|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 17:31:48 GMT -6
Post by clw on Nov 19, 2007 17:31:48 GMT -6
Thanks Michael. Took a trip to the barn to measure some ported mouthpieces -- not much different than a hunting pelham. I thought they'd be more severe. Pleased to find out they weren't!
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 18:35:00 GMT -6
Post by BrokenSword on Nov 19, 2007 18:35:00 GMT -6
clw-
90 lbs!? Does the horse actually believe that someone’s really up there saying, “Giddy-up Old Paint.”…? At the least, Grand Guardian of Justice, we shall have to arrange for a larger staff.
Yep, the McClellan almost perches on top of the horses back. It looks a little like a saddle with everything but the seat missing and part of that's gone too. Designed for the horse's comfort and to heck with the rider - so they say.
Anyway: The first-model McClellan Saddle was adopted in 1859 (A number of other existing designs were in use at that time: Hope, Jennifer, Jones, Grimsley..) The McCellan underwent a variety of style alterations due to a number of different contractors supplying them to the government. Recommendations continually evolved it right up thru the 1876 Campaign. But, the basic 1859 pattern remained the same, with the alterations of material (rawhide cover and then leather, spec'd in differing thickness at different dates), skirts and stirrup covers came and went, girth and cinch ring designs changed (‘D’ shaped and then round), girth materials, iron metal (blued and not), then brass - that sort of thing. The three basic seat sizes remained constant as far as I can tell - No. 1. 11” No. 2. 11.5” No. 3. 12”
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 20:25:28 GMT -6
Post by harpskiddie on Nov 19, 2007 20:25:28 GMT -6
There is useful information in Boots and Saddles at LBH by Hutchins and in Bugles Banners and Warbonnets by Reedstrom. Everything you'd want to know, unless you are some sort of fanatic, EXCEPT whether or not guys marked up their equipments or if there was a regulation forbidding it. Since they were financially responsible for their gear, and had an annual allowance for clothing beyond which they paid the freight, I'd guess they must have had a system for safekeeping and identification. I know I would have.
I've seen records of charges against a soldier for loss of equipment, usually ordnance stores, but the only reference to marking things I remember is somebody saying that the guys marked their hats on the inside [usually with initials or a number].
Oh, for the life of a soldier!!
Gordie, MC
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 20:54:22 GMT -6
Post by BrokenSword on Nov 19, 2007 20:54:22 GMT -6
I'd imagine that troopers labeled all of their clothing. Just to keep it straight in the laundry process, if nothing else. Sgt. Hoffmeyer's (sp?) body was identifiable only by one sock left on it after LBH. His name was written on the sock.
M
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 20:59:42 GMT -6
Post by BrokenSword on Nov 19, 2007 20:59:42 GMT -6
....and I seem to recall that Lt. Strugis' coat/shirt and/or Harrington's coat was identified because the name was written on the inside.
M
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 21:07:04 GMT -6
Post by harpskiddie on Nov 19, 2007 21:07:04 GMT -6
Correct in every detail. Just checking to see who hasn't been lulled into a stupor yet.
Gordie, MC
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 20, 2007 7:49:15 GMT -6
Post by Scout on Nov 20, 2007 7:49:15 GMT -6
Names were indeed sewed in clothes except for Nathan Short, of course, who was id'd by his hat. The mythical body was never searched for a name tag. It's ridiculous to think they weren't sewed in uniforms. Uniforms look alike...how could you be sure you got your clothes from the post laundress who was kept quite busy. How many troopers were stationed at Ft. Abe...600+? Troopers were permitted to wear non-regulation clothing as well. Checkered shirts, overalls, etc.
A number of Custer's dead were searched for name tags when clothing was still attached.
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 20, 2007 9:02:28 GMT -6
Post by clw on Nov 20, 2007 9:02:28 GMT -6
FWIW, my ggrand daddy's holster (Cpl. 1st Michigan 1861 - 1866) has his initials scratched on the flap. The pistol isn't marked, but it's obvious he worked on the sights and I'd assume that would make it identifiable to him at a quick glance.
|
|
TopKick1833
Junior Member
Sherlock the Beagle Dog
Posts: 80
|
Saddles
Nov 20, 2007 10:24:04 GMT -6
Post by TopKick1833 on Nov 20, 2007 10:24:04 GMT -6
RCH is right on the money referencing Per A. V. Kautz, "The 1865 Customs of the Service for Non-commissioned Officers and Soldiers," regarding assignment and marking of tack.
