Springfields 1855 vs 1861 sights

Widows Son · Oct 17, 2022

Hello, I hope everyone is doing well.

Is anyone able to explain why the ladder rear sight on the ‘55 Springfield was discontinued and a replaced with a folding leaf sight on the ‘61?

I think technology-wise, the British P53 Enfield and American Springfield rifles are about evenly matched, except the Enfield had more sophisticated sights. Thus, with proper training, the Enfield rifleman was theoretically more capable.

Just curious. It seems like a backwards step in weapons design.

Artificer · Oct 17, 2022

Widows Son said:
Hello, I hope everyone is doing well.

Is anyone able to explain why the ladder rear sight on the ‘55 Springfield was discontinued and a replaced with a folding leaf sight on the ‘61?

I think technology-wise, the British P53 Enfield and American Springfield rifles are about evenly matched, except the Enfield had more sophisticated sights. Thus, with proper training, the Enfield rifleman was theoretically more capable.

Just curious. It seems like a backwards step in weapons design.

Brother,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fraternally yours,
Gus

Widows Son · Oct 17, 2022

Artificer said:
Brother,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fraternally yours,
Gus

Thank you my Brother, for that clear and concise reply.

When a weapon is being designed, no one knows what conditions and circumstances it will be used under. In that horrible ACW, most engagements were close enough that the virtues of the rifled musket and ladder sights were not realised, but that’s not the point.

The US also experimented with the Pritchett cartridge, but rejected it due to cost and complication of manufacturing.

Stantheman86 · Oct 17, 2022

Read the book "facts and Myths of the Rifled Musket" it's mind blowing

The rifled-musket was rarely if ever used to it's full potential by either side during the Civil War due to lack of training. It was up to the individual Commanders to train men so the levels of training varied. Stories like men recieving 1861 Springfields days before a battel were somewhat common, like the story in this book of soldiers being issued weapons on a ship and taking turns firing them once into the water as "training".

For this reason the Sharpshooter regiments were formed, often using as issued 1861 Springfields but the soldiers in these regiments had to pass marksmanship tests and could actually use them properly.

The US Army Ordnance general wanted to keep using .69 percussion smoothbore muskets and they would really have been more effective according to modern research

The 2 leaf sight was also more durable and the ladder would be susceptible to damage by conscript US troops. There are stories of some guys removing the rear sight leaves and discarding them, probably because the leaves would get loose and move around, and get caught on things so they just got rid of them, or they broke during field use.

Widows Son · Oct 17, 2022

Stantheman86 said:
There are stories of some guys removing the rear sight leaves and discarding them, probably because the leaves would get loose and move around, and get caught on things so they just got rid of them, or they broke during field use.

That’s interesting. An ancient and ongoing part of military life are inspections. Troops and equipment were inspected regularly. Troops are personally responsible for the equipment issued to them. I wouldn’t want to be the piss ant private that got caught altering his weapon!

maillemaker · Oct 17, 2022

This book covers the evolution of the Model 1855 musket including its sights:

https://smile.amazon.com/U-S-Model-1855-Small-Arms/dp/1931464839

Widows Son · Oct 17, 2022

maillemaker said:
This book covers the evolution of the Model 1855 musket including its sights:

https://smile.amazon.com/U-S-Model-1855-Small-Arms/dp/1931464839

Thank you for the link

tenngun · Oct 17, 2022

America is a nation of rifleman, that’s what the myth says. Wasn’t true during the revolution or the WBTS.
In away it was a good thing. Poor performance of both our troops and our equipment led to the foundation of NRA and a concentration in our military o develop high quality guns and marksmanship
It’s a good thing we didn’t have ARW round three at that time

Stantheman86 · Oct 17, 2022

Widows Son said:
That’s interesting. An ancient and ongoing part of military life are inspections. Troops and equipment were inspected regularly. Troops are personally responsible for the equipment issued to them. I wouldn’t want to be the piss ant private that got caught altering his weapon!

