Editor’s Note: This article and the related article, “Don’t Call it a Rodman, were first published in Summer 1982 issue of The Artilleryman, Vol. 3, No. 3.
The 3-Inch Ordnance Rifle, Model 1861, was the most-used light artillery piece of the Civil War. More guns of this pattern were made than any other.
Ordnance Department records show that nearly 1,000 were purchased, but published reports based on records of Phoenix Iron Company which manufactured them indicate the total was closer to 1,400.
Since it first appeared on the field, confusion has surrounded its proper name. Due to a somewhat superficial similarity to the cast iron guns designed by Capt. Thomas J. Rodman, the name "Rodman" has often been attached to this gun (see previous story). But it is not a Rodman gun.
The 3-Inch Ordnance Rifle was made of wrought iron under a patented process invented by John Griffen, superintendent of the Phoenix Iron Company, Phoenixville, Pa. Its official government name — on the drawings, on the contracts and in the inspection and payment registers — is 3-Inch Wrought Iron Rifle. That is a good point to remember as it is the absolutely correct name. The modern, generally accepted term 3-Inch Ordnance Rifle is more common.
This name "Ordnance Rifle," which is not found in any records of the early 1860s, comes from the fact that the Army Ordnance Board drew the final design and set the specifications in July 1861, for both the 3-Inch Wrought Iron Rifle and a 4.5-Inch Siege Rifle. Though the latter is of similar design and shares the common name "Ordnance Rifle" today, it is a cast-iron gun of completely different manufacture.
Now that we have the name straight, let's look at the early development of the 3-Inch Wrought Iron Rifle, which we may sometimes refer to as the Ordnance Rifle out of the habit of common usage.
John Griffen was born in Westchester County, N.Y., in 1812. By 1854 he was superintendent of the Safe Harbor Iron Works, Lancaster County, Pa., which was owned by the Phoenix Iron Company whose main plant was in Phoenixville, but which had general offices in Philadelphia. Samuel J. Reeves, listed on the stationery as vice president and treasurer, is generally known to have run the company and was later its president.
In his role as plant superintendent, Griffen had occasion to produce wrought iron rod for use in lighthouses. Once, when making a delivery, he was asked why his wrought iron was superior in strength to others. He explained that his plant used a rolling process, squeezing the heated iron under great pressure, rather than striking it with a hammer as in the more common process.
A discussion developed as to why a cannon could not be made according to this process and, so, the story goes, Griffen reflected on the question awhile and later presented his boss, Reeves, a plan for just such a gun.
Griffen's idea was not to roll a gun out of a solid piece of iron which would have been beyond the technology of the day, but to use a bundle of 4.5-foot-long iron rods as a mandrel, around which heated iron strips were wrapped as the mandrel turned on a lathe.
Three to five alternating layers of strips were built up, then a plug was driven in to close the breech and form the cascabel, and a thin layer of iron strips covered the whole thing.
This resulting bundle of iron was then heated to welding temperature, upset endwise two inches in a press and then drawn out between rollers so that what started as a 4.5-foot-long bundle was squeezed out to a 7-foot-long homogeneous cylinder.
While still in the reverberatory furnace the trunnions were welded on. Later the bore was drilled out, removing the original mandrel of rod, and the rifling grooves cut. The whole thing was turned on a lathe to the final dimensions.
Griffen patented his process. His first gun, made in 1855, was a 3 pdr. According to a letter from Griffen to Reeves dated Aug. 28, 1855, at Safe Harbor Iron Works, the test was conducted for some Russian visitors and, "The result of the trial of the guns here was entirely satisfactory. . . . "
Griffen's letter goes on to say that it withstood a charge six times greater than required of government proof. He recommended that no time be lost in applying for foreign patents. He also noted that he "gave a 3 lb. gun to the Russians."
Apparently the foreign market was where the action was due to the impending Crimean War, as indicated by correspondence between Griffen and Reeves dated Dec. 5, 1856. Griffen noted that he "yesterday sent, per Reading Railroad cars, another cannon to go to Europe….” And saying, "The next gun we finish will I think be the English size, these being the French and Belgian size."
