HI I am getting ready to add a civil war rifle musket to my collection I do not know much about them any opinions on this one before I bid $$$ thanks Remington Zouave 1863 Civil War Percussion Rifle : Antiques / pre-1899 at GunBroker.com
Printable View
HI I am getting ready to add a civil war rifle musket to my collection I do not know much about them any opinions on this one before I bid $$$ thanks Remington Zouave 1863 Civil War Percussion Rifle : Antiques / pre-1899 at GunBroker.com
Looks expensive to me. I've seen nicer ones at that price. In my opinion they are an expensive civil war era rifle that was never used or issued. If you want a nice civil war era musket get a model 1861 rifle musket. If you want a rifle you can't beat a nice M1841 Mississippi rifle.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A lot of these rifles have survived in excellent condition, and the statement "The rifling is visible though worn." would worry me. Virtually impossible to wear a barrel out other than at the muzzle with the ramrod. With a bad barrel, I would pass.
advice taken I have a 1842 harpers ferry which probably got used in the early part of the war but I still need to look for a rifled musket to fit in between the 1842 and my trap door
If you want a standard example of a gun that was actually used during the American Civil War, you would do far better to get an original rifle musket, there are no confirmed issues of the M1863 Remington Rifle - they spent the last year of the war in crates and were surplussed unused quickly at the end with most going to Belgium for sale to the African trade. Remember that the short rifle length guns were no longer standard for issue during the war. The M1855, M1861 and the M1863 Rifle Muskets saw heavy actual service during the war and are available in quantity and at reasonable prices for shootable guns or at slightly less if you just want a non-shooting example.
There are also reasonable quality factory-made reproductions of all three standard rifle muskets available and excellent quality custom made examples available as well. For the later, see Blair Taylor at:
http://customizedcwguns.com/
He offers several options from modified Italian factory guns to complete custom work made with original parts or modern parts that are completely interchangeable with originals including new American made barrels that are far better than the standard quality European barrels.
I am not into reproductions no history to them
Good for you, I usually feel the same way. :thup:
Go for the real thing, and avoid a gun like the Remington that never saw use in the War. In that way it is a lot like a reproduction. It was just another example of government inefficiency spending money on something that didn't meet requirements so was not needed.
The 2 band rifles were no good for infantry in the traditional role. Anybody in the first rank having one of those presented over his shoulder will have that sucker going off practically in his face!
And for dedicated sharpshooter work, there were far better suited rifles.
Ah yes, the old "reenactorism". That sort of thing almost never happened to trained troops who were under military discipline, but then rifle armed troops who were usually deployed to the front as skirmishers or on the flanks for protection were usually not in the position to have to fire in ranks but they were a cut above the line infantry and were smart enough and well trained and led so they knew that you stood close behind your file mate in front of you and kept the muzzle well in front of his face where it was no worse than what the musket or rifle musket armed line infantry had to suffer through. Once the average soldier was commonly armed with rifled arms the short rifle was no longer necessary so it faded out of service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim
Yes, the longer barrel of the rifle musket gave a better sight radius than the short rifle but the short rifle had a heavier barrel and did do an excellent job on accurate fire in military service. If you are talking about using civilian style rifles in military service, it almost never happened. They were too fragile, did not have replacement parts available when damaged and did not last long in service, unit armorers didn't have the time to waste on delicate firearms of no particular special ability. The unfortunates who carried such rifles were soon happiliy relieved of them and issued a military arm capable of the accuracy needed. It's the man, not the rifle that makes the shot. A good rifleman can make difficult shots with any rifle when used within reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim
Sharpshooters did quite well with the (3 band) Rifle muskets (as opposed to "rifled muskets") especially the Enfield with its sights for longer ranges.
But, I was referring to military grade rifles. The Confederates did well with the Whitworth rifle which was no delicate civilian model (and no, I was not referring to and agree with your assessment of such). I do not know if the Yanks had, picked up, or used the Whitworths. Their Sharps rifles were very effective too as noted by their popularity with Berdan's fellows among others.
Yes, the Confederate Army did have a few Whitworths and they did very well with them but they were far from common and did not meet the perceived needs for the sniper role in the Confederate Army, especially in the West where they were practically unheard of. A fair number of standard rifle muskets were more than capable of the accuracy needed for snipers in the days before optical sights were available and a man with good natural shooting ability could more than satisfactorily use one in work of sniper. As you are well aware, scope type sights were rare and inordinately expensive at the time of the American Civil War and so delicate that they couldn't stand up to any kind of serious civilian use, much less that required by the military. Open sites were all that were successfully used by Snipers at the time and even exceptionally sharp sighted people would not be able to make accurate use of them beyond, say, 500 yards - few could even do that. Remember that the longer range rear sight of the Enfield was made for volley firing at long range, the targets being of at least company, even regiment sized targets.
The Sharps Rifle was a wonderful contraption and it did reasonably well in military service. And Berdan's men were almost all capable marksmen with nerve and they could serve as snipers but they were far better and more heavily used in the role of skirmishing and as flanking troops. As such, most of the accurate fire most were capable of was done at only slightly further range than a line infantryman was capable of with training and natural ability, both of which Berdan's men had in spades. For skirmishing, the Sharps, as long as they continued to use them, was a great rifle is relatively expensive to maintain. It's reasonable accuracy, especially at the 200 yards and less range, gave Berdan's men the ability to fire relatively fast and made the most of the men's ability to stand and fight as well as to shift their positions rapidly that their training for these duties taught them.