1861 Springfield replica

[Poof]

I’ve been looking for a quality replica to shoot and I either find they are quite spendy or hard to find. Well I walked into this gun shop today and behold I came across a replica that was built 1950/60s time frame. The owner of the shop was saying Navy arms was the importer but not the manufacturer, couldn’t find any markings to suggest who made it. Anyways it was in great condition, stock was solid, bore was clean for the age, rifling was good and the price of it was half the cost of a new replica. That’s all the information I have, would this gun be a good purchase or keep looking?

 

[Trot]

I don't believe they made 1861 Springfield replicas that early, might it have been an 1863 "Zouave" rifle? Navy Arms sold a bunch of those.

 

[Notchy Bob]

I would agree with @Trot in that I don't know of any M1861 rifles being made or imported at that date. However, shop owners are frequently not well informed.

When you go back for another look, examine the whole length of the exposed barrel, top and both sides, in good light. Some manufacturers back then tried to make their markings unobtrusive, and they can be easy to miss. Look for the maker's name, and also the "date code," which will be Roman numerals or a combination of upper-case letters enclosed within a little square box. You may find the letters PN, but these are for polvera negra , Italian for "black powder." The date code will be in addition to that. I can post a chart of date codes later. It will also help us if you can take a couple of photos... Maybe one full length, and one close-up of the lock.

However, if the rifle is solid and clean, and the mechanics work well, $700-$800 is a fair price. It sounds as if you have already checked the bore. Also check for a dependable half-cock, a decent trigger pull, and make sure the cup in the hammer nose is centered or nearly centered on the nipple.

I try to avoid impulse buys, but I've also kicked myself a few times for missing out by "thinking about it" too long. If it is a clean, functional rifle in a style that you want, and it's half the price of a new one, it sounds like a square deal.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[Poof]

Appreciate the information. I looked up the 1863 Zouave. Did they all come with some brass fixtures? The rifle I saw had zero brass on it. Had 1863 stamped with the eagle and Springfield on the lock plate. I’ll have to go back for that second look and look for more markings.

 

[Notchy Bob]

Appreciate the information. I looked up the 1863 Zouave. Did they all come with some brass fixtures? The rifle I saw had zero brass on it. Had 1863 stamped with the eagle and Springfield on the lock plate. I’ll have to go back for that second look and look for more markings.

Yes, as far as I know, the M1863 "Zouave" rifles were always brass mounted, including a smallish brass patchbox in the buttstock. If the subject rifle has no brass, it is not likely a Zouave. Also, the M1863 Zouave had a 33" barrel, while the three-band Springfields had around a 40" barrel. There was a shorter two-band Springfield, but I don't know of a factory reproduction.

The M1861 Springfield was all iron mounted, and had a "C" shaped hammer. The M1863 Springfield was also iron mounted and had more of an "S" shaped hammer. The M1861 bolster (where the nipple mounts) has a cleanout screw, while the M1863 does not. The bolsters were also shaped slightly differently. Comparing the hammers and bolsters may be the easiest way to distinguish between the two. This is a photo of an 1863 Euroarms C.S. Richmond rifle, which is virtually identical to an M1861 Springfield. Just don't pay any attention to the date stamped on the lockplate. It shows the 1861-style "C" shaped hammer, and the cleanout screw in the bolster:



...compared to an original M1864/64 Springfield. This particular gun was "sporterized" at some point in the distant past, and the hammer was "lightened" by grinding off some excess metal. However, the general "S" shape of the hammer is still preserved, and I don't have a photo handy of an unmolested 1863 hammer:



Many of the original M1863-type rifles that we see have 1864 on the lockplate, and some people recognize an M1864 as a distinct model. I would consider it just a variant of the 1863. The only difference I know of is the lower barrel band of the 1863 had a screw to tighten it like a clamp, while the M1864 lower barrel band was a solid piece, without the screw. However, I don't know of an M1864 reproduction being made at any time.

Here is a chart of Italian "date codes," indicating dates of manufacture:

Here is a photo of the stamps on the breech of a Euroarms M1863 C.S. Richmond rifle musket:

The CD in the box indicates this rifle was made in 2009.

Good luck! I think the subject rifle is worth another look, and depending on the actual price and condition, and what you want, it might be worth serious consideration.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[ord sgt]

This sounds like a good deal. I say go for it. Then start the search for the right size minie and powder charge.

