Cas City Forum Hall & CAS-L
Special Interests - Groups & Societies => The Barracks => Topic started by: G.W. Strong on January 15, 2012, 04:02:46 PM
-
Courtesy of the all the information and assistance you all have given me in this forum (particularly the assistance of the "Uniform Questions" thread) I have one nearly complete kit. Now I need you to critique it. I am not shy and I can take constructive criticisms well. I am also working on a circa 1890 drab kit for summer use but this one is farther along. I finished the boxes last week and last night. I set up the tent before the snow fell. I finished sewing the belt about two weeks ago and this afternoon I finished sewing the trouser stripes in place. Now the question is, what is wrong with it? What is missing? What needs to be improved?
(http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011930.JPG)
Many more pictures below.
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011928.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011929.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011930.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011931.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011932.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011933.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011934.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011935.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011936.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011937.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011938.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011939.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011940.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011941.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011942.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011943.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011944.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011945.JPG
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011946.JPG
-
For the sake of reference. Here is my kit from October.
(http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/hopalong%20cavalry2.jpg)
-
I have no expertise in Army uniforms, but the latest version looks exponentially better!
-
Hopalong,
It looks good and you have done a lot of work, the only thing I see is the color of the stripes, should they not be red like the leg stripes and the pipeing?
Old Top
-
The uniform coat once had red stripes but they have faded badly from the sun. It used to belong to Col. Drydock.
F-troop suggested I get 1872 pattern stripes as an improvement.
-
Hopalong,
That is what I thought, the 1872 stripes can be found but they are expensive, if it is a four button coat stay with the civil war period stripes, if it is the five button it would be your call. I have seen pictures of the cav of the peroid and they were a mixed bag of civil war and indian war with the uniform coats and belts. What I can see looks very good, wish mine look as good.
Old Top
-
Mine is a 5 button coat.
-
Looks good, you have put a lot of effort into this not only the uniform and weapons but tentage and those boxes
The one very minor issue I see are the boots, they are the cav model vs the shorter artillery boots, but having said that, were you posted to a cav fort the choice may well have been a pair of cav boots that sorta fit vs bare foot or arty boots that did not come close to fitting. Supply was probably pretty spotty back in the day.
If I overstate one of you folks more knowledgeable than I please correct me as Hopalong and I are trying to learn this stuff.
-
I'm no uniform expert myself, but you look outstanding-Great job Sir!!
-
The Quartermaster supply system was working well at that time, so shorter boots would've been available.
Though the Army has always been generous about 'wear-out' periods - the various Branches stayed true to 'their' Branch and didn't co-mingle Branch-specific articles of uniform - especially if you're portraying a young First Sergeant.
Scouts Out!
-
Another question I have is does 1880 look bascially right for the uniform? what date would you place it at? I know it is not perfect but what is is close to?
-
I also should ask what model artillery boots?
-
Looks good. The carbine appears to have a Buffington rear sight and, thus, notched barrel band. Believe the Buffington came in no earlier than '85. If you can find an earlier rear sight and band, they are an easy swap. Query: pretty-much all photos I've seen of artillerymen of the era shows them w/ rifles. Presume carbines were sometimes issued, especially if redlegs were mounted and served with cavalry on campaign?
-
Rifles were the norm.
A Redleg's job wasn't to go haring off after hostiles - it was to work the guns - and they rode on Caissons and supply wagons - save for a couple of NCOs.
The Artilleryman wore the Pattern 1876 Shoe - a high-topped, lace-up affair with the tongue extending 1/2" above the top.
As to the carbine's front band and Buffington sights - one nice thing about those weapons is the ease of both finding parts and the commonality of screw hole placement - thus, an 1873 rear sight will fit in the space occupied by a Buffington - spanning the Tradoor's service life.
Vaya,
Scouts Out!
-
I have a rifle as well. It also has buffing ton sights. I have my eyes on another rifle at a local shop with the earlier sights as well.
Did artillery men ever wear boots? I have heard of artillery boots. Not sure what those were though.
-
No - enlisted men wore what they were issued, and during the Civil War, they were called 'Bootees' - later changed to 'Shoes' during the Indian Wars.
A good rifle sight to keep an eye out for is the M1879 Rifle Sight - they installed that one on the Model 1875 Officer's Rifles, and it preceded the Buffington.
An order issued in 1873 (AGO G.O. 73 dtd July 10, 1873) flatly refused to issue boots to foot troops - leaving issue boots to Cavalry.