During the summer of 1856 the federal government got around to testing the gun Griffen had sent to Fort Monroe, Va., the year before.
Capt. Alexander B. Dyer of the U.S. Army Ordnance Department proofed Griffen's gun at Old Point Comfort, Fort Monroe, Va. The model was what Griffen called his 6 pdr. – it looked like a Model 1841 bronze 6 pdr., but it weighed only 620 lbs., considerably less than the 884 lbs. of the bronze gun.
It was a smoothbore of the same diameter, 3.67 inches, and it was stronger than anyone expected, even Griffen. It was fired over 500 times with a proof charge of two pounds of powder and one ball and the bore wasn't even worn. After 500 rounds, a bronze gun was considered "shot out" as the bore would enlarge so much.
Under Griffen and Dyer's direction, the charge was gradually increased to see at what point the gun would burst. Three times it fired six pounds of powder with six balls and it didn't burst or crack. Next they went to seven pounds of powder and 13 balls — all that could be stuffed down the muzzle — and the gun finally blew up.
Capt. Dyer sent a glowing report to Washington and the following year (according to a 1910 history of the iron works) four more guns were purchased for testing. But there was no pressing need for new guns in 1857, particularly wrought iron ones, when the current enthusiasm was for bronze and the new Napoleon 12 pdr. gun-howitzer, then considered the all-purpose gun of the future.
One of Griffen's original iron 6 pdr. smoothbores exists today in Reeves Park, Phoenixville, Pa., where it was placed after restoration by the Phoenix Steel Corp. during the Civil War Centennial. The company is still in business, but many of the records compiled as part of the Centennial project by Robert D. Shaffner of the company, were lost in the 1972 floods which ravaged this part of Pennsylvania following Hurricane Agnes.
On June 22, 1859, another gun was ordered from John Griffen at Phoenix Iron Company (RG 156, E 152, vol. 3, p. 170). This gun may have been one of the first which departed from the 1855 pattern modeled after the M1841 6 pdr. and may even be the one described in Capt. A.B. Dyer's drawing of the gun tested at Fort Monroe in March 1861 which we publish here for the first time.
The ledger in which this purchase is recorded is set up on a debit-credit basis and this page (no. 170) is actually the page showing the payment on May 24, 1861, of $350 for the gun ordered June 22, 1859. We have not found correspondence relating to this order, but probably it is buried somewhere in the files.
In addition, the same ledger, vol. 4, p. 21, shows a payment on May 13, 1861, for another wrought iron gun at $350, but no order date is shown. Both these purchases were charged to the same appropriation account.
The ledger also shows the order of four additional guns at $350 each on Feb. 21, 1861, but no payments. These four guns were referred to by Dr. James C. Hazlett in a 1968 Civil War Times Illustrated article. He quotes a letter from Col. H.K. Craig of the Ordnance Department ordering the guns as saying, "They are to be bored to exactly 3.5 inches and will be rifled by the department."
Hazlett also says, "No blueprint or drawing exists, but there survive seven cannon, two of which I have examined carefully. They were made in 1861 by the Phoenix Iron Company. They have bore diameters of the standard 6 pdr. smoothbore [3.67 inches] and neither is rifled. Probably both were rebored from the original 3.5 inches."
We can understand how Dr. Hazlett was unable to find the drawing or accompanying letter from Capt. Dyer reporting the March 1861 tests. We found it only in the course of a fishing expedition through volumes of records which had interesting titles.
One of the guns to which he refers is shown with this article. It is on the lawn of the Gettysburg Gift Center and Wax Museum, Gettysburg, Pa. The museum acquired the gun some years ago when it turned up in a local barn.
This gun is similar, except in minor details, to the one shown in Dyer's drawing. It is probably one of the four ordered in February 1861, as it carries an 1861 date. It weighs 1030 lbs. Dr. Hazlett has seen another one which weighs 1040 lbs. This also is probably from the Feb. 21, 1861, order.