 

[Trot]

Navy Arms did sell an 1863 Springfield rifle musket at one time. As I recall they were pretty decent quality.

 

[Notchy Bob]

Navy Arms did sell an 1863 Springfield rifle musket at one time. As I recall they were pretty decent quality.

Yup... I have one. It's just that we don't think Navy Arms was making them in the 1950's or early sixties, as the shopkeeper told the OP. In addition, my musket has "Navy Arms" prominently imprinted on the lock plate. The OP indicated he could not find any markings to reveal the maker or importer, so it may not be a Navy Arms gun. Hard to say without taking a look.

I just bought mine a few months ago. It is an older Navy Arms M1863 rifle musket, made in Italy. I've had it completely apart, but failed to write down the date code and promptly forgot it. As for quality, mine is not the best. Respectfully, it has been my privilege to have worked on a few originals, and I'm here to tell you, the 150+ year old guns were better built in every way. I do believe the Italian manufacturers have upgraded their products since mine was made; the Euroarms Richmond shown in my post above is a much nicer gun. The inside of my Navy Arms Springfield lock shows no attempt at polishing whatsoever. They used undersized common flathead wood screws for attaching all of the mountings (butt plate, trigger guard, etc.) while the originals and better reproductions used very robust, oval-head screws with a special thread. Barrel bands on the Navy Arms gun appear to have been formed out of heavy sheet metal, while I believe the original bands were probably forged. I could go on, but my early Navy Arms Italian-made 1863 shows a lot of manufacturing shortcuts. I haven't shot it yet, as I found the bore was much worse than described. Some of this gun's problems are from age and neglect, and I think it can be made into a decent recreational shooter with some work, but it was never a high-quality gun, even when brand new. However, I just got it as a "fun gun," so I'll deal with the issues.

As noted, I believe the Italian manufacturers have likely responded to competition and customer feedback, and upgraded their products in recent years. I think the Miroku (Japanese made) Springfields were likely better than the Italian guns, when the Mirokus were being made, and the Italians probably figured they had better tighten up if they were going to compete in the marketplace. I believe Navy Arms imported at least some of the Miroku guns, and they probably were pretty nice quality. So, I'm not disagreeing with @Trot , but just qualifying my response. His comments are appreciated.

In any event, this may be a case where older is not necessarily better. It is best when a prospective buyer can actually handle and examine a used gun, as the OP is doing. He can decide for himself whether it meets his quality criteria.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[Poof]

Well I went back for a second look and I must have been in another world. I was wrong about the lock plate. It said 1864 Springfield then Navy arms at the bottom of the plate. The only other clearly visible marking I could find was 021 on top of the barrel by the hammer. Unfortunately the cup on the hammer was not centered on the nipple. The cup has wear on one side as it rubs against the nipple. I could physically adjust it to an extent so it doesn’t rub but the whole things seems happy where it was.

 

[Trot]

Yup... I have one. It's just that we don't think Navy Arms was making them in the 1950's or early sixties, as the shopkeeper told the OP. In addition, my musket has "Navy Arms" prominently imprinted on the lock plate. The OP indicated he could not find any markings to reveal the maker or importer, so it may not be a Navy Arms gun. Hard to say without taking a look.

I just bought mine a few months ago. It is an older Navy Arms M1863 rifle musket, made in Italy. I've had it completely apart, but failed to write down the date code and promptly forgot it. As for quality, mine is not the best. Respectfully, it has been my privilege to have worked on a few originals, and I'm here to tell you, the 150+ year old guns were better built in every way. I do believe the Italian manufacturers have upgraded their products since mine was made; the Euroarms Richmond shown in my post above is a much nicer gun. The inside of my Navy Arms Springfield lock shows no attempt at polishing whatsoever. They used undersized common flathead wood screws for attaching all of the mountings (butt plate, trigger guard, etc.) while the originals and better reproductions used very robust, oval-head screws with a special thread. Barrel bands on the Navy Arms gun appear to have been formed out of heavy sheet metal, while I believe the original bands were probably forged. I could go on, but my early Navy Arms Italian-made 1863 shows a lot of manufacturing shortcuts. I haven't shot it yet, as I found the bore was much worse than described. Some of this gun's problems are from age and neglect, and I think it can be made into a decent recreational shooter with some work, but it was never a high-quality gun, even when brand new. However, I just got it as a "fun gun," so I'll deal with the issues.

