U.S. Army Company Musket Firing 1859-1861

By Lawrence E. Babits · Originally published February 2018 · pp. 14–15

From the fall of 1859 to early winter 1861, U.S. Army posts in Texas and New Mexico were inspected by Lt. Col. Joseph E. Johnson and Col. Joseph K. F. Mansfield. The two officers would soon be on opposite sides in the Civil War. As part of their inspection, they evaluated the musket firing capabilities of various companies and included commentary about the weapons. Their information sheds light on the shooting performance of soldiers when the war started six months after Mansfield’s last reports. Johnston recorded the first series of reports from July to November 1859. His reports are not as detailed as Mansfield’s but they do contain specific information about the variety of weapons and the skill with which they were used. How the garrisons reacted to Johnston’s evaluations can be seen in Mansfield’s reports the next year. This article concentrates on the Infantry but includes some Cavalry and Artillery musket firing results. Generally speaking, the targets were usually 6 feet x 22 inches, presumably set up with the longer side being vertical to approximate a soldier’s height. The ranges varied from 100 to 600 yards with each soldier firing only one shot at the designated distance. This is hardly conducive to improving accuracy. Johnston reported that: all the troops in the department have the new arms except one company of the 3d Infantry, which retains the rifled musket (cal. .69) & that there is, in the ordnance depot, a very large supply of ammunition for the old arms, but a very scanty one for the new & that the Chief of Ordnance has fixed the annual allowance at less than 60 rounds. A quantity insufficient for the instruction of the troops to say nothing of what may be required for field service (Thompson 2001:40). This comment indicates that little practice was allowed even though the units were involved in active campaigning along the frontier. At Fort Union during the July 1859 inspection, the garrison included companies G, H, and K, of the Regiment of Mounted Riflemen. Firing at 200 yards was “unsatisfactory” as only “about a fourth of the shots struck a target 6 ft. by 44 inches.” Only one company had actually practiced and some officers were not teaching their men how to fire from horseback either. The officers preferred “the rifle of cal. .54 of an inch to that just adopted-thinking it a more accurate weapon” (Thompson 2001:36).

At Fort Marcy, Company E, 8th Infantry’s, the situation was somewhat different in July 1859. The men had practiced ten times, “from 50 to 200 yards. 24 of 60 [40%] shots fired at 300 yards, before me, struck a target 51/2 feet high & 2 feet wide.” Johnston reported the arms as being “new” (Thompson 2001:40). At Fort Garland, August 8, 1859, Company A, 3rd Infantry, “arms & accoutrements have been in use less than a year… except that on most of the locks “Maynard’s attachment” impedes the motion of the hammer & interferes with putting the cap on the cone.” “Less than a seventh of the shots fired struck the target at 200 yards.” Johnston went on to say that, “target practice was ordered for the first time in this department, last Spring” (Thompson 2001:42). A further comment was that there were “5500 cartridges for the discarded musket (cal. .69). The company has 4000 cartridges for the rifle musket… after three rounds had been fired most of the muskets retained lead enough to be felt with the rammer. Want of grease on the balls, was, I think, the cause” (Thompson 2001:42-44). When Johnston inspected Fort Burgwin August 12 and 12, 1859, Company E, Regiment of Mounted Riflemen and Company D, 3rd Infantry did not impress. “They want practice in firing” (Thompson 2001:44). At Albuquerque Depot, Company F, 3rd Infantry, garrisoned the post armed with the “Rifled Musket” (cal. 69)” in August 1859. “They exhibited, however, a decided want of skill in shooting” (Thompson 2001:46). At Fort Defiance in August 1859, four companies, B, C, G, E, 3rd Infantry, were the “usual garrison,” but K, I, and “Capt. Schroeder with 45 men of his company,” are on temporary duty here. “Some of the officers think the material of the belts too weak. All think unfavorably of Maynard’s primer which is very uncertain, even under favorable circumstances. The attachment interferes with the use of caps. They think, too, that the springs & screws are so brittle as to be very liable to break.” The men’s “firing…was not satisfactory, like that of the troops I have seen. The recruits at Governor’s Island… might be made tolerable marksmen. At least at short distances. This branch of the instruction of the troops necessary in this department seems to me very important, as skill with fire arms is more valuable in Indian warfare, than accuracy of movement” (Thompson 2001:51). During September 1859 Las

