M1861 Contract muskets

[bAcK88]

I recently got my first musket and I am interested on the proper way to file off the modern marks on the musket. Thanks in advance for the help.

[JimKindred]

Bill,

I use a mill cut file, with the draw file method. This removes the lettering and if done slowly and properly will maintain the contour of the barrel. The idea is to remove as little material as possible, once it's off you can't put it back on so go slow.

If you have any further questions please contact me directly.

[major]

I recently got my first musket and I am interested on the proper way to file off the modern marks on the musket. Thanks in advance for the help.
Bill
If you send me an e-mail I can attach some information on getting your musket defarbed professionaly.
Terry
t.schultz5@verizon.net

[JimKindred]

Let's guess, you are going to recommend The Company Quartermaster which is listed as your homepage and is not an approved vendor on this forum.

[paulcalloway]

Bill
If you send me an e-mail I can attach some information on getting your musket defarbed professionaly.
Terry
t.schultz5@verizon.net
Terry -
The Company Quartermaster is not an Approved Vendor on this forum. From what I know of the company, it is a mainstream sutlery in the same vein as Fall Creek, Fairoaks, etc. While I wish no ill will to mainstream sutlers, promoting their services here runs counter to the purposes of this website.

Please restrict your postings to non-business related contributions.

[Canton Zouave]

I recently got my first musket and I am interested on the proper way to file off the modern marks on the musket. Thanks in advance for the help.

I would have to go with Jim's method. After doing three rifles so far, the two methods that I have found to work is the Mill File drawn in one direction, and then some finsih work with emery cloth. It takes a whilke but is worth the wait. I would stay completely away from any sort of method that seems quick and easy....aka: BODY GRINDER.

Please feel free to email me for some tips and suggestions, and some good sources for some period correct furniture (not mainstream) for your rifle...so long as it is an enfield.

Respectfully,
Todd Morris

[Jack Booda]

Correct me if I'm wrong fellows, but doesn't he have to maintain the original serial number somewhere on the firearm? like to a new location, usually between the bottom of the barrel and stock forearm? or have the newer rifles already done this?

[JimKindred]

Jack,

As far as ATF is concerned a reproduction musket is not considered a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968 and a serial number is not required. The only reason the reproductions have a serial number is for importation purposes.

Some states, very few, may consider it a firearm and that would need to be checked into in his state of residence.

[Jack Booda]

Thanks again, Jim. ;)

[JimKindred]

Glad to help.

[Dingus]

Jack,

As far as ATF is concerned a reproduction musket is not considered a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968 and a serial number is not required.....
Jim, you may be just the person that can answer a question I have about gun laws and antiques. Does the 1934 federal law regarding minimum bbl length apply to BP, muzzle loading shotguns?

(I'm still pretty new here, so if this is not the preferred way/place to ask this question, my apologies in advance.)

[JimKindred]

James,

I don't deal with short barrel weapons so I have never researched that aspect. I would refer you to ATF for that question - http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ or better contact their field office in your state. I would also check with laws in your state especially if you live in the northeast part of the US.

Having dealt with full autos and been an FFL holder since 1980 I have always found them more than willing to help out with questions. Be sure to explain clearly what type weapon you are asking about as odd as it may seem, many of their agents are not up on the various types of firearms.

[JimKindred]

Further in formation regarding the short barrel shotgun. Under this a muzzleloading shotgun does not fall under the National Firearms Act as a short barrel weapon as it does not fire fixed ammunition. I would still check you local ATF field office and state laws, I receive regular updates from ATF with regulation changes and such so it never hurts to check.

This from ATF -

"(d) Shotgun. -- The term "shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell."


"(e) Any other weapon. -- The term "any other weapon" means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition."

"(g) Antique firearm. -- The term "antique firearm" means any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898) and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade."

[major]

Correct me if I'm wrong fellows, but doesn't he have to maintain the original serial number somewhere on the firearm? like to a new location, usually between the bottom of the barrel and stock forearm? or have the newer rifles already done this?
The Armi-sport already has the serial number also stamped on the bottom of the barrel. If you have a Euro-arms and want the number on the bottom you can stamp it yourself. You will need a serial number on it somewhere if you want to take the musket into Canada and it can come in handy if it is ever lost or stolen. Harbor Freight tools had a stamping set real cheep. Last time I was there I think I saw one for under $10. Check out the link below.
Terry http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Category.taf?CategoryID=163&pricetype=

[Dingus]

Thanks Jim! Perhaps it's best if I don't ask the Fed's about a sawed off cavalry shotgun and LeMat revolver. Sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission.

Arizona is still pretty much a "leave me alone" state, although as it gets more crowded it's threatening to devolve.

And no, I don't intend to bring a cavalry shotgun to a reenactment. (Worse on pards than a 2 band enfield!). I restrict my weapon related reenacting to primitive hunts. Loading a gun and not killing something or practicing to kill something with a target would bother me as much as parking lots, port-a-jon's and toilet paper (that's why God gave us corn shucks! :) )

[JimKindred]

"Sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission."

James,

Good in theory but not in practice as BATF does not operate on that principle. They are happy to help with questions before the fact but when someone is caught with a violation they rarely have a sense of humor.

[Dingus]

"Sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission."

James,

Good in theory but not in practice as BATF does not operate on that principle.

You're right again. The batmen do have a "shoot first" and "we're the government, we don't need to ask nuthin'" reputation. Thanks.

[Bill]

I recently got my first musket and I am interested on the proper way to file off the modern marks on the musket. Thanks in advance for the help.

Bill,

I would suggest an extra step before you start using a file on your rifle barrel. Take the round end of a light weight ball peen hammer, and LIGHTLY tap the stampings on your rifle. Metal stamps don't remove any metal, they just move it around. If you you run your finger over the stampings, you'll be able to feel what I talking about. The stampings will have raised edges. LIGHTLY tapping these stampings will tend to push the metal back where it started, and leave you less material to file away.

I use fine files to remove the stampings, and finish up with #400, then #600 wet/dry sandpaper and WD-40.

[Minieball577]

Bill stated "LIGHTLY tapping these stampings will tend to push the metal back where it started, and leave you less material to file away.

I use fine files to remove the stampings, and finish up with #400, then #600 wet/dry sandpaper and WD-40."


Jim, This is VERY good advice. BE sure, as the post says, to LIGHTLY tap, as a deep peen from a hammer would require much more filing than you want! Also, you do not want to deform anything in the breech area!.

As far as sand paper goes, the best place to find the very fine grit paper, the 400 and 600 grit, is at your local Auto Supply store. They sell it in their re-finishing or auto detailing section.

Best of luck.

[KentuckyReb]

Figured that would get some attention... :D

Just wondering if anybody else has had trouble, particularly with a newer '42, with the durn thing not wanting to go off, misfiring because evidently the touch-hole in the cone is too small. If so, is there a source for cones with a little larger-diameter touch-hole? Drill bit won't get a bite on it for s__t.

(Guess this really ought to be either in COI or The Sinks. Sorry, Mod. The question just occurred to me while I was reading and I didn't stop to think what folder I was posting in. Gotta go back to regular coffee, I guess.)

[Vuhginyuh]

I would try contacting the manufacturer first, then maybe a gun builder that specializes in 18th and 19th century pieces.

I have had bad experiences with gunsmiths who work on and are trained in such things as modern Browning and Remington systems. Sometimes that knowledge will not translate to an antiquated system.

You don’t want powder in the vent…you want the fulminate to flash through the vent into your breech.

I own two US Model 1808 Flintlock Contract Muskets by Thomas French.
One has been converted to a common rifle and had the vent bored,tapped and fitted with a ''new'' vent. I forget what this is called. Im sure procuring a new barrel is a more efficient way to deal with this if you need such a drastic solution.

Or maybe you can just make the hole bigger...

[hireddutchcutthroat]

You may want to check the breach area for any left over cosmoline. Or If you wanted to you could send it to me. I could drill it out for you.

[Justin Runyon]

I had the same problem when I got mine several years back. I drilled out the cone myself and its fired everytime since.

[NY Pvt]

The small holes in the nipples on some reproduction weapons are made that way. They are for competition shooting. While I am not sure how the small whole makes it makes it more accurate or the exact reason behind it, they are not made with reenactors in mind. I found that when I fired only a few rounds through my Enfield with the small wholed nipple, I normally didn’t have any problems. But after repeated times firing, such as at McDowell it just refused to go off (Some Confed got lucky). You could try to drill it out but be careful it does not crack, because that could be trouble!

I bought an after market one in Gettysburg at Regimental Quartermaster. I am sure other places have them as well such as logwood.

By any chance is your 42’ an Armi-Sport? It seems most new Armi-Sports I have encountered have that type of nipple.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

One theory for the small flash hole on a modern nipple (period US: cone) is that it concentrates the stream of flash like a magnifying lens does the sun- making for a more sure and faster ignition of the main powder charge through the angles of the flash channel.

A smaller "hole" or vent allows less gas blow-back, making the pressure exerted by a given charge of gun powder more efficient (so less can be used).
Less powder tends to equal greater economy for competitive shooters, but also gives a slight edge in accuracy by retarding flinch).
In my N-SSA daze, my custom-built M1855 was sighted in for a 375 grain semi-wad cutter "Minie" instead of the Civil War era 510, and 36 grains of FFF instead of the period 60 of FF. (Off the bench, at 50 yards, that combo produced a group the size of a .25 coin.)

As the size of the flash hole/nipple vent does not change, accuracy due to powder charge pressure would be consistent with either a small or a large opening- just less pressure from a larger one.

In the N-SSA, the guns are often cleaned after each target event, which sometimes is after only 2-3 rounds- so the small "hole" fouling closed is not the same problem as for reenactors (although for reenacting, I had an Armi-Sport M1861 that misfired due to a fouled cone after ONLY 2-3 rounds- before I replaced the "N-SSA nipple."

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Matt Woodburn]

Micah,

I just drilled one of my cones a few weeks ago. I've done this several times and I know it doesn't look like the bit is cutting. It takes a long time. Be patient. You'll eventually see some powder coming out by the bit. The powder is very small pieces of metal. It took me 30-40 minutes. Also go with a very small diameter bit. A bit that's too large won't cut. The trick is not to apply too much pressure that the bit breaks which is easy to do with the size bit you should be doing this with. If you see the bit flex, back off on pressure. I've broken bits off in cones and getting them out is a pain. You also don't want to open a cone too much because you'll let too much pressure come out the cone when the main charge goes off. Fire and hot gasses come back in your face which is not too cool. If you give up, go to a local auto parts store in your area that has a machine shop. They can drill it for next to nothing. And while you're there if you have a repro model 42, have them grind down the ugly steel front sight and put a brass bead weld on it that you can shape to look like the originals.

