Memphis Rifles: 3-inch bronze guns from Quinby & Robinson

In February 1862, Major William Richardson Hunt approved receipt of over $2500 of ordnance from the Memphis firm of Quinby & Robinson.

The third item listed on the receipt records “1 6 pdr 3 in Rifle Gun” received on February 6 at a cost of $687.43.  (Recall the nomenclature used for other Confederate 3-inch rifles incorporated similar references to the base 6-pdr caliber.)  The 3-inch rifle was one of only a handful, perhaps only three, produced by Quinby & Robinson before the fall of Memphis that spring.  Remarkably two of the guns survive today in Petersburg National Battlefield.

One is on display near the visitor center.

3-inch Q&R Rifle #33 at the Petersburg Visitor Center

The other is located at Colquitt’s Salient opposite Fort Steadman.

3-inch Q & R Rifle #34 at Colquitt’s Salient

At first glance the gun presents a clean appearance, with minimal moldings confined to the base ring and knob.  The cylindrical rimbases attach directly to the gradually tapering barrel.  Small numbers on top of the breech (#33 on the piece in front of the visitor center and #34 on the gun in the field) should correspond to a foundry numbers. The stamps on the right trunnion indicate the guns are indeed from Quinby & Robinson.

Right Trunnion of #34

The year stamped on the left trunnion of each piece, 1862, puts the guns  are in the range corresponding to the receipt shown above.

Left Trunnion of #34

The thickness of metal at the muzzle suggests the original casting pattern was intended for a larger caliber weapon.

Muzzle face of #34

The bore features twelve left-handed twist lands and grooves.  Remarkably, neither gun exhibits significant wear of the rifling.

Bore of #34

The bore measures out at the prescribed 3-inches.

Bore measure of #33

The breech profile incorporated a base ring, rounded breech face, and a rounded knob with rather thick fillet connecting to the breech.

Breech profile of #34

The gun sight mounts are no longer attached.  But the fittings indicate the use of a standard hausse seat in the rear and a spike front sight above the muzzle.

Muzzle of #33

Of the pair, #33 definitely has more “character.”

Scar on #33

The divot under the lower left of the barrel looks like a battle scar.  But it could also be the result of mishandling.  But it sounds so much more exciting to say some Yankee solid shot ricocheted off the barrel in the heat of some artillery duel.  The damage deformed the interior of the gun and actually warped the bore.

Bore of #33

Needless to say, #33 won’t be firing any more rounds.

Up until the recent refurbishment of the Petersburg artillery display, #33 sat on the rails between a James Type 2 14-pdr rifle and a Wiard 2.6-inch rifle, allowing for convenient comparison.

Three field rifles in the old artillery display. #33 in the middle.

The Confederate rifle measures 61 inches long, compared to 74 inches for the James rifle and 52.5 inches for the Wiard.

The external appearance of these two Quinby & Robinson rifles, even if breaking with established patterns, is not unique.  Another pair of 3-inch rifles at Petersburg, produced by A.B. Reading and Brother, from Vicksburg, Mississippi.  I will examine them next.

Little Mortars with a Big Job: The American Coehorn Mortar

Several weeks back I briefly discussed the evolution of the very light Coehorn mortars.  The original concept called for a light mortar for use in the narrow siege line trenches. But the small size of the type allowed gunners to operate with the maneuvering field armies, yet provide the high angle fire against fortifications.  Even though their caliber was too small for serious siege work against well fortified positions, the Coehorn was an attractive addition to a commander who expected to face only light, open fortifications.

Again, it is my opinion that the American Army entered the 19th century with a quantity of Coehorns (be they named “Royals” or “Coehorn” at that time).  As with other mortar designs, on hand quantities must have argued against all but limited production of the type. For a point of reference, here’s a reproduction (?) Coehorn mortar of the type used by the British during the colonial era, and the type inherited by the Americans:

Mortar (Photo credit: Jeff Kubina)

Furthermore, the Coehorn mortar was most needed for an army on the offensive in the traditional sense. The Americans didn’t see that as an important role (although at the operational level at least, the Army had operated offensively during the War of 1812). Operations on the frontier rarely called for artillery, much less mortars.

At least one surviving American 24-pdr iron Coehorn from the first quarter of the 19th century exists today.  Reported among the Petersburg National Battlefield collection, I have not examined it up close so I’ll save that for another day.  But I mention it here because of the stampings and manufacture date.  The register of surviving pieces indicates its registry number is 13, produced in 1827, and is marked “U.S. Arsenal, Washington.”  If correctly reported, such indicates limited, and non-standardized, production during the years following the War of 1812.

By the late 1830s, the Ordnance Department sought to standardize nearly everything.  Among those designs was the Model 1838 Coehorn Mortar.

Coehorn Model 1838 at Cold Harbor

The mortar pictured above is on display at the Cold Harbor visitor center, outside Richmond.  Fitting, as the mortars began playing an important role during the Overland Campaign of 1864.

In profile, the Model 1838 resembled British models, minus the handles of course.  The proportions are not far off those described in Muller’s manual from the 1760s.  The Ordnance Manual of 1841 specified the 24-pdr Coehorn weighed 160 pounds and was 15.32 inches overall.  As you can see from the overhead view, the mortar’s muzzle had a flat lip, reinforced by a generous ring (nearly an inch thick and one inch wide).  Over the mouth of the chamber, a four inch wide reinforcing band provided additional strength.

Profile view of the Coehorn

Looking at the muzzle face, most of the stampings appear in compliance with the Ordnance Instructions of 1861 – “1864 // A.M.Co.  // R.M.H. // 160 // No. 154″.  Translation – this mortar was produced in 1864 by Ames Manufacturing Company (Springfield, Massachusetts), inspected by Richard M. Hill, weighing 160 pounds, and is registry number 154.