Cavalry boots were also addressed by the 1876 Uniform Board - resulting in the adoption and issuance of a boot that stood 15 1/2" high in front and 14" high in the back and a somewhat wider in circumference.
Vaya,
Scouts Out!
-
"An order issued in 1873 (AGO G.O. 73 dtd July 10, 1873) flatly refused to issue boots to foot troops - leaving issue boots to Cavalry."
Actually, AGO G.O. 104 dtd Oct. 14, 1873 repealed order 73 and species the issue of four pair of bootees or two pair of bootees and one pair of boots to all soldiers, regardless of branch of service.
AGO (Adjutant Generals Officer) G.O. (General Order) 131 dated December 3, 1874 shows the table of Allowance of Clothing and shows 2 bootees and 1 pair of boots per year with no asterisk footnote specifying the 4 pairs of bootees with the option of two bootees and one boots to mounted men that showed up since 1857.
General Orders are alot of fun, they change so much from the regs. and often go back and fourth several times in the same year. I have not found another repeal of boots to foot soldiers after 1875, but I also don't have a complete set of all General Order issued from 1866-1891 (they are hard to find and VERY pricy when you can). I will try to consult other sources as I can (1880's regulations I have) to see what they say about clothing issues.
Chris Fischer
F-Troop
-
The uniform coat once had red stripes but they have faded badly from the sun. It used to belong to Col. Drydock.
F-troop suggested I get 1872 pattern stripes as an improvement.
Fading stripes were a big problem then, too. Great job!
-
You can get sights and parts for the Trapdoor from S&S. Yer a weathered old Sgt., with weathered old stripes! ;D
Most every photo of Artillerymen I've seen, mounted or heavys, I've seen bootees. Makes sense to me, The gunners, even mounted, would not be brushbusting like cavalry, but staying to roadways and open spaces for the guns. The bootees would be more comfortable and cooler, easier to take care of, and take up less space.
Mounted/light gunners would normaly be issued carbines, but many preferred the longer rifles with the more powerful round. A bayonet makes more sense than the 1840 light artillery sabre when defending a gun, as well.
-
You can get sights and parts for the Trapdoor from S&S. Yer a weathered old Sgt., with weathered old stripes! ;D
I'm very weathered!
-
There were three branches of service in the 1800's considered "mounted". The Cavalry Arm (to include before the Civil War, Dragoons, Mounted Rifles, and Cavalry), the Light Field Artillery, and believe it or not, the Signal Corps. These guys all carried revolvers and sabers, all wore the horsehair helmet starting in 1872, all wore the mounted jacket prior to 1872 and all were permitted boots at a rate of one pair boots and two pair bootees (shoes in 1875) annually. I have never seen any official (or period unofficial) reference to to "Cavalry" or "Artillery" boots, just "Boots", "Boots, Mounted", or "Boots...mounted men".
The first time a pull on boot appears in 1851. This is a 12" high boot. This is the only boot made and issued from US Arsenals until 1872. (one well known source calls it a M1859 and another a M1861). Those made prior to the civil war had sewn soles. During the war some were made by contractors with pegged.
There is SOME evidence pf a pull on boot worn by light artillery earlier, but exact patterns are not forthcoming. we know that Ringgold's Battery in 1846 (the only horse artillery battery in the Army) recorded their uniform in detail as including knee high boots. However we see most of the field batteries (incorrectly called light batteries at the time...this is a whole different story of confusion) all being issued the horse artillery uniform. There are several nasty letters about this back and forth. There is also production in the early 1840's of something called a "Dragoon Boot" for a year or two. But few are made and it doesn't seem that any of these were ever issued to Dragoons. It is theorized that these are the light artillery boots and would better be described as "dragoon style boots" being knee high like 1812 era dragoon boots. However, manufacture ceased before the Mexican War. Before I move onto to 1851 I will add that every man in Ringgold's battery rode his own horse like a cavalry man (no one road limber chests) which explain a mounted boot to all cannoneers. The M1840 "Light Artillery Saber" is called the M1840 Horse Artillery Saber in the 1841 and 1850 ordnance manuals. Again this makes since for mounted troopers to have a mounted style sword. Unfortunately there IS a mix up and all fields batteries end up with horse artillery uniforms and equipments. Even during the Mexican War, we see the other batteries caring their sabers strapped to the limbers.