Lunas was garrisoned by Companies I and K, 3rd Infantry but some 98 enlisted men, are on detached service… The firing was the best I have seen, as yet. Lt. Whistler makes the objections to Maynard’s primer & the manufacture of the rifle musket given in my report… The primer was used in the firing in my presence in which at least half missed fire, sometimes from defective machinery, at others by the fault of the primer itself. I reported that at Fort Garland that lead was found in most of the muskets after 3 rounds had been fired. After 3 rounds at Los Lunas, the solutions were generally in the barrels as at Fort Garland, which I attributed to lead stripped from the balls. On unbreaking the barrel in which this retention was strongest, I found nothing but the reduction of burnt powder. (Thompson 2001:54). Company I has 2,500 rifle musket cartridges. It has been furnished with ammunition for practice by breaking up old cartridges & making new of the materials. A pair of bullet molds being provided (Thompson 2001:55). Fort Craig was the home post of Company F and I, Regiment of Mounted Riflemen in September 1859. “The shooting with the rifle & revolver indicated the want of practice remarked at Fort Defiance” (Thompson 2001:56). At Fort Fillmore, three different regiments were represented in the September 1859 garrison; Company H, 3rd Infantry, D, 1st Dragoons, and C, Regiment of Mounted Riflemen. The firing of Company H was equal to that at Los Lunas. All the companies of this regiment have exhibited a want of skill which justifies me in regarding the differences as accidental. Major Gordon thinks unfavourably of Maynard’s primer. The dragoon company is not well armed. All the men have sabres & Colt’s Navy revolvers – a majority, the pistol carbine – some Sharps & a few, rifles of the cal. .54 inch … the shooting with carbines, on foot, was equal to that of the infantry…. The only available ammunition for small arms, in the Magazine, is for Colt’s Navy revolver, of which there are 19,000 cartridges. There is a quantity of old musket cartridges which might supply materials for ammunition for target practice, if ball molds were provided. Each company has in its possession a small quantity of ammunition for the arms with which it is equipped (Thompson 2001:58-59). Johnston came back to Fort Fillmore on October 17, 1859, to inspect Company C, Regiment of Mounted Riflemen because they were absent when he visited in September. Immediately after my inspection of this post, Co. D, 1st Dragoons, received a full supply of Sharp’s carbines. The result [sic] of regular practice with this weapon are quite satisfactory. But as it is uncertain which of the several breech loading carbines reported upon by boards of officers is best for military service. It seems to me that two [sic] many of this construction have been purchased (Thompson 2001:68). Fort Stanton was home to Company K, 8th Infantry as well as Companies B & D, Regiment of Mounted Riflemen during September 1859. Company K, Lt. Willard, make a good appearance but “Their firing before me was not equal to the record. Their commander reports that they have not practiced much, from want of ammunition.” The two horse companies “use their rifles & revolvers rather better” (Thompson 2001:61). At Fort Buchanan, Johnston found Company B, 8th Infantry and G, 1st Dragoons on October 4, 1859. The Dragoon Company is better instructed than any other of the mounted troops I have seen in New Mexico… There is, however, a great variety of fire arms, Sharp’s, Hall’s & the pistol carbine, the rifle (cal. .54) & musketoon-Colt’s revolvers of both sizes, & the old Dragoon pistols. Capt. Ewell advocates Sharp’s Carbine, in comparison with the musketoon… has made two requisitions for carbines annually for several years. The infantry company has had no ammunition for practice until very lately when it received 20,000 cartridges (Thompson 2001:63-64). The Fort Bliss October 1859 garrison was Company A, Regiment of Mounted Riflemen and detachment of Capt. Pitcher’s Company, 9th Infantry. Company A’s “men practice regularly with their fire arms, with the revolver, still on foot. … thinks the present rifle less accurate than that of cal. 54” (Thompson 2001:65). Fort Quitman was intended for two companies but only Company H, 8th Infantry was present with some casuals from Company C when Johnston visited in October 1859. “As marksmen the men are equal to the generality of those mentioned in my previous reports” (Thompson 2001:70). Mansfield inspected the post during November 1860 when Company F, 8th Infantry was the garrison. “At the target 6’ x 22” & at 100 yards, 25 men, one round each, made 15 hits, & at 200 yards, 6 hits, about 60 & 40 percent hits, which was better than I expected.” “Pertaining to the company were 5 old muskets, 83 rifled muskets, 2500 musket rifle ball cartridges, & 2000 