Jump to content

Firearms


Recommended Posts

Jiangnan Arsenal questions.

Were they producing copies of Remington rifles, or Remington Revolvers (1858)? And is the 1861 rifle mentioned a copy of the "Springfield" 1861 or some Remington weapon that I am unaware of?

It would be the "Springfield" 1861 Rifle Musket and then the Remington Rolling Block rifle. None of my books mention 1861s with Chinese marks so I doubt there were many or at least of a quality to see them lasting. Remingtons with Chinese marks are not that common.

I got data for a few period weapons, but I'm not sure just which ones would have made it into the region. I'd assume that some of the US and British Military Rifles like the Springfields and Enfields would have been produced in enough numbers for export, but probably not too much else.

The arms trade was big business during the period and primary arms were produced in surprising numbers. With rapidly changing technology most guns were not in service long and sold off as surplus. the vast majority of 1861s were sold off immediately after the civil war ended (I count myself lucky to own one that never left the country). Something like the Remington Rolling Block was only used in small quantities by the US but became the primary rifle of a number of countries.

I starting to think that while there might be some local copies of modern Western firearms, there would probably be quite a few older muskets still in service.

Fowling pieces, matchlocks, you name it and it probably was used in numbers greater then modern western arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It would be the "Springfield" 1861 Rifle Musket and then the Remington Rolling Block rifle. None of my books mention 1861s with Chinese marks so I doubt there were many or at least of a quality to see them lasting. Remingtons with Chinese marks are not that common.

I've found a few articles, and it looks like the early imports were from Britain and Portugal. So maybe they would be making Enfields rather than Springfields? Do any books mention a 1853 Pattern Enfield with Chinese marks?

The arms trade was big business during the period and primary arms were produced in surprising numbers. With rapidly changing technology most guns were not in service long and sold off as surplus. the vast majority of 1861s were sold off immediately after the civil war ended (I count myself lucky to own one that never left the country). Something like the Remington Rolling Block was only used in small quantities by the US but became the primary rifle of a number of countries.

From what I've read, about 700,000 Spingfield Model 1861's were produced. Quite a lot compared to the older M1855. I also see 1,500,000 Pattern Enfields, or twice the number of Springfields. So I guess it's a safe assumption that if the Chinese weren't copying them, they probably bought some from the British.

Fowling pieces, matchlocks, you name it and it probably was used in numbers greater then modern western arms.

I'll have to put a few on the list then.

Edited by Mister Apocalypse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A somewhat obscure source: An article about the Jewish Company of the

Shanghai Volunteer Force in 1863 mentions that this force was armed with

a "short version" of the "30-03 Enfield".

It seems they either mean the Musketoon version of the 1853 Pattern Enfield,

or - more likely, I am afraid - they went astray completely and confused the

Enfield of 1853 with the Enfield of WW II ...

Otherwise I have found no connection between "Enfield" and "Shanghai", al-

though I suspect that Ward's and later Gordon's Ever Victorious Army was

armed mostly with 1853 Pattern Enfields, because the unit of up to 6,000

soldiers is mentioned as using British arms - and these would probably be En-

fields.

It would be logical if the Chinese had attempted to copy the Enfield, as the

rifle used by most of the foreign soldiers in and around Shanghai, but this is

of course only speculation.

By the way, shouldn't this one have the information we are looking for:

Osprey Publishing - The Taiping Rebellion 1851–66

Edited by rust

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for using muskets or rifles to parry, most European armies of the period

trained their soldiers in "Gewehrfechten" (German, means "rifle fencing" - I

did not find the English word), techniques to use a musket or rifle with a

bayonet as a close combat weapon, similar to a combination of a club and

a spear, and this included techniques to parry similar weapons.

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for using muskets or rifles to parry, most European armies of the period

trained their soldiers in "Gewehrfechten" (German, means "rifle fencing" - I

did not find the English word), techniques to use a musket or rifle with a

bayonet as a close combat weapon, similar to a combination of a club and

a spear, and this included techniques to parry similar weapons.

I would think so. Back in those days, you might not have had the time to reload after a shot before the enemy was upon you. Even today armies give their solider some bayonet training, just in case.

I guess Jason meant that you couldn't parry with the Rifle skill. Instead one would have to use spear or Staff/2h Club. Or dagger/sword is you are caught while still attaching the bayonet. I think many of those weapons still required the user to pl;ug the baynet into the barrel and didn't have the type of plug that allows the weapon to be fired with bayonet attached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in those days, you might not have had the time to reload after a shot before the enemy was upon you.

Yep, especially when you were on the "receiving end" of a cavalry charge,

and were attacked with sabres or lances, both still quite common on the

battlefields of the period.

Since the use of the rifle to defend against such attacks was a part of a

soldier's rifle training, and he would probably have fought much worse if he

had to use a club or spear instead of his rifle, I would allow the Rifle skill for

the parry.