1851 there is a new uniform regulation published. under boots it says " For enlisted men of Riflemen, Dragoons, and Light Artillery-ankle and Jefferson, right and left, according to pattern, and in the proportion as now for the Light Artillery".
That last part "...according to pattern, and in the proportion as now for the Light Artillery" suggests that the Light Artillery were wearing boots prior to 1851 and may account for the "Artillery Boot" designation popular among re-enanctors (and sutlers who like to sell M1872 boots to Civil War Cavalry guys). The question becomes the last part: "...and in the proportion as now for the Light Artillery". Does this mean the same dimensions or the same rate of issue (the 1 pair "ankle" boots 2 pair "Jefferson" Bootees ratio). I think it means rate of issue as the first part says "...according to pattern" separated by a comma. Otherwise the wording would be "...according to pattern as now for the Light Artillery". Also the boots described by Ringgold's men as knee high, the M1851 Ankle boot was only 12" in front, hardly knee high. Also the regulations forbid the trousers to be tucked in.
What this boils down to is that mounted men (regardless of branch) were issued both boots and shoes and a rate of 1:2 and that is consistent with most of the second half of the 18th century. It was understood that the boots were for riding (though as noted by myself and others, most light artillerymen didn't ride a horse). The shoes would have been worn in dress (when you didn't tuck your trousers in, first officially authorized in 1872, but being done long before) and dismounted duties. Walking in boots that weren't custom made for you without some sort of tightening strap is only going to rub and blister. However, some enlisted foot soldiers did acquire boots (as per the above referenced General Orders). This was the days before legging and having walk good parts of the prairies (especially the cactus and mesquite choked scrub of south Texas), I have seen good denim trousers trashed and as a result my ankles and calves suffered. I can see soldiers preferring a few blisters to have leg protection and not have to pick prickly pear spines out of your leg for hours (and it helps with them nasty stinging and biting creatures we have down here). In the 2nd Seminole War we find soldiers wearing their cotton jackets and wool trousers in the torrid heat of the everglades because the saw-grass was shredding the cotton trousers and their legs. So I do see both sides of the argument.
Page 62 of Doug McChristian's "The US Army in the West 1870-1880" has a great image of two infantrymen wearing 1872 pattern boots, tucked in, not in the field. Neat image I must say.
Chris Fischer
F-Troop
-
Fascinating information. Thanks.
I have been making historical footwear since 1990 and the shoemaker in me says, great! more opportunities to make more shoes or boots. I will make a pair of appropriate Pattern 1876 shoes as well.
If the boots may also be acceptable then I must ask if I got the details right. They are based on the line art in Figure 178. (p. 139) of Randy Steffan's The Horse Soldier Volume II. I can scan it if need be. It purported to be "a Model 1872-pattern boot for cavalry and artillery use." I have heard that Steffan has some errors. Is this one of them? My finished boot is very close to the drawing.
-
does anyone have any period images of artillerymen they could share in this thread?
-
Might I suggest:
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/8838261/used/Redlegs%20%28GIS%29
-
I ordered Redlegs and a few more. Thanks.
-
Looking at your kit, I'd suggest a 30 round tent canvas cartridge slide for your belt. Very popular/useful field item, well within your sewing capabilities.
-
The G.I series is great. I could not recommend a better for him Drydock! You may also want the one on "Bluecoats". Sadly, as mentioned on another thread, artillery (do to its limited role) often gets overlook. Even Doug McChristian told me he glazed over it in his books. For one thing in the 1870's you start to see ordnance references to "Knapsack, Light Artillery" that is different from what everyone else carries. We are still tracking that one down. We have a basic idea, but the minute details elude us.
Chris Fischer
F-Troop
-
I have been making historical footwear since 1990 and the shoemaker in me says, great! more opportunities to make more shoes or boots. I will make a pair of appropriate Pattern 1876 shoes as well.
HS
I have a pair of the M-1872 shoe which are just like the M-1876 shoe but with a shorter tongue, and a pair of the M-1876 boots. Both are the best quality repro's I could find. If you come to the Dept. Muster in July, you can look them over then.
-
HS
I have a pair of the M-1872 shoe which are just like the M-1876 shoe but with a shorter tongue, and a pair of the M-1876 boots. Both are the best quality repro's I could find. If you come to the Dept. Muster in July, you can look them over then.
I will be at the muster and I look forward to seeing them in the flesh.
