Being fascinated by historically identified Civil War arti-

facts, some 11 years ago I acquired a .32 caliber rimfire

Smith & Wesson Model 2 Army revolver (Figure 1). On the

backstrap was a simple inscription in an Old Roman Italic

Outline typeface, “A. Foulke, 1864,” (Figure 2). The revolver

was engraved by L. D. Nimschke1 with the engraving cut

through the patent dates on the cylinder and traces of the

original silver-plating remaining. With the pearl grips, the

engraving and the silver-plating this defines a deluxe or pres-

entation version of this Model 2. The 17160 serial number

places its manufacture in early 1864,2 which coincides with

the inscription date. It came with no provenance other than

it was found at an upper state New York estate sale.

Since inscriptions of an isolated name with a first initial

only can be very difficult to identify, the 1864 date helped

place it in the Civil War era. I assumed it might have a mili-

tary association. Although these Smith & Wessons were not

a military issue, they were very popular with both officers

and soldiers, due primarily to their use of the newly devel-

oped waterproof metallic cartridges.

My first step in identifying this inscription was to search

through the various resources of listings of officers and sol-

diers in the regular armed forces and volunteer forces during

the Civil War at the Newberry Library, a Genealogical Library

in Chicago. One of these sources is the general index of the

War of The Rebellion: the Official Records of the Union and

Confederate Armies. Here I found a reference to an A.

Foulke.3 This reference was a letter dated February 22, 1864

from Brigadier General Henry J. Hunt, Chief of Artillery, Army

of the Potomac, to General M. R. Patrick, Provost Marshall,

Army of the Potomac, appointing A. Foulke as sutler to the

First Brigade of Horse Artillery commanded by Captain James

M. Robertson. An excerpt from this letter is as follows:

. . . My proposition, approved by you, as I understood, was

to give to each unit of force 1 sutler, and but 1, viz: To each

brigade attached to a corps, 1 sutler; to each brigade of

horse artillery, 1 sutler; to the Sixth New York Foot Artillery

(A regiment of volunteers), 1 sutler; to the mounted batter-

ies constituting the reserve proper and for the train attached

to it, 1 sutler.

The sutlers are as follows, as now recognized:

1. Mercer Brown, appointed sutler in December 1861,

of the Artillery Reserve by the Council of

Administration . . .

2. A. Foulke, First Brigade of Horse Artillery

(Robertson’s).

3. John Nilan, Second Brigade of Horse Artillery

(Graham’s).

4. Thomas McCauly, Sixth N. Y. Foot Artillery (Col.

Kitching).

Artillery from the reserve is detailed for temporary

service by batteries, not by brigades. If to occupy a position

its sutler must provide for it, if necessary. If permanently

transferred to a corps it enters the brigade of the corps, and

of course is supplied by the corps sutler. There is no artillery

in this army outside of the organizations named.

Respectfully, your obedient servant,

Henry J. Hunt,

Brigadier General, Chief of Artillery

At this point I recalled a well published photograph of

a Civil War sutler’s tent. Upon referring to my copy of

Matthew Brady’s Illustrated History of the Civil War,4 I was

delighted to find that this tent carried the label “A. Foulke,

Sutler, 1st Brigade H.A.” (Figure 3).

Returning to the Newberry Library I began to research

the family name Foulke in the general card catalogue. Again,

I was indeed pleased to find a listing of copies of the “Foulke

85/25

“A. Foulke, 1864”Tracing a Civil War Inscription

Marlan H. Polhemus

Family” compiled by Roy A. Foulke, first and second revised

editions dated 1974. This is a small limited edition supplied

to the family members and various genealogical sources

throughout the country. It basically deals with “John Foulks

of Lancaster, Province of Pennsylvania and his descendants

who are listed in this genealogy.”5 At the time this edition

was printed there was no reliable data regarding the ances-

tors of John Foulks. His name first appears in a land trust

document dated December 28, 1681 in Maryland.6 In 1739,

John and his wife Margaret settled in Lancaster, PA.7 Between

the second and third generations in about 1800 the spelling

of the “Foulks” name changed to “Foulke.” Listed in the

fourth generation is (Number 54) “Andrew Foulke.” The only

“A” in the family history contemporary to the Civil War era.

This document shows Andrew as the third of eight children

of William and Anne (Alexander) Foulke. This information

was taken from the family bible deposited in the Library,

Cazenovia College, Cazenovia, NY.8

Andrew was born June 17, 1821, in Middle Paxton

Township, Dauphin County, PA and named after his maternal

grandfather, Andrew Alexander. The family history goes on to

describe that he was a sutler in the Civil War, referring to a Life

Magazine article dated February 3, 1961, carrying a picture

entitled “Soldier-customers and civilian storekeepers lounge

around a Union sutler’s store in February 1863, at Brandy

Station, VA (Figure 3). Sutlers were con-

tractors who followed the armies in the

field, selling candles, souvenirs, sta-

tionery, sometimes whiskey, and other

soldier necessities. The picture is of a

cabin with a log front and with other

sides and the top of canvas. On the front

of the cabin was a sign reading “A. Foulke,

Sutler, 1st Brigade H.A.” Mary Emma

(Foulke) Peters, a great niece of Andrew

had a copy of this original photograph

which she inherited from her grandfather

Joseph, Andrew’s eldest brother.”9

Andrew Foulke was a party at inter-

est in four deeds in Chemung County,

NY ranging from 1851 to 1864. The third

deed of April 25, 1856, names Susan Jane

as his wife and he sells his interest in his

father’s farm to his brother, Joseph. The

deed of October 10, 1864 has Andrew

buying back his interest in his father’s

farm and identifies him now as a resident

of Washington, DC.10 This is about eight

months after his appointment as a sutler.

In the family there were two sig-

nificant A. Foulke items of memorabilia.

The first was a photograph taken by G. F. Child, 304

Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC. The cardboard backing

of the framed photograph carries the following inscription

written in ink, “This Picture, the Son of Anna Alexander, the

Grandfather of (signed) Cora L. Foulke Wood.” Beneath this

inscription, written in pencil was the name “Andrew

Foulke.” (Figure 4) The daughter of Cora indicated she

wrote these inscriptions around 1943. Also, in the grand-

daughter’s possession was a “hair” bracelet, in which a

locket contains the hair of a relative under glass. On the

back of the clasp was engraved the name “S. J. Foulke,” the

first two initials of Andrew’s wife, Susan Jane.11

Andrew had one son, George Washington Foulke

(Number 69) born in Chermung, N.Y. and buried in the

Chermung cemetery. His gravestone states he was born

August 2, 1842 and died March 14, 1925. On May 16, 1861

at the age of 20, George enlisted during the Civil War in

Company E, 23rd Regiment, New York Volunteers, as a pri-

vate. He mustered out May 16, 1863, at Elmira, NY.12

It would appear that from his photo taken in

Washington, DC, and from the 1864 deed showing him as a

resident of Washington, DC, Andrew spent some time in the

Union Capital. This could very well be where he managed

politically to obtain the sutler’s appointment by the Chief of

Artillery, Army of the Potomac.

85/26

Figure 1. Smith & Wesson Model 2 Army, inscribed on backstrap “A. Foulke 1864,” fullyengraved by L. D. Nimschke with pearl grips.

Figure 2. “A. Foulke 1864” backstrap inscription.

Since this “Foulke Family” genealogical history contin-

ues up through contemporary times, I was able to contact

family members mentioned in the book, including the

author, Roy A. Foulke (Number 104), Lola Wood Coleman

(Number 130), great granddaughter of Andrew Foulke and

Gerald L. Wood (Number 198) great great grandson of

Andrew. The latter was kind enough to provide me with

copies of Andrew’s photograph (Figure 4) and a xerox copy

of the sutler’s tent photograph (Figure 3) on which he iden-

tifies “A. Foulke” as the prosperous individual fourth from

the left, with his thumbs hooked in his vest.

Andrew’s biography in the “Foulke Family” does not

trace him after the war and the family members do not

know what happened to him. It does state, however, that

Andrew Foulke sold at Public Auction on March 5, 1871 var-

ious properties in Chermung, originally belonging to his

father, William.13 This is the last evidence of him to my

knowledge at this time. The 1850 New York census shows

Andrew living in Chermung, NY with no listing in the 1860

or 1870 census.

An interesting genealogical side note is that Andrew’s

grandfather, William Foulks (1737–1812) second generation

son of John and Margaret Foulks, was a gunsmith and gun

maker in Lancaster, PA, apprenticing under William Henry, a

prominent gun maker, active from 1745 to 1786.14 As early as

1758 when William was 21 or 22 years of age, he was

termed a “Gunsmith”when signing a deed with his mother.15

William Foulks is listed as a General Gunsmith and Flintlock

Kentucky Rifle Maker in Lancaster, PA about 1775.16 He is

also described as a gun maker in a manuscript in the

Lancaster Historical Society.17 Military records show that

William enlisted as a private in a local company of the

Lancaster County Militia prior to 1776 and served through-

out the Revolutionary War.18

Further research investigation at the National Archives,

Washington, DC shows Andrew Foulke listed in the Register

of Sutlers, Army of the Potomac; Sutler’s Permits; and

Sutler’s Receipts in which he signs his name “A. Foulke.”

(Figures 9 and 10)

Again, during this time in reviewing Matthew Brady’s

Illustrated History of the Civil War, there were in addition to

A. Foulke’s tent photograph other camp images of Brandy

Station, Headquarters of the 1st Brigade H.A. After some

inquiries, I proceeded to write to the Prints and Photographs

Division of the Library of Congress, requesting prints of the

materials mentioned above. I found and received three differ-

ent views of the Foulke tent, plus various camp photographs

all labeled and taken by James F. Gibson, in February 1864.

Gibson was originally a photographer for Matthew Brady’s

Studio in the early days of the war. By this time he had split

away and was working under Alexander Gardner where full

credit was given to the photographer taking the shot.

All in all, with this previously mentioned documenta-

tion, especially the family history tracing the Foulke name in

the United States back to about 1681 and Andrew being the

only “A” first name initial, as well as being contemporary to

the “1864” era, I believe this inscription identification to

have a very high percentage of authenticity, if not absolute.

This presentation grade Smith & Wesson Model 2 could have

been either acquired by or given to Andrew Foulke in 1864,

probably in conjunction with his official appointment by

General Henry Hunt, February 22, 1864. Andrew would

have been 43 years old at the time of his appointment.

The term “sutler” is not commonly known today, but to

the Civil War officers and soldiers he was a very familiar

character. He was the one who followed the armies selling

provisions such as the necessities, food and clothing, as well

as the luxury nonessentials, patent medicines, writing

85/27

Figure 3. Brandy Station, VA, Feb. 1864, Tent of A. Foulke, Sutler at Headquarters of 1st Brigade, Horse Artillery. Photograph by James F.Gibson, Library of Congress.

equipment, tobacco and on occasion, liquor. He would be

the equivalent of today’s Post Exchange in concept, with one

important exception. Unlike the “PX,” where items are sold

by government operation at the lowest possible price, the

sutler was an appointed civilian merchant operating strictly

for profit. Generally, he was given the

reputation as a scoundrel or hustler,

taking advantage of the soldier and his

paycheck on one hand, while on the

other he was doing a great service

providing these amenities (Figure 5)

at great personal and financial risk,

hardship, and sometimes ridicule by

the soldiers themselves.

Civilian hordes have followed

the great conquering armies for at

least twenty-five hundred years, with

the sutler being identified as a con-

sumable goods dealer as early as the

beginning of the sixteenth century.19

In England during 1717, the suttling

profession was first made an integral

part of the military establishment,

with British Army regulations dictat-

ing hours of trade, as well as, prices.20

In America, as in Europe, the sutler offered his goods as

one of the camp followers from the French-Indian War of 1757

until 1820. In 1821, the Army officially integrated the sutler

into the military due to the perceived benefits of the sutler to

the soldier’s welfare, especially in the remote frontier posts.

By 1822, the official “regular army post sutler” went into

effect. Controlled by the military they served the frontier set-

tlers, in addition to the military posts.

The abuse of the sutler’s position proliferated during the

Civil War due to the tremendous increase in the “volunteer”

forces. The strength of the U.S. Regular Army in 1861 was

about 26,000. President Lincoln proceeded to raise 500,000

volunteers to meet the Confederate threat. This was an average

increase of 500 regiments which would continue to grow to

nearly 2,000 by the end of the war.21

The appointment of the sutler was a very political thing

being regulated and changed many times during the course of

the war. In 1861, Federal sutlers for military posts were

appointed by the Secretary of War, while troops in the field

allowed sutlers to be appointed by their commanding officer

of each regiment. A new law in 1862 provided that the com-

manding officer of each brigade was to have a sutler selected

for each regiment by their commissioned officer. These regu-

lations were constantly ignored. It was observed that sutlers,

especially those of the Army of the Potomac quite often owed

their appointments to political influences, such as the State

governor involving state militias entering the service.22

The “one sole sutler per regiment” created a great

opportunity for greed to set in, no competition, a defined

captive market. The soldiers could either pay the sutler’s

prices or go without. This environment spawned corrup-

tion, exorbitant prices, and poor quality goods due in large

85/28

Figure 5. “Thanksgiving in Camp,” a sutler scene, Harpers Weekly, Nov. 26, 1862.

Figure 4. Andrew Foulke portrait, a copy of a tintype supplied bythe Foulke Family.

part to the rapidly expanding volunteer forces. Of course,

not all sutlers were evil and they definitely provided a morale

boost, distributing luxury items not available anywhere else.

Among these items were clothing, shaving and toilet uten-

sils, matches, candles, pans, dishes, knives, and patent med-

icines. Due to the frequently inadequate rations issued sol-

diers in the field, the sutlers stocked a vast selection of food-

stuffs as well. Other items he provided were pipes, tobacco,

playing cards, games, stationery,

pens, ink, newspapers, books and

liquor (often officially prohibited).23

The sutler followed the armies

in his wagon full of goods and when

they encamped, he put up his shop

either selling from the rear of the

wagon or setting up a temporary tent

to advertise his wares. If the army

went into more permanent quarters

as Figure 3 shows, he might construct

log sides with a canvas top. He would

sometimes sleep in this structure to

protect his merchandise. As the sutler

took wagons to the battlefield he had

to look out for himself. He was partic-

ularly vulnerable when the army had

to pick up and move quickly or in

case of retreat. He would try to throw

his things into the wagon and move

first if possible. The Confederates

looked forward to overrunning a Union position and captur-

ing the sutler’s wagons finding luxuries they had not seen or

tasted in a long time, as the war drew on. The Confederates

initially had a sutler system in the early days of the war, but as

their necessities grew scarce, one of their best sources were

the Union sutler wagons. They would kill, capture or at least

take or destroy the sutler’s inventory making his risk very high

both personally and financially. (Figure 6)

Due to their excessive profiteering reputation with

scoundrel overtones, some sutlers became very unpopular

with the soldiers, to the point where they would attack his

tent and take his merchandise while the officers looked the

other way. He was definitely on his own.

A few sutlers courted danger to sell goods to the front

line troops. “A case in point occurred in front of Petersburg on

June 9, 1864, when two sutlers in an open buggy drove toward

the front line, peddling tobacco. After getting through four

lines of entrenchments, they came under enemy fire, which

wounded the horse and killed one of the sutlers. The other sut-

ler turned the buggy around, and with his dead companion still

in the buggy, started rearward as fast as he could go. But the

horse, frantic with pain, becoming completely unmanageable,

rushed high up over the bank of one of the entrenchments,

and the entire outfit came crashing into the ditch. Soldiers near

the scene made a rush and scramble for the tobacco. After get-

ting that, they lifted out the living and the dead. The horse had

to be killed; the buggy was a complete loss. The surviving sut-

ler sadly left the area, carrying the harness on his arm.”24

While Congress was figuring out how to fund the war

effort in 1861, Massachusetts Congressman Henry Wilson

85/29

Figure 6. A Union sutler being halted in a Confederate Trap.

Figure 7. Brandy Station, VA, Feb. 1864, Officers and a lady at Headquarters of 1st Brigade, HorseArtillery.

warned them of the demoralizing and degrading effects of

the sutler system on their troops. As Chairman of the Senate

Military Affairs Committee, Wilson visited regimental camps

of the Army of the Potomac to survey the soldiers and the

abuses of the sutler system. He estimated sales had exceeded

$10 million a year with more than 50% profit.25

Due to the scarcity of funds during this time, it was a

general practice for almost every sutler to sell half of his mer-

chandise on credit, having the soldier sign a paymaster’s order.

He would then give tokens that served as money, creating his

own monetary system which could only be used in his store.

Soldiers were trapped, generally spending more than their

paycheck . . . the old credit crunch. On the other hand, with

rapid army movements and personnel changes these debts

sometimes became difficult to collect by the sutler.

Wilson, in March 21, 1862, guided Senate Bill No. 136

to reform the sutler system in addition to allowing the com-

manding officer of each brigade to have only one sutler

selected for each regiment. They limited the lien on a sol-

dier’s pay to one-fourth his monthly pay, and they set prices

and listed the articles that the sutler was allowed to sell. The

latter being Order No. 27 which listed the following articles:

apples, dried apples, oranges, figs, lemons, butter, cheese,

milk, syrup, molasses, raisins, candles, crackers, wallets,

brooms, comforters, boots, pocket looking glasses, pins,

gloves, leather, tin washbasins, shirt buttons, horn and brass

buttons, newspapers, books, tobacco, cigars, pipes, match-

es, blacking and blacking brushes, clothes brushes, tooth-

brushes, hairbrushes, coarse and fine combs, emery, crocus,

pocket handkerchiefs, stationery, armor oil, sweet oil, rot-

tenstone, razor straps, razors, shaving soap, soap, sus-

penders, scissors, shoestrings, needles, thread, knives, pen-

cils, and Bristol brick.26 No liquor was to be sold. This Law

of 1862 addressed only the sutler for the volunteer units.

