Ohio CW Musket

[James Brenner]

This is a very interesting thread. I wish I'd come across it while it was still active, but that's what happens when you don't check the forum for several months.

Anyway, this information tracks with what I've come across as well. I, too, suspect that the arms were stamped in 1863 or maybe 1864. By that time, the USG had enough Springfields either on hand or on order to equip (or re-equip) the regiments in the field.

As the 1863 Memorandum of Stores Issued to the State of Ohio shows, Ohio received the older, obsolete, and foreign arms that the federal government no longer needed. They were good enough for the militia and the state was no doubt glad to get them. Several things had happened in Ohio in 1863 that required the state to intervene militarily: Morgan's raid and the Copperheads are the most obvious. Coupled with mobilization of the Cincinnati Squirel Hunters of 1862 and the call up of 100 days men in 1864, the state had a real need for some type of armed, home guard force. The arms transferred to the state between 1861 and 1863 were not 1st class arms. At best they were 3rd and 4th class arms, but they were good enough for the home guards, or National Guard as it was called.

My suspicion is that as the Columbus arsenal received these weapons, they inspected and repaired them and, while they were dismantled, marked them as state property. I seem to recall that prisoners from the state penitentiary worked as laborers in the arsenal. BTW, I think that this is also the same time that the single shot pistols and leather eqippage were also stamped Ohio.

Interestingly, I have yet to find a 1st class arm (M1855, M1861, or Enfield) marked Ohio. They may be out there and I just haven't come across them. What I have seen, though, are those type of arms listed in the 1863 Memorandum: the 1816s, the 1842s, the 1841s, the foreign models, etc. that are marked Ohio. I'm not sure what this means, but I think it may be important.

On a related note: Miles Greenwood. I've seen arms dealers advertise conversion muskets as Greenwoods and, when queried, the answer is because it's a converted and altered (rifled) M1816/22, but not sighted. They're probably right, but I would like to see an article written on these rifled conversions, both sighted and unsighted. Specifically, a comparison of the breech markings would be most interesting. When a musket was converted to percussion, the breech plug was removed and both it and the barrel were marked in such a way that they could be later mated up. When the barrel was rifled, the same thing would happen again, but probably with a different set of markings. If the rifled conversions all have the same breech markings, it's a good bet, although not a sure bet, that Greenwood did the rifling. I say that because the national armories were out of the .69 caliber rifling business and I know of no other firm besides Greenwood that undertook such a venture.

My interest in Greenwood is more than just historic, it's also personal. I have two rifled M1842s marked Ohio. One's a Springfield and the other is a HF. The S'field is an arsenal alteration, but the other I think is a Greenwood; primarily because of the rear sight. It's unlike any other military sight, and it is soldered on. For a cost-concious businessman like Greenwood, the savings realized on a simplistic sight, simplistically mounted would have been attractive. If I could find some other "Greenwoods", it would be interesting to compare the breech markings and perhaps add to the debate on what is/is not a Greenwood.

Finally, the one thing that I have not been able to find is an order that directs the muskets be stamped Ohio. I'm sure it's out there and, when found, will tell us when Ohio stamped its muskets. As I write this, I wonder if maybe the penetentiary records may provide a clue.

 

[PhiloNSSA]

Jim,

As a collector of OHIO marked firearms, I just want to thank you for your research. It has helped me a bunch.

Regards,

Phil Spaugy
[email protected]

 

[ord sgt]

My wife's aunt has a smoothbore percussion musket with proof marks from Leige. This has been passed down thru the family since the great unpleasantness. The firearm has been in Ohio after her great grandfather returned home.

 

[Xgfolkcomcast.net]

Just joined ML forum and found this topic. I have a smoothbore musket with an 1818 Harpers Ferry lock, brass hardware, "Ohio" stamped twice on stock, once on barrel, with 1831 also stamped on barrel. The stock doesn't appear to be U.S. It also has Prussian markings, including a crown and "FW" (Frederick Wilhelm) stamped on stock. Bought it at a flea market in Belgium about 15 years ago. Would like more info on it, particularly whether it was "born" here, and wound up there, or vice-versa. Have photos, couldn't figure out how to load to this message, cut & paste didn't work

 

[James Brenner]

Without seeing pictures of your musket, it's difficult to be certain what it is, although it certainly sounds like it had been restocked at some point. As for the barrel stamping, this may help. In 1830 (give or take a year or two), the Ordnance Department directed that muskets be stamped on the barrel with the state they were to be issued to. This was apparently an accountability initiative in support of with the Militia Act of 1808 as well as a way for the states to maintain property accountability of their muskets. On the surface, this seems like an okay idea, but it created a howl from the armory superintendents because it not only necessitated a great deal of extra work, it also became a cost issue. Here's why. The Ordnance Department preferred that arms made at Springfield or Harpers Ferry be issued to the regular army. Contract muskets - those made by Pomeroy, Blake, Wickham, etc. - should go to the states for their militia. That didn't always happen, though. Once the Ordnance Department accepted the contract arms (the inspection was done at the place of manufacture), the muskets were crated and sent for storage to the national armories. The new directive required that the muskets be uncrated at the armory, taken apart, stamped on the barrel, reassembled, and re-crated. Once stamped, it is unlikely that the muskets could be issued to another state. Compounding the matter was the fact that the states' Adjutant Generals did not always report their annual militia enrollments so, in theory, it was possible to have too few muskets for one state and too many for another. Ohio, for example, often failed to report how many men were on its rolls. The upshot is that this directive was in effect for only a year or two before it was rescinded. As for the OHIO marks on the stock, the state likely stamped them in 1863/1864.

I hope this helps.

 

[51stovi]

I was going to post a response concerning the Ohio mark/stamp but I think a new thread would be required to do so. After researching the topic for a number of years I have come across a great deal of information concerning this topic and thought it would be a great way to distinguish fact from myth. However, I'm not quite sure where the topic would belong or if there's even an interest on the topic. When given a chance I will see what I can dig up and go from there.