-
Looking at your kit, I'd suggest a 30 round tent canvas cartridge slide for your belt. Very popular/useful field item, well within your sewing capabilities.
Can you point me to a picture of what this might look like. I can certainly make one.
-
I think something like this. This is Sgt. John Comfort. Company A, 4th Cavalry about 1876 picture was taken after he won MHO in 1874 and made Sgt.). This is a classic image used in most books to show the "campaign trooper".
Comfort is a neat guy, he was officially stationed at Fort McKavett, Texas in 1874. He enlisted in a light artillery battery at the end of the Civil War but the Commander was a pain and they kind of mutinied. He was drummed out. Couldn't hack civilian life and enlisted in 4th Cav. He was one of those soldiers that in the field was a regimental favorite and hard fighter, in garrison he was a nightmare and drunk. He is released from service in 1877 or 1878 (have to look it up again) for health issues. Move to California. Again, can;t hack civilian life and enlists again. This time in Battery E, 1st Artillery and is with the Hotchkiss guns at Wounded Knee. He is cited for bravery when he uses his gun to lay suppressive fire that allows a pin downed Hotchkiss crew with many wounded to retire to safety. (Hmmm...pinning down a whole gun crew and wounding some so they can't fire...not bad for unarmed Indians...right?)
He again is discharged for medical reasons in the mid 1890's and dies of his condition shortly after. However a rumor persisted among his old comrades that he was with the Rough Riders and killed in Cuba (not true, but tells you how he was looked upon as a soldier legend).
Chris Fischer
F-Troop
-
What a great story and a wonderful picture.
-
I've got one I can show you at the Dept. Muster.
-
Is it a whole belt ot just a slide?
-
Its just a slide, goes over your existing waistbelt. A rectangle of tent canvas, approx 30" long, 4.5" wide. Sew a one inch strip of the same canvas in loops 3/4" from one edge, then fold over, double folding the long edges and stitch together. Slides over a 2" belt. Post Sutlers and saddlers made these until the Mills belts became common issue.
I'm guessing on the measurements here, but I hope you get the idea.
-
about how many cartridges does it hold?
-
Well, my 30 round tent canvas cartridge slide holds 30 rounds . . . ;)
-
is it possible to see a snapshot of yours?
-
I just want to be sure I understand what you are talking about. Is it something like this?
(http://www.aubruin.com/photos/AA%20Auctions/LLC%20Cowboy%20Bandolier/3.jpg)
-
It's hard to tell from your picture, but that looks like the reproduction of the M-1876 prairie belt.
-
I think I need to just buy a 1876 belt for this kit but the idea of makig a slide for an earlier impression appeals to me.
-
By 1880, a First Sergeant would've been issued a Model 1876 Prairie Belt.
Outside of the CO - he'd be the next in line for new equipment.
Vaya,
Scouts Out!
-
Are there any out there on the market that are partiularly good or particularly bad?
-
I believe that 'Trailrider' and Dave Carrico make nice ones.
Then there are the other sutlers whose sites you've already been directed to for other items of uniform, too.
Good Luck!
Vaya,
Scouts Out!
-
The least expensive one seems to be Coon Creek but it looks like thier buckle is put on differently than the others.
-
Very like that, but made of white tent canvas, and slides on/off, where the 1876 would be attatched by a loop to the buckle end of the belt. I'll try to get my wife to take a picture and see if we can post it later this week.
-
My original belts all have the buckle frame secured to the belt from the outside frame, and not from the center.
Vaya,
Scouts Out!
-
My original belts all have the buckle frame secured to the belt from the outside frame, and not from the center.
And the ones I've seen the buckles have been a rough cast brass buckle.
-
a lleather belt with a pouch for a artiillary sargent, cant see why he would need a mills ammo belt
-
Liten, Are you talking about a McKeever box?
-
I think he's talking about a Dyer Pouch - the pouch commonly used for revolver ammunition.
McKeever Pouches were more prevalent later in the era.
Vaya,
Scouts Out!
-
Well on the topic of better impressions and better advice, I am hoping Hop will grace us with a picture of his one of a kind and more historically correct M1880 Mills Artillery Cartridge ;D
Chris Fischer
F-Troop
-
OK, I made another adjustment. On the advice of FTrooper I died the edges of my Mills Belt artillery red like the infantry blue one here:
(http://www.cowanauctions.com/itemImages/taa0340.jpg)
I grabbed a rifle length trapdoor, threw on my coat, and popped an forage cap on my head, and took a couple of pics. I know the forage cap is the wrong style (It is too tall in the front and has bound edges) but I used is since my campaign hat was two stories up and the forage cap was here in the basement. I think the belt looks spiffy. If I bump the whole impression later to the mid 1880s the rifle works and the Mills belt works (I believe.) What do you think?
