The Baker Rifle

The wars in the colonies, specifically the French and Indian War (otherwise known as the Seven Years War) and the American Revolution, significantly altered British military tactics.  Britain was a superpower in the 18th century.  It's navy ruled the seas and its infantry was feared by Europeans and the colonists alike.   British firepower, perfected in linear tactics, controlled the field.   Infantry presented itself in open fields, marched within 100 yards of each other and unleashed volley after volley directly into each other's ranks from smoothbore flintlock muskets.  When one side was significantly weakened, the stronger launched a bayonet charge causing the weaker unit to either flee the field or suffer at the end of a the nearly  two foot long triangular spike bayonet.   In the eighteenth century, the British officers were masters of  linear tactics performed by magnificently disciplined troops.   It was unheard of to fight in the winter and ungentlemanly to target officers.  The American wars changed all of that.

Native Americans, first employed by the French, knew nothing of linear tactics.  Rather, native Americans utilized concealment, ambush and fear to fight their battles.  The Canadian French adopted the tactics of their native American allies in the French and Indian War.  British General Edward Braddock's disastrous 1755 campaign on Fort Dusquesne educated British officers as to these new tactics.  The British expedition suffered a crushing defeat in which ambush and concealment soundly defeated linear tactics.  While British regulars and colonial militia tried to form up and fire volleys in ranks, native Americans and Frenchmen, firing from behind cover, decimated the British ranks and targeted and killed officers, including General Braddock.

Ambush and concealment carried forth into the American Revolution.   At Lexington and Concord, American militia melted when facing British linear assault.  However, the British suffered stinging losses on the return to Boston from the same militia who executed ambush along the march route and peppered the British from concealed positions.   The weapon of choice of many a militiaman was  the Pennsylvania rifle.

Hunting rifles existed for years prior to the American Revolution and were used by traditional European huntsmen such as chasseurs and jagers.    Grooves cut in the weapon's barrel spun the ball as it traveled and increased distance and accuracy.  The British reaction to American tactics was to create light infantry units -- troops trained to move fast and fight independently, often in units of two.  While not armed with rifles, British light infantry were the seed of the rifle regiments formed in the early 19th century.  These elite regiments wore the green jackets harkening back to those worn by chasseurs and  jagers,  were trained in the tactics of light infantry and were armed, when possible, with the Baker rifles.  British rifle regiments,  the 95th Regiment of Foot (the Rifles) and the 60th Regiment of Foot (the Loyal Americans --the unit was originally intended to be recruited from loyal colonists), served with particular distinction during the Napoleonic Wars.  Bernard Cornwell fans know well that his intriguing fictional character, Richard Sharpe, rose from the ranks to hold a commission in the 95th (a feat which actually did occur from time to time, but not very often).

Ezekiel Baker developed his rifle in the early 19th century in response to a call from the British government  for a weapon with which to arm its riflemen.  Baker beat out stiff competition from very qualified gunsmiths,  including Henry Nock, and won the contract in February of 1800.   Over 22,000  Baker rifle were manufactured over the long lifespan of the weapon.  It  served until 1837 at which time it was replaced by the Brunswick rifle.

             Photo source:  web.science.mq.edu.au

The first thing noticeable about the Baker when compared to the standard British Napoleonic era longarm, the smoothbore Brown Bess, is its length.   The .75 calibre Bess stands a good nine inches taller than the Baker.  However, even with its shorter barrel, the .625 calibre  Baker is greatly outclasses its smoothbore cousin in accuracy and effective range, making it more suitable for harassing fire and sniping. The downside of the Baker, and other early rifles, is the increased loading time. Because of the need for the round to fit tight against the grooves of the barrel, it took some force to ram the round down the barrel.   Often, a cloth patch was used to ensure a snug fit--hence the patch box incorporated into the rifles stock (one easy way to spot any 18th and 19th  century rifle is by the patch box cover on the stock).    Repeated firing compounded the situation, as fouling of the barrel made for a tighter fit.  For assistance in loading, rifleman were issued mallets with which to pound the ball down the barrel.   An average rifleman got off two rounds per minute.  The average soldier armed with a smoothbore musket fired around 3 rounds per minute.    The smoothbore sacrifices accuracy and range for speed of firing.  A smoothbore musket, such as the Brown Bess, is somewhat accurate up to 100 yards.  The Baker is accurate up to 200 yards.  For close defense the rifleman was issue a sword bayonet, rather than the standard triangular bayonet.

I do not and have not owned a Baker rifle.  Maybe one day I will.

A New Orleans Made Confederate Foot Officer's Sword

Confederate made or used weapons are highly collectible.   More so than any other Confederate item, officer's swords are the most desireable item.  Perhaps it the mystic of the "lost cause."    After all, German WWII militaria prices are  much higher than those of any other nation.   French Napoleonic items are  typically valued greater than comparable Britsh items.  So what is it about the loser's stuff that is so desired by collectors?   My opinion is that it is a matter of supply and demand.   There were comparatively fewer Confederate manufactured swords than Union manufactured swords. Even fewer Confederste swords have survived over the past 150 years.   Also,  in most instances, we can say that a sword produced by a known CS maker was manufactured between 1860-1865.   That cannot be said for every "Civil War" Sword. US sword patterns for the most part were in service existed prewar and continued as official patterns for several years postwar. For whatever reason, CS officer's swords simply fetch higher prices on the market.  Often, they are of poorer quality in both materials and manufacture, but I must admit that they are truly appealing.

Over the years I have owned four Confederate swords.  I have had the pleasure of owning two cavalry sabres and two foot officer's swords (remember these are the officers that did not serve mounted, captains and below, hence the designation as "foot officer").  The sword pictured below is one of the foot officer's swords that I have owned.  This particular sword is completely devoid of markings, but it can still identified as a product of a New Orleans manufacturer.