“The Regular Army sutler, who was properly supervised,

remained unaffected.”27

The next year General Order No. 35, dated February 7,

1863 included the addition of the following sale articles;

canned meats and oysters, dried beef, smoked tongue,

canned and fresh vegetables, pepper, mustard, yeast pow-

ders, pickles, sardines, bologna, sausages, eggs, buckwheat

flour, mackerel, codfish, poultry, saucepans, coffeepots,

plates (tin), cups (tin), knives and forks, spoons, twine,

wrapping paper, uniform clothing for officers, socks, trim-

ming for uniforms, shoes, shirts, and drawers.28

In the early years of the war, the status of the sutler in

the military establishment was of a semiofficial position in

their regiment. While serving in the field, the sutler as stipu-

lated by Army Regulations, was subject to orders, “according

to the rules and discipline of war.”29

Army Regulations did not prescribe the sutler’s uni-

form,30 since he was technically a civilian. However, in the

Schuyler, Hartley & Graham Military Catalogue of 1864,

there is listed under Military Storekeepers: “These store-

keepers were authorized, a citizen’s frock-coat of blue cloth,

with buttons of the department to which they are attached;

round black hat; pantaloons and vest, plain white or dark

blue; cravat or stock, black.”31 This description seems to

match A. Foulke’s outfit in his photographs, as well as other

images observed of sutlers of this period.

After the Civil War in 1866, Congress reduced the army

to about 25,000 and abolished the sutler’s position, placing

85/30

Figure 8. Brandy Station, VA, Feb. 1864, Generals George G. Mead, John Sedgwick and Robert O. Tyler with staff officers, showing Capt.Robertson sixth from the right, at Horse Artillery Headquarters.

its function under the Commissary Department.32 Due to the

lack of funds and the expanding frontier posts, the sutler sys-

tem was quickly revived being called now the “post trader.”

He operated from a military reservation subject to military

control.33 This was the heyday of this position, as an entre-

preneur, most of them had a second lucrative license to

trade with the Indians resulting from the Indian Peace

Commission of 1866.34 They also traded with the railroad

miners, mechanics and freighters going west. The sutler

became an influential community spokesman, serving as

bankers, creditors, judges, postmasters, and mayors. The

legal sale of whiskey on the military reservation posts (not

on Indian Reservations) resulted in large profits and a high

degree of alcoholism by the post soldiers.

By 1881, hard times began for the post trader because

of two events, one being President Rutherford Hayes decree

to stop the sale of liquor on the military reservations. The

second financial disaster was a ruling that prevented the

trader from holding both a military post trader’s license and

a license to trade with the Indians.35 The beginning of the

end came for the post trader in 1889 with the advent of the

military canteen, which was the forerunner of today’s Post

Exchange System controlled by the government.

As displayed on his sutler’s tent and his appointment

reference, Andrew Foulke was a sutler for the “1st Brigade

Horse Artillery.” This brigade is shown in the organization of

the Army of the Potomac, November 20, 1863 with Major

General George Meade, Commander. It is listed under the

Artillery section commanded by Brigadier General Henry J.

Hunt, who later became Chief of Artillery and signed A.

Foulke’s appointment correspondence of 1864.

Listed under the Artillery section is the Artillery

Reserve commanded by Brigadier General Robert O. Tyler.

(Figure 5) Under this category is the “1st Brigade Horse Artil-

lery” captained by James M. Robertson. This unit consisted

of batteries from the Regular Army, the 2nd and 4th United

States Batteries, and one volunteer unit the 6th New York

Light Artillery.36 Reorganized in May 31, 1864, the 1st

Brigade H.A. appears in the Calvary Corps of the Army of

the Potomac commanded by Major General Philip H.

Sheridan. It is again led by Captain J. M. Robertson showing

primarily the same batteries as in 1863.37

In 1838, James M. Robertson was a private in the 2nd

U.S. Artillery, where he reached the rank of Captain on May

14, 1861 as the war started.38 He was breveted major for his

service in the Battle of Gains Mill, VA and breveted Lieutenant

Colonel for his participation in the Gettysburg Campaign.

“While Pleasonton’s Calvary at Gettysburg was preventing

Stuart from joining in Pickett’s charge, Robertson led the

Horse Artillery which seconded the efforts of Pleasonton’s

leaders, Gregg and Kilpatrick, whose exploits were not sec-

ond to those of the infantry.” He was again breveted to

Colonel for gallant service at Cold Harbor, and to Brigadier

General while Chief of Horse Artillery during the campaign

from May to August of 1864, including the Battles of the

Wilderness, Cold Harbor, Hawes’ Shop, and Trevillian

Station. Robertson retired a full Major in the Regular Army in

1879 and died January 24, 1891.39

The photographs in Figures 3, 7, and 8 are from the

Library of Congress collections and are dated February 1864

taken at Brandy Station, VA., Horse Artillery Headquarters.

The armies would have been in winter quarters at that time

with the Cavalry and Horse Artillery located at Brandy Station.

This is apparent by the rather permanent buildings in the

background and why A. Foulke’s tent has log sides. (Figure 7)

“Finally, came May 4, 1864, the great day. Grant ordered the

army to move, and the once teeming winter camps were

deserted.”40 This would have been the commencement of the

campaign of May to August 1864 that Captain J. M. Robertson,

Chief of Horse Artillery participated in along with the 1st

Brigade. The headquarters photograph (Figure 8) is accom-

panied by the title “Generals George C. Meade, John

Sedgwick and Robert O. Tyler with staff officers at Horse

Artillery Headquarters.” Meade is fourth from the right,

Sedgwick is second from the right, Tyler is seventh from the

right in the long overcoat. To the far right is Brigadier General

85/31

Figure 9. An example of a permit for Andrew Foulke.

A.T. A. Torbert, who will command a division of Calvary, pro-

tecting Meade’s flank.41 Among all this top brass in his nine

button frock coat is Captain James M. Robertson now Chief of

Horse Artillery. He stands between Tyler and Meade, this

being his headquarters at Brandy Station.

Brandy Station, Virginia is best known for being the

location of the largest cavalry engagement on American soil.

On June 9, 1863, about five months prior to the

Headquarters photographs, being part of the Gettysburg

Campaign, General J. E. B. Stuart’s Confederate

Cavalry and General Alfred Pleasonton’s Union

Cavalry fought for about 10 hours with nearly

10,000 troopers from each side engaged. A sur-

prised Stuart managed to stave off defeat and

remain on the field. However, this battle estab-

lished the underrated Federal Cavalry as a match

for the Confederates.

How does Andrew Foulke, sutler, fare in all of

this? With the unscrupulous reputations of the sutler

system and the laws and regulations to govern it, the

Volunteer Forces were the focus of attention. The

1st Brigade H.A. and Captain Robertson were

Regular Army and these sutlers were officially con-

trolled and more professional. In fact, all of the pre-

viously mentioned laws and regulations did not

apply to the Regular Army sutlers. In his sutler per-

mits it describes A. Foulke as “being a sutler in the

Regular Service.”These permits had to do with trans-

porting merchandise on the schooner “Mary and

Anna” from Georgetown to Hope Landing, VA.42

(Figure 9) Andrew upon moving to Washington, DC

must have found his way politically to be appointed

to this, what appears to be an elite reserve unit.

Although appointed from higher up by General

Henry Hunt, he would have had to have the

approval of Captain Robertson. (Figure 10)

With a son in the war effort, we would hope

that Andrew would have been an honest merchant,

although he does appear to be quite prosperous. It

is quite possible he could have been the sutler for

the 1st Brigade H.A. prior to the “official” appoint-

ment February 1864, reiterating that these sutlers

were to be the sole sutler of their units according

to the new laws and regulations of 1864.

While this inscribed revolver was the posses-

sion of only a military/civilian merchant, and not

of some gallant officer with many heroic deeds, it

remains a very unique piece, if not one-of-a-kind,

inscribed to a Civil War sutler. The search goes on

to find out more about “A. Foulke, 1864.”

NOTES:

1. R. L. Wilson, L. D. Nimschke Firearms Engraver

(Teaneck, New Jersey, 1965), p. 21 Frame and p. 23 Barrel.

2. Robert J. Neal and Roy G. Jinks, Smith & Wesson

1857–1945 (South Brunswick, New York, 1975), p. 65.

3. Brig. Gen. Fred C. Ainsworth, War of the Rebellion:

The Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies

(Washington, 1901), Series I, Vol. 33, p. 583–584.

85/32

Figure 10. A sutler receipt for goods by A. Foulke. Note approval signature byJ.M. Robertson, Capt. 2nd Artillery, written vertically.

4. Benson J. Lossing, LL.D., Matthew Brady’s

Illustrated History of the Civil War (Fairfax Press), p. 76.

5. Roy A. Foulke, Foulke Family (Bronxville, New

York, 1974), p. IX.

6. Ibid., p. 75.

7. Ibid., p. 79.

8. Ibid., p. 151.

9. Ibid., p. 164.

10. Ibid., p. 165.

11. Ibid., p. 166–167.

12. Ibid., p. 167, 176.

13. Ibid., p. 166.

14. A. Merwyn Carey, American Firearms Makers

(Thomas Y. Crowell Co., New York, 1953), p. 54.

15. Foulke, p. 116.

16. Carey, p. 40.

17. James Whiskey, Ph.D., “The Gunsmith’s Trade,”

Gun Report, March 1992, p. 48.

18. Foulke, p. 127–128.

19. David M. Delo, Peddlers and Post Traders (Salt

Lake City, Utah, 1992), p. 2.

20. Ibid., p. 2.

21. Ibid., p. 107

22. Francis A. Lord, Civil War Sutlers and Their Wares

(Cranbury, New Jersey, 1969), p. 23–24.

23. David E. Schenkman, Civil War Sutler Tokens

(Bryans Road, Maryland, 1983), p. 7.

24. Lord, p. 71–82.

25. David M. Delo, “Regimental Rip-Off Artist

Supreme,” Army Vol. 39, (January 1989), p. 42.

26. Lord, p. 39.

27. Delo, Peddlers and Post Traders, p. 131.

28. Lord, p. 39.

29. Ibid., p. 25.

30. Ibid., p. 26.

31. Schuyler, Hartley & Graham, Illustrated Catalog of

Arms and Military Goods (New York, 1864), p. 19.

32. Delo, Peddlers, p. 141.

33. Ibid., p. 148–149.

34. Delo, “Regimental Rip-Off Artist,” p. 45.

35. Delo, Peddlers, p. 185.

36. Organization of the Army of the Potomac,

November 20, 1863, p. 12.

37. Brig. Gen. Richard C. Drum, Organization of the

Army of the Potomac, May 31, 1864 (Washington, DC,

1886), p. 14–16.

38. William C. Davis, The Image of War: 1861–1865,

“The Embattled Confederacy,” Vol. III, p. 48.

39. Francis T. Miller, The Photographic History of the

Civil War, “Forts and Artillery,”Vol. 5, (New York, 1911), p. 37.

40. Davis, “The South Besieged,” Vol. V, p. 181.

41. Ibid., p. 179.

42. National Archives, “Sutler’s Permits, Army of the

Potomac,” RG: Entry 469.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ainsworth, Fred C. Brig. Gen. and Kirkley, Joseph W.,

The War of the Rebellion:The Official Records of the Union

and Confederate Armies. Washington: Government Printing

Office, 1901, Series I, Vol. 33 p. 583-584.

Carey, A. Merwyn, American Firearms Makers, New

York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1953.

Davis, William C., The Image of War: 1861-1865, “The

Embattled Confederacy,” Vol. III. Garden City, New York:

Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1983.

Davis, William C., The Image of War: 1861-1865, “The

South Besieged,” Vol. V. Garden City, New York: Doubleday

& Company, Inc., 1983.

Delo, David M., Peddlers and Post Traders. Salt Lake

City, Utah: University of Utah Press, 1992.

Delo, David M., “Regimental Rip-Off Artist Supreme,”

Army, Vol. 39, January 1989.

Drum, Richard C. Brig. Gen., Organization of the

Army of the Potomac, May 31, 1964, Washington, DC.

1886.

Foulke, Roy A., Foulke Family (Second Edition).

Bronxville, New York: The Anthoensen Press, 1974.

Lord, Francis A., Civil War Sutlers and Their Wares.

Cranbury, New Jersey: Thomas Yoseloff, 1969.

Lossing, Benson J. LL.D., Mathew Brady’s Illustrated

History of the Civil War. New York, NY: Fairfax Press, 1911.

Miller, Francis T., The Photographic History of the

Civil War, “Fort and Artillery,” Vol 5. Springfield, MA Patriot

Publishing Co., 1911.

National Archives, “Sutler’s Permits, Army of the

Potomac,” RG: Entry 469, Washington, DC.

National Archives, “Sutler’s Receipts,”Washington, DC.

Neal, Robert J. and Jinks, Roy G., Smith & Wesson

1857-1949. (Revised Edition) South Brunswick, New York:

A.S. Barnes and Co., 1975.

Organization of the Army of the Potomac, November

20, 1863, Washington, DC.

Schenkman, David E., Civil War Tokens, Bryans Road,

Maryland: Jade House Publications, 1983.

Schuyler, Hartley & Graham, 1864 Illustrated Catalog

of Arms and Military Goods. (Reprint) Greenwich, CN:

Norm Flayderman, 1961.

Whiskey, James, Ph.D., “The Gunsmith’s Trade.” Gun

Report, March 1992, p. 48.

Wilson, R.L., L.D. Nimschke Firearms Engraver.

Teaneck, New Jersey: John J. Mallory, 1965.

85/33

85/34

Figure 1. "1862 Police" .36 caliber percussion pistol. Note round barrel, "creeping" ramrod, and fluted cylinder. Frame, grips,back strap, triggerguard and other parts are common with the "Pocket Model of Navy Caliber" in Figure 2. Robert B. Berrymanphotograph.

Figure 2. "Pocket Model of Nacy Caliber" .36 caliber percussion pistol. Note octagon barrel, hinged ramrod, and round, rollengraved. cylinder. As noted in Figure 1, other parts are common with the "1862 Police." Robert B. Berryman photograph.

85/35

“Conventional Wisdom” is a funny thing.

According to the “Conventional Wisdom” at the

time:

—The Earth was flat.

—The Japanese would never attack Pearl Harbor.

—Chairman Mao was an agrarian reformer

We now know those statements to be incorrect.

The two pistols in question are shown in Figures 1 & 2.

The “Conventional Wisdom” has always been that these two

pistols were numbered in the same serial number range.

That statement also is incorrect.

Perhaps the first to state this belief was John E.

Parsons, in 1955, in New Light on Old Colts. Parsons wrote:

“The Police Model was introduced in 1861, and during the

war was issued with round or octagonal barrels in the same

series of numbers.”1

Another reference was made in 1957, by P. L.Shumaker in his book: Colt’s Variations of the OldModel Pocket Pistol 1848 to 1872. When discussingthe 1862 Police and the Pocket Pistol of Navy Caliber,he stated: “Lacking evidence to the contrary, it seemsprobable that because of the similarities of the twomodels (?) they were produced within the same serialnumber grouping system.”2

Nearly all others who have written about Colt percus-

sion revolvers have reiterated that conclusion. R.Q.

Sutherland and R. L. Wilson, in The Book of Colt Firearms,

stated: “Among the Colt arms introduced in 1861 were two

types of 36 caliber pocket pistol: The Model 1862 Police and

the Model Pocket Pistol of Navy Caliber. The latter for many

years was erroneously known as the Model 1853 Pocket Navy

(more correctly it should be termed the Model 1862 Pocket

Navy). Research has shown the two models were manufac-

tured as contemporaries, and were serial numbered within

the same range.”3

The trouble is, a detailed examination of these two

models does not support the conclusion that they were num-

bered in the same serial number range.

Here is the (supposedly joint) serial number range:

Published serial NumberYear at start of Year4

1861 11862 85001863 150001864 260001865 290001866 320001867 350001868 370001869 400001870 420001871 440001872 450001873 46000–47000

(Note the level reached (26,000) at the end of 1863/begin-

ning of 1864)

Nothing that follows should be interpreted as a criti-

cism of the gentlemen quoted above. The contribution of

each of them has been enormous. Mr. Parsons was a pioneer

in research on Colt Pistols. Mr. Shumaker’s book was a land-

mark in using collected data to understand a specific model’s

history. The Book of Colt Firearms is probably the greatest

single book on Colt firearms ever written, and Mr. Wilson’s

many books on Colt and Colt engraving have added immea-

surably to our fund of knowledge.

Colt’s Small Frame .36 Caliber Percussion Pistols and “The Conventional Wisdom”An Examination of the Pistols called by Collectors

The “1862 Police” and the “Pocket Pistol of Navy Size Caliber”

John D. Breslin

85/36

Unfortunately, none of them had the advantage of the

research on the two .36 caliber pistols that this paper repre-

sents. As someone wiser than I said, “We see further because

we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us.”

Bill Pirie, David Price, and I did extensive research on

Colt small frame breechloaders, and the percussion pistols that

were converted to them, in preparation for our book on the

subject.5 Most collectors call all of these guns “small frame con-

versions” but, in fact, over 60 percent of them were made as

cartridge pistols from the start. We learned a lot about these

guns, based in large measure on our survey of nearly 1500

specimens, and our extensive research in Colt Factory records.

Fortunately, many of the converted Pocket Pistols of Navy

Caliber had been engraved, which allowed us to confirm that

such pistols were in fact converted, and not made originally as

cartridge guns. The conversion cuts pass through the previ-

ously finished engraving. That led to the discovery that con-

verted guns have the serial number on the arbor (as they did

as percussion guns) but guns made originally as cartridge pis-

tols have the assembly number on the arbor.

That, in turn, allowed as to separate octagon barreled

Pocket Model breechloaders with gates, (Figure 3), as a sep-

arate type from those without gates (Figure 4). All octagon

barreled Pocket Model breechloaders with gates were origi-

nally made as cartridge guns; all such guns without gates

were converted from percussion.