(http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011990.JPG)
(http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/cowboy/P1011991.JPG)
-
The dyed edges are pretty cool. I had no idea they were ever made like that. How did you dye the edges red?
-
Oh that IS sexy!
Chris Fischer
F-Troop
-
The dyed edges are pretty cool. I had no idea they were ever made like that. How did you dye the edges red?
I used slightly thinned red acrylic paint. After the first few brush strokes I realized a little thinning would help the paint penetrate and "Dye" the fabric rather than sit on top.
-
This is the belt Doug McChristian calls the "Type 3" Model 1880 Mills belt. Made from Dec. 1880 to Nov. 1886. It is estimated that 16,000 of these now very rare belts had been made.
Below is an example of a M1881/85 cavalry belt.
Chris Fischer
F-Troop
-
BTW...anyone who missed the opportunity to pick up Douglas McChristain's regularly $95 two volume work "Uniforms, Arms, and Equipment: The U.S. Army on the Western Frontier 1880-1892" for $28.95 from the OU Press sale as the end of Dec. (mentioned in another thread) really missed the deal of the year!
Chris Fischer
F-Troop
-
Many may have missed it, I not being one.
-
I'm glad to say I did not miss it either.
-
Fantastic job dying the belt-you look great!
-
Thanks for the positive words
-
Capital letters and punctuation please. A little expansive knowledge would not hurt, either.
-
A bit of a disclaimer: I don't make the canvas Mills belts. (I haven't located a good supply of the proper weight of canvas, and frankly haven't tried too hard as I've never had a request for one.) Wouldn't be much of a problem, as I have the industrial sewing machine that can do the job. I do make the M1874 Dyer Pouch. [Point of historical background to the Dyer Pouch: They were issued, but were pretty thoroughly disliked, probably because they concentrated the weight of twenty-odd .45-70 rounds. At one point during the Big Horn & Yellowstone Expedition, troops under BG George Crook were inspected in the field by Capt. Michaelis and a lieutenant whose name I forget. Most of the troops had discarded the Dyer pouches in favor of saddler-made prairie belts (leather loops on a leather waist belt). Michaelis finally found one sergeant who was wearing the pouch. Impressed by the "well-turned-out" NCO, he asked the man to open his pouch to reveal the cartridges inside. Unfortunately, when the sergeant complied, the pouch was found to contain...a sandwich! ::) ] No record of Michaelis' recommendations vis-a-vis the Dyer Pouch, but the advent of the canvas Mills belts pretty much put the quietus on the pouches.
I do like the way that red-dyed belt looks; also the blue-dyed one.
-
Capital letters and punctuation please. A little expansive knowledge would not hurt, either.
::) Hmmm Disapearing ink again. Makes you wonder if he has regrets the morning after the night before.
-
The regret probably hits him about the same time the munchies do.
-
At one point during the Big Horn & Yellowstone Expedition, troops under BG George Crook were inspected in the field by Capt. Michaelis and a lieutenant whose name I forget. Most of the troops had discarded the Dyer pouches in favor of saddler-made prairie belts (leather loops on a leather waist belt). Michaelis finally found one sergeant who was wearing the pouch. Impressed by the "well-turned-out" NCO, he asked the man to open his pouch to reveal the cartridges inside. Unfortunately, when the sergeant complied, the pouch was found to contain...a sandwich!
I love that story! I just goes to show you how things were adapted from their original purpose.
-
One suggestion from you all was was to update to the 1872 pattern sergeant stripes. I ordered some from Quartermaster and they arrived yesterday. They are really nicely made!
Now I just need to sew them on.
-
The regret probably hits him about the same time the munchies do.
I think our friend may prefer something with more of an "edge".
Hop, you do awesome work!
-
One question I have now that I see the stripes. The very ends of the stripes are simply cut. Since they are wool they should not fray when I sew them down. My question is, should they be turned under or just sewn down?
-
One question I have now that I see the stripes. The very ends of the stripes are simply cut. Since they are wool they should not fray when I sew them down. My question is, should they be turned under or just sewn down?
