Third most common US weapon 1861–1865
Still from the movie “Winnetou the Apache Leader.” Previously, it was always surprising why in this and other “Indian” films ordinary soldiers are armed not with Winchesters, but with antediluvian percussion cap guns, and they shoot from cannons dating back to the times of Napoleon. But, as I later learned, this is exactly what happened in America...
For, he said,
they hope for weapon and courage
and we hope in almighty God,
Which with one wave
can overthrow those coming against us
and the whole world.
Second Book of Maccabees, 8:18
they hope for weapon and courage
and we hope in almighty God,
Which with one wave
can overthrow those coming against us
and the whole world.
Second Book of Maccabees, 8:18
Weapon stories. Not long ago, while looking at a series of paintings by the famous American artist Mort Kunstler, dedicated to the Civil War of 1861–1965. I noticed that in almost all of his battle paintings the soldiers are armed with percussion rifles. And he is a very authoritative artist. His paintings are equal to photographs in terms of the accuracy of reproduction of details, so their historicity can be trusted.
I turned to specialized literature and read that, for example, the same Austrian Lorenz Muster rifle of the 1854 model was the second most imported weapon of the Civil War in the United States. Here's how. And that it was the third most common weapon of the American Civil War, that is, most of the northerners and southerners fought in this war not with their own, but with foreign weapons imported into the United States from Europe.
I wanted to know which rifle was the first in terms of purchase volumes, and it turned out that it was the English Enfield rifle, the same one that the British fought with in the Crimean War. Of the nearly 300 rifles purchased by North and South, only the Enfield was imported in greater numbers. That is, the Americans fought with Austrian and British rifles, and their own Springfield and Kentucky rifles, it turns out, were in the minority.
Also interesting was the impression that American soldiers had of the Lorenz rifle, or “Austrian rifle,” as it was commonly called, which was most actively used in the Western theater of operations.
And it turned out that some of the participants in that war, in their memoirs, scolded the Lorenz rifle and wrote that it was both poorly made and terribly inaccurate. While others claim that the Lorenz rifle was a superior weapon, even that it was better than the vaunted Springfield rifle. Although there are still many more people condemning her than praising her.
Why? How did the Lorenz, which was in service with the army of the Austrian Empire, where it replaced the Augustine rifle with a tubular primer, earn such a bad reputation?
There were several reasons for this ambivalent attitude.
The desire of North and South to acquire weapons at the beginning and throughout the war led to a situation that today could easily form the basis of a blockbuster film, and in addition, it is being repeated right before our eyes in Ukraine today. Political intrigue, backroom deals, smuggling and even outright theft - all this played a role in the fact that Lorenz ended up in America, and immediately on both sides of the barricades.
But these rifles were... different, from different manufacturers and, accordingly, of unequal quality! Some of them were well-made weapons that came to the United States straight from Austrian arsenals. That's why they were in excellent condition. But others were alterations and captured weapons obtained during past European conflicts, dropped by “good” Europeans to the warring Americans.
This is where it turns out that even a well-designed rifle will not perform at peak performance if it has been poorly manufactured or repaired by an incompetent contractor.
It was also important that for maximum efficiency, the Lorenz, like the British Enfield, required special ammunition. The Lorenz rifle was a system, and when it had all its parts: a well-made and well-maintained gun, a trained soldier and suitable ammunition, it was a very good rifle.
The bad reputation of Lorenz rifles appeared when one, sometimes two, or even all three parts of the system were missing in this chain. Many rifles were so poorly made or poorly repaired that their barrels could vary in caliber.
The Minié bullets that Lorenz fired were quite accurate for that time. But a bullet that is poorly fitted to the barrel cannot make a good shot, and such a rifle will never please the soldier whose life depends on this weapon.
Add to this the fact that many soldiers were not properly trained in the handling and use of rifles. It can be argued quite conclusively that not a single officer or non-commissioned officer in any of the armies of the North and South has ever seen a manual for the Lorenz rifle.
But how else, for example, could they understand that the sights on it are calibrated in shritts, that is, in steps, and not in yards? And how could they know that a sight setting of 300 steps would be 246 yards, that is, the difference in steps and yards was very decent?
It is not surprising that many untrained soldiers simply missed the target, even in cases where they accurately set their sights at the command of an officer.
