenwood on July 4, 1861 and the state received its first shipment of 100 rifled muskets on July 25, 1861. However, according to another record it appears Miles Greenwood may have begun the process sometime in June 1861. The state received 59 muskets from Miles Greenwood on July 10, 1861 but these muskets are listed as “Collection of Arms” in the log and do not mention Miles Greenwood. Sometimes it is necessary to view at least three different logs in order to distinquish what had transpired.
I have included a couple of clips that may give the reader what was transpiring between the state and Miles Greenwood in 1861: (Sorry in advance if the copy and paste method doesn’t work correctly)
HEAD QUARTERS Ohio Militia and Volunteer Militia Columbus, Ohio July 2 1861
SEND THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE BY TELEGRAPH
To Brig Gen Bates
Camp D.
How many spare Muskets Brown & Bright can you send to Greenwood immediately to be rifled. Will try to carry out your suggestions
WD.
HEAD QUARTERS Ohio Militia and Volunteer Militia Columbus, Ohio July 5th 1861
SEND THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE BY TELEGRAPH
To M Greenwood
Cincinnati.
How many muskets rifled can you deliver at Camp Dennison to-morrow morning -
WD.
Western Union Telegraph Company
To D. L. Wood August 10 1861 Q M Gen’l By Telegraph from Cincinnati 1861
Will be out of muskets today please forward more immediately M. Greenwood
I included some clips from those who mention the Greenwood Musket:
The Forty-first Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry in The War of the
Rebellion 1861-1865, written by Robert L. Kimberly and Ephraim S. Halloway,
Chapter 1, Making the Regiment, page 13:
”¦The soldiers were coming to handle their guns with confidence, for it was not until they were pitted against the Confederate Enfield rifles that the uselessness of the Greenwood rifled muskets became apparent. This latter was the arm which had been furnished by the government, sorely pushed to outfit its gathering armies.
Page 46
While in the vicinity of Readyville, Tn. the 41st Ohio Regiment was issued Springfield Rifles. “The drill and parade ground was on a level field below the camps. There was some regulation target practice here, for at last the regiment had discarded the miserable Greenwood rifled muskets, and was supplied with Springfield rifles. The target practice was a great help in making the men familiar with their new weapons.”
2. The Story of a Regiment, written by E. Hannaford. Chapter 8,
To Elkwater, page 107:
A supply of old United States muskets, rifled by Miles Greenwood, of Cincinnati, and designed to replace the smooth-bore Springfield muskets issued the eight interior companies at Camp Dennison, awaited the men at camp, and the exchange was accordingly effected next day, calling forth many expressions of gratitude toward Mr. Larz Anderson, to whose exertions the regiment was largely indebted for its superior armament. Compared with the Enfield rifles, with which the flanking companies were armed, the Greenwood rifled muskets----caliber .69----were rather cumbrous and homely in appearance, but nevertheless proved serviceable and efficient weapons.
Page 187: Camp Wickliffe
”¦General Nelson ordered an exchange of arms throughout the division”¦ Accordingly, on the 12th of January, the Sixth Ohio transferred three hundred and eighty-three of its “Greenwood muskets” to the Fiftieth Indiana, and two hundred and seventy-four to the Fifteenth Indiana, receiving, in exchange, Enfield and Belgian rifles. Many of the latter were in bad condition, and never proved equal, in point of serviceability, to the old “flint-locks altered.”
Series 147 Adjutant General Ohio Historical Society
September 14, 1861
L.A. Harris, Colonel Commanding Post, Camp Dennison, Hamilton County, Ohio. To Governor William Dennison. Letter calling Dennison's attention to the condition of the arms at present being furnished to the troops at Camp Dennison; stating that it was a subject upon which the men felt strongly and a matter which called for immediate and prompt attention, that the Enfield rifle furnished to the flanking companies was undoubtedly the very best weapon ever used by troops, that the Greenwood musket in its present unfinished and incomplete condition was in his estimation very inferior to the improved smooth bore musket, that the Greenwood musket had been adapted to the rifle ball without any alteration being made in the lock, spring or bayonet and required a force of from five to eight pounds upon the trigger to discharge the piece, and that any rifled gun in his estimation should be fitted for accurate firing; asking why the old musket should be superseded if it was true, as some army officers affirmed, that accuracy of aim was neither necessary or desirable at close quarters; and stating that the Greenwood musket was not provided with a guide sight or hausse without which it was absolutely impossible to use the weapon to advantage, that he wanted his regiment armed with Enfield rifles for the flanking companies and Springfield rifled muskets for the battalion companies, that he believed if weapons of this character were placed in the hands of men accustomed to the use of firearms from infancy, it would prove destructive to the enemy and inspire the men with additional confidence, and that the Greenwood guns issued to Colonel [Thomas H.] Ford were in many instances almost worthless.