Best Regards,

[James Brenner]

I recently purchased an M1842 from John Zimmerman and it had two problems with it. The first was with the cone. A friend of mine has a drill press and I was able to enlarge the hole so that a nipple pick can fit through it. The other problem was that, after firing - misfiring, in this case - the trigger would lock behind the sear. I thought at first that the trigger was malformed, but it turned out that the bar extending from the sear was bent, allowing the trigger to slip beneath it. I'm probably not describing this well, but I took the musket back to John and he fixed it on the spot. He simply put the sear in a vice and reshaped the bar. I've had no problems since. Still, for the price we pay for these things, you'd think that the quality control would be a little better.

[Darrell Cochran]

My experience with repro Springfields has not to do with the size of the hole in the cone but in the way the vent itself is designed ... In the two repro Enfields I've owned, there is very nearly a straight line from the cone through the vent and into the breech, while in my 1855 Springfield and my son's 1861, the vent runs at a 90 degree angle from the opening of the cone -- Thus it is much easier for fouling to block the way. I had relatively little problem with this in my Euroarms 1855 while my son's much older Navy Arms 1861 drove him nuts fouling and refusing to fire until I took the drill not to the cone but to the vent.

[KentuckyReb]

Been pretty busy, haven't been able to check the board for a little. Yes, Dane, it's an Armi-Sport. And I had acouple of buds tell me that their '61s gave the same problem periodically. One of them, the 'go-to guy' for firearms issues, also alluded to a poor fire channel configuration with the Springfields. I kinda wondered about that myself, when I had the cone out...it DID look a little strange to have that much of an angle involved, as if counting on the flame from the cap to 'ricochet' its way into the breech of the weapon. For Matt Woodburn's response, I think I might try it again, then. I was using a very small diameter bit...an eyeful of hot gas occurred to me as well, when I decided to try to work on the thing. But I was apparently expecting a little too quick a progress. So I'll try her again. The vent, now...hm. Never had any trouble getting a pick in it. I think it's okay...if I get the cone opened up a little, (or get a different one like Dane) and STILL have this difficulty, then I'll give the vent itself a little attention. Something I didn't know, though, Matt... originals were brass? Hm. So just grind the thing down and get a brass bead on there. 'Bout the same length/width/height, then I can work on it with a fine file to refine the shape of it, something like that? And to Mr. Brenner, I too think there could be a little improvement in QC at the production end. This thing costs me around $500, then at the first event I have it at, one of the pins on the side of the mainspring, that hold it in the proper position within the musket, managed to break on me and I had to have it replaced. Kinda toasts yer shorts. But. All is well now, 'cept for the cone problem (and the front sight...thanks Matt). I dearly love my punkin-slinger. I get those things taken care of and have it defarbed and all will be right with the world. Thanks a lot, guys.

[flattop32355]

From what I have read, you don't want to bore out the cone diameter beyond a 1/32 bit size to prevent the blowback problem...which is probably why they went with the angled vent anyway.
My used 1863 Springfield, which is supposedly a EuroArms that was imported for Navy Arms, also is a bear for clogging. When I compared it to a ArmiSport Enfield I bought, the cone diameter is no more than half that of the Enfield. That little feller is gonna get a bore job right soon!

[Clark Badgett]

Ok comrades, which maker currently offers the most accurate, looks wise, straight out of the box '61 Springfield. I think this time around I'm going to buy a Springfield, instead of an Enfield. I would prefer answers which compare the repros to originals, and I realize that there is a weight issue with the new offerings. Another thing to keep in mind, I am a metal worker and machinist, and budding wood worker, so you can get detailed and technical in your usage of words. I'll more than likely understand.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kamerad!

Having once been a custom-builder of the M1855 and "Richmond," IMHO...

The answer to your question is "Those makers who make copies of original parts (such as Cross lockplates) so one can build a true/exacting copy of the M1861.

However...

Regarding the Italian offerings:

Depends...
It appears that the Italian companies keep modifying and fiddling with their offerings over time, so it makes the question very difficult without having a "sutler" such as REGIMENTAL QUARTERMASTER down the street so one can run down and have a look at the most recent offerings on the wall!
NEITHER Euroarms or ArmiSport has done a good job of reprocating a M1861. Both are "simulated copies" and differ on the size and shape of parts and furniture, and both suffer from the barrel breeches being significantly beefed up. Some parts are anywhere from 5-15% oversize, and many poor in matching the shape and configuration of the originals (so swapping original or repro-original parts to correct mistakes is very hard.
Metal parts are finished modern buffing wheel mirror bright.
The wood is something Northern Italian (maybe beech?), and oiled. (Needs stripped and restained to simulate American Black Walnut but the grain is wrong when it shows.
The barrel alone on the ArmiSport was over 1.8 pounds MORE than the original. Most of that weight coming in the taper of the flats-to-round in the breech and middle.
Both barrels AP and EA lack barrel proof stamps, substituting BLACK POWDER ONLY and the bogus Italian stuff and Italian proof house stamps as well as a modern serial number.
The bolster on the AS is squarish instead of roundish.
The rear sight is poor. And the "leaves" undersized" so they fall loose and rattle.
The ArmiSport lockplate is thinner than the original, and is inletted too deep and is flush with the stock mortise.
Lockplate escutcheons are oversized.
The stock carries a different comb profile. And the stock is heavier, thicker, and its comb wider and blockier.
The stock is heavier than original stocks.
There are no inspector's cartouche or cartouches on the stock.
The forearm edge of the stock is wider and squarer than on the original.
Band springs have rounded instead of square ends, and are centered low instead of on the mid-line as compared to the originals. The pins of the springs are attached at a different angle than the originals.
The nosecap has the wrong profile.
Sling swivels on the AS are screwed on, on the original they are riveted on.
The tang of the buttplate on the AS is too curved, and the tang itself too short and of a slightly different shape than the original.
There is no "US" stamped on the tang.

I have only examined ONE EuroArms '61. It was trash.
Although it was not as oversized as the AS, it was "less of a copy." Meaning instead of cast furniture, it had a thin stamped buttplate (of a slightly different curve and tang angle, size and shape). The barrel bands were formed of a strip of thin steel bent and welded together to form a loop.
The hammer was of a similar, but not close profile to the original, with too small of a radius and too small of a nose. The lockplate was thinner, incorrectly inlet flush to the stock, and of a different shape than the original.
The lockplate stampings were bad.

I don't know the vintage of this EA '61, but I have heard the "brand new" ones are a teeny bit better.

Although the weight of the barrel and its configuration cannot be changed easily, IMHO, the AS still lends itself better to the "de-farbing" process. It also benefits from cosmetically correctly the as many of the faults I mentioned through gunsmithing, woodworking, and retrofitting repro-original parts. I use a "de-farbed' and highly "reworked," retrofitted one myself...
;-) I used a Cross lockplate marked 1862, an repro-original hammer, repro-orig bands, repro-orig nosecap, and Cross rear sight and leaves. It is restamped with copies of period stamps in all of the right places. Plus a lot of file and sandpaper work.... :-)

So, I am a little biased toward the AS to work on myself. But, I would like to get to a tent or a shop and lay out the two side-by-side to see what is the scoop NOW. (Or find some pards who would let me borrow four or five of each for a weekend...)

Basically, I say if you can see two side-by-side. Look at them. Heft them. Compare them. Then decide. If you plan on "de-farbing, reworking, and/or retroverting a '61, AS is in the "lead."
Both are poor copies in any event, and one choose from the LESSER OF TWO EVILS at best!!! :-(

Curt Heinrich Schmidt

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

Point of clarification....

The front sight on a M1842 is not a "bead," it is a brass ellipse or oval section with a flat bottom- like a slice from the edge of a brass coin, that was tapered on the sides, from bottom to top, to a thin line (in end view)

When I think of a "bead," I think of a shotgun or some CW revolver front sights.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Clark

You may just want to do what I did, build up a Springfield from original parts. The cost was only slightly more than a repro, but I did end up making several parts such as the rearsight myself.

[Matt Woodburn]

Curt,

You are right about thinking of a bead as a small brass BB. So to clarify, in welding, the type of weld to apply to the front sight would be a bead weld of brass welding rod. That's what to ask for at the machine shop I mentioned in my original post. After building the bead to about 3/16 wide by 1/8 high on the sight, it will need to be filed down to proper shape and size. The shape and size of the steel sight before grinding it down should be the end goal with the brass. I used to own three machine shops with my family and it was very easy to modify/defarb guns then. I hope this clarification helps anyone trying to defarb the front sight on a 42.

Best Regards,

[KentuckyReb]

Can and will do. Thanks for the tips, gentlemen. Don't know what I'd do without this board, or those on it willing to share their knowledge. Thanks much again.

[LibertyHallVols]

Anyone ever deal with these folks or hold one of their muskets in your hands?
http://www.jamesriverarmory.com

I've been interested in a well-made contract '61 and I'm curious about these folks..

Thanks,

[Minieball577]

Anyone ever deal with these folks or hold one of their muskets in your hands?
http://www.jamesriverarmory.com

I've been interested in a well-made contract '61 and I'm curious about these folks..

Thanks,

I have seen some of their work and it is good. However, their 1855 Rifle Musket Type I was defarbed from the Armi Sport, so it has the incorrect rear sight on it. It has the sight of the 1842 Rifled-Musket.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kamerad!

"I've been interested in a well-made contract '61 and I'm curious about these folks.. Thanks,"

Yes I have, and IMHO and former professional opinion- at face value- they may not be what you are looking for or need.

James' business and customer base is the N-SSA shooter of limited means and Greenbacks to spend, who wants to be "more competitive" than what the "unadulterated" Italian repro's can accurately perform or shoot- but without spending the extra bucks to go fully "N-SSA custom" as most all of the top several hundred shooters out of the N-SSA's 3,000 have done.