blank cartridges” (Thompson 2001:109). Fort Davis was occupied by Company G, 8th Infantry and the regimental headquarters and band during October 1859. “[F]rom the record of the three [sic their] target practice, the improvement in that respect decided” (Thompson 2001:71). Mansfield inspected the post October 31, 1860, when the post was “temporarily under Lieut. J. J. Van Horn of Company “G,” 8th Inft. [who was] attached to Company “H,” 8th Inft.” Because Colonel Bomford had been “absent since 18th September at Fort Bliss on a court martial.” “The few men on inspection were in full uniform and armed with the rifled musket.” Bomford had apparently taken most of the company’s returns so “there was no one to give an account” (Thompson 2001:101-104). Camp Stockton’s garrison was Company H, 1st Infantry on October 27, 1859. The performance of the company as marksmen was equal to that of the other companies” (Thompson 2001:74). Mansfield inspected this post in November 1860 when Company H, 1st Infantry was in garrison. When the men fired: at the target 6’ x 22”, 48 men, one round each, at 100 yards, made 30 hits, say 621/2 percent; at 200 yards made 20 hits, say 40 percent, at 300 yards made 7 hits, say 141/2 percent. There were but 7 snaps of the tape primer out of 144 and the balls held up well. This shows a vast improvement on my previous experience at the target, and that the gun, ball & powder were well proportioned to each other and the men well instructed. In assessing the weaponry assigned to the company, Mansfield found, 69 serviceable & 9 unserviceable rifled muskets, 1 Sharps rifle, 5 Colts pistols, 6900 rifle musket ball cartridges, 440 Sharps ball cartridges, 3,800 Colts pistols cartridges, 500 Harpers Ferry ball cartridges (Thompson 2001:112-13). Fort Lancaster was home to Company K, 1st Infantry during November 1859. “The shooting was the best that has been made in my presence” (Thompson 2001:75). Mansfield visited a year later when the same company was the garrison. They fired: at the target 6’ x 22” at 100 yards, 32 men, one round each, made 20 hits; at 200 yards made 18 hits; at 300 yards 9 hits. Equal at 100 yds to 621/2 percent, 200 yds, 561/2 percent, 300 yds 28 percent, the best ball practice I have seen. There were 76 rifled muskets, 2 Harpers Ferry rifles, 2 Colts pistols, 2500 blank cartridges, 7400

musket ball cartridges, 700 Colts pistol ball cartridges (Thompson 2001:118). Camp/Fort Hudson was garrisoned by Company A, 8th Infantry and Troop C, 2nd Cavalry in November 1859. The proficiency of the company in the movements in close order & in firing is not above mediocrity. “The cavalry were a detachment, “without horses & it is to presumed consists of the least effective men of their company, as they were left here by Capt. Stoneman when ordered into the field. They are armed with Sharp’s Carbines & some of the old heavy pattern. They seem to have had no practice with fire arms (Thompson 2001:77). When Mansfield inspected the post in November 1860, the garrison was Company A, 8th Infantry. At the largest [sic Target?], 6’ x 22” 26 men one round each at 100 yards, made 12 hits, about 46 percent, at 200 yards, made 6 hits, about 23 percent, This firing shows great progress in target shooting in our service. This company could have made a better exhibit under more favorable circumstances [for] on this occasion the wind blew to considerable effect and the day was cold. They immediately fired again at 100 yards, & made half as many more hits. But with a view to compare companies I have adopted one round of each of the distances above named as standard.” The company had 63 rifled muskets, 10 flint lock muskets for bayonet exercise, 4500 musket ball cartridges (Thompson 2001:123-24). Fort Clark was occupied by Companies F, M, K, and L, 1st Artillery during Johnston’s November 1859 inspection. As soon as Major French arrived in September: he had prepared two six pdrs., two siege howitzers & four twenty four pdrs. for the purpose, the two companies [K and L] were regularly instructed in the manuals of those classes of guns. Company F…has just commenced the same course of instruction…. Company F is the only one …I had an opportunity to see at target practice in which it acquitted itself about as well as the majority of the infantry (Thompson 2001:79). When Mansfield inspected the post December 1, 1860, the 3rd Infantry headquarters were there. Companies D, H, K were present while B, C, E, and G were “expected daily.” Company D: At the target, 6’ x 22”, at 100 yards, 24 men made 9 hits, say 36 percent; at 200 yards, made 3 hits say 12 percent; at 300 yards, made 6 hits, say 25 percent, only one round at each distance. Company H 24 men one round each made at 100 yards 13 hits, say 54 percent; at 200 yards, 5 hits say, 25 percent; at 300 yards, 4 hits, say 16 percent. For Company K: 24 men, one round