2 pp. [Series 147-9: 123]
On November 12, 1861, Colonel J[ohn] M. Connell, commanding the 17th
Regiment, Ohio Volunteer Infantry, Headquarters, Camp Calvert, London, Kentucky wrote:
with the exception of the flank companies, ”¦the altered flintlock rifled muskets, that some of these muskets were worthless and all were unsafe, that the muskets had no guide sights, that they had tested the muskets at target practice and found them to be worthless as arms of precision, that when the muskets executed properly it was by accident, ”¦that the altered flintlock musket was dangerous, that after expelling the minie ball with terrific force a few times, in many instances the filling in the old vent was blown out with enough force to kill anyone standing nearby, that he would infinitely prefer the improved Springfield smoothbore musket and buck and ball cartridge, and that his officers threatened to demand a board of inspection to condemn their arms.
4 pp. [Series 147-18: 55] Ohio Adjutant General
With everything noted thus far I will include this little clip written by the Quarter Master General in 1861:
“All the bills for purchases by the State will be charged to the United States, and the distribution of the stores reported to the United States in our property return, so that the State is acting merely as agent for, or co-operating with, the General Government.
I presume it is not expected that any of the property thus turned over to the United States troops will ever be returned directly to the State.”
It is interesting to note that Ohio did not purchase the arms from the United States and it did not own the arms that were provided in 1861. The arms did not belong to the state they belonged to the United States. It’s also interesting to note that the state was acting as an agent “for, or co-operating with, the General Government”. It is true the state purchased arms like the Enfield but the state was reimbursed for the amount purchased. It is somewhat reasonable to say that Ohio could not have stamped any arm since they belonged to the United States ”“ not Ohio. The property that the Quarter Master General is referring to may be the arms which belonged to Ohio before the war and were issued to the troops who left the state.
It may be possible to determine when the Ohio Mark was applied and at which time it was used. We know that the Ohio Mark appears on Old Harpers Ferry and Springfield muskets with locks dated from 1810-1817. There may be more but I am not aware if the mark appears outside these dates. Maybe someone else could provide a little more information than what is written here. The Ohio Mark appears on the left lower side of the barrel. It’s reasonable to presume that these arms were stamped at the arsenal prior to being issued to the state.
March 6, 1824
Article 22. Arms or military equipment designed for the use of any State or Territory, furnished under the act of April 1808. For Arming and equipping the militia, will be particularly distinguished from those which may be issued for other service. They should, when practicable, be legibly marked with the name of the State or Territory for whose use they are furnished, before they are sent from the United States Arsenals.
U.S. Military Flintlock Muskets And Their Bayonets ”“ The later years, 1816 through The Civil War Page 250
I’m not sure if I’m reading this correctly but it appears the arms were stamped prior to being issued to the states. However, the stamping of arms may have done by the individual state. This is where the story becomes a little confusing. However, it is very possible that the mark found on the barrels of older flintlocks is from an early time in the state’s history.
The second and most common Ohio Mark is found on Civil War muskets that were issued during the war. This mark is found on the left side of the stock and behind the tang. Some older flintlock muskets also have this same mark. It’s only an educated guess but the mark found on older flintlocks should not be confused with those found Civil War arms. They are simply one and the same and would have been stamped at the same time that the other Civil War arms were marked. Ohio retrieved at least 100 flintlocks on June 3, 1861 from a collection of arms within the state and collected 80 flintlock muskets on August 21, 1861 which had been captured in western Virginia. It’s probable that more flintlocks were rounded up since the records in some cases do not specify altered muskets from flintlock muskets. This is a list of Ohio regiments that received an issue of flintlock muskets in 1861: (I initially had written two regiments but there were actually three)
September 6, 1861:
15th Ohio Regiment: either 120 or 125 flintlocks
Returned October 11, 1861
November 4, 1861:
74th Ohio Regiment ”“ 200
69th Ohio Regiment ”“ 180 (Initially shown as altered muskets but by using another source 80 were actually flintlocks.) Records do not indicate when these arms were returned but it is highly probable that they were returned sometime in 1862. The 69th was issued 980 Austrian Rifles between March 19, 1862 and March 22, 1862. The 74th was provided 780 Prussian Rifles .69 Cal. Brown in February 1862 and 300 Prussian Smoothbore Muskets in May 1862.
I will include this clip as a key reminder what had transpired in 1863 and to show those arms that are commonly found with the Ohio Mark:
Ohio Historical Society
FLM 293
Executive Documents, annual reports of Ohio 1863
Page 536
About the first of August application was made to the Secretary of War to relieve the State authorities from any further charge of ordnance stores belonging to the General Government”¦ The transfer was perfected on the first of October 1863, since which time all stores belonging to the General Government, though retained in the State Arsenal, have been under the exclusive control of the Ordnance Department at Washington, and issues therefrom made by a regular Ordnance officer of the United States”¦ The only care and responsibility of this department, as to Ordnance, is now confined to the arms, accoutrements and ammunition received by the transfer from the General Government.
Page 613
Memorandum of stores transferred by the United States to the State of Ohio “on account of any quota due or to become due, under the law of 1808, for arming and equipping the whole body of the Militia,” with the value thereof, as appraised by Captains Todd and Treadwell of the Ordnance Department, under instructions from the Chief of Ordnance. Transfer made September 24, 1863.