The two guns paid for in May 1861, plus the four ordered in February, are clearly different guns. A July 2, 1861, letter from Samuel Reeves of the Phoenix Iron Company says, "I would also beg again to remind you that the four guns of the previous order are finished and I await your determination as to the place of proving them. "
If the June 1859 gun can be included, this makes six guns of the pattern shown in Dyer's March 1861 drawing accounted for. The seventh mentioned by Dr. Hazlett is not confirmed by orders, payments or correspondence as yet uncovered, but may still be there buried in the Archives.
If the four guns of the Feb. 21 order were still awaiting proof testing in July, none of these could have been the one Capt. Dyer tested in March. It had to be either the June 1859 one or the one paid for on May 13 for which we found no order.
Hazlett said he found records of two of the February guns being paid for, but we could not confirm that. This is not significant, but someday it would be interesting to see all the pieces of the early Griffen gun design process and acquisition fall into place with all guns accounted for.
Based on the information available, and the one existing gun we did see — dated 1861 — at Gettysburg, our guess would be that the Feb. 21 order was altered sometime prior to the guns being manufactured and that they were produced as 3.67-inch smoothbores and not 3.5-inch guns intended for later rifling.
The 3.5-inch designation was probably arbitrary. The immediate stumbling block to going ahead with this design which would be seen by a practical artillerist would be the lack of ammunition. There was no 3.5-inch ammunition available and some would have to be invented before the guns could be tested. In fact, the main task assigned the Ordnance Board meeting in June 1861 was to determine rifled projectiles for Griffen's gun.
The board ended up redesigning the whole gun, but its specific charge was to determine projectiles. (The Secretary of War had, on his own, ordered 300 wrought iron guns from Phoenix, "of six pound caliber," which indicates those previously produced were probably 3.67-inch, the current standard for 6 pdrs.)
Orders and correspondence relating to the change from 3.5-inch to the 3.67-inch "six pound caliber," and other material about the gun Dyer tested in March and the four guns of the February order, is still to be uncovered in the Archives. Correspondence and drawings are apt to turn up in the most unlikely files. This is due to the way the material was originally classified. Sometimes it is impossible to find both parts of the correspondence between two individuals.
In one file, there are letters sent by a certain officer or department, and in another file there are letters received in answer to that same correspondence. If the dates are separated by several weeks, they are difficult to match up. But what makes it most difficult is that sometimes a letter related to a subject for which there was a separate file, so it was filed under subject matter, not alphabetically by name of signer.
In some cases, hand copies were made of correspondence which related to more than one subject, and the copies were inserted in several different files. But this seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
Under the title "Portfolio of drawings of guns and ammunition from 1814 - 1870," a single volume about a half-inch thick, we found the drawing which proves to be the missing link in the 3-Inch Wrought Iron Gun development. While the title of this volume sounds as if it is a complete record of all the drawings of guns over a 46-year period, it is far from it. Actually, most of the guns you've heard about are not in it; it is full of miscellaneous drawings of guns which were never produced along with a few which were.
This volume (RG 156, E-70) has a notation in the front which says "Drawings relate to Entry 777, 'Records Relating to Inventions' Classes 1; 4 and 5. Numbers of the drawings correspond to letters in the file concerning cannon and projectiles.”
One drawing in this book showed a miniature sketch of a gun with trunnions applied in two different ways, one of them on a band around the tube, the other with them welded directly. It was titled “Griffen’s Wrought Iron Gun” and referenced correspondence No. 147.
In RG 156, Special File “Inventions” Class 1A, item number 147, we not only found correspondence from Capt. Alexander B. Dyer dated Fort Monroe Arsenal, March 13, 1861, but attached was the complete drawing of “Griffen’s Wrought iron gun” with all the specifications. It was the missing link at last.
Dyer’s letter, addressed to Col. H.K. Craig, Chief of Ordnance, reads:
Sir:
In compliance with your instructions of the 9th Instant, I have the honor to transmit herewith a drawing of the Griffen wrought iron gun, from which carriages may be constructed. The gun which was sent to this arsenal has been fired 118 times, and is apparently uninjured. From the endurance of the 3 pdr. gun which I rifled, and of the 6 pdr. which was fired to extremity in July, 1856, I am confident this gun will endure 500 rounds which is the proof to which you directed me to subject it. I shall resume the proof of it as soon as my other duties will permit me to do so.
