I note that, in the plate, the cartridge box is not simply attached to the carbine sling; it is a part of the sling, with the sling attached to metal fittings at each end of the box. This would hold the cartridge box at a fixed point on the sling and would prevent it from sliding down the sling. However, this may result in the sling as a whole shifting during travel. As well, the plate shows the cartridge box being located in the small of the back; that is certainly not where I would want it if I had to access it quickly.
Speedy, We actually did discuss including that in the video but decided it would be too long. But your observations were the same as ours. And since the US Army never really adopted that type of sling, we chose not to spend too much time on that. Great point though. Thanks for watching.
@@csconsultingsafety5441 Another possibility is that the sling as pictured in the diagram is not a carbine sling but a separate sling specific to the cartridge box. Is there any text that identifies the sling in question as a carbine sling? I don't see any attachment snap or hook on this sling that would attach to a suspension ring or bar on the carbine. Having two slings on the one side, one for the carbine and one for the cartridge box, seems a bit much, especially if there is also a suspension strap for the belt holding the sabre over the other shoulder (in the diagram, apparently looped down and around the sabre scabbard.) And, if it is a separate sling specifically for the cartridge box, then it could easily suffer from the same fault as you identified in your galloping trial: shedding ammunition. If this is intended to be a separate cartridge box sling, then I would have to think it more of a bother and a detriment than anything else.
With European equipment the carbine would be attached to the same crossbelt. The illustration just happens to show the cavalryman without his carbine. The box is also fixed in position on the crossbelt with rings and once the carbine is clipped to the belt the weight of the weapon is going to hold the cartridge box in place on the back-no slippage. I think it’s pretty clear from the nature of the ACW equipment (not fixed to the crossbelt but attached thru loops) that it was always intended to be worn on the belt and it would prove impractical to wear it on the crossbelt (carbine sling). That said, with a cartridge box fixed to the sling, you can imagine there would be an advantage to having both the weapon and the ammo attached to the same belt and having all the weight supported over the shoulder rather than dragging down on the belt. I don’t think either means of carry has anything to do with ease of access-except where modern reenactors might be concerned. :)
Thanks for the plug to Research Arsenal I had no idea that this website and archive existed! And here I've been spamming state archives in Wisconsin and Minnesota for ordnance returns : )
I suspect the plate is actually a misinterpretation of something else. I don’t doubt soldiers did have pouches on their carbine slings but they were not for cartridges. Rather I think they might have been for tools and/or things like spare flints etc. I know that by the Civil War flints were no longer in use but they had been up until only ten years before so if the drill manual was older or the plate older then that could have been the true purpose. Equally, if it came from a French original, might the pouch have been for caps? Yes, that would be very difficult to use while mounted, but perhaps the French did not have that requirement or they might not have thought that far.
It makes more sense to have it on sling if all you ever did was fight dismounted. Also having extra ammo in a box on your sling might also be a good idea if you knew you were going into action. From what I've seen of the French and British slings in the napolionic wars, they were essentuially a part of the belt. Being connected with brass square or round pieces. Also they were more extensively used for messages. On mounted rifleman they generially wore a belly box much like the US army rifleman had in the 1820s. It is there that cartridges for a carbine or pistol were more easily accessed. But, that was before nipple primers, and metallic cartridges as well. So the typical napolianic mounted rifleman would be firing a flintlock rifle from a dismounted or a stationary mounted position from cover. The remainder of the cavalry were heavy cavalry, light cavalry, and lancers. Who would be shock troops against infantry flanks or melee against other cavalry. However there are many state guard (formal) mounted until who adopted these napolianic styles of uniforms in the 1850s.
Steve, i found you guys through cwdd when you and will were were talking about your in depth research into the civil war through research arsenal. Man am I glad, too. Your have a new sub because of it and i started watching your videos and your content is outstanding buddy!!!! Keep up the great work!
You'd think that cavalrymen would have put a small wedge of paper beside each round so they would be more snug in the wooden block. I have a replica infantryman cartridge box and it weighs a ton fully loaded.
