Hi folks -
I'm new here, and an avid history reader, especially US Indian wars to date, and as a horse person that tends to lean towards things Cavalry. As I have been digging through the archives, I am constantly mutterin' to myself about having finally found the mother lode of info.
Something I haven't seen - at least yet - is the instructions for converting a 1904 to 1928 style. My understanding is this was often done at the Troop (company) level saddlery. In any case, the Army being ... well, the Army, I'd think there must have been a manual or pamphlet; some written instructions with measurements & diagrams for how it was done.
Can anyone confirm? Does anyone have a link or images of such documentation? I have reprints of the 1885 and 1904 (1908 rev.) Horse Equipments books but haven't found anything similar with patterns, etc., from after the 1928 modification.
Thanks in advance -
Bob Hillery
Stratham, NH, US
M1928 McClellan conversion
These modifications were first sent out in quantity in 1931, as 'kits' from the JQMD (Jeffersonville Quartermaster Depot, Jeffersonville, IN). I believe they consisted of skirts, linen webbing pieces with three attached billets each, and four 'fillets' for blending the sidebar bottoms to the linen, as well as a number of tacks for their installation, plus (IIRC) two pieces of hard felt to replace the sidebar sheepskin linings. I can do a little digging around - we might have a PDF of the parts and perhaps a diagram of locating them in place. There were at least three different options regarding the stirrup leathers (the '28 roller version, the 1923 modified straps, and the old 1904s), as well as three possible stirrups (the 1912 steel, 1904 hooded, and the later 1940 cutdown wood). Then there is the possibility of having sheepskin linings, no sheepskin, and '28 mod felt covers.
1928s are a grab-bag of options, of that there is no doubt.
1928s are a grab-bag of options, of that there is no doubt.
Outstanding!
Thanks, Todd, and to those who replied offline.
OK - any idea why, other than the general urge to change something, they went from the 1912 steel back to cut down wood in 1940? I don't recall the author but I remember reading a turn of the century diatribe against the hoods/tapaderos - very sarcastic and funny, but clearly on target.
Thanks, Todd, and to those who replied offline.
OK - any idea why, other than the general urge to change something, they went from the 1912 steel back to cut down wood in 1940? I don't recall the author but I remember reading a turn of the century diatribe against the hoods/tapaderos - very sarcastic and funny, but clearly on target.
Lt. Col. Whiting had the usual opinion of the hooded wooden stirrups (http://www.militaryhorse.org/studies/mc ... cation.php)BobH wrote:Outstanding!
Thanks, Todd, and to those who replied offline.
OK - any idea why, other than the general urge to change something, they went from the 1912 steel back to cut down wood in 1940? I don't recall the author but I remember reading a turn of the century diatribe against the hoods/tapaderos - very sarcastic and funny, but clearly on target.
The 1912's were knife-edge stirrups, primarily for the artillery. I've heard said that they aren't very comfortable after long period of time, and tend to eat up boot soles. Cutting down wooden stirrups was an extremely low cost way to convert existing stirrups to a somewhat better form - it was all about the cost.6. The McClellan hooded stirrup is heavy, bulky and clumsy. The weight of the hood causes the tread of the stirrup to fall forward, so that the trooper cannot depress the heel as prescribed without lifting the whole weight of the hood. The width of the stirrup at the top causes acute discomfort to the ankle when the foot is thrust home. After more than twenty-seven years' service, mostly with troops, in colder climates and in hot climates, in fair weather and foul weather, the only possible virtue that I can attribute to it is its protection to feet stuck out too far in close order drill. As a matter of fact, such feet occupy the same relative position as heads thrust out of car windows; they need bumping.
-
Pat Holscher
- Society Member
- Posts: 7545
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
- Last Name: Holscher
-
Society Member
Donation 3rd
Do we generally agree with Col Whiting?Todd wrote:Lt. Col. Whiting had the usual opinion of the hooded wooden stirrups (http://www.militaryhorse.org/studies/mc ... cation.php)BobH wrote:Outstanding!
Thanks, Todd, and to those who replied offline.
OK - any idea why, other than the general urge to change something, they went from the 1912 steel back to cut down wood in 1940? I don't recall the author but I remember reading a turn of the century diatribe against the hoods/tapaderos - very sarcastic and funny, but clearly on target.
The 1912's were knife-edge stirrups, primarily for the artillery. I've heard said that they aren't very comfortable after long period of time, and tend to eat up boot soles. Cutting down wooden stirrups was an extremely low cost way to convert existing stirrups to a somewhat better form - it was all about the cost.6. The McClellan hooded stirrup is heavy, bulky and clumsy. The weight of the hood causes the tread of the stirrup to fall forward, so that the trooper cannot depress the heel as prescribed without lifting the whole weight of the hood. The width of the stirrup at the top causes acute discomfort to the ankle when the foot is thrust home. After more than twenty-seven years' service, mostly with troops, in colder climates and in hot climates, in fair weather and foul weather, the only possible virtue that I can attribute to it is its protection to feet stuck out too far in close order drill. As a matter of fact, such feet occupy the same relative position as heads thrust out of car windows; they need bumping.