Respectfully,
You Obt. Servt.
A.B. Dyer, Capt. Ordnc.
The drawing shows a 3.67-inch smoothbore with 4-inch trunnions and 6-inch rimbases. A big, non-standard heavyweight.
By this time, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas had already seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy. Fort Sumter was under siege and war was expected at any moment. To be of immediate use, the wrought iron gun would have to be redesigned.
One sentence in particular in Capt. Dyer’s transmittal letter take on great significance. He says that accompanying his letter is the drawing “from which carriages may be constructed.”
The Griffen gun wouldn’t fit the standard 6 pdr. carriage. The distance between the rimbases was 10.58 inches whereas the standard 6 pdr. was 9.5 inches. It was too fat – and it was too heavy; the one remaining example we have examined weighs 1030 lbs.
The 6 pdr. smoothbores in bronze weighed a little over 880 lbs. And the 2.9-inch Parrott Rifles which were being readied for delivery in April weighed just over 900 lbs. The Griffen gun approached the weight of the 12 pdr. Napoleon but what was needed was light artillery, and a rifled gun for the accuracy and range it permitted.
Also, with trunnions of 4-inch diameter, it wouldn’t fit either the 6 pdr. carriage or the 12 pdr. carriage. Either a new carriage would have to be designed, as mentioned in Dyer’s letter, or changes would be needed in the gun’s design.
Between March and June 1861, we have found little correspondence relating to the development of the 3-Inch Wrought Iron Rifle, although undoubtedly, as noted, it is in the files somewhere as the subject turns up on the first day’s agenda of the first Ordnance Board meeting held after December 1860.
On June 13, 1861, Lt. Col. James W. Ripley, who then commanded the Ordnance Department, wrote Secretary of War Simon Cameron that he recommended an Ordnance Board meeting be called "to take into consideration the subject of rifled cannon." He added "Capt. Dyer, Capt. Rodman and Capt. (Bvt. Major) Laidley are the most suitable officers now available for this service," and he asked approval of a meeting of the board "so constituted."
The board met June 21, with Dyer as president and Laidley as recorder, discussing "the subjects of the proposed change in the depth of the Barbette rail, and rifled cannon, wrought and steel guns."
Apparently Samuel Reeves at the Phoenix Iron Company had successfully lobbied the War Department on behalf of Griffen's Wrought Iron Gun, for the next day, June 22, the board received a letter from Ripley enclosing an order to him from Secretary of War Cameron. Ripley's letter said, "The enclosed letter from the War Dept. of this date, is referred to the Ordnance Board for their immediate consideration and views as far as regards the rifled projectiles."
That "enclosed letter" was an order from Cameron which said: "The Col. of Ordnance (Ripley) will take measures to procure three hundred wrought iron field pieces, six pound calibre, from the Phoenix Iron Company, price to be determined by the Ordnance Department, and to be less than that of bronze pieces of the same calibre. A portion — two thirds — of these guns to be rifled.
"The Ordnance Department will also report immediately which of the rifled projectiles heretofore submitted to the Government, including that now experimenting upon at the Washington Navy Yard by Capt. Dahlgren, is best adapted to this calibre, and will advise the War Department upon the best mode of procuring a supply of rifled ammunition to meet the exigencies of the present war. Dispatch is more important than even the selection of the very best model in this case."
Although the directive from Ripley only sought a recommendation from the Ordnance Board as regards projectiles for this gun, it is clear that the ensuing discussion developed the need to redesign it so as to reduce the weight and fit the standard carriage.
On June 25, Ripley wrote to Secretary Cameron: "In compliance with your instructions, I shall order from the Phoenix Iron Company 300 iron field pieces — 200 rifled, 100 smoothbore. Before giving the order it will be necessary to furnish the company with a drawing to work by. That drawing is now in preparation by the Ordnance Board.