Just one observation... y have the lead (heavy end) bullet up? Instead of down into the box ... since the weight would help hold them in stay in the box... plus you feed the cartridge bullet end first and it's already in that position with bullet down in the box
While I do absolutely agree with your conclusions, I can’t help but wonder if chucking in those Burnside cartridges projectile-down into the woodblock would alleviate (some of) the cartridge spillage - since the lead and hardened lube could maybe provide more friction against the woodblock and, consequently, make those rounds less likely to spill out?
you pretty well demonstrated its deficiencies, only able to see when carrying real cartridges and using the horse for a while - backed up by the lack of evidence on photos and documents. It seems to be again a trend invented by some re - enactors. The French or European methods are in my view different, the pouch was fixed, it could not slide and also it was worn on the back again, and not up front. How they could reach it and take out cartridges?
Steve, how did the box on the sling affect how you flipped your carbine over your shoulder for mounting, and did that increased weight on the front of your chest make mounting more awkward?
GrangerGangster, it made it a pain honestly. I have never really tried it until this video and there are more than a few reasons why I wouldn't do this in the future. Your point being one of the big ones.
Historically in Europe cartridge boxes were not worn on the belt. The traditional place was on the carbine sling or on a separate strap, worn on the back of the trooper on a fixed position on the strap. Carrying cartridges on the belt is a rather modern idea, but on the front side of the sling it just looks wrong in my opinion. Some reenactors might be too old to grab their rounds the standard way.
Yes. I actually agree that the premise of this exercise is flawed. The box if worn on the cross belt would be on the back, as in the illustration, not on the front for reasons of “easy access.” And European carry would fix the cartridge in position on the belt with weight of the carbine clipped on the bottom of the belt holding the box in position. As for accessing the cartridges with the carbine in use, the box is going to be on the cross belt above the buttock in the area of the lower back and cartridges are going to be drawn very similarly to the way an infantryman would access his cartridge box which was also carried on the cross belt at the hip/lower back.
Even if you took some leather or twine to secure it in place up on the chest, the angle would produce rounds flying out. If the rounds were secured in web loops, providing more friction (like a McKeever) you might get away with it, but wood block? Nah.
I note that, in the plate, the cartridge box is not simply attached to the carbine sling; it is a part of the sling, with the sling attached to metal fittings at each end of the box. This would hold the cartridge box at a fixed point on the sling and would prevent it from sliding down the sling. However, this may result in the sling as a whole shifting during travel. As well, the plate shows the cartridge box being located in the small of the back; that is certainly not where I would want it if I had to access it quickly.
Speedy, We actually did discuss including that in the video but decided it would be too long. But your observations were the same as ours. And since the US Army never really adopted that type of sling, we chose not to spend too much time on that. Great point though. Thanks for watching.
@@csconsultingsafety5441 Another possibility is that the sling as pictured in the diagram is not a carbine sling but a separate sling specific to the cartridge box. Is there any text that identifies the sling in question as a carbine sling? I don't see any attachment snap or hook on this sling that would attach to a suspension ring or bar on the carbine. Having two slings on the one side, one for the carbine and one for the cartridge box, seems a bit much, especially if there is also a suspension strap for the belt holding the sabre over the other shoulder (in the diagram, apparently looped down and around the sabre scabbard.) And, if it is a separate sling specifically for the cartridge box, then it could easily suffer from the same fault as you identified in your galloping trial: shedding ammunition. If this is intended to be a separate cartridge box sling, then I would have to think it more of a bother and a detriment than anything else.
With European equipment the carbine would be attached to the same crossbelt. The illustration just happens to show the cavalryman without his carbine. The box is also fixed in position on the crossbelt with rings and once the carbine is clipped to the belt the weight of the weapon is going to hold the cartridge box in place on the back-no slippage.
I think it’s pretty clear from the nature of the ACW equipment (not fixed to the crossbelt but attached thru loops) that it was always intended to be worn on the belt and it would prove impractical to wear it on the crossbelt (carbine sling).
That said, with a cartridge box fixed to the sling, you can imagine there would be an advantage to having both the weapon and the ammo attached to the same belt and having all the weight supported over the shoulder rather than dragging down on the belt.
I don’t think either means of carry has anything to do with ease of access-except where modern reenactors might be concerned. :)
Thanks for the plug to Research Arsenal I had no idea that this website and archive existed! And here I've been spamming state archives in Wisconsin and Minnesota for ordnance returns : )
I suspect the plate is actually a misinterpretation of something else. I don’t doubt soldiers did have pouches on their carbine slings but they were not for cartridges. Rather I think they might have been for tools and/or things like spare flints etc. I know that by the Civil War flints were no longer in use but they had been up until only ten years before so if the drill manual was older or the plate older then that could have been the true purpose. Equally, if it came from a French original, might the pouch have been for caps? Yes, that would be very difficult to use while mounted, but perhaps the French did not have that requirement or they might not have thought that far.