Figure 3. New Model Breech Loading Pocket Pistol. With loading gate, newly made as a cartridge pistol from modified percus-sion parts. Robert B. Berryman photograph.

Figure 4. New Model Breech Loading Pocket Pistol. Without loading gate, converted from a previously finished "Pocket Model ofNavy Caliber.". Robert B. Berryman photograph.

That is where the puzzlement began. The converted

Pocket Models of Navy Caliber had serial numbers ranging from

as low as 2000 up to about 21,200. The vast majority were

between 15,000 and 21,000, and there were about 1800 of

them in that range. All of them were converted in early 1875.

If these Pocket Models of Navy Caliber were produced

concurrently with, and shared the serial number range of, the

1862 Police Pistols as published,6 then these 1800 left over pis-

tols, with serial numbers between 15,000 and 21,000, would

have had to be produced before mid-1863 during a period

when The Colt Company could sell anything that would

shoot! That 1800 pistols made in the midst of the Civil War

were still in factory inventory in 1874 does not seem likely.

The “New Model Pocket of Navy Size Caliber”, as Colt

called it, was still being advertised and sold in 18727, even

though, as we shall see, domestic serial numbers never

exceeded 21,400.

From this it seems clear that original factory stock of

Pocket Pistols of Navy Caliber existed in the early 1870s

with serial numbers in a range that, in 1863, had already

been used for 1862 Police pistols.

Since our survey for the small frame breechloaders had

been so successful, a survey of the small frame, .36 caliber

percussion pistols was started. I had some vague idea that I

could learn something from survival rates and perhaps find

some duplicated numbers.

It was about this time that I saw a comment in one of

the photo captions of R. L. Wilson’s Colt Engraving regard-

ing an article by John F. Dussling.8 This comment referred to

an article in the November 1976 Monthly Bugle published

by the Pennsylvania Antique Gun Collectors Association,

Inc. The caption indicated that Mr. Dussling’s article sug-

gested that the Model 1862 and the Pocket Navy revolvers

might have been produced in separate serial number ranges.

That prompted a letter to John Dussling and he sent

me a copy of his article, “Colt Model 1863”.9

In that article, John Dussling noted “Mr. Frank Sellers,

in his descriptions in the book of The William Locke

Collection identifies the Old Model Police as the ‘Model of

1863’, a name not used before . . . ”10

What most collectors may have dismissed as a typo-

graphical error, was, in fact, the first printed reference to a

separate time frame for what Colt collectors call the Pocket

Model of Navy Caliber. In personal conversation with Frank

Sellers, he stated that he and Mr. Locke felt that a separate

serial range was used, and that the pistol was probably

introduced about 1863.

John Dussling based his article on engraving patterns

used on factory engraved guns. At this point it is necessary to

understand something about engraving patterns and their his-

tory at Colt. From 1852 until about 1863, or 1864, Gustave

Young and his shop were the primary engravers of Colt

Factory Arms. The Gustave Young scroll is shown in Figures

5 & 6. In about 1864, a new style of engraving was employed.

John Dussling called this “fine line”when he wrote the article

in 1976 but R. L. Wilson refers to it as “late vine”11, the term

most collectors use today. This is illustrated in Figures 7 & 8.

John Dussling presented a table showing eleven New

(1862) Police pistols up to Serial 25624, all engraved in the

Gustave young scroll, and six New (1862) Police pistols

between serial no. 29172 and 30726, engraved in the fine line

or late vine style. By contrast, he found no “Old Police”

(Pocket Model of Navy Caliber) with Gustave Young scroll,

but seven pistols between serial no. 2378 and 17613 engraved

in the fine line or late vine style.12 From this, Mr. Dussling con-

cluded, “ . . . there was strong evidence that the two guns

were not made in the same serial range . . . ”13

Because of John Dussling’s findings, my survey was

expanded to include engraving style, barrel address, back

strap and trigger guard material, presentation inscriptions,

British proof marks, and anything that seemed significant.

I also exchanged information with Mr. Philip H. A.

Boulton of Southampton, England, and with his most gra-

cious help, the survey has grown to over 1400 examples of

the “1862 Police” and the “Pocket Model of Navy Caliber.”

That is between 2% and 3% of the total pistols pro-

duced—depending on whether you believe there are one or

two serial ranges. In either case it is a reasonable size sam-

ple—more than twice the percentage used by P. L. Shu-

maker for the landmark book on Old Model Pocket Pistols

previously mentioned.14

At this point, a little background seems in order:

The so-called “1862 Police” (Figure 1)

This pistol was first shipped in 1861; sixty-six serials

under 100 were shipped in January of that year.15 It was man-

ufactured until about 1873. About 4000 leftover pistols were

converted to cartridge between 1874 and 1882.16

Serial numbers start at 1 and go up to about 48,000.17

(Factory records include a very few conversions with num-

bers above 48,000).

The survey includes 1038 surviving specimens. Of

interest, the survival rate is much higher for the period of

1861 through 1864, than it is for the period of 1865 through

1873, perhaps reflecting the increased emphasis on exports

in the latter period.

There are 821 survivors from the first 29,000 pistols

produced (through the end of 1864) for a survival rate of

2.8%. For the balance, 15,000 (19,000 minus the 4000 pis-

tols converted), there are only 219 survivors for a survival

rate of only 1.5%

85/37

85/38

Figure 6. Gustave Young engraving on the barrel of an Old Model Pocket Pistol. Note stippled background. Darrow M. Watt Photograph,Courtesy of Mr. Watt and Robert M. Jordan.

Figure 5. Gustave Young engraving on the frame of an Old Model Pocket Pistol. Note stippled background. Darrow M. WattPhotograph, Courtesy of Mr. Watt and Robert M. Jordan.

85/39

Figure 7. “Late Vine” engraving on the barrel of an Old Model Pocket Pistol. Note plain background. Darrow M. Watt Photograph,Courtesy of Mr. Watt and Robert M. Jordan.

Figure 8. “Late Vine” engraving on the frame of an Old Model Pocket Pistol. Note plain background. Darrow M. WattPhotograph, Courtesy of Mr. Watt and Robert M. Jordan.

85/40

The so-called “Pocket Model of Navy Caliber” (Figure 2)

The first shipment of this pistol has not previously

been established and is the subject of this study. This pistol

was manufactured until about 1871. Approximately 2000

were converted to cartridge in 1875.18

Serial numbers also start at 1 and go on up to about

21,400. There is another small group of pistols in the 37,000

serial number range. This entire latter group has London

addresses, British Proofs, iron back straps and iron trigger

guards. (Statistically we can estimate this high serial numbered

London group at 250 pistols.) There are 373 surviving speci-

mens in the survey, which represent a survival rate of 1.7%

That background will permit us to examine the results of

the survey.

Dated presentations of 1862 Police pistols

In an effort to validate published years of production, a

table of dated presentations of 1862 Police pistols was pre-

pared. A pistol could be presented long after it was pro-

duced, but it is hard to present it before it is manufactured.

There are a large number of presentations of pistols

during the Civil War, but very few are dated.

This table provides reasonable confirmation for the

published dates of 1862 Police manufacture.

If the Pocket Pistol of Navy Caliber was “produced in

the same serial number range”, we should be able to present

a similar table of Civil War presentations for it. We should be

able to, but we cannot—no dated presentations of this pistol

during the Civil War were discovered. Either it was unpopu-

lar or it did not exist. Only one dated presentation of this

model was located—Serial #16619 - July 1868.

Barrel addresses

Although the normal address for pistols during the Civil

War was “ADDRESS COL. SAML COLT NEW-YORK U.S.

AMERICA,” at least 60% of the first 2100 “1862 Police” pro-

duced in 1861 had the address “ADDRESS SAML COLT HART-

FORD, CT.” (The percentage was probably higher, because not

all sources used for the survey indicated the barrel address.)

The 1851 Navy, the 1849 Old Model Pocket Pistol, and

other pistols were also being so marked in 1861.20,21 Again, if the

Pocket Pistol of Navy Caliber was “produced in the same serial

range”we could expect a similar proportion of Hartford address-

es for it. We would be disappointed. No Hartford addresses were

encountered anywhere in the entire run of these pistols. Either

there was no die available for octagon barrels guns—(not so—

the 1849 Old Model Pocket Pistol was being so marked in 1861),

or the model was not yet in existence when the balance of the

Colt line was so marked.

Iron back straps and trigger guards

At least 52% of the first 1100

“1862 Police” had iron back straps

and trigger guards. (The percentage

was probably higher, because the

material of the back strap and trigger

guard was not always noted.) If the

Pocket Pistol of Navy Caliber was

“produced in the same serial range”

we could expect a similar propor-

tion of iron trigger guards and back

straps for it in the early production,

but we would not find them. All

back straps and trigger guards of the

first 1100 Pocket Pistols of Navy

Caliber were made of brass. Either

supplies of the iron parts were limit-

ed (not so—several thousand of the

same size parts were used on 1849

Old Model Pocket Pistols in this

same time period.22 ), or the model

was not yet in existence.

Engraving patterns

These present some of the

most important evidence of all. A

very significant element of this is

yet another engraving pattern (or

PublishedSerial

Number atStart of Serial Number Presentation

Year Year19 Presented Date

1861 1 781 January 30, 1861

2179, 2294 April 1861

4459 August 6, 1861

6495, 6497, 6511, 8501 November 1861

1862 “8500” 5410, 11527 September 1862

14640 1862

1863 15000 16013 July 1863

18355 1863

26653 December, 1863

1864 “26000” 18771 July 1864

23200 April 1864

1865 29000

1866 32000

1867 35000

1868 37000

1869 40000 41503 March 1869

1870 42000

1871 44000

1872 45000

1873 46000–47000

Table I

A brief survey of Colt 1862 Police by serial number and presentation date

85/41

patterns) used only in 1869–70, one that R. L. Wilson has

designated the “Heavy Leaf Scroll” (and “Heavy Scroll with

Punched Dot”) pattern.23 (see Figures 9 and 10).

In order to benchmark the transition from Gustave

Young Scroll to the Late Vine style, and then to the Heavy

Leaf Scroll, a study of engraved Colt 1860 Armies was made.

The results of this study are shown in Table II.

It can be seen that the Late Vine style was not used

for the 1860 Army before 1864, but was used almost

exclusively from 1860 until 1869–70. About 1870, the

new Heavy Leaf and Heavy Scroll styles of engraving were

introduced for what may have been only a

few months.

Another benchmark was provided by

Robert M. Jordan, the author, with the

late Darrow M. Watt, of Colt’s Pocket

‘49, It’s Evolution Including the Baby

Dragoon and Wells Fargo. Mr. Jordan

stated in personal correspondence that

Serial no. 262190 E, manufactured in

1864, was the earliest Late Vine engraved

Old Model (1849) Pocket pistol that was

encountered in their research for the

book.

As part of a discussion of engraving

styles, we should point out that at Colt, guns

intended for engraving were specially

marked with a “dot” or “apostrophe” or the

letter “E”. These guns received special pol-

ishing, prior to engraving. Thus the engrav-

ing took place near the time the piece was

manufactured.

With that background we can now

examine a comparison of engraving patterns

on the “1862 Police”and the “Pocket Model of

Navy Caliber”. This is similar in concept to the

earlier study done by John Dussling but covers

nearly seven times as many examples and

includes pistols factory engraved as percus-

sion and later converted to cartridge. The

present comparison also includes examples

with Heavy Leaf Scroll and Heavy Scroll with

Table IIA brief survey of Colt 1860 armies by serial number

and engraving style

Serial Numberat Beginning

of Year24 Serial Number Style

1863–85000 100359; 100362; Scroll

110380; 111592;

111594; 140649;

147593

1864–150000 150163; 151388; Late Vine

151389; 151695;

151718

1865–153000 154301; 155350 Late Vine

155433 Scroll

1866–156000 158895 Scroll

159800; 159808 Late Vine

1867–162000 163678; 166307; Late Vine

166465; 169075;

169537; 169559;

169837

1868–170000 173507; 173629; Late Vine

1869–177000 177481; 181684 Late Vine

183225, 183226; 183227; Heavy Leaf

1870–185000 185335; Heavy Leaf

187285; 187300;

187311

187265; 187277, 187365; Heavy Scroll with

187366 Punched dot

1871–190000

Figure 9. “Heavy Scroll with Punched Dot Background on a convert-ed “1862 Police,” Serial Number 42646 ECN, engraved as a percus-sion. Note heavy, wide scrolls. John D. Breslin Collection, PaulGoodwin Photograph.

Figure 10. “Heavy Scroll with Punched Dot Background” on a con-verted “Pocket Model of Navy Caliber,” Serial Number 20150 E,engraved as a percussion. Again note heavy, wide scrolls. John D.Breslin Collection, Paul Goodwin Photograph.

85/42

Punched Dot engraving. There are so many examples that a

summary is presented in Table III.

There are several key things to observe in this table: 1)

until the beginning of 1865, all engraved “1862 Police” pistols

were done in the Gustave Young Scroll; 2) the Late Vine style

was used almost exclusively from the beginning of 1865 until

1870, when a few specimens of “Heavy Leaf”and “Heavy Scroll”

were produced; 3) The exceptions, manufactured in 1868, are a

gold inlaid revolver Serial 38549, and Serial 39220, the only

“1862 Police” engraved by Gustave Young after 1865. This last

item, Serial 39220, is extremely important in our study and will

be referred to later.

To summarize table findings, there is no evidence of

the Late Vine style of engraving prior to 1864.

Please recall that, except for a small group in

the 37,000 range, the serial numbers for the “Pocket

Model of Navy Caliber” end at no. 21,400. Since all

factory engraved “1862 Police” pistols below serial

no. 29,000 have the Gustave Young scroll, it would

seem that all “Pocket Models of Navy Caliber”should

also have that scroll, if they share the same serial

number range.

If not all, how about some? If not some, how

about one? Yes, there is one, and it is important.

Table IV lists the results of the survey of engraved

“Pocket Models of Navy Caliber”, also including per-

cussion pistols that were converted to cartridge

after engraving.

Table IIISurvey of Colt 1862 Police Pistols by serial number and engraving style

Serial Numberat Beginning

of Year25 Serial Number Style

1861–1 13 Pistols between serial no. 206 and no. 3419 All Gustave Young Scroll

1862–“8500” 9 Pistols between serial no. 8797 All Gustave Young Scroll

and no. 14303

1863–15000 41 Pistols between serial no. 15524 All Gustave Young Scroll

and no. 26378

1864–“26000” Only engraved specimens between no. 26492

(probably at and no. 28940 were four in Nimschke style

least 26700)

1865–29000 1 Pistol, serial no. 29085 Gustave Young Scroll

13 Pistols between serial no. 29172 and no. 30081 Late Vine

1866–32000 None

1867–35000 None

1868–37000 13 Pistols between serial no. 37847 and no. 38908 Late Vine

1 pistol, serial no. 38549 Gold Inlaid

1 pistol, serial no. 39220 IE Gustave Young scroll, always associated with

Pocket Navy no. 17986 IE26

1869–40000 5 Pistols between serial no. 41304 and no. 41384 Late Vine

1870–42000 1 Pistol, serial no. 42304 IE Late Vine

1 Pistol, serial no. 42646 ECN Heavy Scroll with punched dot

Two Pistols, serial no. 43335E and no. 43371 * Heavy Leaf

*Back strap only

Serial Serial No. 17986 IENo. 39220 IE “Pocket Model

“1862 of NavyItem Police”28 Caliber”29

Barrel Address Address Col. Colt Address Col. Colt

London (hand London (hand

engraved) engraved)

Trigger Guard and Silver Plated Iron Silver Plated Iron

Back strap

British Proofs? No No

Engraving grade Exhibition Exhibition

Hammer spur Hand checkered Hand checkered

Cylinder Extra engraving Extra engraving

85/43

There are a few key things to observe in Table IV. 1) With

one exception, all “Pocket Pistols of Navy Caliber” were

engraved in the Late Vine style up until the last few were done in

the Heavy Leaf and Heavy Scroll styles; 2) the exception, serial

no. 17986 IE is not just the only Gustave Young engraved

“Pocket Model of Navy Caliber”, it also helps unravel our mys-

tery. In the previous table regarding “1862 Police”engraving we

mentioned that Serial no. 39220 IE was important.

Let us examine these two pistols (see the table on the

previous page and Figures 11 and 12).

These guns have apparently always been kept together

and were in the collection of former Colt employee James

Bryant. Mr. Bryant was with the company for many years,

and later passed the pistols to his son, Henry G. Bryant, who

also was a long time Colt employee.30

Apparently Gustave Young engraved these guns for show

purposes, probably for London, and obviously at the same time.

From Table III we know that

serial no. 39220 IE was made in

1868, and the inescapable con-

clusion is that serial no. 17986

IE was made at the same time.

The Heavy Leaf, and

Heavy Scroll with punched dot

style were used for an extremely

short period of time only in

1870, yet a few factory

engraved specimens of the

Pocket Model of Navy Caliber

are found in the low 20,000 seri-

al number range. Colt factory

records confirm that these are

factory engraved. This is impor-

tant, because the engraving pat-

tern used on the two Heavy

Scroll engraved Pocket Pistols of

Navy Caliber (nos. 20147E and

20150E) is so identical to that used on the Heavy Scroll

engraved 1862 Police (no. 42646 ECN) as to lead to the con-

clusion that they could have been engraved on the same day by

the same person “(Please refer to Figures 9&10)”. Since that

engraving style was used so briefly in 1870, and, since pistols

to be engraved were specially processed in manufacturing, one

must conclude that the five Pocket Pistols of Navy Caliber

engraved in the Heavy Leaf and Heavy Scroll styles, and the

three 1862 Police pistols engraved in those same styles, were

made at the same time.

Serial number duplication

If these two pistol models had separate serial number

ranges, then some duplication should occur. Except for the

few pistols in the 37,000 range, the highest serial number

for the Pocket Model of Navy Caliber is about 21,400.