While the N-SSA Small Arms Committee is RUTHLESS when it comes to individuals and custom builders. However, largely due to Val Forgett of Navy Arms being an N-SSA "charter member" and SAC member- the Italian imports do not have to actually meet the same tests (although it is ardently/adamently maintained they do. If that were true, one would not have .54 Sharps, or .580 Enfields...for example..) ;-)

The second point is that the N-SSA allows for "enhancements" that go beyond the CW "as issued and used" category...

For example, the late model (1861 dated Harpers Ferry) M1855 RM I custom built and used to win a shoe box full of team and individual medals in regional and national competition was "enhanced."

It had:

an Oryan/Jencso progressive depth, 7 grove micro-grove rifling, glass-bedded barrel to eliminate whip

highly tuned, smooth, and crisp lock with a 3.5 trigger pull

a raised front sight to shoot at 50 and 100 yards

and shot a 375 grain modern, hollow-based Semi-Wad cutter pushed by 36 grains of FFF (lubed with Criso and beeswax, greased with automotive white lithium grease to eliminate decomp under heat- cast as a .580 and sized down to .578.

I had amber shooting glasses with a special prescription for 50/100 yards (I do not wear glasses or contacts) ground "off center" so the prescription lined up my eye, the sights, and the target when the rifle was held at "Aim."

And I was considered "conservative." :-)

I have not seen their custom work. If by "custom" they truely "custom build" from premium parts (such as Cross that are exact copies of original parts) to ORIGINAL specs, dimensions, and configuration- and IF PRICING is consistent with contemporary price structure, and IF YOU want to pay for a 100% historically accurate gun for your impression.. ;-)

However, I am aware of no one doing M1861 contractors. The best are Cross lockplates, but he does only differently dated "Springfields." (For a contract, a mint original would be needed- and that can run an extra $400-600 just for the plate. (Repro correct hammers and lock "guts" work, saving Big Bucks..)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Former CW Gunmaker

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Anyone ever deal with these folks or hold one of their muskets in your hands?
http://www.jamesriverarmory.com

I've been interested in a well-made contract '61 and I'm curious about these folks..

Thanks,


Lodgewood carries a large selection of original Springfield and Springfield contract lockplates. I had a William Muir plate on my old Euroarms. I think I ended up making new screws for the plate, outside that it slipped right in.

[Nighthawk]

Curt- There are those of us in the N-SSA who are the despised "stitch Nazis", as well as "purists" shooting when it comes to shooting competition. While I will admit the widespread use of fantasy guns shooting bullets that never existed, some of us try to take it to the next level. I shoot a self built Fayetteville Rifle Type III, (S hammer and Bayonet Lug on side of barrel). All of the stock contours, and sights mic. out the same as an original. No bedding or custom lock work. The only concession is a Whitaker barrel in .577, and lock plate and sights from Rich Cross. Original lock internals too, if I remember correctly, (I built this in the early 80's). I use an unsized .575 Lyman Old Style Minnie, lubed with beeswax/tallow mixture and with 40gr. of FFF powder, the thing will shoot one hole groups all day if I can hold it that steady. There is a "cult" in the N-SSA that would like to see an "as issued" class for competition. Now THAT would be fun. :baring_te

[LibertyHallVols]

Curt,
So, what you're saying is, **IF** their "custom" builds utilize parts to original specs, then they might have what I want (however, "springfield" lockplates only, no contractors). ...the caveat being the price (~$1300).

Robert,
Thanks for the input. However, I don't think an AS or Euroarms will meet my needs. I used to have an early Euroarms '61. The wood-to-metal fit was excellent and it had been "defarbed"... it was a really nice looking piece as Italian pieces go. However, the barrel (as you probably know) was waaaay too heavy and the contours of the stock were generally too "chunky" for my liking.

Thanks! I was curious if someone sold something good "out of the box". With a 90-day lead time, they probably come closest, if they meet the specs that Curt noted.

Thanks!

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Curt,
So, what you're saying is, **IF** their "custom" builds utilize parts to original specs, then they might have what I want (however, "springfield" lockplates only, no contractors). ...the caveat being the price (~$1300).

Robert,
Thanks for the input. However, I don't think an AS or Euroarms will meet my needs. I used to have an early Euroarms '61. The wood-to-metal fit was excellent and it had been "defarbed"... it was a really nice looking piece as Italian pieces go. However, the barrel (as you probably know) was waaaay too heavy and the contours of the stock were generally too "chunky" for my liking.

Thanks! I was curious if someone sold something good "out of the box". With a 90-day lead time, they probably come closest, if they meet the specs that Curt noted.

Thanks!

John

I ran into the same problem. You may just want to keep an eye out for a cutdown 61 and rebuild it. That is what I did, and it didnt break the bank.

[JimKindred]

"There is a "cult" in the N-SSA that would like to see an "as issued" class for competition. Now THAT would be fun."

Paul,

I hope that cult works out. We had a similar cult in the high power rifle matches for CMP that finally was able to organize matches that only allow as issued M1 Garands to be used, no National Match or modified rifles allowed. These are the John C. Garand matches. They take it very seriously, even a rifle with just a NM marked operating rod will disqualify it from the match.

Changes can be made if enough pressure is applied. Keep pushing the organization and that type match may just come about leading to other history minded changes in the organization.

Moderators - My above comment is off CW topic but is used as an example that with the right encouragement beneficial changes can be made in large organizations.

[LibertyHallVols]

Robert,
Yes, that is the other option... it requires a lot of looking and a little luck! I always like to keep my options open!

In August, Lodgewood had a nice Savage'61 with a full-length barrel and cutdown stock that would have made a nice parts gun. However, if you don't have the money at the moment, the moment is lost. The gun was sold and I've returned to the drawing board.

Jim:
Yes, the JCG matches are a good example. Interesting note, though...
One of my "Service Grade" CMP M1's has a "NM" op rod. "Service Grade", but unusable! Sheesh! ;)

[FlaYankee]

Hello all;
I have recently read through the book "The US Model 1861 Springfield Rifle Musket", by Hartzer, Yantz and Whisker. Excellent book, as it gave me the idea to purchase a Euroarms musket, and turn it into a contract musket. I have an 1862 Bridesburg lockplate that I will install.

I recall in the book "Introduction to CW small arms", in the chapter pertaining to Springfields, their was a small paragraph that showed an abundance of contract muskets to actual Springfields in an Infantry co. Even the numbers of contract muskets made show how common they were.

Anyway, I was wondering, how many of you who own repro 1861's, have done any work to make your muskets into various contract muskets;ie Bridesburg, Parker's Snow, Norfolk, Trenton, Etc. In my opinion, this would add more authenticity to ones impression, rather than having, just an out of the box 61 Springfield.
I look forward to your replies.. ;)

Kindest Regards;

[dahoude]

Here is my contract Springfield repro. This is an Armi Sport 1861, now turned into a William Muir contract model '61 made in 1863, William Muir and Co. was from Windsor Locks, CT. The first pic is the repro, the second pic is the original that was copied.

Regards;

Dan Houde




Hello all;
I have recently read through the book "The US Model 1861 Springfield Rifle Musket", by Hartzer, Yantz and Whisker. Excellent book, as it gave me the idea to purchase a Euroarms musket, and turn it into a contract musket. I have an 1862 Bridesburg lockplate that I will install.

I recall in the book "Introduction to CW small arms", in the chapter pertaining to Springfields, their was a small paragraph that showed an abundance of contract muskets to actual Springfields in an Infantry co. Even the numbers of contract muskets made show how common they were.

Anyway, I was wondering, how many of you who own repro 1861's, have done any work to make your muskets into various contract muskets;ie Bridesburg, Parker's Snow, Norfolk, Trenton, Etc. In my opinion, this would add more authenticity to ones impression, rather than having, just an out of the box 61 Springfield.
I look forward to your replies.. ;)

Kindest Regards;

[FlaYankee]

Here is my contract Springfield repro. This is an Armi Sport 1861, now turned into a William Muir contract model '61 made in 1863, William Muir and Co. was from Windsor Locks, CT. The first pic is the repro, the second pic is the original that was copied.

Regards;

Dan Houde

Wow! Thats a real beauty! Great pics and shows off the details real well.
Did you have any problem with the Armisport When you did this work?

Kindest regards;

[dahoude]

I cannot take credit for the work, only the idea. Our units home impression is that of the 149th NYSV out of Syracuse, NY. Several of us were invited to the home of a decendant of a member of the original 149th, a gent named Peter Foster. His ancestor was Isaac "Ike" Foster of Co. G. He has Ike's musket and upon viewing it I saw that it was a Muir contract Springfield, since we do a 149th NYSV impression I wanted to have it reproduced. I actually had Mr. John Zimmerman do the work for me. As far as I know he had no problems. I was very satisfied with the results. FYI, the 149th was originally issued Enfields at Elmira, NY, but were then issued contract Springfields later.

Regards;

Dan Houde
149th NYSV


Wow! Thats a real beauty! Great pics and shows off the details real well.
Did you have any problem with the Armisport When you did this work?

Kindest regards;

[FlaYankee]

Zimmerman does do some nice work!
I was considering have him do some of the markings on mine.

Kindest Regards

[ScottCross]

Harold,

Years ago, My pard and I took our reproduction Springfields and replaced the lock plate with original 1861 contract plates. Minor fine tuning was required, but we thought (like yourself) that contract rifles would have been more common. Everyone thought they were originals. I've always thought it was a good idea.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

Not to comment on vendor/craftspeople, but...

"Zimmerman does do some nice work!"

Yes, he does. But he also does some questionable work. I have seen great work, and I have seen less than great work credited to Mr. Zimmerman.

A great deal depends upon ones needs, requirements, and expectations.

Regarding restampings, because steel stamps are quite costly, and the number and variety needed to offer a range of makers large, Mr. Zimmerman is using individual letter stamps.
A problem with individual stamps is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to properly align, space, set, and strike them to look like a solid stamp. To a degree, like tombstones in an old cemetery, they are out of alignment and struck to different depths.

Another more exacting issue lies with using "generic" "V, P, Eaglehead" inspector's stamps as they were IDable to the individual contractors.

I might would suggest going through the M1861 "de-farb" posts for information on the concept, various processes, and pluses and minuses.

I have done several, reworking, reshaping, swapping original and Cross parts here and there, to try to make silk purses out of sow's ears. In fact, I have a 1862 Bridesburg plate waiting to be used myself. ;-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[FlaYankee]

Harold,

Years ago, My pard and I took our reproduction Springfields and replaced the lock plate with original 1861 contract plates. Minor fine tuning was required, but we thought (like yourself) that contract rifles would have been more common. Everyone thought they were originals. I've always thought it was a good idea.

