Leech & Rigdon

C

CraigC

Established Users
Here is another question concerning the Leech & Rigdon pistol bullets. These are two examples of bullets considered to be produced for Leech & Rigdon. They are very different and would like to hear some opinions on their origins.

The measurements are dia.-.393 L.-.604 W.-132.5 The other is dia.- .383 L - .618 W.- 138.

My question is which may be the real Leech & Rigdon bullet.

CraigC

Will include the scan as soon as possible.
 
Leech and Rigdon musings.

Craig, I want to second your request. You know from my posts around this question of my desire for clarification. My guess is that indeed, both the .38 and .39 bullets were for a .36 CS weapon, probably of the Colt-type, and further, that perhaps the .38 bullet would be a better fit for a .36 revolver than the .39 (as I wondered about in an earlier post, but that both could be used in a .36 pistol)--but of course, that begs the question (which is implied of your question): How was the .38 as seen in M&M (500) designated as “Leech and Rigdon,” to begin with, when there were a number of other CS .36 revolver brands/makers? If we could learn that, and assuming there is a basis for the attribution, then as to which is the “true” bullet for the L&R would probably come down to the .38 M&M 500 being the one with the .39 as a variation . . . but this is my speculation—yes, let’s hear from others.
 
As soon as I can post a scan (right now it doesn't seem to be working) I wanted to show the two different bullets and see if the real L&R is one of them. As mentioned in another post, the actual diameter can vary quite a bit. A .36 cal could use a .40 or even larger diameter bullet.

I wanted to see if the L&R could be identified more by profile and casting than the dia. I don't know if L&R actually produced the bullet or it was supplied by someone else. We'll have to wait on the scan.

CraigC
 
Thanks Chuck for fixing the pic problem. Here is the scan of the two. Which, if either, is the L&R bullet?

CraigC
 
You folks are like a dog with a bone!

This bullet was made at St. Louis Arsenal. There is correspondence from the arsenal describing it perfectly and they have been found at the arsenal grounds during excavations;...these last two items are sometimes referred to as documentation!

Show me any proof that these bullets are otherwise.

Regarding the diameter, .36-inch is the diameter of the barrel. A revolver is technically a breechloader so the bullet needs to be larger than the barrel to take the rifling. Try measuring the diameter of the cartridge chamber in the cylinder. For their .44 cal. ammunition, St. Louis actually marked their packs ".46-100". So they were measuring the bullet, not the weapon.

Add to this the fact that they were cast, and that should account for all the varities in shape and size.

The .36 L&R pistol COULD HAVE fired these bullets, as could any other .36 weapon...but only if they were captured.

PS. the bullet on the right looks carved!
 
. . . but there’s still marrow in this bone! :wink:

I am somewhat puzzled. The two bullets that Craig has wonderfully displayed are both of the M&M 500 variety—and these are different in style/form than M&M 99. I accept the reasoning behind M&M’s attribution (in their supplement) of M&M 99s as from the St. Louis Arsenal. Jim, are you saying that the St. Louis Arsenal also produced these M&M 500s? My .36 bullet looks almost exactly like the one pictured as M&M 500, and measures .383 to .385—again, just as in M&M--and it is definitely not the same as an M&M 99. Bill E., if you’re reading this post, what was your “Leech and Rigdon” assignment to M&M 500 based on (as mentioned in your NSTCW, Vol. 28, No. 2/2001 article)?
 
Rather interesting debate. Since I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm enjoying what is being said. I've found only one MM99 in a CS camp, but found a fair number in US camps. Found no MM500's so cannot comment about them. Just going to relax in my seat on the sideline and see how this discussion plays out!
Best regards,
Gary
 
M&M 500

Here is an M&M 500. It measures .385 diameter, .590 length. Notice the form is different than an M&M 99’s ("teardrop" not as pronounced, and see especially the solid rebated base--as opposed to the M&M 99 that also has a solid base, but one which is not rebated). Craig, Jim, et al., I sure would like to know how/when/where the “Leech and Rigdon” label was first applied to M&M 500 (the first I know of was in Bill Ewing's NSTCW, Vol. 28, No. 2/2001 article).
 
Thank you, Jim.

I will be including this bulle tin out "fakes" section in the often misidentified and over priced.
 
:-? Which bullet in this thread are you writing about?--the one I just posted?--if so, tell me more--I want to learn.
 
Had an unexpected day off today so looked through my old 'bullet books' to see if I could find where the identification of Leech and Rigdon was applied to these bullets. No joy. The first CIVIL WAR PROJECTILES, by M and M, (1966) shows the smaller tail ring version (Plate O, #9) much like MM500 but no usage is listed. CIVIL WAR PROJECTILES, by M and M, (1971--the green cover book) shows what we call MM99 as specimen #53 on page 33 as a CS mold revolver. A similar specimen with thinner tail ring is shown as #61 (also CS mold revolver). Stan Phillips' BULLETS USED IN THE CIVIL WAR 1861-1865 (1971) lists our MM99 as #41 on page 35 as Unknown. In ROUND BALL TO RIM FIRE VOLUMN III, by T and T, specimen 714 on page 6 is identified as coming from the St Louis Arsenal and is the closest example of MM99 presented in the book (not exactly the same as we dig in my part of the country but close enough). Finally, in the suppliment of the last McKee/Mason bullet book (1980 and reprints) MM99 is listed as the specimen being for the .36 Remington (and thus for any other .36 weapon). Seems as though I recall this bullet being called a Leech and Rigdon in some of the old dealers' bullet lists, but am not going to look for them...too much work for one day; and if the dealers are still alive and/or in business they might well not recall why they were termed as such.