320 U.S. rifles, sword bay’t, cal. 54, serviceable at $17...$5,440 00
176 U.S. rifles, sword bay’t, cal. 54, bay’ts wanting, at $12..2,112 00
329 U.S. rifles, no bayonet, cal. 54, want repairs, at $12”¦”¦3,948 00
700 light French rifles, sword bayonet, new, at $18.50”¦”¦..12,950 00
1,500 U.S. rifle muskets, altered, cal. 69, want repairs, at $4”¦6,000 00
154 U.S. rifle muskets, altered, cal. 69, irreparable”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦
1,939 U.S. rifle muskets, model’42, cal. 69, serviceable, at $12”¦”¦23,268 00
182 U.S. rifle muskets, model’42, cal. 69, want repairs, at $12......2,184 00
1,210 Austrian rifle muskets, cal. 58, serviceable, at $10”¦”¦”¦...12,100 00
1,661 Austrian rifle muskets, cal. 54, serviceable, at $9”¦”¦”¦”¦.14,949 00
2,178 Austrian rifle muskets, cal. 54, want repairs, at $9”¦”¦”¦”¦19,602 00
632 Belgian rifle muskets, cal. 69, serviceable, at $9”¦”¦”¦”¦..5,688 00
38 Belgian rifle muskets, cal. 69, irreparable ”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦...
2,402 French rifle-muskets, cal. 69, want repairs, at $8”¦”¦”¦”¦19,216 00
100 French rifle-muskets, cal. 69, irreparable”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦.
2,346 French rifle-muskets, cal. 71, want repairs, at $8”¦”¦”¦”¦18,763 00
400 Jager rifles, sword bayonet, cal. 54, serviceable, at $10”¦”¦4,000 00
567 U.S. smooth bore muskets, model’42, serviceable, at $9”¦5,103 00
392 U.S. smooth bore muskets, model’42, want repairs, at $9”¦3,523 00
4,096 U.S. smooth bore muskets, model’22, want repairs, at $4”¦.16,384 00
549 U.S. smooth bore muskets, model’22, irreparable”¦”¦”¦”¦..
194 Prus. and Sax’y rifle-mus., cal. 70-71, serviceable, at $8”¦..1,552 00
1,454 Prus. and Sax’y smooth bore muskets, cal. 70-71, serviceable, at$7.50...10,905 00
4,212 Prus. and Sax’y smooth bore muskets, cal. 70-71, want repairs, at $5.00..21,060 00
783 Prus. and Sax’y smooth bore muskets, cal. 70-71, irreparable..............
$208,757 00
From which is deducted the sum of 75 cents each on 26,890 arms as the average cost of repairing them, equal to”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦ 20,167 50
Cost of muskets and rifles”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦. $188,589 50
In conclusion the best evidence that may show why the Ohio Mark is found on Civil War muskets comes from the Annual Report of the Quartermaster-General of Ohio for the year 1864.
Included in the inventory of materials and tools are “2 Stamps Ohio”. In order to distinguish its arms from that of the United States the state began to mark its property accordingly. However, taking into consideration what had transpired in Ohio through the years leading up to the Civil War other factors may have played a part.
You may remember that the state struggled with several issues which included the militia, the militia laws, issuance of arms, and the safe-keeping/storage of public arms. It could not account for thousands of arms that had apparently disappeared at one time or another. In 1863 the state would finally create a system for the safe keeping of public arms and how they would be issued and accounted for. Since it isn’t possible to go into a lengthy explanation on how exactly the state revamped the system it is possible to give a couple of reasons. The state reorganized how the militia would be run, how it would be managed in terms, that could easily be followed and understood by all. And then there was the paper trail. It was no longer a guessing game who was responsible and accountable for equipment issued. Each company commander would have to give bond prior to any arms being issued. It appears that the system was finally working, for the most part, the way it was meant to work.
There were some difficulties when units were called into federal service in 1864. It wasn’t clear among the officers if the men should report for muster with their arms issued by the state or if the federal government was responsible for equipping the men. Some men reported with their muskets while others left them at home. For Ohio the arms issued by the state were to be left behind and placed back in the arsenal until the unit returned home. The lists of arms transferred to the state in 1863 are the ones commonly seen with the Ohio Mark and those used by the militia and what became the National Guard.
As for the flintlock muskets they appear in annual reports for a number of years until they are finally sold along with the remaining Civil War arms. However, all of the information above is merely an educated guess. As of today, no information has surfaced that would clearly indicate why the arms were marked. The measures taken to stamp the arms would make an individual believe that such a task would have been reported. It wasn’t. No orders, no remarks”¦ nothing. Unless someone else has seen something that may explain why it was used? Anyone? And so the story remains without an end.
I am seeking information on Ohio Marked arms and if anyone has pictures to share I would be interested to add them to my collection. And Thanks Again
Before you begin, please excuse any typing errors like the word sediments which should have been sentiments. It’s been a very long day.
By looking at the reports in 1861 it’s possible to determine where the arms came from. Its more than likely that most of the 8,180 altered muskets that came fr
By looking at the reports in 1861 it’s possible to determine where the arms came from. Its more than likely that most of the 8,180 altered muskets that came fr
Similar threads
