Personalized Muskets
During a recent visit to the Springfield Armory Museum there was a video program which included a re-enacted segment about 19th century British officers from the Royal Small Arms Manufactory inquiring about a gun stock being cut on a lathe. The British officer asks the American machinist, “So every stock will be exactly the same?” The American replied that was correct, “as long as the blades are kept sharp the stocks will be exactly the same.”
Those who have made a careful study of Civil War muskets can tell you that this was one of the biggest advantages of the U.S. model 1861 as compared to the English P53 Enfield, the interchangeable parts. We know soldiers became attached to their issued weapons and since they did, how did they tell their musket from another when they all looked pretty much the same?
Addressing this, the Springfield Armory museum states, “Civil War infantrymen, just as soldiers of all wars, ignored regulations and decorated or modified their equipment to reflect their tastes and inclinations. Flags and drums were emblazoned with the names of battles and campaigns. Most common, however, was the individualization of the basic infantryman’s weapon, the musket or rifle.
While the quality of ornamentation varies, each is unique and interesting as a reflection of the life of the soldier.” If this is indeed the case, what are the implications for the living history community? How common was the practice? Should those concerned with “getting it right” also personalize their musket?
Well, not so fast…to start with there were (and still are) government regulations prohibiting personalization of issued equipment. To the Army, the soldier is the mechanism necessary to fire the musket. If injured or killed, the musket will be reissued to another soldier. Technically speaking, no ordnance is the property of the soldier – it is entrusted to his care but remains the property of the government or at least the company commander who receipted for it. If Civil War soldiers did carve their name in the stock of their musket, they could expect to be fined for the offense. So why would they do so?
One of the things which is fascinating about the Civil War-era is not just how familiar the actions of soldiers seem compared to people today, but the odd differences in everyday attitudes. Treatment of government property might just be one more area of subtle indifference. Individual soldiers may not have cared or even been aware of what regulations or Ordnance Department instructions called for in the care of issued weapons. Illiteracy was not a thing unknown.
There is an amusing anecdote told by John Holland, Chairman of the N-SSA Small Arms Committee, “I know firsthand of a family heirloom musket, complete with belt, buckle, cap box, sling, bayonet and scabbard which includes the papers showing purchase at time of discharge.
The musket’s stock is beautifully chip carved with his name and regiment. Every paper the family has which was signed by their German soldier relative is signed with “his mark,” usually an X, sometimes a cross, and witnessed by someone else. The family was baffled as to how he was able to carve his name when he was illiterate. Well very simply, he got someone else to do it for him!”
Sometimes the barrel finish was removed to personalize the weapon. A famous example is “Florence Fleming” which was the name of the rifle belonging to Sam Watkins messmate W. A. Hughes in his famous memoirs Company Aytch. Watkins notes that it was “the brightest gun in the whole army.”
After Hughes was mortally injured in July 1864, he asked that Watkins receive some personal effects along with the rifle “Florence Fleming,” which Sam Watkins carried until the surrender at Bentonville, N.C. in 1865. Watkins writes the rifle had the name on the stock in silver letters.
It may have been in tacks. However, not much else is said about it after that. Watkins makes so many mentions of using his P53 Enfield that many readers just assumed “Florence Fleming” was an English Enfield long rifle that had been polished or “struck bright.” That may or may not have been the case.
In the Ordnance Returns for the 1st Tenn. (Watkins was in Company H of the 1st Tenn.), the records actually show a mixture of U.S. models and P53 Enfields in the ranks. According to information from their service records, 1st and 2nd quarter of 1864 Col. Feild’s Ordnance repot shows the 1st, & 27th. Tenn. armed with 74 Enfields, and 174 .58 Cal. Rifled Muskets.
This return is dated June 30th, 1864 from Marietta, Ga. In a report of ordnance issued to Col. Feild’s Regt. at Dalton, Ga., April 20th, 1864 by Alex Allison acting Ordnance Officer Maney’s Brigade lists 20 Springfield Rifles Cal. .58 issued to the 1st. & 27th. Tenn. So whether it was a U.S., C.S. or imported model and whatever the markings on “Florence Fleming” may have been, there was certainly no attempt by Sam Watkins or the previous owner to concern himself with following the Army regulations to the letter on the matter of personalization.
So what happened with these personalized weapons after the war ended? Did soldiers keep them or turn them in? Under the provisions of General Order 101, May 30, 1865, discharged Federal soldiers were permitted to purchase their arms and take them home with them. Muskets of all types, with or without accoutrements, cost $6. Spencer carbines, with or without accoutrements cost $10, while all other carbines and revolvers cost $8. Under G.O. 101, Union soldiers purchased 116,677 “muskets”; including 96,238 U.S. models, 19,882 Enfields, and 557 “others.” (U.S. Congressional Serial 1497, pp. 167-72; G.O. 101) Obviously, paroled Confederate soldiers at the end of the war were not allowed to purchase their rifles or muskets and take them home.
A final point as to commonality of the practice, while there are certainly a number of notable personalized weapons, in terms of total surviving artifacts the numbers of unmarked muskets far exceeds the personalized examples. And what also remains unknown is during what time period the personalization took place.
After examining surviving originals, it can be hard to know if an individual soldier carved his name, company, or other artwork on his gun stock in 1862 or 1892. While we do see markings on gun stocks from the Civil War, there are some pretty good reasons why we don’t see more, despite soldiers’ latent desire to personalize their equipment.
So back to the original topic... “Should I or should I not personalize my musket by carving (inlaying or whatever) the gun stock?” While ultimately a personal decision, we can answer the question of whether doing so improves or lowers the historical feature accuracy of the reproduction weapon. It probably has no effect.
The point being, soldiers varied on the practice and there are a variety of other ways to make your weapon individually distinctive enough to spot at a glance without chopping it up. For example, a different lock plate date than the musket came with out of the box, or better yet...fit it with an original lock plate. It will stand out in the stack of muskets at a glance.