Table IVSurvey of Colt Pocket Model of Navy Caliber Pistols by Serial Number

and Engraving Style

Year Serial Number Style

? 41 Pistols between Serial All Late Vineno. 2044 E and no. 16616

Probably 1868 One Pistol Serial no. Late Vine, Presented16619 E July, 1868

5 Pistols between Serial All Late Vineno. 16623 and no. 17613

One pistol Serial no. Only known Pocket Navy17986 IE. with Gustave Young scroll

engraving, always associatedwith ‘62 Police no. 39220/IE27

Probably 1869 7 Pistols between serial All Late Vineno. 19894 and no. 20002

1870 3 Pistols between serial All Heavy Leafno. 20105 and no. 20127

2 Pistols, serial no. Both Heavy Scroll20147 E and no. 20150 E

Figure 12. Serial #17986 IE Pocket Navy Model elaborate exhibitiongrade Gustave Young engraving, hand engraved barrel addressADDRESS COL. COLT LONDON, iron trigger guard and backstrap.(Reproduced from Fine Colts from the Dr. Joseph A, MurphyCollection by R. L. Wilson Used with permission of the Author.)

Figure 11. Serial #39220 IE Model 1862 Police, elaborate exhibitiongrade Gustave Young engraving, hand engraved barrel addressADDRESS COL. COLT LONDON, iron trigger guard and backstrap.(Reproduced from Fine Colts from the Dr. Joseph A, MurphyCollection by R. L. Wilson Used with permission of the Author.)

85/44

There are 358 such pistols in that range in our survey, not

counting conversions.

Of the 1862 Police pistols in the survey 648 are also

below no. 21,400. Although that seems like a lot, it can be

shown that if these are separate ranges, the most likely

probability is to have 11 duplicates. In fact 19 pairs of

duplicates were located. Two of these pairs are interesting:

Serial no. 1 1862 Police seems to be an experimental

piece since it has a round roll engraved cylinder, also with

serial no. 1,31 but serial no. 1 Pocket Model of Navy Caliber

is a normal model, standard in all regards.32

Serial no. 3 1862 Police also seems to be an experimen-

tal piece since while it has a fluted cylinder, it has a dragoon

shaped barrel and a jointed loading lever.33 Again, Serial no. 3

Pocket Model of Navy Caliber is standard in all regards.34

Also, as part of the research for our book, Bill Pirie and I

catalogued conversions of Pocket Models of Navy Caliber from

book “A”of the Colt Factory records for the Colt Company. The

list included 879 serial numbers between 18200 and 21200. Of

course, not all of the Pocket Models of Navy Caliber in that range

were converted, many were sold as percussion guns. However,

the 879 listed numbers represent 29.3% of the 3000 Pocket

Model of Navy Caliber pistols produced in that serial number

range. These are all guns produced as percussion pistols and

converted to cartridge in 1875. It provides a very concentrated

group to compare for duplication. The survey contains 74 1862

Police pistols between those serial number limits. In separate

serial ranges, 29.3% of 74, or 22, would be the number of dupli-

cates with highest probability, and 22 were identified.

The evolution of terminology

Before discussing how terminology developed and

changed, and the confusion that resulted, it is necessary to

point out that the Pocket Model of Navy Caliber was an econ-

omy model. In 1867, the 1862 Police was priced $0.75 high-

er, no doubt due to the more complex machining involved.

(That differential had increased to $2.50 by 1872) This is also

reflected in the higher prices charged for Police Model parts

as shown in an 1867 price list (Table V).

Because of these price differences, there was no indis-

criminate mixing of these models in Colt records. All documents

examined after both models were definitely on sale clearly dif-

ferentiated between them. Internally at Colt, the 1862 Police

was known as “Police,”or “Police 36 cal.”and the Pocket Model

of Navy Caliber was called “New Model Pocket 36/cal”(or, more

frequently, “N. M. Pkt.36/cal,”which is another source of possi-

ble confusion since the 1855 Root is known as “N. M. Pkt.” At

times the “36/cal” is omitted, but the barrel length is normally

enough to differentiate between the two models).

1861

Part of the confusion about these two models can be

traced back to the Colt Company itself. They seem to have

been unclear about what to call the small frame .36 caliber

fluted cylinder model when they introduced it in 1861.

In an advertisement dated January 1, 1861,37 Colt re-

ferred to:

“PATTERNS ENTIRELY NEW

OF INCREASED CALIBER

WITH PATENT CREEPING RAMRODS ATTACHED”

“NEW MODEL POCKET PISTOL

Caliber . . . 265–1000thsof an inch . . . ”

“NEW MODEL POCKET PISTOL

Caliber . . . 31–1000thsof an inch . . . ”

“NEW MODEL POCKET PISTOLCaliber . . . .36–1000ths of an inch . . . ”

(EMPHASIS MINE)

The only small 36-caliber pistol “with patent creeping

ramrod attached” is the “1862 Police” (The other two are

“Root’ Models). Parsons tells us that, in fact, early references

to this pistol were “36 cal Small” or “New Model Small”.38

In November 1861, The Colt Company presented

some pistols to General J. K. F. Mansfield. The presentation

reads in part:

“Col. Colt presents his compliments to General J. K. F.

Mansfield and requests him to accept as a token of Col. C’s

high regards and esteem the accompanying specimens of

his most recently improved revolving breech Holster, Belt,

and Pocket pistols . . . ” (emphasis mine)

Those pistols are on display in the Connecticut

Museum of History, on loan from the Middlesex County

Historical Society. The “Pocket”pistol referred to is serial no.

6510, a four and one-half inch barrel “1862 Police” standard

in all respects except for the engraved presentation.

Sam Colt himself did not seem to suffer from this confu-

sion. In the Colt Factory records portion of the archives of the

Connecticut State Library, there is a small book entitled Orders &

Col. Colt. It records what must have been Col. Colt’s verbal

orders to the factory, as well as other orders of management after

Table VPistol Prices in 186735

“New Model “New Pocket PistolsPolice Navy Size

Barrel length Pistols” Caliber”

41⁄2” 11.75 11.00

51⁄2” 12.15 11.40

61⁄2” 12.50 11.75

Prices of Parts in 186736

Parts Police, N. Pock'tof Arms 36 cal. 36 cal

Barrel Per inch .83 Per inch .78

Cylinder 2.74 2.44

Lever 1.25 .52

Rammer .25 .20

85/45

Colt’s death. On September 18, 1861, Colt issued a series of thir-

teen orders covering every firearm in the line, such as “N. M.

Holster pistols. Add 10,000 at a time and keep up perpetual

fires on essential parts”,“O.M.Holster pistols.I want no more of

these arms for the present.” etc. The list includes the following

entry:

“Order #3: Police pistols. Put 5000 in works at a time

and keep forging tools constantly employed when not

interfering with Holst.39”

Again on October 10, 1861 Colt ordered:

“Police Pistols 36/cal. Order stock for 15,000 pistols at

once”40 (Please see the Photostat of the actual 1861 page).

Nowhere above is there any mention of any other small

“36/cal” pistol.

1862By 1862, the Colt Company seems to have settled on

the name “Police” for their new, small, .36 caliber pistol. An

index to production for the year 1862 lists entries for 4 1/2

inch, 5 1/2 inch, and 6 1/2 inch Police pistols.41 The index

also includes entries for Root models, 5 shot and 6 shot

Pocket Models (1849) in various barrel lengths, Old Model

(1851) Navy pistols, New Model (1861) Navy Pistols, New

Model (1860) Army Pistols, and Old Model (Dragoon) Army

Pistols. There is no mention of a New Model Pocket “36/cal”.

1863The previously cited journal of management orders,

Orders & Col. Colt, contains entries ordering production of

many of the items in the Colt Company product line. Among

the entries are:

“August 21: 2000 4 1/2 inch Police

3000 5 1/2 inch Police”42

“November 30: 2500 41⁄2inch Police”43 (Please see the

Photostat of the page for 1863, 1864, and early 1865).

R. L. Wilson in his book, Colt Engraving, Volume I,

quotes factory records regarding the number of pistols

engraved in 1863.44 The list includes 300 (1860) Army

Pistols, 303 Old Model (1851) Navy Pistols, 294 New Model

(1861) Navy Pistols, 72 Old Model (1849) Pocket Pistols, 243

Police (1862) Pistols, and 112 Root (1855) Pistols.

There is no mention in any of the above of a New

Model Pocket “36/cal.”

1864The book, Orders & Col. Colt, contains only one entry

for 1864, an order dated January 27 for “5000 O.M. Navy”

(pistols) The fire that destroyed the Colt Factory in February

1864 stopped all production of pistols until the building and

machinery could be replaced.

Apparently some pistols had been prepared for engrav-

ing, because, as above, R. L. Wilson, quotes Colt Factory

records regarding pistols engraved in 1864 in Colt

Engraving, Volume I.45 The list includes 98 (1860) Army

Pistols, 66 Old Model (1851) Navy Pistols, 28 New Model

(1861) Navy Pistols, 218 Old Model (1849) Pocket Pistols, 96

Police (1862) Pistols, and 32 Root (1855) Pistols. Again,

there is no mention of a “N.M. Pkt. 36/cal.”

1865

It seems that operations were beginning to get back to

normal in early 1865, because, according to Orders & Col.

Colt, on February 8th management ordered “4000, 4 1/2

inch Police Barrels 5000, 5 1/2 inch Police Barrels 5000, 6

1/2 inch Police Barrels”46

On March 1, 1865, we find the first mention in anyColt records of the pistol now known as the PocketModel of Navy Caliber! On that date, according to Orders

& Col. Colt, orders were placed for

“1000, 4 1/2 inch N. M. Pocket 36/c Barrels

1000, 5 1/2 inch N. M. Pocket 36/c Barrels

2000, 6 1/2 inch N. M. Pocket 36/c Barrels”47

This was followed, on May 16, by orders for

“1000, 4 1/2 inch N. M. Pocket 36/c Barrels

1000, 5 1/2 inch N. M. Pocket 36/c Barrels

1000, 6 1/2 inch N. M. Pocket 36/c Barrels”48

On July 13, 1865 the first orders were issued for fin-

ished pistols:

“1250, 4 1/2 inch N. M. Pocket 36/c

1250, 5 1/2 inch N. M. Pocket 36/c

2500, 6 1/2 inch N. M. Pocket 36/c”49

This was followed by another order on August 3:

“1250, 4 1/2 inch N. M. Pocket 36/c

1250, 5 1/2 inch N. M. Pocket 36/c”50

The next requirement was much larger than the previous

ones. On October 11, orders were placed for:

“5000, 4 1/2 inch N. M. Pocket 36/c

5000, 5 1/2 inch N. M. Pocket 36/c

5000, 6 1/2 inch N. M. Pocket 36/c”51

(These orders can be seen on the Photostat of the 2nd 1865

page of orders)

The above orders for “N. M. Pkt.36/cal.” total 22,500 pis-

tols. You may recall that total production of the Pocket Model of

Navy Caliber went to Serial no. 21,400, plus about 250 pistols

that were numbered in the 37,000 serial number range, so the

above orders authorized the entire production run of this pistol.

At my request, Mr. Herbert G. Houze was kind enough

to research Colt’s Patent Manufacturing Company Sales

Journal B (August 1, 1863 to June 30, 1869) for the first

mention of a “New Model Pkt 36/cal”. He found no mention

of the pistol prior to April 1865. He noted that “The earliest

entries for this model (listed below) refer to the “6 1/2 in

36/c Navy Pistol” later described as a “Pocket Pistol’ .”52 (The

actual entries are slightly abbreviated for clarity.)

“Tuesday, April 25, 1865

Thomas J. Fales

[For] 2. 6 1/2 in. Navy Pistols & all

appendages”53

85/46

“Friday May 5, 1865

Wm. Read & Sons

[For] 1. 6 1/2 in. 36/c Pocket Pistol M & W

(Mould and Wrench)”54

“Monday July 17, 1865

Thomas J Fales

[For} 1. 6 1/2 in. 36/c Navy Pistol M & W

“ 1. 4 1/2 in. “ Police “

The same having been charged to

Mr. Fales June 8, ‘65 with wrong

prices and canceled by entry of this date in

Day Book”55

Mr. Houze points out: “The William Read & Son sale is

of importance since it is combined with normal monthly

entry reading ‘For Invoice of Pistols as per Consignment

book.’ When the Police Model was introduced samples

were recorded in exactly the same manner (i.e., one or two

Police pistols following a standard billing). This strongly

suggests that the ‘New Pocket Pistol’ was introduced near

that date.”56

The inescapable conclusion from all of the above is that

The “New Model Pocket Pistol of Navy Size Caliber”was not

introduced until 1865. Furthermore, it was numbered in it’s

own serial number range, and was not co-mingled with the

“1862 Police”. (Of interest, the first orders for the “Police”

pistol to be issued following the 1864 fire, were not made

until March 3, 1866, perhaps indicative of the more difficult

machining processes that had to be re-established.)57

The earliest dated advertising reference that has been

located with a listing for the “New Pocket Pistols Navy Size

Caliber” is dated August 1865.58 (In fairness, it should be

noted that a retyped copy of an undated Colt price list, listing

this pistol, is shown in The Colt Revolver by Haven & Belden,

with the notation that it was issued “about 1863”59 I suppose

“about” could be stretched to plus or minus two years.)

Speculation

The 1864 Fire was devastating to the Colt Company.

The Scientific American of February 20, 1864 said, in part:

“The building was used solely for the manufacture of pistols

and revolving rifles. Most of (the contractors) lost all of their

tools and succeeded in saving very little of the work they

had in hand.” And later: “Said one of the chief managers of

the concern `If some one had come to us yesterday and

offered us four million for what is destroyed, we shouldn’t

have looked at it.’ Very much of the machinery was manu-

factured on the spot, the patterns of which were destroyed,

and a long time would be required to replace that which is

lost. Three years, at least, of faithful labor, would hardly

place the works in the order they were.”60

It appears quite likely that the “Pocket Model of Navy

Caliber” or “New Model Pocket—.36 Caliber” as the Colt

Company called it, was an expedient designed to get the

company back into the small frame, .36 caliber, pistol busi-

ness as quickly as possible following that factory fire.

Evidence supporting that conclusion is as follows:

—The 1849 Old Model Pocket Pistol was one of Colt’s

most successful products. It would make sense to

get it back in production as soon as possible.

—As previously noted the machining of the barrel,

cylinder, and loading lever of the 1862 Police was

rather complicated when compared to octagon bar-

reled pistols with roll engraved cylinders.

—The loading lever of the Pocket Model of Navy

Caliber is not only simpler to manufacture, but in

fact is identical to the one used on the 1849 Old

Model Pocket Pistol.

—The same equipment used to manufacture barrels,

cylinders, and most other parts for (1849) Old Model

Pocket Pistols, could, with only minor modification,

produce parts for a small frame, .36 caliber, pocket

pistol.

—Jim Eplen has made a detailed comparison of the

parts of the Pocket Model of Navy Caliber and the

1849 Old Model Pocket Pistol. in the February 2000

issue of The Gun Report.61 His study clearly points

out the similarity of parts for the two pistols, even

including the same die to roll-engrave the cylinders

—Although barrels for the Police models had been

ordered in 1864, it must have been obvious that the

pistols themselves could not yet be produced,

since production of actual pistols was not ordered

until 1866.

—Accordingly, in 1865, the company ordered produc-

tion of octagon barrels, and later 22,500 complete

pistols of the “N. M. Pkt. .36/cal.”

Unfinished businessThe survey indicates that, statistically, there were

approximately 250 of these “New Model. Pocket. 36/cal” pis-

tols with serial numbers in the 37000 range. All of the early

writers were correct; the pistols were numbered in the same

serial number range with the “1862 Police” but only for 250

guns! Why this was done calls for some additional speculation.

—These guns all had London addresses, and those that

have survived all have iron back straps and trigger

guards.

—Please recall the pair of Gustave Young engraved pis-

tols described earlier: these guns were Serial no.

39220 for the “1862 Police” and 17986 for the “New

Model. Pocket .36/cal” These guns both had elabo-

rate embellishments, London address, and iron back

straps and trigger guards. It is safe to say that these

were produced in 1868.

—The survey also reveals that there was a small group

of “New Model. Pocket .36/cal” pistols with London

addresses and iron mountings in the high 17,000

serial number range.

85/47

—There was also a group of “1862 Police” pistols with

London addresses and iron mountings in the low

38,000 serial number range.

—It seems clear that a major English promotion of

small frame 36 caliber pistols was planned for 1868.

We can speculate on two possibilities:

requirements changed after frames and iron

mounts had been dedicated to “1862 Police” pis-

tols in the 37,000 serial number range, and these

guns were finished up as “New Model. Pocket

.36/cal” pistols,

—or a conscious decision was made to use a block of

numbers from the “1862 Police” for these London

“New Model. Pocket .36/cal” pistols in order to

make it appear that they were more successful.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of the reason, the evidence is clear. The

“Pocket Model of Navy Caliber” did not exist before 1865,

and, except as noted above, could not have been numbered

in the same serial number range as the “1862 Police.”

It seems that we can now introduce

Colt’s Last Percussion Revolver,The 1865 New Model Pocket .36 Caliber

(see Figure 13)

I have always disliked the name “Pocket Model of Navy

Caliber”—it takes too long to type. I would like to suggest

“1865 Pocket Navy.”

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper would not have been possible without the help

of a few gracious and generous individuals. I thank Bob Jordan

and acknowledge the help of the late Darrow Watt for allowing

me to use their photographs of the Gustave Young scroll and

Late Vine engraving patterns, as well as Bob’s consultation on

these patterns and the timing of their use on the 1849 Old Model

Pocket Pistol. I am also grateful to Bob Berryman for the use of

his photographs of the basic pistols and conversions. I also

express my appreciation to Larry Wilson for permission to use

his photographs. Sincere appreciation must be expressed for the

gracious research help provided by Herb Houze who searched

for the first mention of the “New Model Pocket 36/cal” in Colt

Sales records. Finally, I extend most sincere thanks to Philip H. A.