This may pertain more to State Militia units or as supplies of the 61's went down to Frontier Units where things were looser

There was a long discussion on the forum a while back about this, either soldiers who had smoothbores previously would just pull the rear sight off of 61 Springfields because they were used to sighting down the barrel, Joe Snuffy gets bored in camp and plays around with stuff, and unscrews the rear sight because it gets caught on things. Probably not widely or ever done in the regular US Army because penalties for breaking or losing Govt property was still lashing and forfeiture of pay. This is why I don't believe the names carved on stocks were done during the war. A Union private isn't going to have his gear inspected with PVT Smith , NJ " carved on his stock

Most of the CS Richmonds in collections have no rear sight so maybe it's more of a Confederate thing. Enfield rear sights were soldered on so they couldn't be as easily removed by bored privates.

Artificer · Oct 17, 2022

Widows Son said:
Thank you my Brother, for that clear and concise reply.

You are most welcome, brother.

Widows Son said:
When a weapon is being designed, no one knows what conditions and circumstances it will be used under. In that horrible ACW, most engagements were close enough that the virtues of the rifled musket and ladder sights were not realised, but that’s not the point.

Actually there were not that many engagements even in the more settled Eastern Theatre of war where the terrain necessitated such close engagements. There were some during the 7 days battles due to broken terrain and swamps plus the Battle of the Wilderness because of the thickly grown bushes and plants between the trees. However, at Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Spotsylvania and especially the third day at Gettysburg prior to Pickett's charge, using the 500 yard effective range of the '61 (with properly trained/practiced soldiers) the outcomes would have been drastically different. It may not have changed the outcome of the War, but it would have ended sooner.

Gus

Artificer · Oct 17, 2022

Stantheman86 said:
The US Army Ordnance general wanted to keep using .69 percussion smoothbore muskets and they would really have been more effective according to modern research

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

Gus

smoothshooter · Oct 17, 2022

Artificer said:
Brother,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fraternally yours,
Gus

Artificer · Oct 17, 2022

Stantheman86 said:
There are stories of some guys removing the rear sight leaves and discarding them, probably because the leaves would get loose and move around, and get caught on things so they just got rid of them, or they broke during field use.

Widows Son
That’s interesting. An ancient and ongoing part of military life are inspections. Troops and equipment were inspected regularly. Troops are personally responsible for the equipment issued to them. I wouldn’t want to be the piss ant private that got caught altering his weapon!

My reply:
This was another fine thing handed down to us from the British Army while we were still British Americans. (Another thing is playing "Roast Beef of Olde England" at the beginning of Dining In ceremonies AND having Scottish Pipers play for the Mess when available, but I digress.)

Even the most lackadaisical conscript troops can be quickly snapped into shape with good leadership and discipline IF the time is taken to do it. Mad Anthony Wayne demonstrated that at the end of the 18th century and why he succeeded so well in the Old Northwest Territories.

I'm not saying SOME few miscreants will not take care of their gear or even deliberately damage their arms and equipment, but when the Wrath of God comes down on them for having done so, their attitudes can be properly adjusted, and the rest of the troops have no pity for them.

Yes, the ladder sights can be damaged in combat usage, but I'm a strong believer far too much has been made of this. The rear sight on the 03 Springfield was even more susceptible to combat damage, BUT U.S. Marines took good care of them in the jungles during the Banana Wars and the Philippines as well as China and the battlefields of WWI where over extended supply lines would have shown the sights to have been too fragile and they were not, when troops were expected and inspected to take care of their equipment.

Gus

smoothshooter · Oct 17, 2022

In the Union Army, at least, the expenditure of ammunition in something as “trivial” as target practice was considered as waste of government property and was potentially a court martial offense for officers, punishable by prison time and a fine. There are contemporary references I have read that mention a very limited amount of formal and informal practice in some units. One officer mentioned his regiment was allowed 3 practice rounds per man for the year, which was considered quite generous.
I don’t think there were many prosecutions for the waste of government property offenses mentioned above, but it does serve to illustrate the general mindset of American military doctrine at the time.

