“Some of our boys got Austrian rifles, some Enfield, and others Springfield. I got the Enfield, and Bob got the finest arm of the whole lot, a fine United States Springfield rifle.” – Pvt. Orrin W. Cook, Co. B. 22nd Regt. Mass. Inf.
The U.S. Model 1861 is often cited as the most common infantry arm of the U.S. Civil Warera. It isn’t of course; unless you place all U.S. Models including the later redesigned and improved versions like the U.S. Model 1863/4 into the total figures. There is no doubt, however, that the U.S. Model 1861 was highly regarded and widely used. There is a question that comes up periodically about the tendency for mis-fire problems with reproduction U.S. Model 1861 rifle-muskets and exactly what can be done about it. The problem is fairly common if not universal. Why is that? A little background on the U.S. Model 1861 and why this might be the case seems to be in order.
First of all, the original U.S. Model 1861 was prized for its reliability by soldiers fortunate enough to have one. The quote in the heading by Pvt. Cook is representative of the preference soldiers had for the U.S. Model 1861. The United States Secretary of War officially approved recommendations from the Board of Ordnance on Feb. 20, 1861 to simplify and update the existing U.S. 1855 rifle-musket design just in time for the outbreak of hostilities between North and South. The new and improved version of the U.S. 1855 was what became known as the U.S. Model 1861 rifle-musket. The Springfield Armory manufactured 13,803 rifle-muskets during 1861 at a cost of $13.93 each. It quickly became clear that U.S. military needs far exceeded the armory’s production capacity, and by mid-1861 contracts were being doled out to around twenty suppliers to produce the U.S. Model 1861 rifle musket for the Union. In addition, production capacity was ramped up at the Springfield Armory. All in all, by the end of the Civil War, 265,129 U.S. Model 1861s were produced at the National Armory and another 448, 314 were delivered by private contractors.
It was estimated by Claud E. Fuller & Richard Steuart in Firearms of the Confederacy (1944) that by the Battle of Chancellorsville in early May 1863, the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia had captured or otherwise procured around 147,000 U.S. Model 1861 riflemuskets; and that was before supplies of contractor-produced U.S. 1861s began to arrive in significant numbers. Up until that time, the imported commercial contractor-made Enfield Pattern 1853 long rifle was more widely used by both Union and Confederate infantrymen. Once the supply of U.S. Model 1861
rifle-muskets began to become more available, the U.S. Ordnance Department canceled their Pattern 1853 Enfield contracts with commercial Birmingham and London gun-makers. It was not unheard of for a soldier already issued an Enfield to swap it out for a U.S. Model 1861 at the first opportunity. William Livermore of the 20th Maine noted in his diary during the Battle of Gettysburg on July 4, 1863, “Weather cloudy. We went out and picked up Springfields and left our Enfields. Nearly everyone did so.” The fact that U.S. 1861 parts were interchangeable, while the mostly handmade Enfield was not may have been part of the reason. However, to the U.S. or C.S. soldier in the field it was in large part due to the better reputation of the U.S. Model 1861 for rugged reliability and high quality that carried the day.
Fast forward 150 or so years and this is certainly no longer the case. There is a decided preference among Civil War reenactors for the reproduction Pattern 1853 Enfield. Ironically some mod
ern reproduction 1853 Enfields are not as accurate in terms of cosmetic markings or historical features, but overall it is a more popular choice because it enjoys a much better reputation for reliability. The reason for this disparity is because reenactors fire blank black powder rounds—at least we hope they do—and, except for “campaigner” events and National Battlefield Park historic weapons demos, the blank rounds are not seated in the bolster using the ramrod and paper wadding that holds everything in place. Instead, the black powder is merely poured into the muzzle letting gravity seat the charge. The flash channel on the reproduction 1853 Enfield is located more on the top of the barrel while the U.S. Model 1861 is virtually at right angles to it.
Considered another way, igniting a black powder round in the barrel of an Enfield is (in basketball terms) more of a slam dunk, while the U.S. Model 1861 is more like an outside shot banked off the backboard. So part of the problem is that the bolster design of the reproduction U.S. Model 1861 is more prone mis-fire when using blank rounds. It is less likely to become a problem when a round is rammed down the barrel because the powder charge is packed more tightly up against the flash channel.
Depending on which manufacturer made the reproduction U.S. Model 1861, the lock assembly also may have a weaker investment cast mainspring. The original locks had stronger, hardened and forged mainsprings. It may take a bit of fitting to change to original springs in a reproduction lock, if it can be done at all.
Another variable contributing to the problem of mis-fires with the reproduction U.S. Model 1861 is the difference in design of the modern percussion cone or “nipple.” Technically the “nipple” is that portion of the percussion cone which is above the squared-off shoulder of the cone and holds the hat-like percussion cap during firing. Modern reproductions have a narrower vent with a much smaller opening at the base. It is shaped like a ‘V’ compared to the original cone used in the U.S. Model 1861, which was configured more like an hour glass. In other words, the original percussion cone design had a much larger vent opening at the base which allowed more spark from the percussion cap into the flash channel. Combined with the difference in the Springfield bolster design, the modern reproduction percussion cone is another main ingredient in the recipe for mis-fires.
The percussion caps used today are also not the same. The 1860 era percussion caps were made of copper and primed with fulminate of mercury, an explosive compound that was water soluble. We don’t use mercury based compounds (hazmat) for priming percussion caps today. The residue left behind from firing with modern percussion caps is not water soluble. The cone has to be removed and both the cone vent and cone seat (in the barrel) cleaned with a vent pick or otherwise cleared of fouling. The same is true for the flash channel. The U.S. Model 1861 is handily equipped with a clean-out screw on the side of the bolster for this exact purpose. It allows easy access for removing the fouling that clogs the flash channel. Most reenactors think of the clean-out screw as a non-removable appearance part, and after the rust and corrosion from firing residue settles in, that is exactly what it becomes.
So what can be done to prevent or at least mitigate the number of mis-fires while firing blanks from reproduction U.S. Model 1861 rifle-musket? If the problem is severe enough, the services of a competent gunsmith may be required to address the issue; however there are a few recommended steps you can take. The first is a switch to a better quality percussion cone with a larger vent at the base. This will often solve the mis-fire problem, especially when combined with a very thorough cleaning of the cone, bolster, and flash channel after firing. Another recommendation is to consider the use of premium grade, slightly finer FFFg granulation black powder (vs FFg). FFFg black powder is more easily ignited, all other factors being equal. Always use the highest quality percussion caps available.
Finally, during loading, always check the inside of the percussion cap to be sure the explosive compound has not fallen out while it was rattling around in your cap pouch. If the percussion cap has no priming compound left in it, barring divine intervention a mis-fire is guaranteed.
Craig L Barry was born in Charlottesville, Va. He holds his BA and Masters degrees from the University of North Carolina (Charlotte). Craig served The Watchdog Civil War Quarterly as Associate Editor and Editor from 2003-2017. The Watchdog published both books and columns on the material culture of the mid-19th century and donated all funds from publications to battlefield preservation.