I have a little experience with the hooded stirrups and didnt' think them that bad.
-
Tom Muller
- Society Member
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:14 am
- Last Name: Muller
-
Society Member
I did use steel stirrups on a Mac in the bush. They were great. When I got my new Mac 1904 from Tom Smith I had my problems getting used to the heavy wooden and hooded stirrups. After a few years now, I wouldn't exchange them for steel stirrups. Why? As mentioned in another thread they are much mor safe and comfortable when you wear heavy mountain or army boots. I don't use them for dressage or jumping, but what they were invented for, I still believe they suit the purpose very well. That is my personal opinion, having used both types of stirrups over the years. What I don't like about them is that they are quite bulky when you transport the saddle, but I have a bakkie (pick up) so space is not the issue. And they sure enough do protect your feet from rain and dew, as well as snow and the sun. So I'll stick with the "ancient" version, they suit me fine.
Tom
Tom
The things you find when you finally go digging around in old files.... Solved several mysteries that I've been wondering about for some time. When brass rivets and stirrup loops were first specified for McClellan saddletree construction, and this little gem that now relates to this discussion.
I once had a RIA-made knife-edge steel stirrup, nearly identical to the M1912 artillery/cavalry stirrup, marked with a 1911 mfg. date. The knife edge had a cross-section where the top edge was in the middle, rather than the 1912's top edge on the outer top. Come to find out that this is a M1910 stirrup, made for the Whitman-McClellan officer saddle.
I once had a RIA-made knife-edge steel stirrup, nearly identical to the M1912 artillery/cavalry stirrup, marked with a 1911 mfg. date. The knife edge had a cross-section where the top edge was in the middle, rather than the 1912's top edge on the outer top. Come to find out that this is a M1910 stirrup, made for the Whitman-McClellan officer saddle.
- Attachments
-
- Model1910_stirrup.jpg (85.35 KiB) Viewed 35416 times
Once again - lots of expertise and sound evaluation.
Yes, Todd - it was Whiting's piece I was recalling. No matter what one thinks of the stirrups & hoods, it's a great paragraph. He's clearly taking on 'the establishment' of the day - I can almost hear the gravelly voice of the old colonel harrumphing at them. (peacetime army - all senior officers were older; and I've actually got a voice from my youth to go with the image ...)
The money and re-use of 'left-overs' probably doesn't need any more speculation or documentation. It fits.
And Tom, I hadn't thought about it like that but you make a superb point. I can't imagine field boots or combat boots in the steel stirrups. The wooden ones, with or without the hoods, make a lot of sense from a simply practical perspective.
If I hang out here I may actually learn enough to have some idea about what I'm doing!
Bob
Yes, Todd - it was Whiting's piece I was recalling. No matter what one thinks of the stirrups & hoods, it's a great paragraph. He's clearly taking on 'the establishment' of the day - I can almost hear the gravelly voice of the old colonel harrumphing at them. (peacetime army - all senior officers were older; and I've actually got a voice from my youth to go with the image ...)
The money and re-use of 'left-overs' probably doesn't need any more speculation or documentation. It fits.
And Tom, I hadn't thought about it like that but you make a superb point. I can't imagine field boots or combat boots in the steel stirrups. The wooden ones, with or without the hoods, make a lot of sense from a simply practical perspective.
If I hang out here I may actually learn enough to have some idea about what I'm doing!
Bob
-
Rick Throckmorton
- Society Member
- Posts: 255
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 1:54 pm
- Last Name: Throckmorton
-
Society Member
Learned something new today!
Once again, THANKS, TODD!
Rick T.
Once again, THANKS, TODD!
Rick T.
Looks like they went with the brass saddletree rivets and loops with the M1913 mule saddle. In 1914, they started specifying them (along with 'heavily copper-plating pommel iron) for artillery saddles intended for tropical locations. I take that to mean the were seeing some corrosion issues. The brass hardware for cavalry saddletrees were specified on arsenal drawing revisions dated April 20, 1917, which I'm guessing comes from the perception that iron/steel needed to be conserved for other war manufactures.Trooper wrote:Todd,
When were brass rivets and stirrup loops first specified for McClellan saddletree construction?
TIA
Relating to the M28 conversion.