I'm with Dr. Beach. Varients of MM99: Fakes or miscast? Great topic! More info please. Did not intend to run on so long. Hope I've no bored everyone.
Rising in my seat,
Gary
 
Thanks Gary for your thoughts--no, not boring to me--yes, "more info. please."

I should have mentioned that the M&M 500, whose views I posted above, was obtained a while back from a well-known dealer who reports it was dug near Richmond, VA.
 
My position on these is that they are the same. Or for you technocrats out there, they are of the "same pattern" or "variants." Regardless of how you may want to describe these bullets, they share the same key features: pointy nose, tear-drop shaped body, and a "ring-tail" (the purpose of which is to attach the cartridge case). The "exact shape" of any or all of these details is subject to the mold (and person doing the molding).

I suspect we unwillingly fall into the trap of imposing 20th/21st century machine-production tolerances on these poor 19th century folks working with their hands in the arsenals 10 hours a day, 6 days a week.
 
Thank you Jim! To make sure I, and others, understand what you are saying: that M&M 500 (and its variants, a la Craig) are all under the M&M 99 tent, so to speak—that they are all creations of the St. Louis Arsenal . . . and used by both sides, in Remingtons, or other .36 weapons (which could include C.S. Leech and Rigdon, etc.). I keep hoping Bill Ewing will catch this thread and shed some light on his article’s designation of M&M 500 as “Leech and Rigdon.” In any case, this has been interesting, and enlightening. So I guess I will have to move my M&M 500 from my “CS bullets” to my “U.S. and C.S. bullets” section (next to my M&M 99!)—and note that they were St. Louis produced. Do ALL concur?
 
Ok - the silence is broken on this thread. There are three bullets that are often times confused and mixed up. These include the MM85 maynard, MM99 teardrop/remington/St. Louis arsenal, and MM500 CS unknown/Leech & Rigdon. While researching MM500, I like others found no reference to it by name other than "CS unknown pistol". Thus began the search of what I believed to be a 0.36 calibre firing pistol. I still stand by the determination that 0.38 calibre weapons weren't used by the CS or US during 1861-1865. Soooooooo, after reviewing many bullet books, ammunition books, and gun books, I narrowed the list down to a few potential weapons. Since this bullet variety tends to be found on CS sites versus US sites, one must draw an uncertain conclusion that it was a CS bullet. Now, limit the weapons in 0.36 calibre CS service and you get even fewer. After conferring with several other long time large bullet collectors, we felt that the Leech & Rigdon was a very possible user of the bullet. With not much else surviving that can lead elsewhere, I stuck the name to it. As the true experts are dead, we are left to do the archaeology.

As for Chuck and his one line comment about mis-IDs, adding a known CW bullet to a fake page would be another travesty in history.

I welcome anyone's comments and opinions on this or any other bullets. Sometimes we have to stick our neck out and take a stab at the unknown which is what I attempted in my article. Hence why it is taking so long for article #2 to appear.

Bill
 
Quoting Bill,The true expert's are dead.Couldn't have said it better myself."Though I wanted to" Best to all!!!! Robert
 
Hello All,

This has been a very interesting discussion. I've got little to contribute - very little but here goes.

The only M&M 500 that I ever dug personally came from the Confederate works overlooking Queens Creek just south of Williamsburg (VA). These works were occupied by (then) Col. J.E.B. Stuart's cavalry covering the retreat from Yorktown. While there were more Confederate relics found on this site, there were federal relics found here also.

Leech & Rigdon at this time (mid-1861) were established in Memphis, Tennessee. The liklihood of a bullet manufactured in Memphis finding its way to a Virginia cavalry unit is highly unlikely in that short period of time.

It is also highly unlikely that a bullet produced in St. Louis would be found in Virginia from an 1861 (or any other) site.

My humble opinion is that the M&M 500 is a legitimate W.S.I. bullet probably produced by the Confederacy at various arsenals. I really don't know. Unlike Shirley McClain, I wasn't there.

Skip
 
This has been an interesting discussion. I think I started it to find out if Leech & Rigdon ever produced any ammunition. If they did, what would the specs on the bullet be?

CraigC
 
Craig,

Somewhere around here I've got an index to North South Trader articles. Unfortunately in the process of trying to get ready to move I can't lay my hands on it (Hell, I probably couldn't find it even if I wasn't moving).

One issue has an excellent article on Leech and Rigdon products. As you are probably aware they produced revolvers, swords, spurs - a variety of items.

This brings a pet THEORY of mine to mind. I believe that many manufactories in the western and TM departments were geared to produce items primarily for cavalry usage. Dance Brothers is another example of this.

In the South, the cavalry was the last to get any supplies from the Government. Nature abhors a vacuum. There had to be Southern firms that catered to what the Government ignored.

Whether or not Leech and Rigdon produced small arms ammunition is debatable. I seriously doubt it. Small arms ammunition (that was not cast in the field) was provided by local arsenals. At best they may have produced molds for the revolvers they made but as there are no known examples of any L&R mold, that's highly unlikely.

Hope this helps.

Skip
 
In response to Skips earlier post -- St. Louis did produce pistol cartridges before the war, so could have be available in 1861.

I do agree with Skip that the only way a bullet would/could be considered a Leech & Rigdon bullet is if a mold was supplied with the pistols. A mold was commonly included among other accessories with "cased" pistols, such as Colts. However I doubt L&R did this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top