American Rifle - Alexander Rose [235]
Return to text.
39. See P. G. Thompson, “Historical Importance of the Hall Breechloading Rifle in the Development of the American System of Manufacturing, Mass Production, Interchangeability, and Industrial Education” (unpub. Ph.D. diss. Texas A&M University, 2002), p. 10.
Return to text.
40. Wadsworth to John C. Calhoun, November 16, 1818, in Huntington, Hall’s Breech-loaders, p. 273.
Return to text.
41. “Extract of Report of Board of Officers,” undated but pre– March 1819, in Huntington, Hall’s Breechloaders, pp. 305–6.
Return to text.
42. Hall to Monroe, March 21, 1817, quoted in Smith, Harpers Ferry, p. 193.
Return to text.
43. Smith, Harpers Ferry, pp. 157–58.
Return to text.
44. Huntington, Hall’s Breechloaders, p.16;Wadsworth to Hall, March 18, 1819, ibid., p. 273. On competitive bidding, see Smith, Harpers Ferry, p. 163.
Return to text.
45. It wouldn’t be until 1841, when Joseph Whitworth in Britain proposed universalizing the thread angle at 55 degrees and regulating the number of threads per inch for various diameters that the chaos subsided. Not for long, however, as in 1864 the American William Sellers introduced a new standard of a 60-degree thread with different pitches according to the length, while the Germans used 53 degrees and the Swiss 47.5 degrees.
Return to text.
46. Hall to Bomford, March 1, 1823, quoted in Huntington, Hall’s Breechloaders, p. 32.
Return to text.
47. Hall to Bomford, December 17, 1824, ibid., pp. 275–76.
Return to text.
48. Hall to James Barbour, February 17, 1827, quoted ibid., p. 17. Unfortunately, because of a fire in 1836 that burned Hall’s plans and the destruction of Harpers Ferry during the Civil War, hardly anything is known of what his machines actually looked like or did. See R. B. Gordon, “Simeon North, John Hall, and Mechanized Manufacturing,” Technology and Culture 30, no. 1 (1989), p. 181.
Return to text.
49. “Notes of a Tour of Inspection,” December 1822, quoted in Smith, Harpers Ferry, p. 198.
Return to text.
50. Hall to Bomford, December 17, 1824, in Huntington, Hall’s Breechloaders, pp. 275–76. Thompson, “Historical Importance of the Hall Breechloading Rifle,” pp. 108–9, agrees that 1824 was most probably the breakthrough year.
Return to text.
51. Hall to Bomford, January 16, 1827, in Huntington, Hall’s Breechloaders, p. 276. He was slightly wrong about these figures. Between 1832 and 1839 the average cost would be $16.32, but still, it was close enough to the cost of a standard-issue musket to be more than acceptable, particularly considering the performance boost. See Smith, Harpers Ferry, p. 220.
Return to text.
52. Hall to Bomford, January 16, 1827, in Huntington, Hall’s Breechloaders, p. 276. Between 1819 and 1835 Hall’s final tally would amount to $432,899, or more than $9 million. Smith, Harpers Ferry, p. 221.
Return to text.
53. Huntington, Hall’s Breechloaders, pp. 35–36.
Return to text.
54. Quoted in Smith, Harpers Ferry, p. 207.
Return to text.
55. All results extracted from “Report of the Staff of the Artillery School of Practice, Fortress Monroe, Virginia, on Comparative Firing Tests with Hall’s Rifle, the Common Harpers Ferry Rifle, and the New Pattern Springfield Musket, Conducted July to November, 1826,” dated December 11, 1826, in Huntington, Hall’s Breechloaders, pp. 305–18.
Return to text.
56. Gordon, “Simeon North, John Hall,” p. 183. I am grateful to Professor Gordon for his advice on this section. Thompson, “Historical Importance of Hall Breechloading Rifle,” pp. 26ff., has a detailed section on the “flash gap.”
Return to text.
57. Huntington, Hall’s Breechloaders, p. 38.
Return to text.
58. Smith, Harpers Ferry, p. 209.
Return to text.
59. Huntington, Hall’s Breechloaders, pp. 42–44.
Return to text.
60. Samuel Pepys mentions the compound in an entry dated November 11, 1663, in his famous diary. See H. B. Wheatley, ed., The Diary of Samuel Pepys, M.A., F.R.S. . . . (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1949), p. 1:319. Also F. Kurzer, “The Life and Work of Edward Charles Howard FRS,” Annals