Sadly this is a very underrated channel!
Lovely content as always!
I'm so proud of you boys
Thanks! You guys and your website inspired everything we have done to date!
From Australia, your damn good with your presentations thank you sir.
It makes more sense to have it on sling if all you ever did was fight dismounted. Also having extra ammo in a box on your sling might also be a good idea if you knew you were going into action.
From what I've seen of the French and British slings in the napolionic wars, they were essentuially a part of the belt. Being connected with brass square or round pieces.
Also they were more extensively used for messages.
On mounted rifleman they generially wore a belly box much like the US army rifleman had in the 1820s.
It is there that cartridges for a carbine or pistol were more easily accessed. But, that was before nipple primers, and metallic cartridges as well.
So the typical napolianic mounted rifleman would be firing a flintlock rifle from a dismounted or a stationary mounted position from cover.
The remainder of the cavalry were heavy cavalry, light cavalry, and lancers.
Who would be shock troops against infantry flanks or melee against other cavalry.
However there are many state guard (formal) mounted until who adopted these napolianic styles of uniforms in the 1850s.
Great job.
Thanks!
Sgtklark, Thanks!!
Steve, i found you guys through cwdd when you and will were were talking about your in depth research into the civil war through research arsenal. Man am I glad, too. Your have a new sub because of it and i started watching your videos and your content is outstanding buddy!!!! Keep up the great work!
Thanks! Glad you enjoy our content!
You'd think that cavalrymen would have put a small wedge of paper beside each round so they would be more snug in the wooden block. I have a replica infantryman cartridge box and it weighs a ton fully loaded.
Just one observation... y have the lead (heavy end) bullet up? Instead of down into the box ... since the weight would help hold them in stay in the box... plus you feed the cartridge bullet end first and it's already in that position with bullet down in the box
Good test.
While I do absolutely agree with your conclusions, I can’t help but wonder if chucking in those Burnside cartridges projectile-down into the woodblock would alleviate (some of) the cartridge spillage - since the lead and hardened lube could maybe provide more friction against the woodblock and, consequently, make those rounds less likely to spill out?
just like trying to use a sling with ammo loops on a shotgun... quickly becomes unwieldy...
you pretty well demonstrated its deficiencies, only able to see when carrying real cartridges and using the horse for a while - backed up by the lack of evidence on photos and documents. It seems to be again a trend invented by some re - enactors. The French or European methods are in my view different, the pouch was fixed, it could not slide and also it was worn on the back again, and not up front. How they could reach it and take out cartridges?
Think I'll stick with the belt.
Our thoughts exactly
Did all horse soldiers have carbine rifles with brass cartridges for the entire war ?
I'm interested in the ammo blocks. Made of wood? At the time, would the holes have been individually hand-drilled?
Steve, how did the box on the sling affect how you flipped your carbine over your shoulder for mounting, and did that increased weight on the front of your chest make mounting more awkward?
GrangerGangster, it made it a pain honestly. I have never really tried it until this video and there are more than a few reasons why I wouldn't do this in the future. Your point being one of the big ones.
We need more REAL history from you and the other soldiers
Historically in Europe cartridge boxes were not worn on the belt. The traditional place was on the carbine sling or on a separate strap, worn on the back of the trooper on a fixed position on the strap. Carrying cartridges on the belt is a rather modern idea, but on the front side of the sling it just looks wrong in my opinion. Some reenactors might be too old to grab their rounds the standard way.
Yes. I actually agree that the premise of this exercise is flawed. The box if worn on the cross belt would be on the back, as in the illustration, not on the front for reasons of “easy access.” And European carry would fix the cartridge in position on the belt with weight of the carbine clipped on the bottom of the belt holding the box in position.
As for accessing the cartridges with the carbine in use, the box is going to be on the cross belt above the buttock in the area of the lower back and cartridges are going to be drawn very similarly to the way an infantryman would access his cartridge box which was also carried on the cross belt at the hip/lower back.
Even if you took some leather or twine to secure it in place up on the chest, the angle would produce rounds flying out. If the rounds were secured in web loops, providing more friction (like a McKeever) you might get away with it, but wood block? Nah.