Prior to its fall in 1862, New Irleans was the home of several well known Sword cutlers.  The most famous of these being  Thomas Griswold & Co., which produced very high quality officers swords as well as other blades.  Also manufacturing in New Orleans were Agudier Dufihlo and Blaise Pradel.  Both Dufihlo's and Pradel's names appear on one of my favorite CS swords- a staff and field officer's (those what got to ride on horses) sword incorporating the Lousiana state seal in the guard which depicts a pelican feeding her young.  The sword shown below is believed to be a Pradel product based upon its likeness to a Pradel marked foot officer's sword.  The sword itself is a copy of the US pattern 1850 foot sword.  It exhibits typical New Orleans manufacturing characteristics of an unstopped fuller (channel) in the blade, a two piece pommel cap (the base of yhe sword which holds the whole lot together) that is braised together and a bulbous quillion (the curled thingy coming off of the guard).  The sword has a metal, black painted scabbard regarding which there is some debate as to whether or not it is original to the sword.  Nevertheless, the scabbard is a period piece and not a reproduction.

This sword is no longer in my collection and I truly enjoyed having the opportunity to study it.   My family hails from Louisiana.  I have ancestors that served in the Cobfederate Army , particularly the 1st Louisiana Cavalry and the 3rd Louisiana Infantry.  One of my ancestors was Vicksburg.   Given my family's history, I felt a connection.

The Conversion Musket Part II

While armories and contractors converted many a musket from flintlock to percussion in the 1850s, there were not enough percussion muskets available to equip the thousands that would flock to enlist in 1860 and 1861.    While federal armories had been and were producing new percussion weapons, such as the Springfield  Models 1855 and 1860 (the Confederate government utilized equipment captured from the Union armory at Harpers Ferry in April of 1861 to produce copies of the federal Springfield muskets at Richmond, Virginia and Fayetteville, North Carolina), and state and federal governments were importing European arms such as the British pattern 1853 Enfield rifle musket and the Austrian Lorenz,  conversion of muskets from flintlock to percussion continued at break neck speed to meet the needs of the troops in the field.  The musket shown below is one such musket.

This smoothbore musket started life as a Model 1822 flintlock musket manufactured by contractor W.T. Wickham of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1833.  As depicted below, it is a bolster conversion which, based upon the manner in which the conversion was performed, is most likely the work of  M.A. Baker.    Baker operated in Fayetteville, North Carolina from 1857 to 1862.  Pre-war, he manufactured sporting rifles.   During the war, he received a contract to alter muskets and common (civilian) rifles from flintlock to percussion.  It is also believed that he received a contract from the State of North Carolina to manufacture percussion locks as examples exist bearing his name on the face.  

This conversion is particularly crude.  The pan has been cut away leaving a gap in the metal.  No time or effort was expended to create and insert  proper bolster in the angular cut (one manufactured to sit flush in the cut.  Rather, the gunsmith utilized a round bolster in a square cut -- the proverbial round peg in a square hole.  He also changed the bands holding the barrel to the stock.  The original bands were held in place by metal retention springs mounted on the wood stock.  The gunsmith replaced these with Enfield type bands which tighten by virtue of a screw on the bottom.    As depicted below, the gunsmith scored the Roman numeral XV on the top of the lock.   A corresponding mark exists in the stock where the lock in inserted.  The gunsmith made the marks to ensure that he placed the lock back with the correct stock and barrel.

It is with a musket such as this that many a soldier would first see battle -- especially the early battles of First Bull Run/Manasas in 1861 and Shiloh/Pittsburg Landing in 1862.  While neither as accurate or  reliable as an 1860 Springfield or an Enfield, the smoothbore conversion musket served better than the flintlock or shotgun that some soldiers, especially Southerners, carried until they could pick up or were issued a more modern long arm.

The Conversion Musket

By the 1840s, the percussion cap musket was state of art.  State and federal  armories  had plenty of flintlock weapons, but precious few percussion muskets.   Rather than dispose of these weapons and incurring the expense of purchasing new percussion muskets,  state and federal governments both commissioned armories and contractors to alter flintlock muskets to the percussion ignition system.  Hence, the birth of the "conversion"  musket.  

Altering a flintlock musket to percussion occurred in two manners - the bolster conversion method and  the "Belgian" cone method.   Both processes required the flintlock pan and hammer to be removed.   The gunsmith removed the hammer by simpy removing the screw securing it to the lock.   Removing the pan required cutting it off of the lock.   The gunsmith performing a bolster method conversion would then drill a hole into the right side of the barrel, where the pan met the touchhole, and attach a hollow metal part into which a percussion nipple, or cone, would be screwed.  He would then attach a standard percussion hammer.  A Belgian cone conversion, aptly named for its use in Belgium, required drilling a hole on top of the barrel, offset to the right, and screwing a cone into it. In place of the pan, the gunsmith often inserted a brass plug.  The gunsmith then attached a hammer which serpentined to the left to accommodate the cone's placement on top of the barrel.   The quality of the conversion, both bolster and Belgian, depended upon the skill of the gunsmith.   Some conversions look as it the weapon has not been altered in any way.  Some look like they were performed by a high school shop class -- if such existed in 1840s and 1850s.  

Standard Flintlock Musket Lock

Bolster Conversion

Belgian Cone Conversion

Most conversions from flintlock to percussion were accomplished in the 1850s.  As a result, state and federal armories were stocked with antiquated smoothbore muskets, converted from flintlock to percussion, by the time hostilities between north and south commenced in April of 1861. 

The muskets depicted above are exemplary.  They are not and have never been in my collection.  In Part II of this post, I will discuss  a conversion musket that is in my collection.