M1862 / 1864 Springfield research

[garandman]

Any ideas whatsources I should check to research my rifle?


I just ordered this book from Amazon...

Any other sources / websites, books, etc?

 

[Jim Blair]

Is your RM a Model 1861 or 1863?What is it exactly you want to research?

Depending on what it is you are looking for-

The Rifled Musket by Claud Fuller
http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qwork=-51703110

The U.S.Model 1861 Springfield Rifle Musket by Hartzler,Yantz,Whisker
http://www.gunshowbooks.com/cgi-bin/webc.exe/st_prod.html?p_prodid=GS38763

 

[garandman]

Is your RM a Model 1861 or 1863?What is it exactly you want to research?

Well, lock is stamped 1862, but barrel is stamped 1864. And it has (what I beleive is) an 1864-style bolster. (Flat face, no vent / cleanout screw hole) Not mine, but mine looks like this:

I want to learn everything I can about the rifle.

 

[Jim Blair]

What's are the lockplate markings,ie manufacturer?

 

[garandman]

What's are the lockplate markings,ie manufacturer?

"1862" behind the hammer, eagle motif and "U.S. Springfield" in front on the lock. "VP" barrel proofs. Typical inspector cartouches on the left side of the stock.


With the 1864 stamped barrel, I suspect it was rebarrelled.

 

[Jim Blair]

The lockplate date puts the lockplate in the M1861 category.The hammer and barrel are in the Model 1863 category.Does it have band springs?Are the bands split or solid?

 

[Tumblernotch]

Based on the shape of the hammer on the piece shown in the picture, you have a Special Model 1861, also known as the Colt Pattern. This musket was first made by Colt and then by Lamson, Goodnow & Yale and Amoskeag Manufacturing Co. They were patterned after the M1861, but featured some changes. First was a different hammer which was similiar to the Enfield hammer. Next was a re-designed bolster (shortened) that lacked a clean-out screw and was of a different profile.The flat bands of the '61 were replaced by rounded clamping bands and the swelled ramrod was replaced by a straight rod held in place by a spring (spoon) in the stock. The M1863 Type I was patterned after this weapon with a change to a bevelled hammer.

Other than the bayonet and the guard bow (and its parts), the parts of this model will not interchange with the other models.

With an 1862 date and Springfield mark, the plate should be from a '61 model. How snug is the fit between the bolster and the cut-out in the plate? It sounds like this gun may be a parts gun. If the bands are flat and held by springs it may have been simply re-barreled and a SM 1861 hammer added. Not uncommon to see one made up this way.

 

[varsity07840]

My '63 type II has an 1861 plate dated 1862.The hammer is 1863. I can't be sure when the lock was changed. It could have been done by an armorer in the field or years later by Bannerman or the like. Flayderman says interchange of parts in the field was common.

Duane

 

[garandman]

Note: The picture above is not mine.

I'll put up some pics of mine. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[varsity07840]

Based on the shape of the hammer on the piece shown in the picture, you have a Special Model 1861, also known as the Colt Pattern. This musket was first made by Colt and then by Lamson, Goodnow & Yale and Amoskeag Manufacturing Co. They were patterned after the M1861, but featured some changes. First was a different hammer which was similiar to the Enfield hammer. Next was a re-designed bolster (shortened) that lacked a clean-out screw and was of a different profile.The flat bands of the '61 were replaced by rounded clamping bands and the swelled ramrod was replaced by a straight rod held in place by a spring (spoon) in the stock. The M1863 Type I was patterned after this weapon with a change to a bevelled hammer.

Other than the bayonet and the guard bow (and its parts), the parts of this model will not interchange with the other models.

Good call Ranger! I didn't look close enough. It is indeed a Colt.

Duane

 

[Tumblernotch]

I edited my post above.

 

[hawkeye2]

It would be either an 1861 or an 1863 Springfield, there are no 1862/4 designations. You have an 1863 barrel and hammer. 61s & 63s both had 40" barrels (never any other length in original configuration) and the same stock dimensions. The lock plate (plates & internals are interchangable) is from an 1861. A 61 stock has a different ramrod inlet just behind the nose cap as the rod had a swell there to retain it in the stock. The 63 used a straight rammer with a corresponding straight inlet. If the piece has flat barrel bands with retaining springs it is likely a 61 that has been rebarreled later in life. A 63 Type I would have round clamping bands with no retaining springs. Springfield returned to using retaining springs on the Type II 63 but still used round bands. There was also a change to a single leaf rear sight. Some choose to call the Type II an 1864 model but Springfield never refered to it as such. You might want to research Colt's 1861 contract "Special Model" too as it was the inspiration for many of the changes found on the 63.

KanawhaRanger it looks like you are right. You posted while I was composing mine and I admit to not looking at the photo as closely as I should have. Hope I'm excused, I hadn't gotten to my second cup of coffee yet.

 

[Tumblernotch]

I haven't either. :grin: I traded once for what looked like a '63 Type II at a reenactment back in '84. It was dark and all the light we had was an old lantern. The next day I examined the gun more closely. I already knew it had a replacement ramrod (no big deal) and a replacement middle band. It had a Springfield plate dated 1863 and a '61 Colt barrel, but everything was mounted on a '55 or '61 stock. After removing the barrel I could see that at some point in its life, somebody had notched the barrel for a lug and had filed the front sight to an inverted vee. Most of the rifling was gone. I could see that somebody made a shotgun with it. Anyhoo, with a modest investment at a local gunshop, I obtained another '61 (Watertown) that was in pretty bad shape (stock was a wreck) but had all the proper parts and I was able to use the nice stock from the trade to mount everything on and came up with a nice '61. Wish I still had it. I still have the Colt barrel and the stock as well as some of the lock parts. I've thought about making a 24 ga. shotgun out of the barrel at some point.

I have an interesting story about the Watertown lockplate. Real puzzler. Wish I had taken a picture of it.

 

[hawkeye2]

"I have an interesting story about the Watertown lockplate."

So lets hear it. :wink:

 

[Tumblernotch]

Well, when I was shown this musket I noticed that something warn't right about the lock. It had obviously been broken vertically right through the bridle screw holes. Apparently that area is about the weakest part of the plate, but for cryin' out loud, those plates are 5/16" thick there and there shouldn't be any strain to speak of. But there could have been a flaw that the inspector missed and we all know someone who could break an anvil with a wooden mallet. No telling what kind of life that gun led. But anyways, someone had cut a plug that would fit in the mortise where the missing piece went and had bradded to the stock. Somehow, using a copper rivet he hung the sear between the bridle and this plug and stuck the sear spring to the plug with another. None of this was visible on the outside except for the heads of the brads. I wish I had taken a picture of it. I was too busy tearing it apart so I could rebuild the other one. The most amazing thing is, to this day that was the crispest lock I had ever pulled the hammer back on. And the wood plug very nearly matched the rest of the stock.

Later I made a piece to replace the tail of the plate and welded it on and tapped and threaded it. I still have it.