Most of the ones I've seen were turned under. That doesn't mean that some were just sewn on with the raw edge visable.
Remember, you are depicting an NCO. They usually had pride in their appearence and would want their uniforms to reflect that pride.
-
I just won an original artillery first sergeant stripe of the 1872 pattern at auction today. I will compare it to the ones I got from Quartermaster Shop fo our edification. I will also look at how the end is treated.
-
OFFICIALLY, the edges were supposed to be let into the seams of the sleeve. However actual items rarely if ever show this done (mainly because the sleeve are lined and you almost shave to take the whole thing apart) so mostly they are just turned under to finish them off. Also some variants of jacket/coat didn't have two piece sleeves. Another wonderful example of right hand and left hand government agencies not really knowing what's going on.
Chris Fischer
F-Troop
-
That is fascinating Chris! Thanks
-
All:
I have been going nuts looking for the link that either Hopalong or F Trooper posted that had the deminsions of the wooden ammo boxes. I thought it was in this thread, but cannot find it.
This thread has really been interesting. Thanks for all yall's input.
T-Joe
-
I have those dimensions at home. I'll post them tonight.
I have made three ammo crates from dimensional lumber. They are not that hard to make. The hard part was cutting the stencils for the lettering.
-
Also, if you're too lazy and have not construction skills like me, you can always just go with:
http://charliesboatworks.com/PostCivilWarIndianWars.htm
He supplies to alot of museums because he even has the wax stamp down.
Chris Fischer
F-Troop
-
It was the Charlies Boatworks link that had the deminisions for the boxes. Thanks, I could not find the thread yall had been posting. Hopalong do you have a copy of the stencils? I am lazy and do not want to do the lay out work. I think I could cut the stencils if I had a copy of how the box is marked.
thanks,
Joe
-
Interior dimensions
14 1/2" long
12" Wide
6 9/15" deep
Exterior Dimensions
15" long
15" Wide
9" deep
Olive
-
Question concerning the dyed edge Mills belt-how long did they continue doing that?Would it be correct for early 1890's Infantry? And would it be white, or blue? (on 50 round tan belt)
-
Pony, it was only done to the second half of the first contract. They had stopped in by about 1883 (would have to get exact date), it was stopped before the change over from sky blue to white. The process was actually done using colored thread during the looming process (not afterwards like Doug and I did) and seems Mills had a hard time getting it to weave right, also the Amry found itself having to issue "infantry" belt to cavalry or "cavalry" belts to artillery based on what they had on hand and who was in need. So it was simpler to just stop it all together and just order plain khaki ones.
Chris Fischer
F-Troop
-
I guess they were probably all gone by my time period, then. Seems like they didn't learn, though, since they had the same problem when they made the 1898 khaki uniform, with branch specific colors.
-
I guess they were probably all gone by my time period, then. Seems like they didn't learn, though, since they had the same problem when they made the 1898 khaki uniform, with branch specific colors.
As George Santayana said in his Reason in Common Sense, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-
I have those dimensions at home. I'll post them tonight.
I have made three ammo crates from dimensional lumber. They are not that hard to make. The hard part was cutting the stencils for the lettering.
What size are the letters?
I have been working for 2 weeks to get my shop where I can get 1. back to casting bullets, 2. Get some wood projects started, 3. Make some buttermilk paint an paint an old 70's issue Army field table. I am down to a couple of hours away from being able to start something new.
T-Joe
-
I will send you a PDF of the lettering and you can print the stencil on heavy stock and cut it.
-
Joe,
I sent the PDF. I also included the lumber requirements for the crate as I have made it.
-
Thank you very much. ;D
-
This is a repo of the example 50cal crate I found....I figured they would use much the same crate on the 45cal. ammo on the change over from the Allen Conversions to the actual !873 Springfield Trapdoors......
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/Sgt_John_Chapman/More%20Crates/PA020008.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Sgt_John_Chapman/media/More%20Crates/PA020008.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/Sgt_John_Chapman/More%20Crates/PA020007.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Sgt_John_Chapman/media/More%20Crates/PA020007.jpg.html)
-
Looks good, Sgt Chapman! Where you been? We missed seeing your handiwork around here.
-
I've moved to KY,.....Changed jobs twice and have limited space,......but I'm trying to get things moving again,.... ;D
-
John you need come back and visit good ol' Nebraska sometime...say the last weekend in June? ;)
-
Wish I could Pitspitr....