Boulton who unselfishly exchanged information with me and

provided hundreds of serial numbers for the survey.

NOTES

1. John E. Parsons, New Light on Old Colts, Harrison, New York,Published by the author, 1955, p. 12.

2. P. L. Shumaker, Colt’s Variations of the Old Model Pocket Pistol, 1848to 1872. Borden Publishing Co., 1957 & revised in 1966, p. 90.

3. R.Q. Sutherland, and R. L. Wilson, The Book of Colt Firearms, RobertQ. Sutherland, Kansas City, KS. 1971, p. 171.

4. Ibid., p.171.5. Breslin, J. D., Pirie, W. Q., and Price, D. E., Variations of Colt’s New

Model Police & Pocket Breech Loading Pistols, Andrew MowbrayPublishers, (In Publication).

6. Sutherland and Wilson, p. 171.7. Sutherland and Wilson, p. 213.8. Wilson, R. L., Colt Engraving, North Hollywood, Ca. Wallace Beinfeld

Publications, 1982, p. 168.9. Dussling, John F. “Colt Model 1863”, Monthly Bugle, November 1976,

published by the Penna. Antique Gun Collectors Association pp. 4–6.10. Ibid., p.5.11. Wilson, R. L., Colt Engraving, p. 163.12. Dussling, p.6.13. Ibid., p.6.14. Shumaker, P. L., p.ix.15. Parsons, p.9.16. Breslin, et al (in publication).17. Sutherland and Wilson, p.171.18. Breslin, et al (in publication).19. Sutherland and Wilson, p.171.20. Swayze, Nathan L., ‘51 Colt Navies, Gun Hill Publishing Co., Yazoo

City, Ms. 1967, pp. 212–214.21. Jordan Robert M. and Watt, Darrow M., Colt’s ‘49, Its Evolution,

including the Baby Dragoon & Wells Fargo. Darrow M. Watt, 2000, p.90.22. Ibid., p.94.23. Wilson, R. L., The Colt Engraving Book. Vol. 1, New York, Banner-

man’s, 2001, p. 276.24. Sutherland and Wilson, p.161.25. Ibid., p.171.26. Wilson, R. L., Fine Colts The Dr. Joseph A Murray Collection,

Doylestown, Pa. Republic, 1999 p.68.27. Ibid., p.71.28. Ibid., p.68.29. Ibid., p.71.30. Ibid., p.68–71.31. This pistol is in the Connecticut State Library collection, Accession

#TG 275.32. Sutherland and Wilson, p.174.33. Wilson, R. L., Colt an American Legend New York, Abbeville Press,

1985 p.86.34. James D. Julia, Inc., Auction Catalog of April, 1999, lot #236.35. ”Colt List of Prices, 1867” reproduced in Charles T. Haven, and Frank

A. Belden, A History of the Colt Revolver, Bonanza Books, 1940, p.391.36. ”Colt Price List of Parts of Arms” Ibid., p.393.37. ”List of Prices for Colt’s New Arms, January 1st, 1861” reproduced in

Sutherland and Wilson, p.158.38. Parsons, p.9.39. Journal, Orders & Col. Colt, entry dated 18th September, 1861, R.G.

103, Box 24A, Colt Records, Connecticut State Library, Hartford, CT.40. Parsons, p.4.41. Journal, Orders & Colt entry dated August 21, 1863.42. Ibid., entry dated November 30, 1863.43. Wilson, R. L., The Colt Engraving Book. vol. I, p.74.

Figure 13. The “1865 New Model Pocket .36 caliber.” Or, the “1865Pocket Navy.” John D. Breslin Collection, Paul Goodwin Photograph.

85/48

45. Ibid., p. 75.

46. Journal, Orders & Col. Colt, entry dated February 8, 1865.

47. Ibid. entry dated March 1,1865.

48. Ibid. entry dated May 16, 1865.

49. Ibid. entry dated July 13, 1865.

50. Ibid. entry dated August 3, 1865.

51. Ibid. entry dated October 11,1865.

52. Houze, Herbert G., Personal correspondence, October 30, 2001.

53. Colt’s Patent Manufacturing Company Sales Journal B, page 209. pri-

vate collection.

54. Ibid, p. 213.

55. Ibid, p. 236.

56. Houze, Herbert G., Personal correspondence, October 30, 2001.

57. Journal, Orders & Col. Colt, entry dated March 3, 1866.

58. Haven, Charles T. and Belden, Frank A.,p.385.

59. Ibid, p. 383.

60. For a more complete description of the fire, see Serven, James E., Colt

Firearms from 1836, p.104–106.

61. Eplen, Jim “On the cover—A Rose by any Other Name is still a Navy

Pocket?” The Gun Report, February 2000, p.46.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Authors and Books:

Breslin, J. D., Pirie, W. Q., and Price, D. E., Variations

of Colt’s New Model Police & Pocket Breech Loading Pistols,

Andrew Mowbray Publishers, (In Publication)

Haven, Charles T. and Belden, Frank A., A History of

the Colt Revolver, Bonanza Books, 1940

Jordan, Robert M., and Watt, Darrow M., Colt’s Pocket

‘49, Its Evolution, including the Baby Dragoon & Wells

Fargo. Darrow M. Watt, 2000

McDowell, R. Bruce, A Study of Colt Conversions and

Other Percussion Revolvers, Krause Publications, 1997

Parsons, John E., New Light on Old Colts, Harrison,

New York, Published by the author, 1955.

Rosa, Joseph G., Colt Revolvers, Royal Armories, 1988

Sellers, Frank M., The William M.Locke Collection, East

Point, Georgia The Antique Armory, Inc., 1973.

Photostat of 1861 page of “Orders and Col. Colt” showing The Colonel's actual instructions to the Factory. Courtesy the ConnecticutState Library

85/49

Photostat of part of 1863, 1864 and part of 1865 pages of “Orders and Col. Colt” showing the first actual reference to “N.M. Pkt. 36/c,” whenbarrels were ordered. Courtesy the Connecticut State Library

Photostat of balance of 1865 page and part of 1866 page of “Orders and Col. Colt” showing the first actual order of “New Pocket 36/c” as wellas the first post-fire order (in 1866) of “Police” pistols. Courtesy the Connecticut State Library

Serven, James E., Colt Firearms from 1836, Published

by the Author, 1954

Shumaker, P. L., Colt’s Variations of the Old Model

Pocket Pistol, 1848 to 1872. Borden Publishing Co., 1957

and revised in 1966

Sutherland, R.Q., and Wilson, R.L., The Book of Colt

Firearms, Robert Q. Sutherland, Kansas City, KS. 1971

Swayze, Nathan L., ‘51 Colt Navies, Gun Hill Pub-

lishing Co., Yazoo City, Ms. 1967

Wilson, R. L., Samuel Colt Presents, Hartford, CT,

Wadsworth Atheneum, 1961

Wilson, R. L., Colt Engraving, North Hollywood, Ca.

Wallace Beinfeld Publications, 1982

Wilson, R. L., Colt an American Legend New York,

Abbeville Press, 1985

Wilson, R. L., Fine Colts The Dr. Joseph A Murray

Collection, Doylestown, Pa. Republic, 1999

Wilson, R. L., Steel Canvas, Random House, 1994.

Wilson, R. L., The Colt Engraving Book, Vol. I, New

York, Bannerman’s, 2001

PeriodicalsDussling, John F. “Colt Model 1863”, Monthly Bugle,

November 1976, published by the Penna. Antique Gun

Collectors Ass’n

Eplen, Jim “On the cover—A Rose by any Other

Name is still a Navy Pocket?” The Gun Report, February

2000

The following periodicals are among those that were

most valuable in this research.

Antique Arms Annual, Texas Gun Collectors Association

Arms Gazette

The Gun Report, World-Wide Gun Report, Inc.

Man At Arms, Andrew Mowbray Inc.

The Rampant Colt, Colt Collectors Association

The Texas Gun Collector Texas Gun Collectors

Association

Catalogs

Auction catalogs:Richard A. Bourne Co.

Butterfield & Butterfield

Christie’s East

Devine Auction

Faintich Auction Services

Harvey Auctions, Inc.

James D. Julia, Inc.

Little John Auction Co.

Oliver’s Auction

Rock Island Auction Company

Wallis & Wallis

Weller & Duffy

Sales CatalogsDouglas R. Carlson

Dixie Gun Works

Gimbel Brothers (September 1945!!)

The Far West Hobby Shop

N. Flayderman & Co., Inc.

H.H. Hunter

Jackson Arms

Robin Rapley

Dean Williams

DocumentsR.G. 103, Colt Records, Connecticut State Library,

Hartford, CT

Colt Manufacturing Company Historical Collection,

Hartford, CT

85/50

When the American Civil War began in April of 1861,

the states that would eventually join the Confederate States of

America had in their possession conservatively between

285,000 and 300,000 small arms, mainly infantry arms. This

total had accrued from four sources: 1) the manufacture of

arms in the South under state auspices between 1800 and

1852, 2) the acquisition of “modern”arms for the states’ mili-

tias in accordance with the 1808 Militia Act during the period

1850–1860, 3) the transfer arms to and storage of arms in

Southern federal arsenals and the subsequent seizure thereof

in 1860–1861, and 4) the purchase of arms in the North dur-

ing the months between the secessions of the states in the

deep South and the firing upon Fort Sumter in April of 1861.

Weapons numbering 300,000 small arms would seem

to be sizable. However, during 1861, the 11 seceded South-

ern states and the 3 border states (Missouri, Kentucky, and

Maryland) raised no fewer than 325 regiments of infantry

and 35 regiments of cavalry for the Southern cause. At

approximately 1,000 small arms per regiment, the available

supply of arms was quickly exhausted. By September of

1861, small arms were in such short supply that the arms of

soldiers hospitalized or furloughed were collected for reis-

sue to newly organized units. And, although local arms pro-

duction began in New Orleans in September and in

Richmond a month later, the initial output of the private and

Confederate Ordnance Department facilities was utterly

inadequate to the needs of the Confederate War Department.

Fortunately, in April of 1861, the War Department had

sent to Europe a purchasing agent, Captain Caleb Huse (fol-

lowed by Major Edward C. Anderson), to secure large quan-

tities of foreign made arms for the Confederacy. Although ini-

tially frustrated by lack of financial credit and competition

from New England purchasing agents also seeking techno-

logically superior ordnance, Huse and Anderson were able

to contract for significant numbers of English and Austrian

small arms. The first significant shipment of small arms

imported on Confederate account arrived via the steamer

Fingal into Savannah in November of 1861 with 9,620 En-

field rifle-muskets, 7,520 of which were owned by the

Confederate War Department. (It should be noted that an

earlier shipment of 3,500 arms had also arrived in Savannah

aboard the Bermuda in mid-September 1861, but 1,800 of

these arms had been imported on private rather than gov-

ernment account.) Deciding not to risk the loss of a major

steamer laden with arms, in January of 1862 (and continuing

through March), a new policy was adopted. Large steamers

under English registry would transport Confederate ship-

ments of arms to the port of Nassau in the British Bahamas.

There the cargoes would be unloaded and then reloaded to

smaller, privately owned ships for running into New Smyrna,

a small port on Florida’s Atlantic coast.1 Although Fort

Pulaski, the main guard to the Savannah River would fall to

Union forces in April of 1862, at least one other successful

attempt would land arms in Savannah in June of 1862.

However, after the Economist, a large English steamer,

successfully ran into Charleston in March of 1862, that South

Carolina city became an alternate focus of private shippers

seeking to run the still loose Union blockade. After the

repulse of the Union incursion on Sullivan’s Island in June of

1862, Charleston became the main focus of the shipments of

arms from Nassau. Charleston, a mere 515 miles from

Nassau, and with four channels for access, would continue

to be the primary destination for blockade runners. Not sur-

prising, this was particularly so for the ships of John Fraser &

Co. of Charleston (initially the Cecile and the Kate) or its

Liverpool based affiliate, Fraser, Trenholm & Co. (whose

fleet included the Minho, the Herald (I), and the Leopard).

The arrival of the Union naval expedition off Charleston in

the Spring of 1863 inhibited the ability of ships to run into

85/51

Small Arms Deliveries Through Wilmington, NC In 1863The Impact on Confederate Ordnance Policy

Howard Michael Madaus

and out of Charleston, but it is significant to note that even

after Wilmington offered a safer (if longer) voyage, during

1863, the number of arrivals in Charleston exceeded those

entering Wilmington by a ration of 3 to 1.

On 3 February 1863, Colonel Josiah Gorgas,

Confederate Chief of Ordnance, reported quantities of small

arms that had successfully run the blockade since November

of 1861. Most of the arms were of English origin and includ-

ed 70,980 “Enfield”P-1853 rifle-muskets, 9,715 P-1856, 1860,

or 1861 Sergeants or Navy rifles, 21,400 P-1839 and P-1842

muskets or P-1851 rifle-muskets, 2,020 “Brunswick” rifles,

and 20 “small bore” rifles (probably Kerr’s or Whitworth’s

patent rifles). In addition to 16,178 sabers, arms suitable for

cavalry included a paltry 354 “carbines” (either the P1853

artillery or cavalry carbines, probably the former).

From the continent, Gorgas indicated that there had

been imported 27,000 Austrian rifle-muskets. Another 23,000

arms remained at Nassau awaiting shipment through the

blockade; these were most likely also Austrian rifle-muskets.

A further 30,000 Austrian rifle-muskets lay in Vienna awaiting

payment.2 Cash and credit problems hampered the shipment

of the arms at Vienna, but the limitations on available cargo

space from the private shippers inhibited the arrival of arms

already paid for but sitting in warehouses in Nassau. In

Autumn of 1862, Colonel Gorgas authorized Captain Huse to

obtain for the Ordnance Department several ships for the

exclusive use of the Confederate Ordnance Department.

In England, Huse initially purchased three steamers,

the Cornubia (formerly the Columbia and often later called

the “Lady Davis”), the Eugenie, and the Merrimac. The last

would only make a single run through the blockade in April

of 1863, delivering three large Blakely cannon. Unfortu-

nately, salt water contaminated the Merrimac’s boilers dur-

ing the run and fouled them so badly that she was sold at

Wilmington to a representative of Joseph R. Anderson’s

Tredgar Iron Works in July of 1863. To replace her, that same

month, Ordnance Department purchased from Fraser,

Trenholm & Co., the steamship Phantom, and the Merri-

mac’s captain, S.G. Porter, took command of her for the Ord-

nance Department.

The fourth ship acquired by the Ordnance Department

in 1862 was the former mail steamer, Giraffe. This steamer

had been purchased by the Confederate Treasury

Department in mid-1862 to run lithographers, printing

plates and associated items into the Confederacy. After run-

ning into Wilmington with her cargo in December of 1862,

the Ordnance Department took her over as its fourth block-

ade runner and renamed her the Robert E. Lee.3

While the expense of the steamers was certainly a pro-

hibiting factor, the Ordnance Department may well have

taken into consideration another factor when purchasing

only four blockade runners for its use. Instead of Nassau,

Colonel Gorgas had decided to utilize St. George, a small

port in Bermuda as the trans-shipping point for the English

steamers and his four blockade runners. St. George, for all

practical matters, could only accommodate four blockade

runners at any given time. On 10 September 1863, Major

Smith Stansbury, Ordnance Department agent at St. George,

related the problem:4

“We have four Warehouses—Penno’s, Musson’s, Doctor

Hunter’s, and Mrs. Todd’s; attached to each Warehouse is a

Wharf . . . . Only one Steamer can occupy a Wharf at a time.—

Only four vessels, whether public or private, can be dis-

charged or loaded at the same time for reason that a Custom

House officer is required for each vessel, and there are only

four ‘Custom H.’ Officers. Several detentions have occurred

from this cause since I have been upon the Island.”

In concluding, Major Stansbury further complained

about the problems that confronted him:

“We cannot open boxes of Arms, and clean and oil

them, etc., or do any work of the kind. No room–no work-

men—no tools–no conveniences. This is not a city nor a

town, but a village.”

These would not be the only problem in the choice of St.

George as the transfer point on the England to the

Confederacy arms channel.

In comparison with Nassau, St. George had the disad-

vantage of being situated at best two days further from any of

the ports of entry on the Confederacy’s Atlantic coast. From

Nassau to Savannah, Florida was a trip of 420 miles; from

Bermuda to Savannah was 884 miles. From Nassau to

Charleston was a trip of 515 miles, while from Bermuda to

Charleston was 772 miles. And from Nassau to Wilmington

was 570 miles, 102 miles shorter than the 674 miles from

Bermuda to Wilmington. Those two extra days of travel not

only cost time, but the extra coal for the boilers, with a cor-

responding loss of cargo weight.

What made Bermuda Colonel Gorgas’ choice for his

four new blockade runners was defensive. The Union Navy

maintained a coaling station at Key West, Florida, which was

only a day’s steaming from the main trade route from Nassau

to any of the South’s Atlantic coastal ports. This permitted

the Union Navy to maintain an almost constant vigil on the

route. Bermuda, located due east of the North Carolina coast

offered no comparable replenishment station for the Union

Navy. St. George may have been further to Wilmington than

Nassau, but it was far safer to reach. Moreover, Wilmington

offered good railroad service to both theaters of the War,

north to Petersburg and Richmond by the Wilmington &

Weldon Railroad, or west and south by the Wilmington and

Manchester Railroad. Finally, in the Winter of 1862–1863,

85/52

Wilmington was as of yet, virtually undiscovered as a block-

ade runner’s destination.

The first blockade runner to enter the Cape Fear River

was the side-wheeler, Kate, the ubiquitous blockade runner

for Charleston’s John Fraser & Co, that had led that compa-

ny’s efforts at New Smyrna and Charleston. On 6 August

1862, she arrived from Nassau with what is presumed to

have been military stores. It is her arrival that probably gave

Gorgas the impetus to chose Wilmington as his point of

entry for the Ordnance Department’s four blockade runners.