“Permit me to suggest and recommend that all these guns be rifled. This is essential to uniformity of ammunition and will secure efficiency for all the guns instead of only two-thirds of them. The bore cannot exceed 3.35 inches without making the projectile too heavy for convenient transportation in the field. This bore will give such projectiles about 10 pounds weight."
Minutes of the Ordnance Board meeting acknowledge, "The Board discussed the subject above referred to them" and for the next several days they continued discussions of the need to redesign the Phoenix Wrought Iron Rifle.
The complete minutes for these meetings are short but to the point. Important phrases are: June 24, "Continued the discussions of rifled cannon and projectiles." June 25, "Discussed … the model for rifled field guns." June 26, "Continued the discussions of the model for rifled field guns.”
And, on June 27 the board adjourned to meet again on July 2, but there was no notation of discussion of rifled guns. On July 2, however, the only thing mentioned was "Proceeded with the model of field rifle guns."
Apparently the meetings July 2 through July 6, 1861, Tuesday through Saturday, were totally consumed with re-design of Griffen's Wrought Iron Rifle. The notations are: July 3, "Made calculations for determining the model of the field gun." July 4, (the holiday) "Continued the calculations connected with the model of the field gun." July 5, "Concluded the model of the field gun." And July 6, "Finished the drawing and tracing of the field gun."
The meetings of July 8 through July 11 were taken up with discussions of projectiles for the new gun and from July 16 through July 19, the board worked on plans for the 4.5-Inch rifled siege gun.
The board adjourned on July 20 with a letter to Brig. Gen. Ripley enclosing the "Proceedings of the Ordnance Board convened by your orders … together with drawings of the 3-inch field gun, the 4.5-inch siege gun, 10 and 13 inch seacoast mortars, the 8 and 10 inch siege mortar and drawings of the projectiles for field and siege rifle guns."
Included in the "proceedings" was a summary of the board's feelings about rifled guns and the situation presented it by having to redesign the Phoenix Wrought Iron Rifle.
From this two-page statement entitled "Rifle Cannon" it is possible to gain some insight to what went on during the intense design sessions which resulted in plans for the 3-Inch Wrought Iron Rifle and the 4.5-inch Siege Rifle which was later produced at the Fort Pitt Foundry out of cast iron.
The board apparently wasn’t entirely convinced that wrought iron was the way to go. Clearly Capt. Dyer was enthusiastic about the pieces he had tested for Phoenix, but Capt. Rodman — the expert in cast iron — probably exerted pressure in favor of that metal. Capt. Laidley's feelings aren't down on paper, so it is hard to judge how he leaned. However, he was the one sent to inspect the first production run of the wrought iron guns.
There also must have been considerable discussion and disagreement over the groove and twist, as indicated by the "Rifle Cannon" statement. The board took time off on June 24 to witness a demonstration firing from a 10 pdr. Parrott gun with three-groove, gain twist rifling, but the ultimate design they chose for the Wrought Iron Rifle was seven-groove, constant twist.
The statement on "Rifle Cannon" says: "The subject of rifled cannon has engaged the earnest attention of the Board. It is of very high importance and there can be no doubt that rifled cannon must very soon replace field and siege guns … the board cannot too strongly urge the necessity … of having a board of officers established whose duty it shall be to try and report upon all guns and projectiles which may be presented. … It is further recommended that such board shall have the authority to determine by experiment what is the most suitable projectile, what metal is best adapted for rifle field guns, and also to determine the form of groove, twist, etc. which are best suited to the object in vie… ."
While the opening statement speaks of field and siege guns (and also guns of permanent fortifications) this section regarding a determination of the best metal refers only to field guns. Obviously there was not unanimity on the selection of wrought iron over cast iron or bronze for the new field piece.
This feeling is reinforced later on where it continues, "The want of field guns is now felt and to meet urgent and immediate demands, the Board recommends the introduction of wrought iron guns, but only in such number as to supply the present wants of the Army… .”