Scott; I've seen only one other person do the same, and yep, he fooled me into thinking he had an original :confused_ ..

Kindest Regards

[hireddutchcutthroat]

I added an original Wm Muir lockplate to my old repro EuroArms several years back. As I remember it slipped right in with a minimal amount wood work. I did make new lockplate screws, but original screws are probably available.


I have included two photos of original lockplates. Notice the stamping, the overall quality, and precision of the lettering.

[FlaYankee]

Hallo Kameraden!

Not to comment on vendor/craftspeople, but...

"Zimmerman does do some nice work!"

Yes, he does. But he also does some questionable work. I have seen great work, and I have seen less than great work credited to Mr. Zimmerman.

A great deal depends upon ones needs, requirements, and expectations.

Regarding restampings, because steel stamps are quite costly, and the number and variety needed to offer a range of makers large, Mr. Zimmerman is using individual letter stamps.
A problem with individual stamps is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to properly align, space, set, and strike them to look like a solid stamp. To a degree, like tombstones in an old cemetery, they are out of alignment and struck to different depths.

Another more exacting issue lies with using "generic" "V, P, Eaglehead" inspector's stamps as they were IDable to the individual contractors.

I might would suggest going through the M1861 "de-farb" posts for information on the concept, various processes, and pluses and minuses.

I have done several, reworking, reshaping, swapping original and Cross parts here and there, to try to make silk purses out of sow's ears. In fact, I have a 1862 Bridesburg plate waiting to be used myself. ;-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

Heinrich;
In the Springfield book, there is actually a section concerning Eagle/VP markings of the different contractors. And boy, how different they look. Some excellent close up pictures of inspector cartouches as well.
I may end up doing most of the work myself, but we'll see as I have some more research to do.
Regards;

[Yellowhammer]

Not to pile on Mr. Zimmerman, but I need to add to Curt's comments from my recent experience.

I was recently given a Euroarms Enfield by a member of our unit and asked about the authenticity of the Zimmerman defarb. When I was through, my comrade asked me to take his musket from him and defarb the defarb. So far, I have replaced the lockplate, removed the gauge stamps with the intention having them remarked with correct stamps at the N-SSA Nationals next weekend, and sanded the cartouche off the stock and refinish the stock.

The lockplate, which I should post a picture of, was the standard incorrect Euroarms "London Armoury" plate to which Mr. Z added a "broad arrow", a "VR" under the crown, and crudely changed the date. (The removal of the previous mark was crude to say the least and the new stamping was uneven in both line and depth as Curt noted.) The gauge stampings were 80%-100% oversized compared to all the originals I have examined and I was unable to find a similar stock cartouche in any reference work.

I have seen MANY such examples of Mr. Zimmerman's uneven workmanship including a botched US M1841 Harpers Ferry conversion, several poorly stamped Harpers Ferry US M1842s, and a Colt Army that appeared to have the under barrel stamps removed with a horseshoe rasp. On the other side of the coin, I have personally examined several beautiful Hall rifles and carbines he has made. The man is extremely talented but certainly appears to apply those talents unevenly.

I can document all these instances with photographs if requested.

Bottom line, if Mr. Zimmerman wishes to continue to apply the moniker "master gunsmith" to himself, he needs to expend the necessary capital to upgrade his tools and stamps. As Curt noted, stamps are expensive to reproduce but if I were in the business of restamping muskets with "Harpers Ferry," you can be damn sure I'd have the proper stampings for the task.

Further, if Mr. Zimmerman wishes to cater to the authentic community, it is high time we started demanding more consistent work from him.

[FlaYankee]

John;
Thanks for the good advice. Like I said, I may end up doing the work myself.
Kindest Regards;

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

A few years ago a pard and I thought we would like to enter the "de-farb" business and started to have made and collect Springfield and Enfield barrel and stock stamps, as well as a hundred or so clothing and accoutrement stamps.
The hardened steel stamps, copied exactly from originals, were $200-300 each. So, add up the barrel stampings on a barrel.
But, IMHO, if it is one's business, we should be demanding MORE of those vendors that supply these services, and should also be less accepting of poorer quality and incorrect work.

A second issue with steel stamps lies with period iron and "mild steel" versus the "hard" modern steels. Even with a 5 Pound sledge, it is very hard (no pun) to strike that little stamp and have it imprint to depths commonly found on originals (not that all strikes are deep, but one can often find Enfield proofs struck so deeply the square shank of the stamp in evident).
To that end, my pard and I purchased a two (2) ton striking arbor (and wished we had gone to three ton). While a hardened lockplate can be softened and rehardened, it is hard (no pun) to do that on a barrel breech section.

Our "business" was never launched due to differences of vision between the two of us- he wanting to take it to mainstream events where I believed the market was not at, and I wanted to do it over the Net for those that wanted such things.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[MassVOL]

I dont know if anyone has seen this but I stumbled across it and thought that anyone looking into contract rifles may find it useful.
http://www.beaufortonian.com/mocw/manufact.htm

p.s. scroll down and it has the different contract markings etc.

[ejn]

Has anyone had any experience with the Norris & Clement lockplate from S&S Firearms (http://www.ssfirearms.com/PP1863-64%20Spfld.htm, item 58S166B)? I've been thinking of creating a shooter to go along with my originals.

Ed

[MassVOL]

Ed,
I was looking into the LOCKPLATE, S.N.& W.T.C. For Massachusetts (Reproduction) lockplate but the date is a little late for my taste. Which is why I was looking into the William Mason contract of 1861, which was stamped Taunton, Mass. If you just want to shoot it I suppose it makes no difference when the date is though.

[Jefferson Guards]

Maybe I am missing something, but I have been using the search feature for the past two days for advice on defarbing an Armi-Sport 1861 Springfield, but I cannot find any real advice.

Can someone point me to the correct thread or let me know what has to be changed/replaced/reworked in order to make it as close as one of these reproduction can be to an original.

Thanks a bunch!

[J the Black Sheep]

I'm having trouble locating that one myself. You might want to do an advanced search and look for postings on it and replies by Curt-Heinrich.

Good luck!

j

[Dignann]

Brian,

Oddly enough, someone asked the same question on Bob Szabo's forum and Mr. Schmidt provided some answers over there.

http://www.cwreenactors.com/dcforum/Howto/1795.html

Eric

[MassVOL]

Yes that was me on the other forum. And for the good of the group I will pass on what I have learned.
From Curt:
In addition to the finish and Italian markings:

1. Quality Control varies (fit and finish vary).
2. A barrel that is heavier, thicker, and of a different taper.
3. A barrel that lacks the "V P Eaglehead" stampings for "viewed, proofed, and accepted into Government service."
4. A lockplate that is thin and inlet to deep (flush) with the lock mortise.
5. The lock "internals" are not always finished or polished.
6. A cone (nipple) that may have too small of flash hole.
7. A cone bolster that is squareish rather than gently rounded.
8. An Italian hardwood stock instead of American Black Walnut, of larger dimensions and proportions to accommodate the larger barrel.
9. A weak profile, thicker, and more squareish comb on the stock.
10. The hammer is shorter of a slightly different configuration than the original.
11. A thicker wrist on the stock.
12. Band springs with squared instead of rounded ends, and the stock mortising that are shallow and square ended.
13. A nose cap with a weak profile and indistinct features.
14. A butt plate with a short tang with a different shape, as well as a tang with a shallower curve. And the "US" stamp stamped incorrectly below the tang scr#w.
15. Sling swivels that are scr#wed on instead of riveted.
16. The absence of the rectangular or sometimes oval two or three letter "inspector's cartouche" stamp (or sometimes two stamps) on the stock flat opposite the lock where the lock screws go.
17. Markings and stampings, such as the eagle motif, and year or production, year of barrel production, etc. that resemble but do not match the original markings.
18. Missing "U's" for "up" on the right side of the barrel bands (original bands have an internal taper that allows them to slide over the tapered forestock, so "up" is important...).
19. These reproductions vary a little among themselves over time, so some features may change a little depending upon how "old" the particular ArmiSport is.

I wanted to construct a contract Springfield so I drew some information from this site: http://www.beaufortonian.com/mocw/manufact.htm
The thread below also has some good info in it from the boards.
http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.phpt=3662&highlight=springfield

[MassVOL]

My plan is to get an Armi-Sport from Zimmerman, purchase a hammer from S&S, stain the stock with linseed oil. After that try to find or have made the contract lockplate that I want. The other farbisms I can live with for now.

[tmdreb]

I know this is not quite in line with this thread, but a proposition that might be somewhat easier than restamping the whole lockplate. Would it not be a step in the right direction to start out with perhaps different date stampings on muskets? As it stands now, the manufacturers stamp all their same date on the same type of rifle or musket. For example, all '61 Springfields are stamped with the date 1861, the Armisport 1842's are all stamped 1847.

The Colt repro muskets seem like they're as good as the other Italian repros on the market. A few more of these thrown in the ranks would be nice as well. However, I think the main goal we who claim to be authenticity minded would be to have uniformly armed companies. Of course, I also feel this is part of a larger issue in that authenticity needs to be focused more on groups, and not just individuals.

[Bill Cross]

My plan is to get an Armi-Sport from Zimmerman [and] stain the stock with linseed oil.
I assume you meant stain the stock AND coat it with linseed oil.

Heinrich is a better authority, but the stock, if properly stripped of its poly finish (if, in fact, it HAS a poly finish, since newer models of AS guns apparently are being shipped oiled and not polyed) will need to be stained first.

Also, and Heinrich can quote the recipe, modern linseed oil is not the same beast as period, and can be reconstituted with some other mineral spirits added (spar varnish being one of them if memory serves). This concoction is not only more correct, it is harder than a coating of modern linseed oil, which will stay pliable and not protect the wood as well.

Hopefully Curt will step in at some point and provide the exact specifications and suggest some stain colors (I believe I used a mixture of Walnut and Mahagonny, but again, that was a couple of years back and I don't remember exactly).

[MassVOL]

Yes I remember using the search engine and looking up some of his previous posts. Your comments about the Armi-Sport raise a question in my mind. If the gun is already oiled how does that change the whole procedure? Does it still need to be stripped? OR can you just go to work with linseed?