As noted, I believe the Italian manufacturers have likely responded to competition and customer feedback, and upgraded their products in recent years. I think the Miroku (Japanese made) Springfields were likely better than the Italian guns, when the Mirokus were being made, and the Italians probably figured they had better tighten up if they were going to compete in the marketplace. I believe Navy Arms imported at least some of the Miroku guns, and they probably were pretty nice quality. So, I'm not disagreeing with @Trot , but just qualifying my response. His comments are appreciated.

In any event, this may be a case where older is not necessarily better. It is best when a prospective buyer can actually handle and examine a used gun, as the OP is doing. He can decide for himself whether it meets his quality criteria.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

I had one as well, Italian made. It seemed decent as repros go but the bore was huge, it measured out at over 584 as I recall. Never found a minie that would fit and shoot accurately. Finally traded it for an Armisport, which didn't seem as well made but at least I found minies that would fit and shoot!

 

[Trot]

Well I went back for a second look and I must have been in another world. I was wrong about the lock plate. It said 1864 Springfield then Navy arms at the bottom of the plate. The only other clearly visible marking I could find was 021 on top of the barrel by the hammer. Unfortunately the cup on the hammer was not centered on the nipple. The cup has wear on one side as it rubs against the nipple. I could physically adjust it to an extent so it doesn’t rub but the whole things seems happy where it was.

Yep, figured the shop owner was just wrong about the 1950's thing. There are better ones out there, you'll find the right one!

 

[Notchy Bob]

Yep, figured the shop owner was just wrong about the 1950's thing. There are better ones out there, you'll find the right one!

I would second that, on both points!

The gun being discussed sounds like a project waiting to happen. I bought mine online, and probably wouldn't have gotten it if I had been able to handle it first.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[Trot]

The Springfield I shoot now was made in the 60's, 1864 to be exact! The price of repros has gotten to where you can buy a good original shooter!

 

[kh54]

I had one as well, Italian made. It seemed decent as repros go but the bore was huge, it measured out at over 584 as I recall. Never found a minie that would fit and shoot accurately. Finally traded it for an Armisport, which didn't seem as well made but at least I found minies that would fit and shoot!

I also have a Navy Arms 1863 but made in Japan. I have assumed it’s a Miroku. (While it doesn’t say Miroku anywhere I’ve never heard of any other Japanese manufacturer of reproduction ACW firearms. Anyone know differently?) It also has an oversized bore, .5835. I lucked out and found a Rapine 583455 mold which drops a .5825 “international style” Minié ball, which I then size to .581. I can shoot ragged holes at 50 yards.

Mr. Todd Watts defarbed this gun for me a couple of years ago and did a lot of research concerning the barrel bands. It seems that originally there were transitional variations that included both screw bands and band springs. My reproduction had both and since Todd had verified a historical precedent, replaced the rear band with an original without the screw. Both the reproduction bands and the original that Todd found are oval (cast? forged?) steel, not flat.

I have an 1861 reproduction that I have also assumed is a Miroku since it has no manufacturer’s or importer’s marks anywhere, just “made in Japan,” serial number 086*. It has the same size bore.

 

[Whitworth]

Thanks for posting the date codes for everyone Notchy Bob. If you guys haven't already done it, take picture of Notchy Bob's date code list. I carry a picture of production codes on my phone and it makes it handy when looking over a gun in a shop to determine year of production. I once looked at a repo Zouve that was marked "Sears" and it was without a doubt the most poorly finished commercial rifle I have ever seen. The machine marks on the barrel looked like threads and the stock still bore wood milling marks all over but can't remember who made it. Someone bought the pitiful thing, maybe because it was marked "Sears".

 

[J.Campbell63]

I found this one last spring in a pawn shop. Lyman marked plate made in Italy. Isn’t bad with minis I got from Track of the Wolf. Oddly with an expanding Pritchett ball (plugged) sized at 560 and paper patched it’s accurate. So I’m going to a slightly larger Pritchett that’s swaged and have better paper and a better lube.

 

[SPQR70AD]

Well I went back for a second look and I must have been in another world. I was wrong about the lock plate. It said 1864 Springfield then Navy arms at the bottom of the plate. The only other clearly visible marking I could find was 021 on top of the barrel by the hammer. Unfortunately the cup on the hammer was not centered on the nipple. The cup has wear on one side as it rubs against the nipple. I could physically adjust it to an extent so it doesn’t rub but the whole things seems happy where it was.

I got a beautiful Zouave rifle in real good shape if interested PM me