According to Colonel Gorgas, the result was propi-

tious. On the 15th of November, 1863, Gorgas summarized

the accomplishments of his bureau:5

“The Bureau has purchased through its agents abroad

under your orders four steamers, the Columbia [sic- renamed

Cornubia], R.E. Lee, Merrimac, and Eugenie, and at home the

steamer Phantom, which have been industriously engaged in

carrying out cotton and bringing in supplies. The particulars

of this duty will be detailed to you by Maj. T.L. Bayne, charged

specially with the conduct of these steamers and with that of

others partially owned by the War Department. Without

these important adjuncts, the first of which was purchased by

Maj. Caleb Huse at his own instance, this department could

not have attained its present ability to respond to all calls

made upon it . . . . The number of small-arms imported

through these steamers from September 30, 1862, to

September 30, 1863, is 113,504.”

A careless reading of the above quote might suggest that all

113,504 of the small arms imported in the fiscal year cited

were brought in on the five ships alluded to in the report. A

careful examination of the actual cargoes that can be docu-

mented from these five ships shows otherwise.

While much of the documentation concerning the

importation of arms is sketchy or lost entirely, we are fortu-

nate to have three sources that combine to clarify the mud-

died picture of imports of small arms into Wilmington in

1863 and 1864. In his 1988 study, Lifeline of the Confed-

eracy: Blockade Running During the Civil War, published

by the University of South Carolina Press, its author, Stephen

R. Wise, through a search of Confederate Treasury

Department records, was able to compile a tentative list of

ships arriving at and departing from Southern ports for the

entire War. Appendix 5 (pages 233 through 241) lists the

names, approximate arrival dates, and points of origins for

those ships entering North Carolina ports (i.e. Wilmington)

from December of 1861 until December of 1864, and

includes the various entries of the five War Department

owned blockade runners. Appendix 6 (pages 242–250) lists

the outgoing vessels, dates of departure and destinations. Of

these, the former is the more important.

Wise’s lists of arrivals and departures, provide raw data

about activities of the Ordnance Department ships, but pro-

vide no information about their cargoes. Fortunately, the

Confederate agent at Bermuda (whence most of the

Ordnance Department ships departed for their runs into

Wilmington), Major Smith Stansbury, maintained a log of the

cargos that were loaded aboard ships bound for the

Confederacy from September of 1862 through April of 1865,

and Professor Frank Vandiver, in his 1947 landmark compila-

tion, Confederate Blockade Running through Bermuda,

incorporated in printed form the cargo manifests on pages

109 through 148 of that regrettably now out-of-print book.

The cargo manifests, while valuable in identifying the

warehouses whence the arms were taken for trans-shipment

and the English “bottom” that had transported the arms from

England or the Continent, required a degree of circumspec-

tion on Stansbury’s part. To avoid the appearance of English

collusion with the Confederate shipments, the destinations

usually assigned to the manifests indicated that they were

intended for shipment to Nassau and that the arms were actu-

ally “cases of hardware.” As a result, while we can quantify

the number of arms based on the probable type (20 per case

for English longarms; 24 per case for Austrian longarms), the

identity of the type of arms must be primarily based on the

source of the English “bottom” aboard which the arms were

initially brought to Bermuda. Fortunately correspondence

also printed in Vandiver’s compilation fairly well identifies the

type of arms brought in by the English steamers. Most signif-

icantly, this correspondence identifies the Miriam as the

source of most (if not all) of the Austrian arms. Complaining

to Colonel Gorgas not long after his arrival, Major Smith

Stansbury noted the source of and his opinion about the

Austrian arms in a letter dated 25 July 1863:6

“Colonel: I enclose a copy of bill of lading Steamer

‘Miriam,’ which arrived A.M. from Plymouth; This is the only

document connected with the ship’s cargo which has been

received . . . . We have on hand here (as previously advised),

about Sixty-thousand Austrian Muskets, which, judging from

the Samples I have seen, are also condemned Arms, and to us

utterly worthless.”

“I am afraid that the Cargo of the ‘Miriam’ consists of a

number, or similar lot of trash.”

(This will serve to confirm what many of my friends who

know that I collect Austrian import arms have long suspect-

ed—that I am a “trash collector”)

While the cargo manifests have proven a beneficial

source of information about arms shipments to Wilmington,

the lack of specificity of the contents of the “cases of hard-

ware” and the absence of similar reports for the other main

transfer point, Nassau, inhibit the conclusions that might be

85/53

drawn from the manifest lists. However, we are fortunate in

the survival of another key document that reflects on the

arms shipments for the Confederacy that were processed

through Wilmington.

In mid-1863, a Confederate Ordnance Department offi-

cer named Captain John M. Payne arrived at Wilmington to

assist the Ordnance Department efforts at Wilmington. From

17 July 1863 until 12 January 1865, Captain Payne kept a set

of books that detailed the arrival and distribution of “all mil-

itary stores by the C.S. Ordnance Department and Niter &

Mining Bureau” These two volumes, the first listing the

arrival date, the blockade runner, and the detailed contents

of each shipment of ordnance, and the second, listing the

destinations and dates of departures of these shipments,

were donated to the Museum of the Confederacy and form a

part of the collections of the Eleanor S. Brockenbrough

Library of that institution. The ordnance imported in these

two volumes was published in 1999; unfortunately several of

the incoming shipments were omitted and the interpretation

of others is open to question.7 Based on the original manu-

script entries, we can get a fairly clear appraisal of the quan-

tity, type, and destination of the arms shipments into

Wilmington in at least the second half of 1863.

Let us first look at the dates of arrival and the cargos of the

five ships operating under the direct control of the Ordnance

Department for the period of Colonel Gorgas’ report.

Of the five Ordnance Department blockade runners,

two would play only a small role in the blockade running into

Wilmington. One of the ships, the Merrimac, had been

loaded with Confederate ordnance while under the owner-

ship of Z.C. Pearson & Company. While its cargo successfully

arrived at St. George’s in Bermuda on 5 September 1862,

shortly after its arrival it was impounded. Z.C. Pearson &

Company had declared bankruptcy after the ship departed,

and both the ship and its cargo were subject to the judgment

of the courts. After expending 7,000 Pounds-Sterling, Huse

acquired the ship in December of 1862. However, the

Merrimac would not make a run through the blockade until

four months later. Departing from Bermuda on 17 April 1863,

the manifest of the Merrimac indicated she was loaded with

(among other things) 232 “cases of manufactured merchan-

dise, in store at Penno’s warehouse from the Gladiator, and 6

cases of “hardware” from Musson’s warehouse that had been

trans-shipped from the Miriam. The former probably repre-

sented Enfield rifle muskets (at 20 per case), totaling 4,680

small arms, while the latter were undoubtedly Austrian rifle

muskets (at 24 per case) numbering 134 arms.8 The destina-

tion of these small arms was not recorded, as Captain Bayne

had not yet reported to Wilmington. The Merrimac is also

reported to have had on board three large bore Armstrong

guns, two of which was relegated to the defenses of

Wilmington while the other was sent to Vicksburg. While still

in port at Wilmington, the Merrimac was sold by the

Ordnance Department to representatives of Joseph Anderson

of the Tredgar Iron Works in Richmond. The Merrimac would

be captured attempting to depart via New Inlet of the Cape

Fear River on 24 July 1863 by the U.S.S. Magnolia.9

To replace the Merrimac as part of the Ordnance

Department’s blockade running fleet, in July of 1863, the

steamer Phantom was purchased by the Ordnance

Department from Fraser, Trenholm & Company. Under that

company’s registry, the Phantom may have made a run from

Bermuda to Wilmington in mid-July 1863 and returning to

Bermuda in the first week of August.10 If so, no Ordnance

Department property appears to have been aboard on the

incoming run.

The Phantom’s second run into Wilmington com-

menced on 19 August 1863. Cargo manifests indicate that

she took aboard from Musson’s warehouse, “97 cases rifles”

which had been trans-shipped from the Miriam.11 That these

were Austrian rifles is confirmed in Captain Payne’s ledgers.

On 30 August 1863, Payne recorded the receipt per the

Phantom of “97 cases Austrian rifles”, a total of 2,308 rifles.

On the next day, 85 of these cases (1,640 rifles) were sent to

Colonel Rains at the Augusta Arsenal. The balance of the

shipment was divided up for the defense of North Carolina,

with four cases being sent to R.L. Page at Charlotte and eight

cases sent to Col. J.N. Whitford.12

The Phantom left Wilmington again about 11

September 1863 for Bermuda. At St. George’s, she was

loaded with 2 Blakely Guns and “50 cases Austrian rifles”, a

total of 1,200 small arms, and departed for Wilmington on 19

September 1863.13 In this, her second attempt to run the

blockade, the Phantom ran into trouble. As she hugged the

coast on 23 September 1863, off New Inlet of the Cape Fear,

she was sighted by the U.S.S. Connecticut. Her Captain, S.G.

Porter, deliberately ran her aground and set her afire to pre-

vent the ship’s capture.14 Despite the loss of the ship, many of

the small arms aboard were recovered, though in damaged

condition. Two cases (48 rifles) of undamaged arms and 985

loose and damaged arms were recovered by 3 October 1863,

and on 3rd, 6th, and 7th of October, a total of 998 of these arms

were forwarded by Captain Payne to the attention of Major

Childs at the Fayetteville Arsenal for refurbishing and

repairs15. For the workmen at Fayetteville, the arrival of these

Austrian rifles for repair and refurbishing would come at the

time when rifle production at the Fayetteville Armory had

come to a standstill for want of gun barrels.16

September of 1863 would deal a double blow to

Ordnance Department’s efforts to rely on its own blockade

runners, for on the 7th of September, another of the British

made ships would be lost, the Eugenie.

85/54

The Eugenie had been purchased by Major Huse in

England during the Winter of 1861–1862. Her first attempt

to run the blockade began in St. George’s on 13 May 1863,

departing with “154 cases of hardware”.17 Since these had

been trans-shipped from the Miriam, they were undoubtedly

Austrian rifles packed 24 to a case, or a total of 3,676 small

arms. After successfully running into Wilmington, the ship

departed with a load of cotton about 25 May for St. George’s.

There, this time with a cargo listed as “86 cases hardware”

that had been trans-shipped from the Gladiator to Penno’s

warehouse. These were most likely Enfield rifle-muskets,

packed 20 to a case, and therefore representing 1,720 small

arms. Also aboard were “9 cases merchandise” from

Musson’s warehouse that had arrived aboard the Miriam.18

Whether these were arms, ammunition, or other ordnance

stores cannot be determined, as Captain Payne had not yet

began to detail the contents arriving; however, from what is

known of the next three shipments, it is likely that the “mer-

chandise” was either arms and/or cartridges.

On 11 July 1863, the Eugenie made her third run out of

St. George’s for Wilmington. Aboard, among other items

according to Major Stansbury’s manifests, were “326 cases

general merchandise”19 Fortunately, Captain Payne’s

accounts detail that 300 of these cases consisted of 100 cases

of Enfield rifle-muskets and 200 cases of cartridges for the

same. All of these were sent to Selma, Alabama to Captain

White, probably for rearming Pemberton’s surrendered

Vicksburg garrison.20

On the Eugenie’s fourth run into Wilmington, depart-

ing St. George’s on 13 August 1863, her manifests identified

her cargo including “450 boxes cartridges,” and “140 cases

rifles (Enfield)”21 Captain Payne’s records, however, show

only 139 cases of Enfield rifles arriving. On 24 August 1863,

all 2,780 of these rifle-muskets were forwarded to Richmond

to the attention of Captain Broun at the Richmond Armory.22

This would be the last arms brought in aboard the Eugenie.

On 4 September 1863, the Eugenie entered upon her

fifth run into Wilmington from St. George’s. Although her

cargo included “300 packages of gunpowder” (among other

merchandise), no “cases of hardware” were within the

cargo.23 Captain Payne, who did acknowledge the receipt of

the “300 barrels of powder”on 10 September 1863 when the

Eugenie was off-loaded at Wilmington recorded no small

arms aboard.24 As the iron frame of the Eugenie had been

severely damaged by striking a sandbar in crossing into the

Cape Fear River on 7 September 1863, she was considered

no longer safe for blockade running. Not until the second

week of December, 1863 was the Eugenie deemed seawor-

thy again, and after safely venturing the outgoing run to

Nassau, she was returned to Liverpool, where she was sold

at the conclusion of the War.25 In November of 1863, the

other two Ordnance Department owned steamers, the

Cornubia and the R.E. Lee would both be captured after

highly successful year long careers running small arms into

Wilmington.

The Robert E. Lee, formerly the Clyde River side-

wheeler, Giraffe, had initially been purchased by the

Confederate Treasury Department in 1862. Sent with its

cargo of Treasury Department lithographic equipment and

operatives to Nassau, the Giraffe on 27 December 1862 first

attempted to run into Charleston. When heavy weather pre-

vented an approach to Charleston, the Giraffe’s captain,

Lieutenant John Wilkinson, changed course and arrived safe-

ly at Wilmington with his Treasury Department cargo on 29

December 1863.26 After its arrival at Wilmington, various

claims were put forth for the ownership of the vessel, which

had been contracted for the Treasury Department mission

through the firm of Alexander Collie & Company. The War

Department was successful in this contest and purchased

the Giraffe and renamed it the Robert E. Lee. Although cus-

tom records seem to indicate that the Robert E. Lee success-

fully negotiated the run from Bermuda to Wilmington on or

about the 11th of February 1863 and the 19th of March, the

first recorded shipment of Ordnance Department supplies

was recorded by Major Smith Stansbury in the manifest for

the R.E. Lee’s departure of 24 April 1863. On board on that

occasion were “300 cases hardware” that had been trans-

shipped to Bermuda aboard the Harriet Pinckney another

“89 cases hardware” that had been brought to St. George’s

aboard the Gladiator, in all probably representing 7,780

English rifle-muskets.27 On her second run for the Ordnance

Department, which departed from St. George’s on 5 June

1863, her cargo consisted of “389 boxes hardware” that had

been imported on the Harriet Pinckney and the Merrimac,

and another “65 cases hardware” from the Justicia; these 454

probable cases of arms most likely represented a total of

9,080 English rifle-muskets.28 On her third run, Major

Stansbury stealthfully recorded on 22 July 1863 that the

cargo included “329 cases” from the Harriet Pinckney and

“28 cases” from the Gladiator.29 Fortunately, by the arrival of

this cargo in Wilmington on 1 August 1863 detailed the ship-

ment to have included 200 cases of English rifle-muskets and

1 case containing 20 English smoothbore muskets. Half of

the Enfield rifle-muskets were sent to Richmond to the atten-

tion of Major Downer at the Richmond Armory on 6 August

1863. The single case of smoothbores and 80 cases of

Enfields were sent to Colonel Raines at Augusta during the

same month, while 20 cases (400 rifle-muskets) were

retained in Wilmington to re-arm the forces holding the forts

on the Cape Fear River.30

The fourth run of the R.E. Lee commenced with the

ship’s departure from St. George’s on 4 September 1863. In

85/55

addition to 300 barrels of gunpowder (which had arrived at

Bermuda aboard the Merrimac), the R.E. Lee’s manifest

showed “178 cases hardware”, and “20 cases hardware”,

whose source was unclear.31 Captain Payne noted the suc-

cessful arrival of the R.E. Lee at Wilmington on the 12th of

September. On board were 178 cases of Austrian rifle-mus-

kets (totaling 4,272 arms), which Payne forwarded to

Colonel Raines at Augusta on 26 September, and 20 cases (or

400 arms) of Enfield rifle-muskets, which he directed to

Major Downer at Richmond on 23 September.32

The Robert E. Lee completed the loading for what was

to be her fifth attempt to run into Wilmington on 4

November 1863. According to Major Stansbury’s accounts,

loaded aboard her were “145 cases arms” that had been

stored in Musson’s warehouse since their arrival in Bermuda.

As cargo trans-shipped from the Miriam, these were most

likely Austrian rifle-muskets, packed 24 to a case, numbering

2,030 small arms.33 Captain Payne would not confirm these

contents. On the morning of 9 November 1863, while

attempting to negotiate the cannel near Bogue Inlet of the

Cape Fear River, the R.E. Lee was sighted by the U.S.S. James

Adger.34 Hours later, the same James Adger would capture

the last of the Ordnance Department’s blockade running

fleet, the Cornubia.

The Cornubia, initially christened the “Columbia” and

occasionally called the “Lady Davis”, was the longest in serv-

ice and most successful of all of the Ordnance Department

blockade runners. Between 12 December 1862 and 8

November 1863, the Cornubia made nine successful runs

from St. George’s to Wilmington.35 The first two of these

runs, those which left St. George’s on 12 December 1862

and 26 January 1863, but Major Stansbury’s accounts proba-

bly did not carry small arms, although the latter’s manifest

does include a nebulous “260 cases” that had been brought

to Bermuda by the steamer Justicia, possibly indicating as

many as 5,200 Enfield rifle-muskets. The third run, which

left Bermuda on 25 February 1863 contained “111 cases

hardware” which had been trans-shipped on the Gladiator;

these almost certainly accounted for 2,220 Enfield rifle-mus-

kets. Likewise, the fourth run, which departed St. George’s

on 27 March 1863 included “122 cases manufactured mer-

chandise” that had arrived in Bermuda aboard the Justicia. If

rifle-muskets, these 122 cases were another 2,440 Enfields.

Yet another 4,000 Enfields were shipped from St. George’s

aboard the Cornubia on 8 May 1863, represented as “200

cases hardware” that had been imported into Bermuda

aboard the British steamer Gladiator. Another “44 cases mer-

chandise” from the Justicia were also aboard, but it is uncer-

tain if their contents were small arms.

The Cornubia’s sixth successful run from St. George’s

to Wilmington departed the former on 5 June 1863. Aboard

according to Major Stansbury’s manifest were “99 cases hard-

ware” trans-shipped from the Miriam. These were Austrian

rifle-muskets, numbering 2,376 arms. On 9 July 1863, the

Cornubia began her seventh run. Major Stansbury nebulous-

ly listed her cargo as including “500 cases” that had been

trans-shipped to Penno’s warehouse from the steamer

Harriet Pinckney. Happily, when this shipment arrived in

Wilmington on 19 July 1863, Captain Payne was now at

Wilmington to greet it and record its cargo.