[J the Black Sheep]

Bill,

You're there with the varnish mixture. An equal part Linseed Oil, Spar Varnish and Turpentine. I've also taken formula No. 1 and cut it in half again with Turpentine (formula No. 2) to allow it to penetrate the wood deeper.

As to the stains, Curt can correct me on this (please!) but leather dye works a bit better than the commercial stains out there.

Without going into all the boring detail, on an Enfield stock I refinished, after stripping, reshaping, and sanding the stock, I applied two coatings of Fiebings leather dye to the wood, letting it soak in. The stock should appear a bit darker than you'd ideally want, but not to worry...

Then, I applied two coatings of No. 2 to allow it to penetrate the wood, wiping off the excess after about a minute or so. Some of the dye near the surface did rub off, lightening the stock a wee bit. Then, I applied a few coats of No. 1. No. 1 being a bit thicker, it should fill the pores of the wood a bit better. As this was a finish applied to a military gun, I didn't try to fill in the pores perfectly like I would on a non-military gun. (As a side note, on a Winchester shotgun stock I'm restoring, I applied several hand rubbed varnishings.)

Thomas,

I'm not sure if you'd need to strip the stock or not. I don't know what the Italians are using as a finish. If you're going to change the color of the stock, then you will need to strip it do the bare wood in order for the dye to fully penetrate the wood - the oil will prevent full penetration. Otherwise, proceed as above.


I hope this helps.

j

[AzTrooper]

Howdy all,
I recently bought a 1861 Springfield rifle .The craftsmanship and fit is exceptional.The letters SFC appear on the left side of the breech plug and SC is stamped on the left side of the stock between the heads of the two fasteners that attach the lock plate.The loops for the sling are attached with pins . There is a faint design on the stock located roughly a inch behind and slightly lower than the rear most fastener that attaches the lock plate . There are no spring retainers for the bands, and there is a U stamped into each band.There is no "VP" stamped anywhere on it. I looked in several books and the rifle looks exactly like the pictures I saw of what they called a Colt special model 1861.Instead of having Colt stamped on the outer surface of the lockplate, "1861" is stamped at the rear of the lock plate,forward of the hammer "US" is stamped and below it is stamped "SPRINGFIELD FIREARMS Corp." Below that is stamped "SPRINGFIELD Mass"There is no fastener below and to the side of the cone for cleaning, instead of the rounded area that I have seen there is a flat faced ,comma shaped surface with a Eagle stamped on it. The letters SFC is also stamped on the inside of the lockplate. I have had three gunsmiths inspect it and they all agree that the worksmanship is exceptional.They think it was produced by Springfield, it is just when that they dont know.
Im curious, could it have made by Springfield? It is in incredible shape and if it is a Springfield I doubt it was built 140+ years ago,thats why I was wondering if Springfield possibly produced some 1861's in recent years.
To be perfectly honest, I just really like the rifle ....so weather it was produced by Springfield or someone else. old or new, does not really matter,for all I know it may just be a really well made copy or something of the sort. The fit, finish and quality of this is NOTHING like My IAB Sharps carbine thats for sure ! hahaha.
If anyone has any ideas who made this rifle I would really appreciate your input .
Thank You very much,
Respectfully, John Rogers

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kamerad!

It is not a Model 1861 Springfield... ;-)

No, it is not a continuation of the same Civil War Springfield Armory's Special Model 1861, just a similarity of name for a similar modern-made product.

Within the past few years, the "M1861 Special" has been offered in its Colt,
Amoskeag, and L,G, & Y contract variations- I believe all Italian-made with the "Colt" being surcharged and stamped with a Sam Colt face and signature for Colt's "Blackpowder Signature" line of products.

Yes, the ones I have seen tend to be better made, but accordingly more expensive than their Italian made M1861 cousins. I believe they are all out of production now (?), but one can still be found here and there, and particulary "used." However, they do not compare to the initial run of M1861 Springfield, 1862 Richmond, and M1863 Springfields made in the mid to late '70's by Mike Yeck of Dundee, Michigan.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Michael McComas]

Mr. Rogers,

You are right on the money. Springfield Firearms Corp (not to be confused with Springfield Armory) did indeed reproduce the US Special Model 1861 rifle-musket. I could not find dates of production or other particulars. It sounds like a well-made reproduction, as I would expect from them. They have a reputation for being even better than the real thing.

One of the old hands on the N-SSA board may be able to tell you more about your particular gun, such as when they were made, any known "gotchas" or parts prone to breakage, etc. You can find their board at http://www.n-ssa.org/bb/index.php

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

The Armi-sport already has the serial number also stamped on the bottom of the barrel. If you have a Euro-arms and want the number on the bottom you can stamp it yourself. You will need a serial number on it somewhere if you want to take the musket into Canada and it can come in handy if it is ever lost or stolen. Harbor Freight tools had a stamping set real cheep. Last time I was there I think I saw one for under $10. Check out the link below.
Terry http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Category.taf?CategoryID=163&pricetype=

Has anyone used this stamping set and can give results? Also does anyone know of a source for buying the correct stamps for an enfield? Essentially I would like to be able to defarb my rifle and my pards at a fraction of the cost, or at least have the stamps for the same price.

Paul B. Boulden Jr.

RAH VA MIL '04

[major]

Has anyone used this stamping set and can give results? Also does anyone know of a source for buying the correct stamps for an enfield? Essentially I would like to be able to defarb my rifle and my pards at a fraction of the cost, or at least have the stamps for the same price.
Paul B. Boulden Jr.
RAH VA MIL '04

Paul
A set of proof stamps for the Enfield will cost you $1000.00 +. You can have it done for a lot less. E-mail me and I can give you more info. t.schultz5@verizon.net
Terry

[Bill]

[QUOTE=paulcalloway]
The Company Quartermaster is not an Approved Vendor on this forum.

Paul,

Maybe they ought to be! Their defarbed Enfield Rifle is far superior to the basic out-of-the-box Euroarms or Armi-sport. Please check out their website at http://members.verizon.net/~vze3jhwa

I've got no axe to grind, other then I have examined one of their Enfields and was impressed.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

Odds-n-ends...

The same also applies to mounting a shoulder stock on "cap and ball" revolvers such as the M1860 Army or M1861 Navy versus the "Luger" or "Broomhandled Mauser."

I would add, and nothing against our local law enforcement men and women- please do not count on them to know the "Law." Know it yourself.

There is a process for becoming an AC Forum Approved Vendor.

And yes, there are companies that will make hardened steel "stamps" for "Springfields" and "Enfields."

I have had both Springfield and Enfield inspector and barrel proof stamps, as well as maker and inspector stock cartouches made as part of a failed (or at least not launched) business. By using originals, digital imaging, and computer graphic programs- they can be reproduced, but they cost between $200 and $250 each. (BSAT barrels used four (five actually but the gauge stamp goes twice), do the math... London Armoury/London makers are another set)

Period letter and number stamps can sometimes be found at antique tool and Civil War shows. I have a set whose wooden box was marked and dated by each successive owner beginning in 1837 and ending in 1912- that I picked up for $25. (Modern stamps are different fonts/serifs, etc.)

A major problem with stamping lies with hard modern steels and particular modern barrel steel versus the period iron or mild steels. One simply cannot, or rarely ever, achieve great "PC" stampings with a hand held steel hammer these daze. I went to a two-ton striking arbor, and a 10 pound lead mallet, and wish I had a three tonner as I often get shallow strikings.

And, in general, IMHO, attempts to improve the "look" of Italian repro weapons to begin to resemble arms used during the ACW is a plus for the individual and the hobby. (But "Right is Right," and what we accept as "okay" for weapons simply has not kept pace with what we accept for clothing and gear.)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[AzTrooper]

Curt and Michael,
Thank You for taking the time to share your knowledge with Me. I am really thankfull for this forum, and for everyone that is kind enough to share their knowledge and enthusiasm.I really appreciate it a great deal.. Thank You all very much.
Sincerely, John Rogers

Howdy all,
I recently bought a 1861 Springfield rifle .The craftsmanship and fit is exceptional.The letters SFC appear on the left side of the breech plug and SC is stamped on the left side of the stock between the heads of the two fasteners that attach the lock plate.The loops for the sling are attached with pins . There is a faint design on the stock located roughly a inch behind and slightly lower than the rear most fastener that attaches the lock plate . There are no spring retainers for the bands, and there is a U stamped into each band.There is no "VP" stamped anywhere on it. I looked in several books and the rifle looks exactly like the pictures I saw of what they called a Colt special model 1861.Instead of having Colt stamped on the outer surface of the lockplate, "1861" is stamped at the rear of the lock plate,forward of the hammer "US" is stamped and below it is stamped "SPRINGFIELD FIREARMS Corp." Below that is stamped "SPRINGFIELD Mass"There is no fastener below and to the side of the cone for cleaning, instead of the rounded area that I have seen there is a flat faced ,comma shaped surface with a Eagle stamped on it. The letters SFC is also stamped on the inside of the lockplate. I have had three gunsmiths inspect it and they all agree that the worksmanship is exceptional.They think it was produced by Springfield, it is just when that they dont know.
Im curious, could it have made by Springfield? It is in incredible shape and if it is a Springfield I doubt it was built 140+ years ago,thats why I was wondering if Springfield possibly produced some 1861's in recent years.
To be perfectly honest, I just really like the rifle ....so weather it was produced by Springfield or someone else. old or new, does not really matter,for all I know it may just be a really well made copy or something of the sort. The fit, finish and quality of this is NOTHING like My IAB Sharps carbine thats for sure ! hahaha.
If anyone has any ideas who made this rifle I would really appreciate your input .
Thank You very much,
Respectfully, John Rogers

[james faulkner]

Maybe I am missing something, but I have been using the search feature for the past two days for advice on defarbing an Armi-Sport 1861 Springfield, but I cannot find any real advice.

Can someone point me to the correct thread or let me know what has to be changed/replaced/reworked in order to make it as close as one of these reproduction can be to an original.

Thanks a bunch!
Have you tried John Zimmerman, Harpers Ferry W.V.
Jim
3rd VA.INF

Hallo Herr Jim! Welcome to the AC Forum! Forum rules require that you sign or auto-sign your full name to your posts (even though it is also your "screen name." Thank you. Curt-Heinrich Schmidt, Moderator.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kamerad!

"Have you tried John Zimmerman, Harpers Ferry W.V."