The statement says: "The practice of having guns and projectiles prepared at the cost of the Government, according to the fancy of the inventors and without a knowledge on their part of what has previously been done, and having those inventions tried and pronounced upon by different Boards of Officers, is regarded as highly injurious to the interest of the service, and as calculated to retard, if not to prevent, the attainment of the object to be desired.
"The injurious consequences of the course now deprecated by the Board has, in several instances, been brought to the notice of each of its members and they have witnessed the expenditure of large sums, without adequate results, in experiments with rifled cannon, from the want of a system and regularity which is now recommended."
This statement really sheds light on the development of a lot of Civil War ordnance.
At least four manufacturers produced guns almost identical to the drawing prepared by this session of the Ordnance Board. And each one was out of a different metal and of a different process.
These were the 14 pdr. bronze rifle invented by Gen. Charles T. James with 3.8-inch bore, the 3-Inch Singer-Nimick & Co. cast steel rifles, and the 3-inch cast iron Henry N. Hooper rifle.
It is probably not coincidence that all these guns followed the Ordnance Board's drawing of July 1861 almost to the letter. It would be reasonable to assume all the manufacturers were taking heed of the board's pronouncement that it didn't want to consider any more cannon developed "according to the fancy of the inventors."
We do not have the exact number of 14 pdr. James Rifles produced, but it was about 50. There were only six Singer-Nimicks made. Only one Henry N. Hooper rifle survives today although more may have been constructed. Each gun varies an inch here, a half-inch there from the 3-Inch Wrought Iron Rifle of the Phoenix Iron Company of which 965 were produced for the war.
A few James Rifles were known to be made in cast steel and unless measurements are taken, they would look almost exactly like the Phoenix gun. In fact, the bronze James gun is sometimes referred to as a "bronze Ordnance Rifle" by the casual student of artillery. But it has a larger bore and 10 lands and grooves.
To be exact, the Singer-Nimick and Hooper guns are their own thing and not just Ordnance Rifles made by somebody other than Phoenix. They do have different dimensions and are not 3-inch Wrought Iron Rifles, the official U.S. Ordnance Department name for the Phoenix gun.
It is also interesting to note that other than about 50 Wiard guns, no “new" field artillery designs were produced after July 1861 which did not follow the Ordnance Board's drawing.
The 12 pdr. Napoleon, M1857, the M1861 Parrott (and his updated M1863 version) and the 3-Inch Wrought Iron Rifle constituted the Union light artillery of the Civil War. These guns were supplemented by a number of bronze M1841 6 pdrs., some of which were rifled along a system invented by General James, but most of which were used in training after the first year of war.
Once the drawing was finished for the 3-Inch Wrought Iron Rifle, it wasn't as simple as Samuel Reeves of the Phoenix Iron Company at first thought it would be to produce the new design.
He received the drawing on the 20th or 21st of July and a revised order for 300 guns — all rifled — was sent by General Ripley on July 24. Reeves replied on July 29 that the price quoted, 30 cents per pound, was out of the question due to the extra work required to make a gun to the Ordnance Board's specifications.
The February order was for four guns at $350 each. The per-pound rate for the new design came to only $246 per gun, for one more difficult to produce. Reeves asked for a personal interview with Ripley to get this straightened out, declining to accept the order and saying he would "be in Washington on Wednesday next when I shall have the honor to call on you in regard to this subject."
Reeves' letter is enlightening as it points up the major changes between the Ordnance Board design and the Griffen design. Both guns were of wrought iron after the process patented in 1855 by Griffen, but the subtle changes in lines and dimensions specified by the Ordnance Board not only produced a much lighter gun, but one more difficult to make.
Reeves' July 29 letter points out that the price was fixed between himself and Secretary of War Cameron after consultation with General Meigs "who had seen the guns at our works and knew the process on which they were made; that therefore his opinion in regard to the price demanded by me for the guns would be very desirable."
He notes that as of this date he had spent some $12,000 on lathes, wrapping machines, upsetting tools and iron, expecting the price of $350 to be acceptable.