each, at 100 yards, made 12 hits or 50 percent; at 200 yds, 5 hits or 21 percent; at 300 yds., 3 hits or 12 percent. Thus, it appears at the target practice these three companies are greatly inferior to the 3 companies at Hudson, Lancaster & Stockton, and yet their shooting is much better than many companies I reported on in the Pacific Department (Thompson 2001:129-31). Fort Inge was inspected in November 1859 when Company F, 8th Infantry was present. No comment about shooting. In October 1860, Mansfield inspected the post and found Company C, 2nd Cavalry on duty. The only comment was that the men had Sharps carbines and “79 revolving belt pistols” (Thompson 2001:81,94). Mansfield also reported on five posts that Johnston did not include. Camp Wood was visited in October 1860 when Company K, 2nd Cavalry was on post. They were well armed with Sharps carbines & sabre & Colts navy size revolver …The company dismounted fired at the standard target 6’ x 22” at 150 yards and 22 men made 7 hits with one round each equal to 1 in 3, and with the revolver, one round each at 50 yards, 27 men made 47 hits out of 162, say 1 to 31/2 (Thompson 2001:98-99). Fort Duncan was inspected in December 1860 when Light Battery K and Companies L and F, 1st Artillery were the garrison. Company L, “40 men one round each at 100 yards made 4 hits say 10 percent. The target firing was not good, owning in part to some 8 or 9 of the men not having practiced at the target at all” (Thompson 2001:139). Company F, “39 men one round each, at 100 yards, had 17 hits, say 43 1/2 percent; at 200 yards made 7 hits, say 18 percent 300 yards made 5 hits, say 13 percent” (Thompson 2001:140). As an addendum, Mansfield noted that: The guard report contains the firing of the old guard at the target which at this post is 900 yards, and only the hits in the bulls eye are counted. In the month of August last, the bulls eye was hit 9 times, which if we suppose 12 men to fire, would be about 21/2 percent (Thompson 2001:141). Mansfield inspected Fort McIntosh December 13, 1860, when Companies F and I, 3rd Infantry were posted there. Company F fired: at the target 6’ x 22”, 36 men one round each, at 100 yards, made 21 hits, say 581/3 percent; at 200 yards, made 15 hits, say 412/3 percent; at 300 yards, made 6 hits, 162/3 percent. The tape primer springs did not feed well. Many failed to bring out the primer and many of the caps also failed. This company has only to continue the target practice daily to be proficient.” “Four of the muskets of this company had sights different from the standard & were arranged for 100, 300 & 500 yds. only. This is a disadvantageous innovation. The great benefit of the rifle musket is the long & certain range & why cut off its range & efficiency [at] 600 yards (Thompson 2001:145-46). Company I also fired at “the target, 6’ x 22”, 39 men, one round each, at 100 yards, made 20 hits, say 662/3 percent; at 200 yards, made 8 hits, say 262.3 percent; at 300 yards, made 6 hits, say 20 percent. Not so good as Co. “F” but encouraging as the men & officers take a great interest on the rivalry” (Thompson 2001:147). My attention was called by Lt. Whistler to a defect in the musket of the Harpers Ferry manufacture. The screw that secures the back sight to the barrel penetrates in many instances the bore of the barrel thereby creating a lump, or impediment to the ball & sometimes the ramrod. This is a gross oversight of the inspection of the Harpers Ferry armory, My attention was also called to another evil, either the flange of the cap is too larger or the nipple sites too close to the Maynard magazine, & the cap cannot be readily put on (Thompson 2001:147). Ringgold Barracks was inspected by Mansfield in December 1860. He mentioned that he had inspected it in 1856. In 1860, the garrison consisted of Company D, 8th Infantry and Company A, 3rd Infantry, plus 138 recruits intended for the third. Company D fired at the standard 6’ x 22” target. At “100 yards, 31 men made 14 hits or 45 percent; at 200 yards, 6 hits or 191/3 percent; at 300 yards 6 hits or 191/3 percent. Their arms were in good serviceable order, except some few that went off at half cock” (Thompson 2001:152). Company A shot at “the target, 6’ x 22”, 28 men one round each, at 100 yards, made 14 hits, say 50 percent; at 200 yards, made 3 hits, say 102/3 percent; at 300 yards, made 1 hits [sic], say 31/2 percent. This is quite poor shooting” (Thompson 2001:153). Fort Brown was “about 600 yards northward of Fort Brown of the Mexican War.” The garrison when Mansfield inspected consisted of Company M, 1st Artillery and Light Battery M, 2nd Artillery. Company M, 1st Artillery could “drill tolerably” but not as skirmishers. At the target 6’ x 22”, 32 men one round each at 100 yards, made 14 hits or 433/4 percent; at 200 yards, made 10 hits or 311/3 percent; at 300 yds. made 7 hits or 21 percent.