The request was "Can someone point me to the correct thread or let me know what has to be changed/replaced/reworked in order to make it as close as one of these reproduction can be to an original."

I would suggest using the SEARCH feature to review previous discussions on the concept and practice of so-called "de-farbing" Italian reproduction arms, as well as opinions and experiences with Mr. Zimmerman.

While there is some fine work in this area attributed and credited to Mr. Zimmerman, there is also some questionable and poor as well.
Also, Mr. Zimmerman provides a range of separate so-called "de-farb" services over a spectrum of areas that start with only as "basic" simply removing the modern Italian barrel stampings. (At one end of the FMPCHA end of the CW Community, that is considered "de-farbed.")

The question posed, "...what has to be changed/replaced/reworked in order to make it as close as one of these reproduction can be to an original." goes beyond the totality of that Mr. Zimmerman presently can be hired to do on, or for, an Italian reproduction.

Thanks for you helpful reply, but please remember to use the SEARCH feature, as well as reviewing some of the AC Forum posts and threads to get an appreciation of what goals, objectives, and purpose the AC Forum is striving for as being "for the Authentic Civil War Living Historian.

Thanks, and we look forward to many fine posts and discussions from you!

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Moderator

[Yellowhammer]

I recently examined an Armi-Sport copy of an 1861 Springfield and the barrel was 3/8's inch shorter than my original and my Euroarms.

Regarding Zimmerman, and to echo Curt's comments, if you buy an 1861 Springfield from him, be sure to ask why he is bluing screws, springs and other parts that were never blued on any original 1861 Springfield or contract gun. "Un-Zimmermaning" Zimmerman defarbs is getting to be a growing cottage industry.

[Bill Cross]

Regarding Zimmerman, be sure to ask why he is bluing screws, springs and other parts that were never blued on any original 1861 Springfield or contract gun.
Thanks, John, but I'll leave that conversation to you. :p Talking to Zim always make me feel like my Dad is about to ground me for a few months....

[BobSullivanPress]

Hello,

After reading the NPS musket drill, I have a question about a repro M1841 rifle I own.

It's been a while since I've drilled with anything other than a pen, so excuse any inaccuracies. My specialty now is paper, not weapons.

In that Vicksburg NPS drill, they want you to put the cap on the musket while the hammer is at half-cock. Now, I could do this with my repro Springfield, because at half-cock, the hammer clears the cone enough to do this.

However, on my M1841 repro, which is an Italian repro purchased in 1975, the hammer at half-cock does not clear the cone, but stops so close to the cone that a cap placed on the cone will not fall off, because the hammer is not far enough away from the cap to let it fall. In fact, to cap this musket, one must take the hammer to full-cock, cap the weapon, and then, if preferred, ease the hammer back down to a half-cock position. This is not the safest of procedures, but then again, a lot of what we did in the 70s when reenacting wasn't safe. Anyway, when returned to half-cock the hammer is not touching the cap, and it's perfectly safe (then). And frankly when I was using the weapon back in the dark ages of reenacting, I found the feature rather comforting, because I could carry a loaded and capped musket around without losing the cap and without worrying about accidentally discharging the weapon.

My question to you weapons folks out there is this... Does anyone with knowledge of an original M1841 know, when at half-cock, were the hammers on originals this close to the cones or is this just death-wish tooling by my Italian manufacturers?

Thanks for any help here, and moderators, if this is in the wrong forum, please move.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Herr Bob!

Just changed out of my 63rd OVI kit, after a day of Shadetree Mess, saw that our Forum was alive (Bully!), and spied your older post.

The relationship of the hammer nose to the cone is set by the location of the half-cock notch on the tumbler.
Commonly, that will place the hammer roughly 3/16 to 1/4 inch from the cap/cone, which allows the piece to be primed at the HALF-COCK (Casey's 175, for example) and taken to the "shoulder" (not cocked until "Ready," 180).

A half-cock position that allows the hammer's nose to rest on the cap creates the hazard of the hammer being caught on something (say passing brush) and pulled back just far enough to slip in the tumbler notch and fire the piece.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[weed]

Curt is right.

The originals were only about 3/16 to 1/4 inch from the nipple. Most of the repro muskets half cock, is way to much. There is a trick to putting on a percussiuon cap when the hammer is as close as it really should be.

John M. Wedeward
33d Wisconsin
"The Raccoon Regiment"

[BobSullivanPress]

Curt is right.

The originals were only about 3/16 to 1/4 inch from the nipple. Most of the repro muskets half cock, is way to much. There is a trick to putting on a percussiuon cap when the hammer is as close as it really should be.

John M. Wedeward
33d Wisconsin
"The Raccoon Regiment"

Well, that's the way my M1841 repro is. Very close, but not touching. You can put a cap on while the hammer is in the half-cock position, but it's difficult. My Springfirld repro has a much higher half-cock position, as you mention. It seems logical to me that the lower position is better, because it's practically impossible to lose a cap when the hammer is at half-cock. The musket can be loaded. capped, and left at half cock through the entire manual of arms without losing the cap. But I wasn't sure which hammer position was more accurate, as I don't own originals of either weapon.

[Greg Renault]

Bob,

My original M1861 Springfield has the half-cock exactly as you describe. It always elicits comments during inspection of arms from those who are used to the reproductions, and end up going to full cock on mine in error.

[Dreamer42]

Koodos, all.
I have my own '53 EA Enfield, but I have faced similar problems when I borrow a friends '61 Springfield for a buddy of mine. During the safety check I had to completly remove the lock so the safety ocifer could inspect the piece. Right there, the tumbler was such that it had been MADE that way. It always get strange looks from folks. The lock is very strong and secure. It has never had any misfires. Perhaps now some of them, if they read this, will have a better idea of the weapon's system.

Jay Reid
9th Texas

[Michael Mantini]

Several members of my unit are having problems with misfires in their armisport springfields. They get off 2 or 3 shots and the weapon fouls at the flash port. We do not seem to have this problem with other manufacturers. I know the members who own these springfields keep them very clean. Has anyone else run into this issue and have some suggestions to correct the problem?

Mike Mantini
5NHV

[1st Maine Trooper]

I own a '55 armisport and I sometimes have trouble when firing blanks with it. What I have found with mine is that foiling builds up in the bolster area under the cone. Even though there is a clear path through to the breach, sometimes I'll get a missfire. The only way I have found to corecy thhis is to remove the cone and cleanout and scrape every bit of foiling from the area. I only offered this since the '55 and '61 barrel and bolster are the same.
Dave Myrick

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

I would sugggest first checking if you have an "N-SSA competition" style cone rather than the actual "military" configuration with a wider vent.

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=697&highlight=fouling

Curt

[Tom Ezell]

Several members of my unit are having problems with misfires in their armisport springfields. They get off 2 or 3 shots and the weapon fouls at the flash port. We do not seem to have this problem with other manufacturers. I know the members who own these springfields keep them very clean. Has anyone else run into this issue and have some suggestions to correct the problem?


Part of the problem is the design of the flash channel itself... in the current reproduction M1861 Springfields, as well as two other weapons based on the same design (the M1855 rifle-musket and the CS Richmond rifle-musket), the flash channel makes nearly a 90-degree turn between the base of the cone and where it emerges into the rifle bore. This serves to reduce the amount of spark delivered to the charge, and makes the weapon much more sensitive to powder fouling in the bore, the flash channel, and in the cone itself -- especially when firing blanks.

You need to be scrupulous about cleaning these specific areas in the weapon, or shell out a few more buck$ and get one of the Amoskeag or Colt Contract Special muskets which feature a more direct path for your sparks.

There are a number of good references on this issue, care of the cone, and related problems in back issues of The Watchdog, under Craig Barry's byline.

[ScottCross]

It could be something as simple as replacing the cone. The cones on reproductions have a smaller diameter than the originals and should be replaced. And yes, cleaning these out after every event is mandatory (remove the cone and the screw).

[ephraim_zook]

This has been a problem with my Armisport '61 Springfield since the day I got it around 8 years ago. I've named it Ol' Miss Fire for the frequency with which it doesn't go off. Yes, I have a wide-channel cone and yes, I keep it scrupulously clean.

The problem that I experience lies with dumping rounds down the muzzle. I can safely predict a misfire 1/3 of the time. On the other hand, if I ram the paper, it will fire all day and half the night without problem.

I don't have a solution for you -- just the dubious comfort of knowing that you aren't alone.

Ron Myzie

[maineman]

I keep two cones, One for live fire and one for blanks. The blank cone I took a .0625 nitrided drill bit and enlarged the flash channel in the cone. It also makes a good reamer for when I remove the bolster cleanout screw in my AS Richmond. The carbon fouling can get as hard as ceramic when it builds up and clogs the flash channel, already tight enough as is.


Pvt. Steven Henry
Co. A , 3rd Maine Volunteer Infantry
"Bath City Greys"

[Michael Mantini]

Thanks for the advice. I'll recommend some of these tips.

Mike Mantini
5NHV

[Bill]

The problem that I experience lies with dumping rounds down the muzzle. I can safely predict a misfire 1/3 of the time. On the other hand, if I ram the paper, it will fire all day and half the night without problem.

Ron Myzie

Ron,

I have the exact same problem. My ArmiSport '61 Springfield fuctions perfectly when ramming the paper or firing live rounds. I think it must have something to do with compressing the powder charge.

It's my guess they experienced the same problem back in the day. There's a reason they switched to an Enfield/Special Model style bolster when the weapon was modified in 1863. Not to mention it was probably cheaper to manufacture the weapon without a clean-out screw.

[Chris Suppelsa]

I have had the same results that bill had above. Try cleaning out the flash channel as often as possible.

[Johan Steele]

The problem is with the Italian made repops; not the original design. I have never had the issue w/ my Miroku & those I know who have purchased proper quality barrels or use original barrels don't either. In 5 years and most of 1000 blank rounds I have had only three misfires and that can be blamed on a set of bad caps.

The idea that the men preffered Enfields to M1861 arms is a re-enactorism that frustrates me beyond belief. The work of Mr Barry details many of the issues w/ repros. THe Italian Repros only look like the originals... sort of anyway.

Barry, Craig L., The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy-Lock, Stock and Barrel, Watchdog Press, 2006.

[Charles Heath]

Has anyone else run into this issue and have some suggestions to correct the problem?