Back about 1968 I was corresponding with former cavalry troopers and saddler's in relation to my research on the McClellan. I was put in contact with a man that ran a Army Surplus store in what was then called"Underground Atlanta," in Atlanta, Ga. He had surplus cavalry equipment including the kits to convert the 04 to the 28. I managed to purchase two 03 rifle scabbards, a set of saddlebags and two M28 conversion kits. The conversion kits sold for $10,00 each. The kits came complete with everything necessary to make the conversion on two of the 04's I hand on hand. One thing I recall was that the skirts had prepunched holes at the edge of the skive line to resew the skirts to the seat. I think there marks in the skived area as to where to place the tacks so that they would not all be in a line and weaken the sidebar. The instructions I received from a retired saddler was to make sure all the sewholes were cleaned out and to restitch the skirts using every other hole. This was supposed to strengthen the stitch. The fun part was placing the tacks in properly while lining up the stitch holes. I couldn't find the correct thread so I used twelve pound test fishing line. Worked greatand has held for over 40 years. I still have one of the saddles. Used it up until my knees gave out and I quit riding. The scabbards, saddlebags, a M28 and an 04 and other collectables are now on display at the Pennsylvania Military Museum at Ft. Indiantown Gap.
Back about 1968 I was corresponding with former cavalry troopers and saddler's in relation to my research on the McClellan. I was put in contact with a man that ran a Army Surplus store in what was then called"Underground Atlanta," in Atlanta, Ga. He had surplus cavalry equipment including the kits to convert the 04 to the 28. I managed to purchase two 03 rifle scabbards, a set of saddlebags and two M28 conversion kits. The conversion kits sold for $10,00 each. The kits came complete with everything necessary to make the conversion on two of the 04's I hand on hand. One thing I recall was that the skirts had prepunched holes at the edge of the skive line to resew the skirts to the seat. I think there marks in the skived area as to where to place the tacks so that they would not all be in a line and weaken the sidebar. The instructions I received from a retired saddler was to make sure all the sewholes were cleaned out and to restitch the skirts using every other hole. This was supposed to strengthen the stitch. The fun part was placing the tacks in properly while lining up the stitch holes. I couldn't find the correct thread so I used twelve pound test fishing line. Worked greatand has held for over 40 years. I still have one of the saddles. Used it up until my knees gave out and I quit riding. The scabbards, saddlebags, a M28 and an 04 and other collectables are now on display at the Pennsylvania Military Museum at Ft. Indiantown Gap.
-
Pat Holscher
- Society Member
- Posts: 7545
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
- Last Name: Holscher
-
Society Member
Donation 3rd
Great stuff!Todd wrote:The things you find when you finally go digging around in old files.... Solved several mysteries that I've been wondering about for some time. When brass rivets and stirrup loops were first specified for McClellan saddletree construction, and this little gem that now relates to this discussion.
I once had a RIA-made knife-edge steel stirrup, nearly identical to the M1912 artillery/cavalry stirrup, marked with a 1911 mfg. date. The knife edge had a cross-section where the top edge was in the middle, rather than the 1912's top edge on the outer top. Come to find out that this is a M1910 stirrup, made for the Whitman-McClellan officer saddle.
-
Pat Holscher
- Society Member
- Posts: 7545
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
- Last Name: Holscher
-
Society Member
Donation 3rd
Thanks Tom.Tom Muller wrote:I did use steel stirrups on a Mac in the bush. They were great. When I got my new Mac 1904 from Tom Smith I had my problems getting used to the heavy wooden and hooded stirrups. After a few years now, I wouldn't exchange them for steel stirrups. Why? As mentioned in another thread they are much mor safe and comfortable when you wear heavy mountain or army boots. I don't use them for dressage or jumping, but what they were invented for, I still believe they suit the purpose very well. That is my personal opinion, having used both types of stirrups over the years. What I don't like about them is that they are quite bulky when you transport the saddle, but I have a bakkie (pick up) so space is not the issue. And they sure enough do protect your feet from rain and dew, as well as snow and the sun. So I'll stick with the "ancient" version, they suit me fine.
Tom
As noted, I found the hooded stirrups pretty serviceable for field use and I don't think I'd be inclined to switch out for steel stirrups. I've sometimes wished I had a set of stirrups with tapaderos for my stock saddle.
On stirrups in general, however, I did recently have an experience that might cause me to make a bit of a switch. My stock saddle has a very heavy pair of quite wide wooden stirrups. These are not hooded, just very stout and wide. I've always liked them, but just recently I had occasion to switch horses, and saddles, with my brother in law. He also uses wooden stirrups, but narrower ones. They aren't extremely narrow, but they are not as wide as mine, about the same width as those on the 1928 McClellan. I was surprised by how much more comfortable they were in comparison to my usual stirrups.
-
Pat Holscher
- Society Member
- Posts: 7545
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
- Last Name: Holscher
-
Society Member
Donation 3rd
Bumped up due to related thread.