Company M, 2nd Artillery had among other weaponry, “15 Colts pistols, 2 Adams pistols…” For some reason, Mansfield said, “There could be no target firing in this locality” (Thompson 2001:159-61). Johnston summarized his evaluations of posts in an October 17, 1859, report: The 26 companies in this department are dispersed in 12 posts. This division of the troops prevents their proper instruction, reduces the force available for the field, & increases the expenditure of Qr. M. funds. … The troops in New Mexico are not proficient in military exercises because, 1st, they are in small bodies, 2d, their instruction is not the best consideration, & too many are employed at labour. … 3d, recruits are frequently sent into the field before there is opportunity to instruct them. After which, regarding themselves as veterans, they never lack, besides which their officers attend to the schools of the “soldiers” & “trooper.” The remedy for the last would be the thoro’ instruction of the recruits in those schools & the use of arms at the depots. When taken into the field without such instruction they are mere incumbrances (Thompson 2001:69). The infantry officers I have seen think unfavorably of Maynard’s primer & never use it in the field. The attachment impedes somewhat the placing of caps on the cone. The rifle musket is thought by them to be an admirable weapon. The sights, however, are too coarse that at the muzzle should be of white metal – the other of blue or brown. The barrels should not be bright, their glittering prevents accurate aim & makes troops visible at great distances in sunshine & exposes sentinels by moonlight (Thompson 2001:82). At most of the posts … too much of the time of the troops is contained in labour & too little devoted to military exercises but a small proportion of our officers seem to appreciate the importance of the latter. The best exceptions I have seen are Capt. [Robert Seaman] Granger, 1st Inf., Capt. [George] Sykes, 3d, Lt. Col [Washington] Seawell & Lt [George L.] Willard, 8th, Capt. [Richard Stoddert] Ewell, 1st Dragoons & Lt [William H.] Jackson, R.M.R (Thompson 2001:82). From Johnston’s and Mansfield’s reports, there are impressions worth noting. First, the men were not allowed a great deal of time for practice firing their weapons at a time when there was a major changeover from earlier models. Second, the new Model 1855 was not well received in many cases and some criticisms were well founded in terms of the Maynard tape primer’s reliability. Anyone who played with cap guns in the 1950’s and 60’s knows the problems with rolled primers. The officers also complained that the hump on the 1855, and later Richmond, rifled muskets got in the way of the percussion cap’s flanges/wings, making capping difficult. The most serious complaint was that the sight mounting screws apparently penetrated into the bore. A lesser observation was that a bright barrel both made sighting difficult and gave away a soldier’s position. A final shooter’s observation is that the trigger pull necessary to fire the new muskets probably exceeded six or seven pounds, requiring a stout finger and possibly leading to jerking the weapon to fire it. Coupled with the lack of practice and difficulty in capping, jerking the trigger would lead to in accurate shooting. Firing at a regimental battle line might be adversely affected in terms of elevation but the horizontal difference would be minor. On the western frontier, where the opponents presented individual moving targets, accuracy was essential but there was little comment about improving the trigger pull stressing accuracy. The estimation of distance was, however, implied in the range at which firing was tested. Still, the “old soldier” peeks through the reports in claims that the 1841 Mississippi rifle was preferred by some units and one company retained the knockdown power of the larger caliber .69 rifled musket. (Source cited Thompson, Jerry, editor 2001, Texas and New Mexico on the Eve of the Civil War—The Mansfield & Johnston Inspections, 1859–1861. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.)