Lorenz rifle model 1854 Smithsonian Institution, USA
Finally, there is the question of ammunition.
It was a complete nightmare that haunted the quartermasters (primarily rebel southerners) who had to supply them to units using more than a dozen different types of weapons. At the same time, Lorenz required special, its own ammunition.
Although some of this ammunition was imported from Europe, most soldiers received ammunition intended for the .54-caliber Mississippi rifle. Unlike the Lorenz ammunition, its bullets were several thousandths smaller than the .547 caliber. Therefore, accuracy with American ammunition was simply impossible, unless the soldier received a non-standard rifle with a reduced bore.
That is why, from the very beginning, all odds of “working well” were against the Lorenz rifle, and one can only be surprised that it showed good results in someone’s hands.
Even such a seemingly trifle as the wood from which the stocks of European rifles were made had a certain influence on the attitude of American shooters towards the weapons they received. As it turned out, they associated birch stocks with rifles of poor quality, and considered rifles with American walnut stocks to be better. But where could the Europeans get it?
Wenzel rifle bolt 1867. Conversion of a rifle 1854. Photo by A. Dobress
As for the technical characteristics, the Lorenz M.1854 capsule rifle was initially produced in a shortened version, intended for rangers and had a caliber of 13,9 mm. These short rifles were used by Austrian rangers during the Italian War of 1859, the Danish War of 1864 and the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. In 1867–1869 many were converted by mounting Model 1867 Wenzel bolts using 14mm rimfire cartridges.
The bolt of an 1867 rifle is open. Photo by A. Dobress
The short Jaeger rifle was produced in large quantities, but was soon replaced by the new Werndl rifle M.1867, 11 mm caliber and chambered for centerfire cartridges. However, it was used by auxiliary units even during the First World War.
Trigger and fire tube of the Lorenz rifle. Photo by A. Dobress
Well, the Lorenz rifle was designed accordingly by Joseph Lorenz, a lieutenant in the Austrian army in 1852–1854.
The rifle weighed 4,28 kg. It had a length of 1 mm and a barrel length of 337 mm. Rate of fire 952,5–1 rounds per minute. The initial bullet speed is 3 m/s. The effective firing range is 373 m, and the maximum is 225 m.
About 688 of these rifles were made, costing $000–$14 for a long rifle and $18–$10 for a Jaeger rifle (18).
Interestingly, all the rifles had the same rifling in the barrel and design, but... two different sights. Two-thirds of line infantry units received rifles with fixed sights, while one-third (apparently the best marksmen), along with sergeants, received rifles with adjustable sights ranging from 246 to 737 yards (300–900 paces).
Adjustable sight of the Lorenz rifle. Photo by A. Dobress
The demand for these rifles was much higher than the Austrian state arsenals could produce, so most of them were produced by private manufacturers. Not surprisingly, many of them did not have the equipment necessary to create rifles, which were very modern and sophisticated weapons at the time, and as a result the quality of Lorenz rifles varied greatly.
The caliber of the barrel also varied quite a lot due to insufficient control of permissible tolerances. Because of this, there was often too much gap left between the bullet and the barrel, which led to a deterioration in combat performance.
Production expanded slowly and soldiers were trained in new weapons just as slowly. So, by 1859 (the beginning of the Austro-Sardinian War), not all Austrian units received the new rifle.
But during the American Civil War, the federal government purchased 226 Lorenz rifles, and the Confederacy purchased 924. Confederate rifles were widely used in the Mississippi Army in 100-000. On the Union side, Continental European firearms were largely distributed among Western armies - so the Lorenz rifle was a relatively rare example in the Army of the Potomac (although it was armed with two regiments of the famous Iron Brigade), but was actively used in the Army of the Tennessee.
Interestingly, although the Austrian army manuals described the correct use and maintenance of Lorenz rifles, none of them were ever translated into English. A large number of Lorenz rifles purchased by the Union during the Civil War had their barrels bored out to .58 caliber so they could fire the same ammunition as Enfield and Springfield rifles. At the same time, this operation suffered from the same inconsistency as the production of rifles on the continent itself, and, in general, did not bring anything good.
The rifles purchased by the Confederacy retained the .54 caliber. The finishing of the rifles was varied. Some were blued, some were brown, and others were highly polished.
So the Americans, in their Civil War, also fought mainly not with their own weapons, and then it practically became a tradition!
Information