"Owing to an alteration in the calibre of the guns, reducing them from 3.35-inch to 3-inch, several alterations in mandrels etc. have had to be made and are now ready for the new model." (Reeves later, in 1862, himself patented the new mandrel process which led to a split with Griffen who left the company for a couple of years over this patent disagreement.
Reeves' letter went on to acknowledge that the weight had been reduced from 1,000 lbs. to under 900 lbs. (The guns actually had a standard weight of 820 lbs.) and less metal was required, but: "It might be presumed also that the cost of boring and turning would be proportionately less. But if you will compare the shape of the old pattern with that now adopted, you will find that such is not the fact.
"On the latter there is scarcely a straight line on the exterior of the finished piece. The rimbase is the frustum of a figure projected on a cone at sight angles with its vertical axis; and this figure begins next to the trunnions with a circle ranging as you advance towards its base, by constantly increasing ovals."
This one statement is probably an indication that Capt. Thomas Rodman had a hand in designing the trunnions. From a non-engineer"s viewpoint, trunnions and rimbases on Rodman guns are of similar design. But Rodman’s guns were cast and once the pattern was made such an intricate design was no problem to repeat. Every pair of trunnions had to be individually welded onto the Phoenix wrought iron gun, and this created a big problem.
"It is a most difficult shape to execute and unless we can devise a machine to do it [it] necessitates chipping and filing, and that very skillfully performed at great expense. … I desire to be reasonable and only fair in my dealings with the Government and would gladly agree to your proposed price if I felt sure I could afford it," Reeves concluded.
Looking at the situation in perspective, there probably was no need for such an intricate trunnion and rimbase arrangement, but if Capt. Rodman was pushing cast iron over wrought iron, making the manufacturing process more difficult would just help push the Department toward cast guns of his process and away from wrought iron.
Rodman's name is conspicuously absent in all of the correspondence and minutes relating to the wrought iron gun, although the notes do quote his comments regarding other topics of the meetings. (See previous story on the Rodman connection.)
When Reeves arrived in Washington that Wednesday, the meeting he had hoped for with Gen. Ripley was arranged with Maj. T.T.S. Laidley, secretary of the Ordnance Board. Laidley calculated the gun would not exceed 830 lbs. and Reeves agreed to accept the contract at $330 per gun, a $20 reduction from the original price estimate. He and General Ripley exchanged letters accepting and acknowledging the contract at that price that same day, July 31, 1861.
Other correspondence for 1861 regarding the 3-Inch Wrought Iron Rifle indicates that Secretary of War Cameron, who in June had directed the guns be ordered, was impatient with the progress. He personally wrote Ripley asking explanation for the delay in delivery and had Assistant Secretary Thomas Scott follow up with Reeves, in September and November.
Some of this correspondence is instructive, as Reeves, in his replies, and in another letter to Secretary Stanton in February 1862, makes reference to versions of the Ordnance Rifle about which we know nothing today.
On Sept. 2, 1861, Reeves telegraphed Scott: "'Have 80 guns partly made. None finished. There are 15 on the lathes which should be finished before the close of next week. Will finish some smooth bore. After the twentieth instant, expect to have five per day ready for delivery. Have four guns which could be finished if wanted, to four inch calibre" (italics ours).
Were there some smoothbore wrought iron guns made in the Ordnance Rifle pattern? That’s hard to answer. The records show guns are assigned a "gun number" which is consecutive and only put on when the gun is finished and offered for government inspection.
But there is also a "foundry number" which is more like a serial number. There are several gaps in foundry numbers, occurring when a gun is rejected during the manufacturing process, or when something else happens to it other than being presented to the government inspector in fulfillment of a contract. Something else — like perhaps being finished smoothbore because of a problem with the rifling process.
We recall reading someplace during all this research that Ordnance Rifle foundry numbers rarely are still visible today, but might be found near the right rimbase. It would indeed be interesting if someone came up with a smoothbore Ordnance Rifle with a foundry number which isn't recorded on the list of contract guns with sequential gun numbers.