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, especially when you were on the "receiving end" of a cavalry charge,

and were attacked with sabres or lances, both still quite common on the

battlefields of the period.

Since the use of the rifle to defend against such attacks was a part of a

soldier's rifle training, and he would probably have fought much worse if he

had to use a club or spear instead of his rifle, I would allow the Rifle skill for

the parry.

I'd figure that they would get some spear training. All that bayonet practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A somewhat obscure source: An article about the Jewish Company of the

Shanghai Volunteer Force in 1863 mentions that this force was armed with

a "short version" of the "30-03 Enfield".

It seems they either mean the Musketoon version of the 1853 Pattern Enfield,

"Short version" need not imply musketoon. There were rifles with 39-inch barrels, sergeant's rifles with 33-inch barrels, artillery musketoons with 24-inch barrels and cavalry musketoons with 21-inch barrels. the first two were produced in very large quantities and exported extensively, while the latter two were produced in much smaller numbers and generally used only by the appropriate forces. As an examplem almost 1 million rifles and sergeant's rifles were imported into the US during the Civil War, but only about 7000 musketoons (all by by the Confederacy and called carbines).

That is not to say that there was not an entire force running around with musketoons, stranger things have happened, but it makes you wonder. I could certainly see an entire unit equipped with sergeant's rifles (P1856, P1858 most likely).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Rob is right.

One of the several reasons I have read for the term "Rifled Musket" was that there were rifles with the length of a musket. Appently, the rifle, didn't need to have as long a barrel as a musekt, and the longer barrel was to make it easier for them to be used from the second rank.

While my sources don;'t say in what capacity, I'm inferring that they meant for them to be used as pikes to fight off enemy charges-especially calvary. It is harder to form a spearwall if the second rank is armed with short barreled weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the long barrels did aid in multi-rank firing, the main reason for their use was the slow burning powders of the day required a long barrel to achieve maximum velocity. The short-barreled musketoons were a sacrifice of performance to accommodate the needs of cavalry and artillery personnel. the sergeant's rifle was of shorter design because it would often be slung while directing the soldiers, the barrel length being chosen so that a fixed bayonet would not reach touch the ground with the average height of personnel.

I own weapons of the period with both 39/40-inch and 33-inch barrels and have never noticed a significant performance difference between them. It should be noted that on the 33-inch Pattern 1858 Sergeant's rifle the sights out to 1250 yards and while I have never fired to that range, 500 yard accuracy is good.

On Chinese rifles I found this interesting gun Collector's Firearms, which utilizes a British musket action. At a guess I would say the production date is between 1825 and 1850. Would be an interesting gun to shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you missed my point., Apparently rifles didn't need as long a barrel as muskets. So the rifles with musket length barrels had some specifically advantage to armies of the day.

Or it might just be that with the ranges armies were used to shooting at, a short rifle could provide enough stabilization to meet exceed the range and accuracy of a longer musket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember a discussion during my military days, when some soldiers complai-

ned about the new submachineguns that had replaced their rifles. In their

view, the lighter and smaller submachineguns were useless both as "silent

weapons" (e.g. when hitting someone over the head from behind, I guess ...)

and in close combat once one was out of ammunition. All the advantages of

their shiny new submachineguns did not impress them at all, they wanted

something big and heavy ... :D

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you missed my point., Apparently rifles didn't need as long a barrel as muskets. So the rifles with musket length barrels had some specifically advantage to armies of the day.

I did not miss your point, I am just not aware of any historical or ballistic information to support it. Barrel length of muskets was not designed around their use from the second or third rank, but from the needs of the slow burning powders to get the projectile to maximum velocity. Tactics came second, taking advantage of the longer barrel. Sub 30-inch barreled rifles do not become standard for primary issue until after WW2, long long after multi-rank firing has been abandoned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not miss your point, I am just not aware of any historical or ballistic information to support it.

Several documents mention the introduction of the bayonet as the reason

for disbanding the pike formations, because the musket with the bayonet

was now used to protect the infantry soldier from cavalry attacks.

To do this successfully, musket plus bayonet need a certain length, they

have to reach up to the horse's body with the stock on the ground and

the barrel inclined towards the attacking cavalry.

However, I have no idea whether this worked because the rifle plus bayo-

net had this length anyway, because especially long bayonets were deve-

loped to reach the required length, or because it influenced the decisions

concerning the length of the rifle and its barrel - probably a combination

of all three.

Edited by rust

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not miss your point, I am just not aware of any historical or ballistic information to support it. Barrel length of muskets was not designed around their use from the second or third rank, but from the needs of the slow burning powders to get the projectile to maximum velocity. Tactics came second, taking advantage of the longer barrel. Sub 30-inch barreled rifles do not become standard for primary issue until after WW2, long long after multi-rank firing has been abandoned.