Payne noted that the shipment included “47 cases art.

carbines” and “12 cases cav. carbines”. The 940 artillery car-

bines were sent to the Selma Arsenal in Alabama under the

command of Captain White, while the 240 cavalry carbines

were sent to Major Downer at Richmond, the former on 20

July and the latter on 29 July 1863.36

Captain Payne would also be present to clarify the

eighth and ninth successful runs of the Cornubia. The for-

mer departed St. George’s on 13 August 1863, with “226

cases rifles”, and “2 cases gun fittings” aboard from Hunter’s

warehouse but trans-shipped from the Harriet Pinckney.

However, upon its arrival on 22 August 1863, Payne would

record (in addition to the 2 cases of gun fittings), 228 cases

of Austrian rifle-muskets. All 5,472 arms would be shipped

to Colonel Raines at Augusta on 22 August. A similar overage

was reported by Captain Payne when the Cornubia complet-

ed its ninth successful voyage for the Ordnance Department

on 25 September 1863. According to Payne’s accounts, 201

cases of Austrian rifle-muskets were aboard the Cornubia

when she landed. Major Smith Stansbury, however, had

recorded only “200 cases rifles”, which had been transferred

from the ship “Ella and Annie”.

These 4,824 rifle-muskets had been intended to be

shipped to Texas in a shipment that was to have included

12,000 Austrian rifle-muskets. Loading of these arms com-

menced at St. George’s on 1 September 1863. The departure

of these arms aboard the “Ella and Annie” was delayed, at

first ostensibly for coaling, but later it was determined that

the captain, Frank N. Bonneau, was enthralled in the arms of

his paramour in Hamilton, and it was not until 9 September

that the “Ella and Annie” set forth for the Texas coast.

Initially Bonneau turned back when a Union blockader spot-

ted the ship. Two days later, Bonneau ran into a major storm

that tore away his paddle boxes, and only on the 14th was the

“Ella and Annie” able to reach St. George’s. There the most

water damaged of the cargo was transferred to the Cornubia

so that they could be refurbished in Confederacy, since St.

George’s had no facilities for repair or examination of car-

gos.37 Of the 201 cases of Austrian rifles brought into

Wilmington aboard the Cornubia on 25 September, 193

cases were sent to Major Cuyler at Macon, where they pre-

85/56

sumably could be refurbished, while four cases each were

sent to Captain Millet at Raleigh and Captain J.C. Little at Fort

Fisher for its garrison.38

The final run of the Cornubia began at St. George’s on

4 November 1863. Small arms aboard according to Major

Stansbury’s inventory included “64 cases rifles” from

Musson’s warehouse, that had arrived in Bermuda aboard

the Miriam. These were undoubtedly Austrian rifle-muskets,

numbering 24 to a case and thereby totaling 1,536 small

arms.39 Shortly after midnight on 8 November 1863, as the

Cornubia sought to enter New Inlet of the Cape Fear River

she was sighted by the James Adger, who signaled the

Niphon to watch for her. Trapped between the two union

blockaders, the Cornubia was run aground by her captain

and crew; however, before they could make their escape,

the pair closed in and captured the vessel, cargo, and crew.

The James Adger then attached a hawser to the Cornubia and

towed her out to sea as a prize.40 Thus ended the careers of

the Confederate Ordnance Department blockade running

fleet.

What did the five vessels of the Confederate Ordnance

Department fleet accomplish? First and foremost they

demonstrated that blockade running could successfully be

carried out between the relatively obscure ports of St.

George’s and Wilmington. Secondly, although the fleet was

not responsible for all of 113,000 small arms imported into

the Confederacy during the second fiscal year of the

Confederacy’s existence, its ships did contribute heavily to

those importations. So much so, in fact that it was possible

to re-fit Lee’s Army with new English rifle-muskets after its

retreat from Gettysburg. The balance of those English arms

not sent to Lee’s Army were sent to Bragg’s Army of

Tennessee. During the Winter of 1863–1864, the balance of

the English small arms, and most of the Austrian longarms

that had come through Wilmington re-equipped the Army of

Tennessee with for the first time, a majority of rifled arms in

lieu of the smoothbore weaponry with which most of the

infantry had been armed since 1861.

Although all of the Ordnance Department blockade

runners were either out of commission or captured by

November of 1863, arms shipments through Wilmington did

not cease by any means. As the ledgers of Captain Payne too

amply demonstrate, small arms shipments continued in sig-

nificant numbers through 1864. The ability of privately

owned contract blockade runners to successfully negotiate

the blockade into Wilmington allowed the Ordnance

Department in 1864 to import another 6,000 carbines and

more than 1,000 revolvers through Wilmington in 1864. The

arrival of these arms permitted the re-equipping of the cav-

alry with arms comparable to the Richmond muzzle-loading

carbines and the retirement of the ineffectual Robinson

Sharps carbines. This in turn permitted the Ordnance

Department to shift the carbine machinery from the

Robinson plant to Tallassee, Alabama, where it could be

remodeled to produce a Confederate copy of the English

cavalry carbine that had been approved by Stuart in 1863.

Wilmington, clearly was (at least for the Ordnance

Department) the “lifeline of the Confederacy.”

NOTES

1. For more details on the shipments aboard the Bermuda and the Fingal

and the subsequent utilization of the Florida Coast as a destination, see

Wiley Sword, Firepower From Abroad:The Confederate Enfield and LeMat

Revolver (Lincoln, R.I.: Mowbray Publishers, 1986). 13–22.

2. U.S. War Department (comp.), The War of the Rebellion: The Official

Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (Washington: Government

Printing Office, 1880–1901), Series IV, Vol. 2, 382–384. Note: Hereafter cita-

tions to this series will be simply cited as O.R., followed by series, volume

and page numbers.

3. The purchase of these ships and their histories are covered in Stephen

R. Wise, Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil

War (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1988, 1991), 96–100.

Hereafter this source will be cited simply as “Wise, Blockade Running

During the Civil War.”

4. Quoted in Frank Vandiver (ed.), Blockade Running Through Bermuda,

1861–1865: Letter and Cargo Manifests (Austin: University of Texas Press,

1947), 93–94. Hereafter this source will be simply cited as “Vandiver,

Blockade Running Through Bermuda.”

5. Report of Colonel J. Gorgas, Chief of Ordnance, 15 November 1863,

quoted from O.R., Series IV, Vol. 2, 955–956.

6. Frank Vandiver, Blockade Running Through Bermuda, p. 76; see also

pp. 77 and 84. In the former letter (3 August 1863), Stanbury indicated that

the Miriam had arrived at Plymouth as a “courtesy” visit after originally

departing from Hamburg.

7. David Noe, Larry W. Yantz, and James B. Whisker, Firearms from

Europe (Rochester, N.Y.: Roe Publications, 1999), 142–153. Among the

arrivals missing from the lists published therein are those of the Banshee

and Eugenie, respectively of 14 and 18 August 1863. The list also misidenti-

fies the 11 December 1863 arrival as being the R.E. Lee (which had cap-

tured on 9 November 1863), when it was actually the Dee. Aside from those

two major omissions/commissions, the published lists are relatively accu-

rate.

8. Vandiver, Blockade Running Through Bermuda, 111–112.

9. Wise, Blockade Running During the Civil War, 97, 243, and 312.

10. Wise, Blockade Running During the Civil War, 235 and 243. No

record of the Phantom’s visit to Bermuda appears in Major Stanbury’s mani-

fests.

11. Vandiver, Blockade Running Through Bermuda, 117.

12. Payne Ledgers, Museum of the Confederacy; hereafter simply cited as

“Payne Ledgers.”

13. Vandiver, Blockade Running Through Bermuda, 118.

14. Wise, Blockade Running During the Civil War, 138 and 316.

15. Payne Ledgers.

16. For details on Fayetteville production delays, see Dr. John M. Murphy

and Howard Michael Madaus, Confederate Rifles & Muskets (Newport

Beach, CA.: Graphic Publishers, 1996), 201–222, esp. 214.

17. Vandiver, Blockade Running Through Bermuda, 113.

18. Vandiver, Blockade Running Through Bermuda, 114.

19. Vandiver, Blockade Running Through Bermuda, 114.

20. Payne Ledgers.

21. Vandiver, Blockade Running Through Bermuda, 116.

22. Payne Ledgers.

85/57

23. Vandiver, Blockade Running Through Bermuda, 117.

24. Payne Ledgers.

25. Wise, Blockade Running During the Civil War, 138, 245, and 298.

26. Wise, Blockade Running During the Civil War, 99–100.

27. Vandiver, Blockade Running Through Bermuda, 112.

28. Vandiver, Blockade Running Through Bermuda, 113.

29. Vandiver, Blockade Running Through Bermuda, 115.

30. Payne Ledgers.

31. Vandiver, Blockade Running Through Bermuda, 117.

32. Payne Ledgers.

33. Vandiver, Blockade Running Through Bermuda, 121–122.

34. Wise, Blockade Running During the Civil War, 139–140 and 318.

35. Vandiver, Blockade Running Through Bermuda, pp. 110 (1st, 2nd,

and 3rd runs), 111 (4th run), 112 (5th run), 113 (6th run), 114 (7th run- as

“Lady Davis”), 116 (8th run), 118 (9th run). For the unsuccessful 10th run,

see p. 121.

36. Payne Ledgers.

37. The “unofficial” account of Bonneau’s “adventures” is told in Wise,

Blockade Running During the Civil War, pp. 135–136; the official corre-

spondence relating to the cargo appears in Vandiver, Blockade Running

Through Bermuda, 91 and 95. Captain Bonneau would attempt to redeem

his reputation by endeavoring to ram the Union blockader, U.S.S. Nipon

while attempting to run the blockade into Wilmington on 8 November

1863, see Wise, p. 140.

38. Payne Ledgers.

39. Vandiver, Blockade Running Through Bermuda, 121.

40. For details of the capture, see Wise, Blockade Running During the

Civil War, 139–140.

85/58

The 19th century saw a transition in the western world

from small shop and cottage industry manufacturing to the

modern factory system. This industrial transition affected

virtually every field of manufacturing, including the field of

weapons production. In addition, the 19th century saw the

development of major armament corporations which could

not only supply the weapons of war to their native coun-

tries but also to other European nations and to nations

around the world.

When the arms affection ado thinks about such world-

wide arms corporations, names like the English firm,

BSA–Birmingham Small Arms, Fabrique National from

Belgium, Waffenfabrik Mauser from Germany or U.S. firms

like Colt, Remington, and Winchester immediately come to

mind. The production of these firms is, to say the least, leg-

endary. But all to often the student of modern military arms

forgets one of the most prolific and versatile arms companies

of the last 125 years, Österreichische Waffen Gesellshaft,

more commonly known by the city where it was and is

located, Steyr, Austria. For in the last half of the 19th century

Steyr was one of the world’s giants in military Small arms

manufacturing. This article is designed to give a basic

overview of the development of this plant and its military

production.

The city of Steyr is a relatively small community situat-

ed in eastern Austria on the Steyr River, at its confluence

with the Enns River. While the specific firm covered in this

article has only been in existence since the period of the

American Civil War, iron working was a tradition in Steyr as

early as the 13th century. Records indicate small arms manu-

facturing also has a long history in this community since as

early as 1595, local craftsmen were manufacturing small

arms. By the late 17th early 18th centuries, small arms manu-

facturing, particularly military small arms, had become a sig-

nificant occupation for the burgers at Steyr.1

The origins of the modern manufacturing conglomer-

ate Steyr, however, are rather recent and are directly associ-

ated with the Werndl family. Although as early as 1640,

shops in Steyr produced small arms for the Emperor of

Austria, it was the Werndl family that really put Steyr on the

map for arms manufacturing, first in Austria and later

throughout Europe. The origins of this famous plant can be

traced directly to one of Steyr’s citizens, Leopold Werndl. In

1821, Leopold Werndl established himself as one of a num-

ber of Arms manufacturers in the city, producing Infantry

rifles, rifle barrels, stocks, lance points, bayonets, and vari-

ous other arms components. Werndl’s factory grew and ulti-

mately employed 450 workers. Through his efforts, the com-

pany expanded both in terms of production and facilities

and had become a major area producer by the time of his

death in 1855.2

Leopold Werndl had 16 children but of this number the

most talented and the one who would ultimately succeed

him as head of a successful company was his second son

Josef.3 After Josef studied 6 years in Normalschule in Steyr,

the elder Werndl sent his son to Vienna to study under

Ferdinand Frühwirth, (1844–1847) one of the best Austrian

gunsmiths. In Vienna the younger Werndl became intrigued

with modern manufacturing techniques, particularly pow-

ered machinery. His attitude was in contrast to his father’s

who regarded machines as the “enemy of mankind.”4

His education on small arms manufacturing was fur-

thered when he volunteered to serve with a Chervaux–Leger

Regiment and was subsequently posted to the old State Rifle

factory in Wein–Wahring.5 At this facility he became

acquainted with an American technician, who was working

there, named John Pall. He had long conversations with Pall

regarding machine technology and subsequently Werndl

85/59

A Forgotten Giant: A Brief Look at Military Small Arms Production at Steyr, Austria 1864-1900

Samuel J. Newland, Ph.D

Professor, Military Education, United States Army War College, Carlisle Pennsylvania

undertook a series of study trips to Suhl, Sommerda, St.

Entienne, Liege, and finally the United States. While in the

United States (1852–1853), he worked as a laborer in both

the Remington plant in Ilion, New York and in Samuel Colt’s

factory in Hartford, Connecticut. During his work/study trip

in the United States, Werndl paid particular attention to the

concept of interchangeable parts and the use of machines,

rather than craftsmen’s labor, to produce stocks and firearms

components.6 Interchangeable parts were not the norm in

Austria at that time. As anyone who has ever worked with

Civil War vintage Lorenz rifles can attest, the Austrian Arms

industry had not truly converted to interchangeable or

machine oriented production of weapons.

During his travels and studies, Werndl was intrigued by

the possibility that firms could quickly produce, with mod-

ern machinery, quality weapons at reasonable prices. In par-

ticular while in the United States he studied the potential of

steam power for machinery to manufacture the metal com-

ponents and stocks for weapons. Enthused, after he

returned from his first American study tour he bought a pol-

ishing and grinding firm and began to acquire machinery to

set up an arms plant. In 1855, while he was in the process of

preparing to launch his firm, his father Leopold died. With

the death of the elder Werndl, his widow placed the family

business in the hands of Josef and his brother Franz.

As head of the family business, Josef continued to be

intrigued with the possibilities offered by modern manufac-

turing techniques and particularly with concepts he had

observed in the United States. Due to his continued interest in

modern manufacturing techniques, in 1863, he again traveled

to the U.S. in a trip that should be described as a research and

buying trip. This trip was scheduled despite the fact that the

United States was in the midst of a bitter and bloody civil war.

On this trip he was accompanied by his business man-

ager, Karl Holub.7 During this visit he returned to Colt and

Remington factories where he again observed the latest man-

ufacturing techniques and the latest machinery available for

producing firearms. While in the United States, he learned

about the latest developments in breech loading weapons

and took particular interest in the Remington Rolling block

system. He also was intrigued by developments in metallic

cartridges, and when he returned to Austria, he took sam-

ples of some of the first rim fire metallic cartridges.

Although Josef Werndl (together with his brother) had

managed his Father’s firm since 1853, he was neither satis-

fied with this shop nor with its set up. The old Werndl busi-

ness was based on manufacturing techniques of the first half

of the 19th century. Having studied arms manufacturing

both in the United States and in other European nations, he

was determined to take a new path for the company.

Therefore, on April 16, 1864, he opened Waffenfabrik

Joseph und Franz Werndl & Co, using the modern tech-

niques he had learned. Given his gunsmith training Josef

focused on the design and manufacturing part of the opera-

tion and his brother on the financial side.8 Although a mod-

est beginning, this was the origin of one of the world’s

largest firearms manufacturing corporations.

In 1866, Waffenfabrik Josef and Franz Werndl was suc-

cessful in landing its first major contract. The

Austro–Prussian war in 1866 had conclusively demonstrated

the advantages of breech loading weapons and, as a result,

the Austrian government created a breech loading rifle com-

mission. The design chosen was the Wänzel conversion, a

trap door system, which would convert the obsolete percus-

sion Lorenz, rifles to single shot breech loading rifles.9 Since

it was a conversion of a single shot percussion rifled musket,

it was analogous to the systems developed post civil war in

the United States.10 The new Werndl factory J&F Werndl pro-

duced some 80,000 of these conversions.11

The Wänzel, however, was only a stopgap measure. A

new rifle was needed for the Austrian Army. Karl Holub had

developed a design for a new breech loading rifle which fea-

tured a unique rotating axle breech.12 Initially Holub retained

his patents on his rifle designs but ultimately Werndl pur-

chased these rights from the man who was by this time his

plant foreman. On July 28, 1867, Werndl/Holub achieved

another success when the Austrian Army accepted their

design and ordered 100,000 rifles. In the fall, the Austrian

government ordered an additional 150,000 pieces from the

Werndl factory. With this weapon, the 1867 “Werndl, the

company scored its first major success.13

Fulfilling the contracts that would come from the

Werndl/Holub design and subsequent models was not possi-

ble with existing resources, particularly fiscal resources. As a

result, on August 1, 1869, the Firm of J&F Werndl ceased to

exist and in its place the Werndl’s formed a joint stock com-

pany called Österreichische Waffenfabriks–Gesellschaft

(OEWG), with its headquarters in Vienna. It was under this

name that “Steyr” would achieve its reputation.