Artificer · Oct 18, 2022

smoothshooter said:
In the Union Army, at least, the expenditure of ammunition in something as “trivial” as target practice was considered as waste of government property and was potentially a court martial offense for officers, punishable by prison time and a fine. There are contemporary references I have read that mention a very limited amount of formal and informal practice in some units. One officer mentioned his regiment was allowed 3 practice rounds per man for the year, which was considered quite generous.
I don’t think there were many prosecutions for the waste of government property offenses mentioned above, but it does serve to illustrate the general mindset of American military doctrine at the time.

And unfortunately, we also got that while British Americans from the 18th century British Army traditions.

Gus

Stantheman86 · Oct 18, 2022

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

Gus

British soldiers with their then-new P53 Rifle-Muskets were hitting Russians at 1000 yards in the Crimea, because they were well trained and a Disciplined Professional Army

Commanders on all levels knew that soldiers in the US and CS Armies couldn't hit anything past smoothbore ranges, with rifle muskets because of the rainbow trajectory of the bullet.

The Sharpshooters were a concept borrowed from the French, with the real "soldiers " who knew how to soldier, and operate their weapons being used as skirmishers and light Infantry vs the rank and file of largely untrained Conscripts with some salty, experienced veterans mixed in.

Dave Fox · Oct 18, 2022

The change from the ladder to the leaf rear sight occurred in 1858, during production of the M.1855 rifle and rifle-musket. The leaf rear sight adopted in 1858 was slightly altered in 1861 and, again, later. Willyard in his fine book "U.S. Model of 1855 Series of Small Arms" infers on page 66 that the ladder rear sight was dropped because of a fear soldiers would be tinkering with range settings instead of shooting when in battle(!)
I'm having difficulty with the supposition that a large ladder sight is somehow superior to the smaller leaf sight in practical battlefield application. Does anyone have proof dating from the period of usage?

Dave Fox · Oct 18, 2022

Stantheman86 said:
British soldiers with their then-new P53 Rifle-Muskets were hitting Russians at 1000 yards in the Crimea, because they were well trained and a Disciplined Professional Army

Commanders on all levels knew that soldiers in the US and CS Armies couldn't hit anything past smoothbore ranges, with rifle muskets because of the rainbow trajectory of the bullet.

The Sharpshooters were a concept borrowed from the French, with the real "soldiers " who knew how to soldier, and operate their weapons being used as skirmishers and light Infantry vs the rank and file of largely untrained Conscripts with some salty, experienced veterans mixed in.

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

smoothshooter · Oct 18, 2022

Stantheman86 said:
British soldiers with their then-new P53 Rifle-Muskets were hitting Russians at 1000 yards in the Crimea, because they were well trained and a Disciplined Professional Army

Commanders on all levels knew that soldiers in the US and CS Armies couldn't hit anything past smoothbore ranges, with rifle muskets because of the rainbow trajectory of the bullet.

The Sharpshooters were a concept borrowed from the French, with the real "soldiers " who knew how to soldier, and operate their weapons being used as skirmishers and light Infantry vs the rank and file of largely untrained Conscripts with some salty, experienced veterans mixed in.

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

Packrat · Oct 18, 2022

The British had good sights, ladder type on their smle's but changed to a simple peep, during the WWII Cost savings I've been told

Springfields 1855 vs 1861 sights

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

40 Cal

Cannon

40 Cal

32 Cal.

40 Cal

45 Cal.

40 Cal

Cannon

32 Cal.

Cannon

Cannon

50 Cal.

Cannon

50 Cal.

Cannon

32 Cal.

40 Cal

40 Cal

50 Cal.

45 Cal.

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!