Saddle size is for the trooper, usually based on his weight. Width of the 59 Mac tree is standard. This was a major problem in the breakdown of horses on campaign. A horse will loose weight on a campaign thus the saddle will fit differently as the campaign goes on. Many horses were deemed unfit for service due to damage from improper fitting saddles.
R/S
TopKick
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 28, 2007 7:19:51 GMT -6
Post by AZ Ranger on Nov 28, 2007 7:19:51 GMT -6
I have three 12" McClellan saddles (1-1859, 2-1904)and 15"- 16" western saddles which is also a length measurement. The difference is the point to point of the measurement. I thought the McClellan would be a good light weight saddle but it does not have enough leather to grab when John, my quarterhorse, gets humpy. I have a night latch on my western saddles.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 30, 2007 10:16:23 GMT -6
Post by markland on Nov 30, 2007 10:16:23 GMT -6
Since I just read this book, I thought I would mention a couple of things which have been discussed. First, the book is the journal of Lt. John Bigelow, Jr., 10th Cavalry. and was originally published as a serial in Outing magazine. This serial contains Frederick Remington's first commercial illustrations by the way. Arthur Woodward has compiled and edited it in book form. The title is, On the Bloody Trail of Geronimo.
P. 117, January 8, 1886 has this from his visit to Ft. Huachuca, Arizona Territory.
"After dinner I strolled over to the captain's new stables. They consist of a frame building roofed over, with an opening running along each side of the ridge-piece for ventilation. The stables in Texas and Arizona are ordinarily mere sheds. In these that I am describing, at the head of each stall is a placard of tin, bearing the following data: the number of the horse, its name, the name of its rider, and the number of its rider. Underneath the placard is a roller of salt, a patent arrangement for the horse to lick. The saddles, covered with a piece of canvas, are suspended on wooded hooks at the rear of the stalls. In each stall is a little canvas contrivance for holding a curry-comb and brush.
"Similar stables are building for the other troops of the post. Between every two sets is a corral, formed by fencing them together at the ends."
The captain he referred to is Lawton, 4th Cav. Huachuca was the headquarters of the 4th Cav. at this time.
Billy
|
|
|
Saddles
Mar 11, 2009 20:28:12 GMT -6
Post by zekesgirl on Mar 11, 2009 20:28:12 GMT -6
I hate to open up old business but, I'm new (at least to this board). I have two 1904 McClellan's. One has initials and numbers on the pommel. Brass tacks were used to make them. The other has lettering stamped on the back of the cantle. "H BROS CO." and underneath that is "F. E. B." I assume this is more of a maker's mark then a mark of possession.
|
|
|
Saddles
Mar 11, 2009 20:45:03 GMT -6
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 11, 2009 20:45:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
Saddles
Mar 11, 2009 22:36:08 GMT -6
Post by bc on Mar 11, 2009 22:36:08 GMT -6
Z girl, let me know if you might want to sell one. I've been thinking about getting one but to ride with and not for show. A cavalry reenactor I know said those old trees won't fit most quarterhorses now but there is a McClelland saddle maker down in southeast Kansas somewhere that can makes them to fit. One old one might fit my mustangs just fine. Jam myself down into a 12" seat and I'll never get bucked off again. I use a night latch on both sides of the pommel to hang on when necessary. They are also handy just to tie a water bottle or something to.
bc
|
|
|
Saddles
Mar 15, 2009 15:36:58 GMT -6
Post by Jas. Watson on Mar 15, 2009 15:36:58 GMT -6
In my collection of junk I have several pieces of IW period harness and other leather gear. Many of the pieces are stamped with a about a half inch high number and letter. A good example; (besides the makers & inspectors marks) is a nice 9 H or 6 H (depending on which is up) and the number 74. I assume the latter is the 'rack number' for the individual who the piece is assigned to and the former is H company of the 9th or 6th cavalry. These assorted numbers etc. show up on old period equipment pretty regularly, so I would say that each soldier was assigned his own--and if it is anything like rack numbers for rifles etc. when I was in the army, the number got reassigned to the new guys when it became available. So in the example above when the soldier who had #74 left for whatever reason, and turned in his gear, the next replacement could get #74. That dead horse might very well have had numbers on some of its equipment, but I don't think the folks there at the time thought that far--or really cared. Besides I thought it was ruled to have been a pre-LBH deserter because of the still full grain sack on the cantle.
JW~
PS--And then I had a nice original headstall with a very nice Shoemaker bit--classic IW, that had various numbers stamped in the leather (including a 7)...but also in the underside of it was stamped "20th Century Fox". Yes, I did get it from the prop stuff years ago. So not all stamps are indeed period.
|
|