For the most part, you've had good advice thus far. One minor tool that may be of help during those in between event cleanings is a modern device you may purchase from a welding supply house. This tool is a tip cleaner, and resembles an old wire type feeler gauge, but with the individual wires having a rough surface, almost like a very fine spring steel file. The whole thing is about the size of a pack of matches, and the various sizes are good for reaching into that 90 degree angle passage, and a final ream in the cone. Again, this is not something you would take with you to an event, but it is handy on the workbench.

Additionally, most muzzleloading supply catalogs (even Cabela's) carry these small CO2 devices for clearing the barrel. They have enough of a blast to dry off any water/oils/residue down at the bottom of the chamber that may leech into the narrow passage, as a final step in home cleaning. You may already use one of these in the "last resort" kit to remove stuck rammers. Not that anyone has ever had a rammer stuck in a barrel before... :tounge_sm

[LibertyHallVols]

I was asked recently about the "appropriate color" for a musket stock. This question has come up in the past, so I thought I would post some pics to clarify the issue.

In a nut:
Walnut stocks on original muskets varied greatly in color, from a light honey-colored shade to dark brown or red-brown shades.

Attached are a couple shots of "The Pipe Organ" at Springfield Armory NHS that illustrate this point. The display consists of scores of US M1861 rifle muskets and three flint US M1816/22 muskets, all in superb condition.

For reproduction stocks, the main thing I try to avoid are visible bands of light and dark on the stock as I have yet to see an original musket with a two-toned stock.

Enjoy!

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Indeed!

And that is a range of Pennsylvania grown American Black Walnut on "Springfields."
And the Northern Italian Walnut used on British 3rd Model "Enfields," is a horse of a different color as well... :)

Curt

[huntdaw]

Those sure are some pretty pictures!

[LibertyHallVols]

Those sure are some pretty pictures!

Thanks! As they say, they're "...worth a thousand words". Personally, I think that many of the ad nauseum discussions we have on these and other fora could be cut short and the debate ended with some good photographs. So, I'm making it a project to do just that, to whatever extent I am able.

Anybody want to loan me an unaltered Armi Sport and EoA Enfield? :tounge_sm

[dclarry]

Thanks for posting the pictures. These great pictures bring to mind a question I have. I have heard that the rear sight on an 1861 was often blued. Was the whole sight blued, or just the sight leaves? How common were blued sights? The sights in the pictures look all blued, not just the leaves.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

As made by the arsenals, the rear sights (and screws and barrel band springs) on "Springfields" were not blued, but rather "quench blackened."
My guess for sights, it was designed to cut down on reflected (actually refracted) light distortion.
That was the sight base, the two sight screws, and the two leaves on the late model M1855, M1861, M1863, or one leaf on the M1863 "Type II."

However, it was sometimes removed before issuance.
I have never encountered documentation as to why.
As a result, (and assuming it was not done in say 1961 to improve the looks before a sale by a dealer or antique seller), one sometimes finds rear sights both dark and bright.

I replace the bright Italian rear sights with the blackened Rich Cross ones on my Italian
"Springfields."

(As an aside, the hammers and lockplates were color case hardened for function rather than looks. The "color" on M1855 and M1861 arms was arsenal or armory polished bright, except for the M1863 arms..)

Curt

[Foust JW]

Veering lazily Off-topic,

But the shots of this remind me of that series of books for grade schoolers, must've been published in the 1960's to early 1970's when I attended...E.B. Brown?...I think we discussed it about 4 permutations ago.

Series of books about weapons. (I practically stole the CW ones.)everything up to early 'Nam I think. WAY too politically incorrect for modern schools, but I still remember looking at that shot of the Pipe Organ, & thinking..."Holy Crap"!

...Carry on with the important stuff,
Joel Foust

[unclefrank]

Those are sweet!

[NC1862]

Those are sweet!

Indeed. Wouldn't mind having one for myself... :tounge_sm

[johnnyturncoat]

Just to agree with the others, thanks for posting those images-they answer many questions.
Sincerely,
Jon Jones

[LibertyHallVols]

I thought I would post a couple of other observations...

In the attached pic, please note the circled areas:
Red: On all of the Armi Sport 1861's I have seen, there is a gap here, where the stock, barrel, lockplate, and bolster for the cone come together. Not the case with originals, as you can see.

Green: Note the two different patterns of checkering on these orignals. Interesting!

Blue: Note how tightly (for lack of a better word) the breech of the barrel butts up to the stock. This seems to vary from repro to repro, regardless of maker... another reason to hold a repro in your hand before you buy.

Enjoy!

[sauguszouave]

Hallo!

As made by the arsenals, the rear sights (and screws and barrel band springs) on "Springfields" were not blued, but rather "quench blackened."
My guess for sights, it was designed to cut down on reflected (actually refracted) light distortion.


Curt,

Or it may have just been to control the mechanical properties of the sight or it may have been to rust-proof it.

For folks who aren't familiar with the phase transformation properties of iron/carbon alloys, the Cliff Notes version is:

When you heat iron up really hot it takes on an open cubic structure of eight iron atoms, one at each corner of the cube. If there happens to be enough carbon atoms mixed into the iron, a carbon atom will migrate into the space on each face of the cube. If you allow the iron to cool slowly, the carbon atoms will diffuse back out as the iron cube shrinks. However, if you cool the iron rapidly (by doing something like jamming it in a bucket of cold water) some of the carbon atoms will become trapped in the iron cube creating a micro-structure with internal stress. This "quenching" is what makes steel hard and brittle. How this actually happens was first described by the German metalurgist Adolf Martens in the 1890s. Folks during the ACW didn't know why it worked, but they knew it worked.

How hard the steel becomes is a function of how fast you cool it. Cool it fast, lots of carbon atoms get trapped. Cool it slowly and fewer carbon gets trapped. But there is also another problem which is how the cooling gets diffused through the work piece. If you stick a small part that is really hot into something that is really cold or that absorbs heat really fast, like water, the outside of the piece cools much more quickly than the inside of the piece. That means more carbon gets trapped in the outside of the piece than gets trapped in the inside of the piece. The structures that have carbon trapped in them are physically bigger than the ones that don't. That means that the outside of the piece is cold, but bigger and the inside is hot, but smaller. The result is the piece cracks or shatters.

The way to prevent that is to quench in something that doesn't transmit heat quite so rapidly. Brine was a common quenching medium because it transmits heat more slowly than pure water. Oil transmits heat even more slowly. But oil also has another advantage: some of the oil burns onto the surface of the piece during the quenching and produces a black, waterproof surface. The result of oil quenching a small piece is that it is hard, and rust proof with less risk of cracking. The black color is just a byproduct. The problem with the sight picture theory is that the black from quenching is a shiny black, not a dull black. Period sources I've seen soot blacken sights with a candle or a match. But those are competition shooting sources, not military sources. I'll have to check my Wilcox and my Cleveland to see if they have anything about blackening sights.

Regards,

Paul

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Yup, IMHO, originals are spectacular.
Reproductions are just craptacular.
:rolleyes: ;) :)

Curt

[JustinPrince]

Hi guys. I'm new to living history, and though a good portion of my gear is sutler row starting out (I'm a college student in Oklahoma), I'd like to try to be as authentic as money will allow.

My first question is something basic. My trousers are way too long, and I need to shorten them. Some have told me to just roll them up, but I need to roll them up so much (about 3-4 inches) that too me it just doesn't look right. Is there a particular way they should be hemmed? I suppose I should mention this is for a Federal Army of the Cumberland impression.

My other question is cartridge box related. I have both a Model 1861 Springfield (defarbed from James River Armory) for an 1863-1865 impression and an Armi Sport Model 1842 Springfield. I have a regular Model 1855 .58cal Cartridge Box for the '61 Springfield, but what cartridge boxy would be appropriate for the '42 Springfield? Would a volunteer carry a Model 1855 .69cal box or an older Model 1842 box?

Thanks again,

Justin Prince

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

trousers are way too long, and I need to shorten them. Some have told me to just roll them up, but I need to roll them up so much (about 3-4 inches) that too me it just doesn't look right. Is there a particular way they should be hemmed? I suppose I should mention this is for a Federal Army of the Cumberland impression.

You could just cut them and not bother with a hem.

My other question is cartridge box related. I have both a Model 1861 Springfield (defarbed from James River Armory) for an 1863-1865 impression and an Armi Sport Model 1842 Springfield. I have a regular Model 1855 .58cal Cartridge Box for the '61 Springfield, but what cartridge boxy would be appropriate for the '42 Springfield? Would a volunteer carry a Model 1855 .69cal box or an older Model 1842 box?

According to the CRRC2 very few soldiers (early war) would have been issued the Model 1839 box and most would have been issued a later box appropriate for if it was a smoothbore or rifled version.

Unless you can document the unit you are portraying was issued the earlier boxes you should carry a later version.

[JustinPrince]

Therein lies the dilemma of why I'm not looking straight into what the unit carried. According to the unit's website that lists their requirements (what I've been using as a guide, in addition to research) is that before being issued Model 1861 Springfields the unit was issued Belgian Model 1842s. Since there are no readily available repros of this weapon, the unit prefers to use Model 1842 Springfields to "simulate" the Belgian 1842s. That's why I was asking which cartridge box would be more appropriate for the Model 1842.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

1. Is there a particular way they should be hemmed?

In brief and to over-generalize...

Federal clothing was issued without regard for a man's actual sizing/size, with certain percentages of the Size 1-4 in every batch of 100 garments. The concept was to trade off with another man for a truer or closer size, make or have made alterations, or wear them as is.
IMHO you have three choices:

1. Wear them as they came (issued) are by rolling them up.
2. As trowsers came from the arsenals/depots, they have a unique cuff treatment with vents and "reinforcing" strips typically not found on most Run of the Mill Sutler Row vendor products. They also have (within a range from "regulation) slightly different lengths sometimes other than "specs." So, you can cut your trowsers to your length and not worry about the cuff treatment, or
3. You can use the cut-off material to reconstruct the arsenal cuff treatment- but IIMHO if you are cutting cuffs, it raises the discussion as to whether a soldier in the field would have, or would not have, restored the cuffs rather than just hemming them up...

I have a regular Model 1855 .58cal Cartridge Box for the '61 Springfield, but what cartridge boxy would be appropriate for the '42 Springfield? Would a volunteer carry a Model 1855 .69cal box or an older Model 1842 box?

You have a Pattern of 1857 (March or August) or Pattern of 1861 .58 box. Assuming you have not researched or documented a particular pattern .69 RB or .69 EB box for the unit your impression or persona is- you can always go with the 1857 or 1861 .69 patterns.