Once the joint stock company was formed, successes

began to multiply for the new firm, OEWG. The successes

were fueled first by the need of many armies to convert to

metallic cartridge breech loading rifles and, within a decade,

the need to convert to repeating rifles. OEWG, with

Werndl’s emphasis on interchangeable parts and powered

machinery to facilitate production, was in an excellent posi-

tion to satisfy these demands. In 1873, The Austrian Army

added further to the company’s business when an improved

version of the Werndl rifle, called the Model 1873, was

developed. This weapon was essentially the same as the

1867 except that the hammer was no longer external on a

percussion type lock plate.

85/60

From the beginning of the same decade, the company

began expanding its business beyond the borders of Austria.

In 1871, the German government adopted a new single shot

Infantry Rifle and although it was a Mauser design, Mauser

and the other German firms were unable to produce the nec-

essary number of weapons to convert the newly formed

German Army from the Dreyse “Needle Gun”to a bolt action

rifle firing metallic cartridges.14 As a consequence, begin-

ning in 1873, Steyr was contracted to produce a half million

Model 1871 Mausers, the Mauser brothers first commercially

successful design. In subsequent months Steyr would pro-

duce 1871, Infantry Rifles, Carbines, and Jägerbuchse.15

With this contract Werndl had begun the process of estab-

lishing a world reputation for OEWG.16 In addition, OEWG

also picked up contracts to produce Bavarian Werder

“Lightning” and convert captured French Rifles into

Carbines, for use in the Bavarian Army. They also produced

a short run of 1872 model Frühwirth Carbines for the

Austrian Gendarmerie.

Following this success of the German contract, begin-

ning in 1874, Steyr began working with the French govern-

ment to procure weapons, resulting in the first of two

French contracts which the company would win in the

1870s. The first was for the production of the French rifle

Gras, Model 1874, together with an appropriate bayonet for

the weapon. Producing both the rifle and bayonet became a

standard practice for Steyr for the remainder of the nine-

teenth century. Though the Gras was originally a French

design, Steyr also produced Gras rifles for Greece and Chile.

This would be the first of several contracts for weapons hat

Steyr would have with these three nations.

During this same time conflicts in the Balkans, the

Russo Turkish War, caused the King of Rumania to search for

a new infantry weapon for his army. The King preferred a

Martinni-Henry action and when his original contractor

could not produce them in a timely fashion, Joseph Werndl

offered to manufacture the weapon and ultimately produced

13,000 11mm Martini Henry rifles and carbines, Model

1879, for the Rumanians.17

One might say that in the 1870s Steyr’s business was lit-

erally booming because in 1877, an additional model, more

an alteration of the 67/73 Werndl rifle, was developed for

use with an improved 11mm cartridge. Before this design

was replaced by the Straight Pull series, Werndls were being

used by the Austrian Army, the tiny nation of Montenegro,

and Persia. At the same time, Werndl worked with another

Austrian designer, an artillery officer Captain Alfred Ritter

von Kropatschek, to produce a repeating rifle which used a

tubular magazine below the barrel. The first contact for this

model, appropriately called the Kropatschek, was from the

French government. Under this contract Steyr would pro-

duce a total of 25,000 French Marine Rifles, Model 1878. As

this decade came to a close Steyr, originally a small manufac-

turing firm, had multiple manufacturing facilities, had

expanded its workforce to 6,000 and as a result, its weekly

production was 8,000 rifles.18

Designs from individuals like Holub and Kropatchek

coupled with Werndl’s energy and good business manage-

ment caused the company to prosper. A large part of the rea-

son for the company’s success was their use of the latest

modern production techniques, which allowed them to be

competitive and to quickly produce a number of substantial-

ly different designs. At the 900 year jubilee of the city of

Steyr’s founding, Josef Werndl proudly stated . . .

Through our technical performance we stand unri-

valed in the production of quality weapons and when quality

matters we need fear no competition.19

In many respects, the best was yet to come for OEWG.

The best would come when a talented designer named

Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher came to work with the firm.

Mannlicher was the second individual who should be

credited with establishing Steyr as a giant in the field of small

arms design. This famous Arms designer was not Austrian

but rather German, born in Mainz in 1848. As a young man

he moved to Austria where he initially studied engineering at

Vienna’s Technical University. He achieved his early success

with the Austrian Imperial Northern Railroad and only later

in life turned to firearms design. It was Mannlicher who real-

ly took Steyr from the age of the single shot breech loader

into the era of magazine fed repeaters. In fact the name

Mannlicher is generally better known throughout the world

than Werndl or Steyr, the firm that produced his designs.20

Although Mannlicher began designing weapons at the

onset of the 1880s, his first commercially successful weapon

was not produced until 1885.21 This was the first of

Mannlicher’s straight pull designs which, beginning in 1886,

was produced using an 11mm black powder cartridge. In the

years that followed, a profusion of designs were produced,

both variations of straight pull designs and, at the same time,

bolt action weapons with split rear ring receivers.

In the mid-1880s, as Mannlicher’s successful designs

were beginning to emerge, Werndl added yet another famed

designer to his employ. He hired Otto Schönauer, who had

served his firearms apprenticeship at the Vetterli factory in

Neuhausen Switzerland and was later a technician in what is

now Czechoslovakia. Schönauer began working for Werndl

in 1886, and by 1889, he was the business manager for

OEWG. His world reputation would come as the designer of

the rotary magazine for bolt action rifles, mostly utilized for

the world famous Mannlicher Schönauer hunting rifles.

Although generally thought of in commercial applications,

85/61

this design would have military applications through con-

tracts with the Greek government in 1903, 1913, and 1930.

With this much talent in one company, it is not surpris-

ing that the years from 1880 through the first decade of the

20th Century were perhaps Steyr’s greatest years, in terms of

firearms design and manufacturing. In the 1880s, improve-

ments of Mannlicher’s basic design for the straight pull rifles,

which first emerged at the beginning of the 1880s, were pro-

duced in several basic variations and for numerous coun-

tries22: Austria, Bulgaria, Brazil, Chile, Portugal, Persia, and

Siam all used versions of the 1886–1888.

While the original 1886 in 11mm and the 1888 in 8mm

were being produced for the nations previously mentioned,

Steyr showed its wide range of capabilities by developing

two entirely different contracts with Portugal. Initially Steyr

agreed to produce for the Portuguese government a unique

falling block rifle known as the Guedes, even though it was

actually obsolete at the time of its production. This was

quickly followed by the production of Kropatschek rifles

and carbines for Portugal.

An intriguing chapter for Steyr occurred when the

German Army adopted the Commission Model 1888 rifle.

Even a casual observer could see that the magazine system

used in this weapon “borrowed” heavily on the Mannlicher

design, infringing on Steyr’s patents. As a consequence, the

company initiated a patent infringement suit against the

German government.23 OEWG won the suit and, as a part of

the settlement, they were permitted to manufacture Gewehr

88 rifles for the German government and for contracts with

other nations as well. Therefore, beginning in 1889, OEWG

began producing the model 1888 for the German Army.24

The decade of the 1890s saw yet another explosion of

designs and contracts. Steyr began the decade with the man-

ufacture of Model 1890 Carbine and Extracorps Gewehr for

the Austrian Army. This was a significant improvement over

the straight pull designs produced from 1885–1889, particu-

larly as it related to the positive locking system provided by

the two frontal rotary lugs. Using only minor alterations, this

design became the 1895 model “Straight Pull”. With the

exception of the famed Mannlicher Schoenauer hunting

rifles, this would be Mannlicher’s longest production piece

with these weapons being produced through 1938.25

This however was only a small portion of Steyr’s pro-

duction in the 1890s. Mannlicher designed and Steyr pro-

duced two versions of bolt action rifles for the Rumanian

government, the models of 1892 and 1893. Mannlicher

designs, produced by Steyr, resulted in a number of bolt-

action variations for the Dutch. At the same time, Steyr also

produced a run of Krag Jorgenson rifles for the Norwegians,

a carbine for the Swiss as well as full-scale production for the

Model 1895 straight pull.26

As the nineteenth century came to an end, the tremen-

dous energy shown by Steyr seemed to slow. A significant

factor was likely a series of deaths, which took some signifi-

cant people out of the corporate ladder. Josef Werndl, the

man who had founded the industrial giant, died on April 29,

1889. Fifteen year later, on January 30, 1904, Mannlicher

died and in the next year on May 23, 1905, Karl Holub died.

As these design and manufacturing geniuses expired, so

passed Steyr’s greatest period of productivity, at least in

terms of firearms manufacturing.

Steyr’s philosophy of production, as established by

Joseph Werndl, would continue into the Twentieth Century.

In a catalogue dated November 1914, Österreiche

Waffenfabriks Gesellschaft stated with pride, “. . . all arms

turned out from their works are produced in strict accor-

dance with the principle of interchangeability of all parts.” In

addition the plant brochure stated that the Austrian Small

Arms Factory was capable of turning out 750,000 arms of dif-

ferent systems per year. This represented an output of 15,000

arms per week and 2,500 arms per day.27 Even though Werndl

had been dead for 25 years, his philosophy remained.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baer, Fritz H. “Werndl versus Gasser—Pistole gegen

Revolver: Ein Beitrag zur Waffen und Wirtschaftgeschichte”,

Miltaria Austriaca No. 5. (Wein: Gesellschaft fur Öesterre-

iche Heereskunde, 1989).

Steyr Mannlicher, Ges.m.b.H., 125 Jahre Waffen aus

Steyr: (Steyr Austria: N.P., 1989).

Hanevek, Karl Krag-Jorgensen Gevaeret (Halden:

Hanek Vapen ANS, 1994).

Kernmayr Hans Gustl, Leopold Werndl und sein Sohn

(Graz: 1949).

Kriegleder, Wolfram “Wiener Walze”, Visier:

Internationale Waffen-Magazin (November, 1990).

von Kromar, Oberst Konrad Edler Repetier-und

Automatische Handfeuer Waffen des Systeme Ferdinand

Ritter von Mannlicher (Wien: L.W. Seidel & Sohn, 1900).

Josef Mötz, “Das Mannlicher Waffen System Muster

1895, III Teil” Deutsches Waffen Journal (Mai 1987).27Oesterreichische Waffenfarbriks-Gesellschaft, The

Mannlicher Schoener Repeating Sporting Rifle (Steyr: Emil

Prietzel 1914).

Olson, Ludwig “Mannlicher Rifles”, The American

Rifleman (November, 1959) p. 40.

Olsen, Ludwig Mauser Bolt Rifles (Montezuma, Iowa:

F. Brownell, 1993) p. 23. Cited hereafter as Olson, Mauser

Bolt Rifles.

Scarlatta, Paul and James Walters, “Germany’s Gewehr

88 Commission Rifle: The Launching Platform for the

85/62

7.9�57 cartridge”, Shotgun News (Vol. 56, no. 12, April 20,

2002) pp. 18, 19.

Steyr Mannlicher Ges.m.b. H, Joseph Werndl

1831–1889: Leben und Werk. (Steyr Austria: N.P. 1989), p. 2.

Voss, Wilhelm, 75 Jahre Steyr-Werke: Steyr�Daimler

Puch�Aktiengesellschaft Sitz: Steyr, Oberdonau. (No Place:

Steyr Werke, 1939).

Walter, John, The German Rifle: A Comprehensive

Illustrated History of the Standard Bolt-Action Designs,

1871–1945 (Ontario: Fortress Publications Inc, 1979).

NOTES

1. Steyr Mannlicher, Ges.m.b.H., 125 Jahre Waffen aus

Steyr: (Steyr Austria: N.P., 1989) pp. 1–3. Cited hereafter as

Steyr, 125 Jahre Waffen aus Steyr.

2. Steyr, 125 Jahre Waffen aus Steyr, p. 3.

3. For the reader who seeks additional biographical

information on the Werndls, see Hans Gustl Kernmayr,

Leopold Werndl und sein Sohn (Graz: 1949).

4. Fritz H. Baer, “Werndl versus Gasser—Pistole gegen

Revolver: Ein Beitrag zur Waffen und Wirtschaftgeschichte”,

Miltaria Austriaca No. 5. (Wein: Gesellschaft fur Öesterre-

iche Heereskunde, 1989) p. 19 Cited hereafter as Baer,

Werndl vs. Gasser.

5. Steyr Mannlicher Ges.m.b. H, Joseph Werndl

1831–1889: Leben und Werk. (Steyr Austria: N.P. 1989), p.

2. Cited hereafter as Steyr, Joseph Werndl.

6. Baer, Werndl vs. Gasser, p. 19.

7. Karl Holub was a trusted and long term associate of

Josef Werndl. He was born in what is now Czechoslovakia

and initially worked as a locksmith. Before entering the Army

he was apprenticed to the Austrian State Arsenal in Vienna

where he became acquainted with Josef Werndl. He subse-

quently entered military service and when he completed his

military duty, Holub began working for Werndl as the latter

was developing his factory. As mentioned he accompanied

Werndl on his second trip to the United States and collected

information on modern manufacturing techniques, informa-

tion which was used in the construction of the new arms fac-

tory that Werndl was building.

8. Steyr 1964: The Steyr-Daimler-Puch

Aktiengesellschaft in the Centenary Year of its Foundation,

p. 2.

9. The reader should note as well that there was con-

siderable interest in this period in the Remington Rolling

Block system, which in fact resulted in the production of a

limited number or Austrian Rolling blocks.

10. In fact in his article, “Wiener Walze”, Visier:

Internationale Waffen-Magazin (November, 1990) p. 116.

Wolfram Kriegleder stated The Viennese Gunsmith Johann

Wänzel copied the “trapdoor” breech design by Erskin Allin.

11. The Werndl firm was only one of several compa-

nies that converted Lorenzes to breech loaders. According to

factory publications, in a short time some 700,000 Lorenz

rifles were converted to breech loaders. See Steyr, 125 Jahre

Waffen, p. 5.

12. It should be noted that while Werndl produced sev-

eral different models of long guns, based on this design, the

firm also offered a single shot pistol based on this same

breech loading design. In the end, however, the Gasser

revolver, M 1870, would be adopted by the Austrian military

forces. See, Baer, Werndl vs. Gasser, pp. 21–41.

13. Ibid, p. 5. It should be noted, however, that the

Werndl Fabrik was not the sole firm producing these 1867

Werndl/Holub designed rifles. In the years that followed

numerous companies in Austria produced “Werndls” and, in

addition, another facility was established in Hungary to han-

dle the increased business.

14. The German Army was a newly formed Army since

the German Army only came into being with the 1870–1871

Franco Prussian War. The basic problem for the German

manufacturers trying to meet the contract was that some of

the new machinery needed to produce the rifles did not

arrive in time and, in addition, the more exacting tolerances

for the 1871 were difficult for some of the arsenals attempt-

ing to manufacture the 71s. John Walter, The German Rifle:

A Comprehensive Illustrated History of the Standard Bolt-

Action Designs, 1871–1945 (Ontario: Fortress Publications

Inc, 1979) p. 53. Walter states that the actual production fig-

ures from Steyr were 474,622 rifles, 60,000 carbines,

150,000 bolts, 55,963 receivers, and 52,000 barrels to

Prussia and Saxony.

15. Wilhelm Voss, 75 Jahre Steyr-Werke:

Steyr�Damiler Puch�Aktiengesellschaft Sitz: Steyr,

Oberdonau. (No Place: Steyr Werke, 1939). Pp. 25,26. Cited

hereafter as Voss, 75 Jahre Steyr.

16. According to Ludwig Olson, OEWG also furnished

70,000 rifles to China, Japan, Honduras, Uruguay and

Transvaal. See Ludwig Olsen, Mauser Bolt Rifles

(Montezuma, Iowa: F. Brownell, 1993) p. 23. Cited hereafter

as Olson, Mauser Bolt Rifles.

17. Voss, 75 Jahre Steyr, p. 27.

18. Steyr, 125 Jahre Waffen aus Steyr, p. 6.

19. Voss, 75 Jahre Steyr, p. 28.

20. A brief biography on Mannlicher and his back-

ground can be found in “Erfinderpersonlichkeiten”, Steyr,

125 Jahre Waffen aus Steyr, p. 12.

21. Ludwig Olson, “Mannlicher Rifles”, The American

Rifleman (November, 1959) p. 40. Olson notes that the

1885 was really the first Mannlicher design to get beyond the

experimental stage.

85/63

22. Mannlicher’s pantent drawings for the last two

decades of the 19th century can be seen in Oberst Konrad

Edler von Kromar’s Repetier-und Automatische Handfeuer

Waffen des Systeme Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher

(Wien: L.W. Seidel & Sohn, 1900).

23. Note that this Mod 88 was a commission product

NOT a Mauser. Thus, Olson notes that the Mauser factory

was very busy with other contracts and did not produce any

88 Commission weapons. Furthermore, Paul Mauser, who

was not in any way involved in the Mod 88 production, was

relieved that he did not have to pay royalties to his major

rival for using the Mannlicher magazine design. Olson,

Mauser Bolt Rifles, p. 41.

24. Paul Scarlatta and James Walters, “Germany’s

Gewehr 88 Commission Rifle: The Launching Platform for

the 7.9�57 cartridge”, Shotgun News (Vol. 56, no. 12, April

20, 2002) pp. 18,19.

25. The exact number of M-95s produced may never

be known. In 1945, the Russians took or destroyed most of

the production records. Wartime (WWI) show that between

1914–1918 at Steyr and Budapest a total of 3,593, 475 M-95s

were produced. See Josef Mötz, “Das Mannlicher Waffen

System Muster 1895, III Teil” Deutsches Waffen Journal (Mai

1987) p. 793.

26. According to a Norwegian publication, Norway

contracted with Steyr, November 21, 1895 to manufacture

20,000 Norwegian Krags. In August 1896, a further 9000

were ordered together with 4500 for civilian shooting asso-

ciations, Karl Hanevek, Krag-Jorgensen Gevaeret (Halden:

Hanek Vapen ANS, 1994) p. 127.

27. Oesterreichische Waffenfarbriks-Gesellschaft, The

Mannlicher Schoener Repeating Sporting Rifle (Steyr: Emil

Prietzel 1914), p. 5.

85/64