Another forum member wrote recently to invite my opinion regarding a specific letter mark ("R") on projectiles and an association with Selma. This is my response - imperfect and flawed surely - but another place to start perhaps. The attachments will have to follow as separate entries as Carl's otherwise most excellent puzzle palace continues to befuddle me.
My Thoughts on the matter of "Lettering" on projectiles.This is a topic raised quite frequently on and off of the forum. As such it seems appropriate to address the subject here as well as directly with the person raising the question with me.
The more I read and ponder this question the more I am convinced that these marks aren’t necessarily those of the various Army Arsenals/Naval Works exclusively but rather some are those of the various contractors thereto. It is widely known that the CS government made wide use of private sector contractors to provide projectiles.
After a recent romp through the pages of what I refer to as the “Canfield Roll” (microfilm) I once again found my “Brooks & Gaynor” CD. This information not only shed some light on the mystery of the “Briarfield Arsenal” but also may have given us a hint at some other new thoughts as well. If any of this isn’t news or at least worth some further discussion then I’d ask Carl to wipe it off the forum to save space. Having allowed that the letters on projectiles were placed there to assist the various government representatives and field commands to identify same once they were submitted by the contractors it is also possible that for projectiles that were actually cast by the Arsenals/Ordnance Works “lettering” is also viable. No doubt this would have been perfectly understandable by those then present the absence of any lasting record leaves us guessing to this day.
Ergo. The “Selma G” query. From what appears in the records of the Briarfield Arsenal from early 1862 forward to some time in 1864 we can determine the following:
1) Briarfield Arsenal was located BY NAME in Columbus, MS no later than the first quarter of 1862 with the associated Memphis Ordnance Depot (?) having been relocated under the command of Maj. Wm. R. Hunt. (This is consistent with yankee encroachment and CS contractions in the Trans-Chattahoochee).
2) Brooks & Gaynor was a munitions supplier (like C. B. Churchill, etc. of Natchez, Corinth & Columbiana) located in Columbus at that time, whether relocated to that place or originating there.
3) As indicated in the images of vouchers posted herewith B&G supplied many different types of projectiles, fuzes, etc. some of which are surprising – e.g. stands of “12lbr grape shot”.
4) Some of these projectiles were shipped directly to Ft. Pillow as annotated on the vouchers thereby placing guns of the associated bore size at or near that place – again perhaps answering lingering questions about recoveries in that region.
5) Vouchers reflect not only shipment of munitions but also some or all of the Brooks & Gaynor tooling and equipment to Selma. It appears that there may have been a sale undertaken as the military storekeeper at the Army Arsenal signed receipts for same and money was apparently exchanged on the authority of White, commanding Selma Arsenal. Thus we have the “Briarfield Arsenal” relocated to Selma by default. Clearly projectiles were provided to Selma before and after this transaction. It seems now (& here I postulate) that the “Briarfield Arsenal” was subsequently sold/resold and relocated to Columbiana thus addressing the reason for the association of that Arsenal name with all three locations.
6) Inasmuch as the Selma Arsenal already had a commanding officer (Capt. & later LtC. James White), Maj. Wm. R. Hunt was then given responsibility for another function in Selma in view of the redundancy.
7) Now, enter the “G”. Since the firm was providing projectiles that would reasonably have to be tracked through the inventory for both accounting and performance reasons the “G” (for Gaynor) would logically be a good letter for that purpose as the “B” may well have been in use for another provider.
Back to Arsenal/Ordnance Works “lettering”. A number of changes happened within both Army and Navy facilities. The first example might be the relocation of the New Orleans Navy Ordnance Works to Atlanta in 1862. Lt. McCorkle continued to sign his correspondence as the “New Orleans” facility long afterwards. Now this brings up another potential reason for confusing “Lettering” practices. Not only did ordnance facilities experience physical location changes but also changes in commanding officers. Either or both reasons could be cause for a different letter to be used.
Taken into consideration, all of these various factors argue for a complex and confusing occurrence of “Letters” associated with different Arsenals/Ordnance Works and various times during the war. It is hoped that someone within our population of enthusiasts with far more knowledge than I have on the subject will dig further into the names of suppliers and their government customers to see if this theory may hold up – in whole or in part.