In the "shortage" period of 1861 it was not unusal for some "volunteers' to get whatever was on hand or could be found including flintlocks and percussion alterations- and older types of accoutrements such as Pattern of 1839 boxes being phased out by the new 1857 and 1861 patterns.

Curt

[nick19thind]

Hi guys. I'm new to living history, and though a good portion of my gear is sutler row starting out (I'm a college student in Oklahoma), I'd like to try to be as authentic as money will allow.

My first question is something basic. My trousers are way too long, and I need to shorten them. Some have told me to just roll them up, but I need to roll them up so much (about 3-4 inches) that too me it just doesn't look right. Is there a particular way they should be hemmed? I suppose I should mention this is for a Federal Army of the Cumberland impression.

My other question is cartridge box related. I have both a Model 1861 Springfield (defarbed from James River Armory) for an 1863-1865 impression and an Armi Sport Model 1842 Springfield. I have a regular Model 1855 .58cal Cartridge Box for the '61 Springfield, but what cartridge boxy would be appropriate for the '42 Springfield? Would a volunteer carry a Model 1855 .69cal box or an older Model 1842 box?

Thanks again,

Justin Prince

1. Just turn up the trousers until they're short enough, during the war any soldiers were issued clothes too big or too small

2 Volunteers carried both the 1855 and the 1839 box as older equipment was often kept in state armories. What you should have depends on what your unit was originally issued. Does your group have guidelines on what equipment you should use?

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Would anyone care to describe an "1855" box?
;)

(Or list the Federal Ordnance reports that list Belgian "M1842's?)

Curt

[JustinPrince]

Oops sorry I mean Model 1857 Cartridge Box...

I'm curious, (and this is a complete newbie question), is the reason some call it the Model 1855 box instead of the Model 1857 is because it was adopted for the Model 1855 musket, which I believe wasn't issued in large numbers until early 1857?

While we are at it I have another stupid question. What would be a good reference for 1861 Springfield muskets? The musket one I have is defarbed by James River Armory, but I have read that Springfield Armory muskets were more likely to go to regulars, volunteers would receive contract muskets.

I thought of getting one of the defarbed lockplates from James River Armory or Regimental Quartermaster and turning it into an 1862 Bridesburg musket. The problem is the barrel would still have the 1861 stamp. Would it be possible (or to be more correct probable) that a contract Springfield's lock could have been mated with an older dated barrel? If not I would think it would be more correct to have an 1861 Springfield than a mismatched 1861/1862 Bridesburg musket.

I have excellent works on U.S. Military Flintlocks, but I'm still searching for something good on percussion muskets.

Thanks,

Justin Prince

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"Oops sorry I mean Model 1857 Cartridge Box..."

Yes, IMHO, it is a reenactorism that once having been created is hard to kill and can develop an immortal life all its own.. ;)

Just teasing.. but is "Pattern" rather than "Model." ;) :)
I would recommend:

U.S. Military Small Arms 1816-1865 by Robert Reilly

The U.S. Model 1861 Springfield Rifle-Musket by Daniel Hartzler, Larry Yantz, and James Whisker

The Rifled Musket by Claud Fuller

As a basic, quickie, "primer" three-book library.

"... I have read that Springfield Armory muskets were more likely to go to regulars, volunteers would receive contract muskets. "

I have not come across that. My understanding of Federal Ordanance practice was that it did not matter, an "M1861" was an "M1861."

"I thought of getting one of the defarbed lockplates from James River Armory or Regimental Quartermaster and turning it into an 1862 Bridesburg musket. The problem is the barrel would still have the 1861 stamp. Would it be possible (or to be more correct probable) that a contract Springfield's lock could have been mated with an older dated barrel? If not I would think it would be more correct to have an 1861 Springfield than a mismatched 1861/1862 Bridesburg musket."

Jenks & Son of Bridesburg produced M1861's under contract, as well as later M1861's with split bands of the M1863 RM's and even some M1863's. However, they are found with three lock plate stamping styles- the common "U.S" over "Bridesburg" or "Philadelphia" with the date behind the hammer (1862, 1863, 1864, 1865) and a rarer
"U.S." over "Bridesburg" over "1861' (the only "1861" dated Contract M1861).

You raise an interesting question. It is rarer but not unusal, that Springfield Armory's are sometimes found with a barrel dated a "year" behind the lock. It is believed that these are actually guns assembled in early January of the next year using what was left of the late December of the previous year locks. My personal repro is done that way, an "1862" lock with an "1861" barrel. I have an "1862" barrel stamp, but never got around to redoing it to the more common matched dates...

However, I have never seen a Contract M1861 so done. But, I do concede the "possibiity."
As well as the possibility that a gun could have had barrel damage and been armory/arsenal replaced, but that would net a newer dated barel rather than older...

The other "issue" with Contract M1861 is one of those "historically correct versus authentic versus 'who knows" kind of things.
The barrel stampings of "V, "P," and 'Eaglehead,'" can change to be able to ID the contract maker of the barrel as well. A "Bridesburg" barrel should have Bridesburg stamps, not Springfield Armory... ;) :) :)

Curt

[JustinPrince]

Ah thanks very much for the info. I figured this would be the place to ask then. As I said I would rather have an 1861 Springfield than a farby contract musket.

I like the idea of how you have your Springfield, an 1862 lock and a '61 barrel. Most stuff that I have read suggests that an 1861 Springfield would be fairly rare, especially among volunteers, and that an 1862 Springfield would be more plausible.

As to Springfields Armory muskets being issued more to regulars, I got that idea from "American Martial Flintlocks" obviously it doesn't deal with the Civil War, but it states that the regulars were first priority for the Model 1816 musket, with contract muskets being slated for volunteers. As I said I have no real good book on Civil War era firearms, but it seemed to me that if that was the practice from 1816 (1812, if one counts the Springfield Model 1812 musket) I would have thought it would have continued in the Civil War, or at least as Springfield was attempting to get more and more rifle muskets in the hands of the army.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Just an aside...

The Federals used a "four tiered" concept for their long arms: Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, and Class 4 type arms that were "parcelled" out under a bewidlering variety of "pecking orders" complicated by the inevitable influence of military need, expediency, and the personal influences of some politicians and some generals being greater than others.
However, IMHO, PEC and NUG, contract models of the M1861 Springfield were of the same quality, and specified interchangeable parts, as the Springfield Armory produced
M1861's and I know of no distinctions being made between them.

However, we "moderns" have an 1861 through 1865 "total" view of Civil War ordnance. Meaning, we see the whole picture of Springfield Armory and roughly 20 plus contractors (some who never actually made any arms at all).
When in fact, Springfield Armory for example was really slow in tooling up for the new M1861 and they only trickled into the field over the summer and fall of 1861 (with only 33,572 being made in 1861 followed by 102,410 in 1862, 217,284 in 1863, 276,200 in 1864, 195,341 in 1865 , and 2,405 in 1866.

But we also tend to look at contractors as "totals," not realizing that the contractor made M1861's did not kick in immediately and even the earliest such as the Jenk's Bridesburgs started arriving in larger nunbers well into 1862, with many others coming in 1863 and into 1864 and 1865.

But again, IMHO, unless unit time and place specific research/documentation speaks to a particular type of gun, I would look more toward the sometimes political, preferred, and casual/random, or as needed, type "pecking order" of who received Class 1-4 arms rather than a distinctions between Springfield Armory and contractor made M1861's.
(Ordance Department sometimes even being casual about SM1861's and even M1863's as being just "Springfield" or
".58" muskets...)

Others' mileage may vary...

Curt

[Craig L Barry]

Anyone interested in the Philip S. Justice musket contract "scandal"? Among all the hundreds of thousands of domestically produced U.S. Civil War Federal government contract muskets, some of the most controversial are the weapons produced by P. S. Justice of Philadelphia early in the Civil War. The fallout concerning the condition of the muskets produced under this particular contract resulted in a small scandal during the early days of the Civil War, and lawsuit(s) afterwards that made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

There is an examination of the Supreme court's decision in US v Justice (1871) in an upcoming issue of "Civil War Historian". We will leave that part of the story and the analysis of the legal questions for CWH subscribers to enjoy, and concentrate on the actual musket itself.

The P.S. Justice early contract muskets are considered by some to have been the most inferior of all arms delivered to the Ordnance Department during the US Civil War, and given what Whitneyville Armory produced during that same time period, this is a bold claim. Claud E. Fuller in The Rifled Musket (Stackpole 1959) calls the Federal handling of the PS Justice musket contract "...A striking example of the apparent confusion that existed in the Ordnance Department (which) seems to have resulted in an injustice in this case.” No pun intended on the part of Fuller.

Any opinions or insight on PS Justice from any "students of the Civil War musket" in our ranks? Anybody seen one?

[LibertyHallVols]

No insights, unfortunately. However, I love pictures!

http://www.rediscov.com/spring/full/P_MUSEUM-SERVICES_IMAGES_OBJECT-IMAGES_2001-2500_2427S.jpg

http://www.rediscov.com/spring/full/P_MUSEUM-SERVICES_IMAGES_OBJECT-IMAGES_2001-2500_2426A.jpg

To me, these always looked like a hodge-podge amalgum of features from the Enfield, US M1842 Musket, and US M1855 Rifle-Musket. Very odd looking.

[Craig L Barry]

Wick:
Thanks for the pictures. The pics look like one of the .58 rifle muskets Justice produced, which were actually not too bad. Those were considered acceptable at the contract price. Note the brass bands, patchbox and double bend trigger guard. The old big bores that Justice bought as condemned years earlier for $2.00 (or less) per "stand of arms", then rifled, sighted and sold back to Uncle Sam for $20.00 were the source of the controversy. One charge was that the rifling only went 3" down the barrel. Justice disputes this. Another charge was that the bayonets bent like lead...interesting because they were not made by Justice, the bayonets were the same US bayonets that accompanied the muskets when Justice bought the condemned lots. Others claimed the barrels "blew up" in the soldier's hands. The government specified soldered on rear sights and then complained that the sights were merely soldered on...soldering on rear sights was standard practice, the commercial P-53 Enfield rear sight was soldered on the barrel.

Like Eli Whitney and his "good and serviceable arms not subject to inspection with gauges", PS Justice bought condemned parts and produced a variety of amalgamated