Muzzle markings on mortar

The depth of the bore, not including the chamber, was 8.82 inches. A further look down the bore, taking advantage of the mortar’s shallow throat, shows the powder chamber.

Powder chamber of Coehorn

The chamber formed a conical “cup” at the bottom of the bore.  At the top it measured 3 inches in diameter.  At the bottom, according to regulations, the diameter was 2 inches, although some sources say 1.75 inches.  The depth of the chamber was 4.25 inches.

Looking outside to the rimbases, there is one other marking that often appears on Coehorns – the foundry number.  For this piece that is 263.

Rimbase number on Coehorn

The low mounted trunnions attached to the breech of the piece.  The trunnion molding actually formed a solid cylinder across the breech, by regulation 2.75 inches in diameter.  The overall length of that cylinder was 12.5 inches, standing out 2.5 inches on either side of the mortar.

Looking back over the reinforce band, this particular mortar exhibits the traces of painted markings.  These appear to be post-war arsenal stenciling, and not from wartime service.

Stenciling on Coehorn

I didn’t capture a close up view, but at the base of the breech was a single vent hole.

Production of these mortars began in 1839 with a lone pattern weapon ordered from Ames.  After its delivery in 1840, the Army ordered no more Coehorns until 1855, when Ames produced a batch of 30.  That was the entire pre-war production run for Army orders.  Of course that does not rule out state, militia, or private orders, but no evidence of such has surfaced.

Only in 1862 did the Army resume requests for Coehorn mortars.  Ames delivered about 200 more between April 1862 and the end of the war.  Cyrus Alger contributed 47 more in a production run during 1862-63.  Some have mentioned a spike in production to field experiences at Vicksburg.  I would simply point out that the Army had already received 36 Coehorns on wartime orders before the first spadeful of siege lines was turned at Vicksburg.  Another fifty were ordered before the first field reports were filed.  Ames later received orders for three batches of fifty each starting the spring of 1864 running through January 1865.  Given those production statistics, I’d argue this was more so a gradual procurement strategy as opposed to a reaction to the immediate wartime situation.  (My Artillery History revisionist moment of the week I guess…)

Having “walked around” the little Coehorn mortar, I’ll turn next to the operational at tactical particulars – how it was mounted, transported, and operated in the field.

Related articles

• Iron Frogs: 8-inch Model 1861 Siege Mortars (markerhunter.wordpress.com)
• Mortars to knock down walls: Siege Mortars in Pattern of 1840 (markerhunter.wordpress.com)
• Beds for mortars… for a not so quiet sleep (markerhunter.wordpress.com)
• Iron Beds for those Iron Frogs: Model 1861 Mortar Beds (markerhunter.wordpress.com)
• Putting shells on target: Aiming the siege mortars (markerhunter.wordpress.com)
• Hauling the Siege Mortar: the Mortar Wagon (markerhunter.wordpress.com)

The Extreme Side of Relic Hunting

Some time back I mentioned a news story about a relic hunter who’d been caught red-handed with items he dug up from the Petersburg National Battlefield. An update went out yesterday indicating the individual pleaded guilty:

RICHMOND – A Petersburg man whose house was searched earlier this year, revealing a potentially explosive Civil War-era artillery shell, has pleaded guilty to federal charges of unlawfully taking Civil War relics from the Petersburg National Battlefield.

In U.S. District Court in Richmond, John Jeffrey Santo pleaded guilty on Tuesday to two counts of damaging archaeological resources, each of which carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, and one count of depredation of government property, with a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

Santo originally was charged with three counts of damaging archaeological resources and one count each of depredation of government property, theft of government property and unlawful possession of a firearm. He will remain in federal custody while awaiting sentencing at a date to be determined…..

(Read more: http://progress-index.com/news/petersburg-man-pleads-guilty-to-damaging-battlefield-1.1242403#ixzz1g2Br75GP)

Also appearing on the newswires yesterday, an Alabama man pleaded guilty to similar charges of digging for relics at Vicksburg.

VICKSBURG, Miss. — An Alabama man has been given three years’ probation and been told to stay out of national military parks after an unauthorized dig at the Vicksburg National Military Park.The Vicksburg Post reported that Ernest Taylor of Foley, Ala., pleaded guilty last month in federal court to altering or defacing an archaeological resource, a felony. He was sentenced on Nov. 28.Court documents show Taylor, his wife and son were arrested Sept. 3, 2010 using a metal detector and digging holes at the park for Civil War relics.

(Read more: http://www.wapt.com/news/29951495/detail.html#ixzz1g2rqBfKj)

Personally I don’t have a problem with relic hunters or “diggers” in general. But the hobby lends itself to extremes. These two cases highlight such. In the lust for profit and perhaps some stature in the hobby, two individuals crossed lines. Let’s face it, not everyone will stumble across some magnificent find. Those that do are lucky.

Don’t get me wrong. I respect the relic hunters who will work at a site just in front of the bulldozers. In some cases, they are the last resort before a site is lost forever. And I find that those “diggers” working on the edge of development tend to be more open about where and what they found, generally speaking.

But hedging luck by picking through a preserved battlefield is wrong – legally in some cases as seen here and in my opinion ethically. I have no tolerance for those who will pick through a preserved battlefield. Those are lands set aside for protection – be that national, state, or local park; land held by a conservation/preservation organization (such as Civil War Trust); or even just under a conservation easement. And that protection extends to the artifacts in the ground, in my opinion.

If the artifacts in the ground are indeed THAT important as to warrant digging post holes for metal detector hits, well perhaps it is time to call for a formal archaeological survey.