Multi-rank stabbing as opposed to firing. A longer barrel also means another couple of feet of reach when fending off cavalry. From what I've been reading about rifled-muskets it is a reason why the rifled ones had such a long barrel.

Calvary and Naval forces were quick to adopt shorter length rifles. Considering that the smaller bore of rifled weapons and that the rounds were spin-stabilized, they didn't need to reach maximum velocity to be effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multi-rank stabbing as opposed to firing. A longer barrel also means another couple of feet of reach when fending off cavalry. From what I've been reading about rifled-muskets it is a reason why the rifled ones had such a long barrel.

what book are you reading? I just finished rereading the Ordnance Department and Springfield Armory documents on the development of the 1861 Rifle-Musket and there is not a single mention of an overall length requirement with fixed bayonet. On the other hand there is much discussion about how to improve on the performance of the 1855 Rifle-Musket and in the end lengthening the barrel from 33- to 40-inches was adopted despite objections of several officers who wanted to retain the shorter barrel of the 1855 even with the reduced performance. Because of the terrible performance of the 22-inch barreled 1855 Rifled-carbine there were no cavalry or artillery versions of the 1861/63. Nothing in these official documents support the notion that weapon use as a pike-like thrusting weapon were ever a factor in determining barrel length. I don't have detailed information on British rifle development but the limited production and issue of sub 30-inch barreled versions suggest a similar outlook.

Calvary and Naval forces were quick to adopt shorter length rifles.

Say what? Cavalry always used shorter weapons, the change from smoothbores to rifles and then smaller caliber rifles affected this not at all.

Marines (later Royal Marines) were originally issued with the sea service Musket, which was a couple inches shorter then the land pattern muskets, but with the switch to Rifle-Muskets they carried the same weapons as the infantry. The US Marines follow the same pattern. On neither side of the ocean are there naval versions of the rifle-muskets and no records of the US or British navies purchasing quantities of rifle-muskets. In 1867 the US Navy was the first customer for the Remington Rolling Block rifle, choosing the performance of the 33-inch barrel (with no fitting for bayonet) over handier carbine length versions. I am not a collector of French arms or books so I don't have any information on French naval use of the rifle-musket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Sorry, trying to revive this thread because of my Celestial Empire related blog, on which I would like to publish a post dedicated to the 19th century weapons used in China. My book only features the rifled musket; I'm sure there were more. My problem is that I am a complete ignoramus in the field of firearms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, trying to revive this thread because of my Celestial Empire related blog, on which I would like to publish a post dedicated to the 19th century weapons used in China. My book only features the rifled musket; I'm sure there were more. My problem is that I am a complete ignoramus in the field of firearms.

You could try to find a copy of this article written by Barton Hacker, perhaps

through your library. I think it would be a good start for any research into this

subject:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3103204

You could also ask the users of the Military History forum of SinoDefence,

they are probably the best "panel of experts" immediately available:

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/

Edited by rust

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem is that I am a complete ignoramus in the field of firearms.

Since you claim ignoramus-hood, at the risk of being pedantic, here's some of the big technological advances that took place in the 19th century. Essentially firearms went from primitive to basically modern over the course of the century. There's lots of info on the web about what exactly these things were, but here's just an overview so you can track down the details.

Prior to the middle of the century, the smooth bore musket was the normal rifle for "modern" armies. By the 1850s, the Minie ball allowed the rifled musket to have the same rate of fire as smooth bore muskets and so this became the standard military rifle. (The US Civil War featured rifled muskets on both sides.)

By the 1860s and 70s, the muzzle loading muskets were being replaced by breech loading rifles, which had a lot of advantages. And the development of metallic cartridges made them even more effective. The British Martini-Henry rifles were examples of this. The last part of the century also saw the development of bolt-action rifles, which became the standard for the world's armies all the way through WWII. The Mauser G93 is probably the most famous example of this type of rifle.

Since at least some units in the Qing armies were starting to get modern weapons during the Taiping Rebellion and afterward, at least by the 1860s, you would have started to see the latest firearms technology in China, at least in some units. The Beiyang Army that figured so prominently in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95, was the culmination of these modernization efforts. Probably if you can find information about what the Beiyang Army and its predecessors were getting for weapons, you'd have examples of the best military technology available to the Chinese. Also, you would expect that in the areas that Western nations occupied or controlled (Hong Kong, Shanghai, etc etc) there would have been modern weapons. How many of those might have ended up in the hands of, for example, gangsters or other Chinese, would be an interesting research topic.

Sorry if this was something you already had a handle on, but I thought it might help you to at least start to track down the details.

My avatar is the personal glyph of Siyaj K'ak' a.k.a. "Smoking Frog."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...