The same would apply to any such gun in "four inch calibre." There are no records in the Register of Inspection of Cannon (RG 156 Entry 79) or the Statements of Accounts for Contracts (156, Entry 152) showing 4-Inch Wrought Iron Rifles, but there are a lot of foundry numbers missing which might represent guns produced out of the contract specifications and without consecutive gun numbers — the serial number which appears with the inspector's initials on the muzzle face.
On the same day as his telegram, Reeves followed up with a letter to Asst. Sec. Scott in which he sought a $30,000 advance payment to help him buy more lathes to speed delivery. But he also mentioned the 4-inch gun again, "You speak in your telegram of 12 pdr. size, but none of this size has been ordered. We can make them of 4-inch calibre, capable of firing 12 lb. spherical shot, or 30 lb. rifled shot. The guns of course will be larger in proportion, than those now being made."
Probably none were ordered in 4-inch, but this doesn't explain Reeves' telegram in which he stated he would finish some smoothbore and what he meant by saying he had only four which could be finished to four-inch calibre if wanted. Were these rejects? Or were they finished smooth and sold to state militia outfits? We have heard of Ordnance Rifles turning up "which somebody bored smooth." Was that somebody Phoenix? Are these originals?
One thing is certain, Reeves sought orders from individual states, although we did not find records of his selling guns to them. In at least two files in the Archives there is a copy of a fancy 4-page brochure promoting "Wrought Iron Rifled Cannon" of the Phoenix Iron Company. It shows a drawing of the Ordnance Rifle and quotes extensively from test reports by Lt. F.G. Baylor at Fort Monroe Arsenal.
The brochure's concluding statement reads: "The Phoenix works are at this time turning out about five 3-Inch Rifle Guns daily. Parties desirous of procuring these guns can be supplied by making application to SAM'L J. REEVES, v.Prest. of the Phoenix Iron Co., 410 Walnut Street, Philadelphia."
We'd be interested in knowing if anyone has information about direct sales to states as promoted by this brochure. While company records indicate between 1300 and 1400 wrought iron rifles were produced, the Register of Inspection of Cannon, which appears complete, shows only 965. The balance may have gone to states, but if so, with what markings, what numbers and what inspector's initials?
It is also interesting that this promotional brochure has a major portion devoted to "Report of Experimental Firing Made at Fort Monroe Arsenal, Va. With two of Griffen's Wrought Iron 6 pdr. Rifled Guns." Gun No. I is listed as "Weight 1076 lbs.” and Gun No. 2 at 1100 lbs. One would immediately conclude that these must be the old pattern guns, perhaps two of the four ordered in February 1861, even though the drawing on the brochure is of the Ordnance Board design.
Not so.
A letter from Reeves to Secretary of War E.M. Stanton, dated Feb. 13, 1862, clears this up. In it he says, "Enclosed I beg to hand you a printed copy of the report of Lieut. Baylor, Com'g. Fort Monroe Arsenal, to the Ordnance Bureau, of a trial of two of our guns, 3.5-inch caliber, similarly made, to the 3-inch guns now being manufactured by us" (italics ours).
So there were at least two 3.5-inch Wrought Iron Rifles made by Phoenix according to the Ordnance Board design, but both weighing considerably more than the standard fieldpiece. Perhaps one of these guns will someday turn up — or one in 4-inch or a smoothbore which was originally finished a smoothbore.
There are still some unanswered questions about the early development of the 3-Inch Wrought Iron Rifle, but this article puts a lot more fact in print than has appeared anywhere else in recent years.
Some conclusions expressed herein are suppositions based on available documents, but for the most part we have tried to clearly label these statements as opinion rather than fact. Facts are presented as such and are backed up by documents on file in the National Archives or by material which came from the Phoenix Iron Company files.
We would still like to know which was the first wrought iron rifle produced in Griffen's design which looked more like a Napoleon (and more like the final version) than like a M1841 6 pdr. And many other questions like this await further research. But finding and publishing Dyer's letter and drawing of March 13, 1861, we think is a significant contribution to the present-day knowledge about this gun's development and in itself makes the whole research effort worthwhile.