1863 Springfield Smoothbore Questions

[satx78247]

I would expect that the NPS & Smithsonian KNOW what is FAKED & what is NOT fake.
(In the case of the Gettysburg muskets, they were said by the staff to be EXACTLY as acquired "way back then".)

Further, some rifled muskets are "numbered", though the SA 1861 & 1863 aren't. = For example, the "Remington-style" contract muskets, which came in through the blockade from Bermuda, ARE numbered but carry NO other markings of any sort.
(The Confederate Museum in New Orleans has 2 of those.)
My presumption is that Remington was fully aware that they were "trading with the enemy" (The PACSA), through "offshore contractors".

yours, satx

 

[wpnsman]

I never said the 3 “Forager’s” on display at GNHP were outright fakes. However, just because they are labeled as such in a display case does not necessarily make it so.

No one inferred that any curator would intentionally lie. I have known several over the years and very few were firearms experts by any stretch. There is also a distinct difference to an actual Curator (who seldom interact with the public) and someone on Staff. Most of the later will simply relay the “known” history of items within their collections and leave it at that.

Most pieces in museums including the MOC (Museum of the Confederacy) acquired the majority of the items in their collections through donations decades into the post war era. Many items have pedigrees that are incomplete or non-existent.

The fact that all three in the GNHP collection are “different” from one another personally gives me pause as, that much variation in a low volume product is not the norm for a National Armory whose products normally follow set patterns and gages in their manufacture.

I go to Gettysburg frequently and participate in living history demonstrations for the Park Service. None of which makes me an "Expert". I can tell you that the collection on display in the new center pales in comparison and presentation to the "old" center.

I’m really not trying to engage in a pissing contest on this subject. My main point being, the provenances of the pieces in the GNHP collection are irrelevant to this discussion.

In all likelihood the OP’s musket is among the 99% of postwar alterations previously mentioned. In the absence of well documented provenance to the contrary, it would be presumptuous and misleading to imply he is the owner of something as “Rare” as a bona-fide “Forager”.

He should enjoy it for what it is, not for what it is in all probability not.

Just my .02 and worth what you paid for it.

 

[satx78247]

I'm NOT interested in arguing with you & will continue to believe what the curator of the Gettysburg museum said. - You, otoh, are perfectly welcome to believe anything that you like, including the dark side of the Moon is made of green cheese.

Fwiw, my "brother of the heart" has provenance for his to about 1890 (It's pictured in the hands of a veteran at a GAR reunion photo.) or so but no farther back than that. He inherited the smoothie from his G-Great-aunt's estate about 1965. - The NRA Museum told Ed that he should insure it for about 600.oo as Forager Guns are NOT & were NOT ever "much sought after" BUT that it was "likely made that way".

Evidently "Forager Guns", whether "made that way" or "rebuilt", will be unlikely to be "collectable" in the sense that rifled-muskets are.

Btw, IF you had read my original post to the originator of this thread, I asked him if he was sure that it was re-bored from a rifled musket. - I did NOT tell the person what it is.

just my opinion,satx

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

satx78247
"quote; Further, some were serial numbered within the "normal range" of SA numbers, some were numbered separately & reportedly some were not serial numbered."

While this may apply to later models of trapdoor Springfields, it does not to Civil War era 1861 or 1863/64 muskets as they did not have serial numbers.

In the absence of documented provenance, 99% of supposed, claimed or advertised "Forager" muskets are products of post war surplus dealers and gunsmiths turning otherwise plentiful and low cost guns into something salable.

Agree 100%. Weapons made at Springfield did not have serial numbers until well after the ACW. Harpers Ferry on the other hand did use serial numbers but stopped in the early years while still producing the M1795 flint musket. Contractors did not use serial numbers either.

I would also have to agree that the "forager pattern" arms have long been discounted as non existent.

 

[satx78247]

"I would also have to agree that", many things that are "commonly accepted" as fact by "the re-enactor culture" are some of Planet Earth's purest form of "bravo sierra".

Fyi, there are some members of this forum that still believe that the so-called "Zouave rifled-muskets" weren't ever used in combat during TWBTS, despite the FACT that several such relics were dug-up at the Ft Fisher battle-site & those rusty relics are on public display at the Ft Fisher Museum. (One forum member sent me an email that said that "some unknown person buried those parts to fool people".) = The saying, "There are none so blind as those who won't see" comes to mind.
(Believing anything that a person wants to believe, including believing utter NONSENSE, is one of the Natural Rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment to the BoR, as "Freedom of Speech/Expression".)

just my OPINION, satx

 

[jdculpgmail.com]

Hi guys, great discussion - I'm continuing to learn.

Satx, no, I am not sure that the gun was rifled to begin with. It is 151 years old and I am only 38. The only thing I can be sure of is the history of the gun in the last month since I inherited it. But I may be able to find out more once I remove the breech plug. I am assuming that there will be a small lip if it was originally rifled and subsequently bored out. My reasoning is that if someone bored it out, they would have bored from the muzzle and stopped before reaching the breech threads. If they bored all the way through the breech, that should be evident in the profile of the female threads in the breech end of the barrel (i.e. the threads would have their tops flattened).

Can someone with an original, rifled 1863 Springfield post pictures of the breech with the plug removed, and the measurement of the barrel wall thickness and inner diameter at the muzzle? Can anyone with a confirmed Bannerman or similar post-war conversion also post pictures and measurements? Does anyone know how deep the grooves were cut in the original rifles?

If any of you have a contact at Gettysburg, some pictures and measurements of the guns they have on display would be cool. Inner diameter at the muzzle and wall thickness at the muzzle would be easy without asking the museum to pull the plugs or anything.

Pictures showing the sights would be cool. From my reading, the rear sight on the 1863 Springfield was screwed into a tapped hole on the top of the barrel. Is that correct?

Hawkeye2, I don't have the gun handy to check, but from memory, I believe the wood screw you are referring to that holds the barrel band in position is on the right side of the stock and not the left.

There is no serial number anywhere on the gun that I have found.

I have read online about early 1900's Sears Catalogs with pictures and advertisements showing the Bannerman conversions, but I have not been successful in finding a copy of those advertisements. Do any of you have a copy of those ads that you could scan and post? That would be a neat piece to this history puzzle.

Thanks again guys for helping me learn all I can here. I have no reason to believe it is anything other than a Bannerman or similar conversion. I'm just looking forward to shooting it if the threads check out as serviceable!

 

[satx78247]

For whatever it may be worth, my "brother of the heart" shoots his frequently, as he regards it as PERFECTION for rabbits, squirrels & other similar small critters. - A couple of years ago, he also blasted a "sick" raccoon with it.

Fyi, I really like my 14-bore (I think French-made) double for the same size game.

BEST WISHES & GOOD HUNTING with your smoothie, satx

 

[bpd303]

Bannerman made quite a few different rifles from the Springfields. http://user.pa.net/~the.macs/BANNERGUNS.html

 

[wpnsman]

Satx78247,

I read your original comments thoroughly. Your original question followed by a description of your friends’ gun had a hint that you “may” be suggesting that it could be something “special”. If that was not your intent, you have my apologies.

My post was nothing more than an attempt to educate the original poster or anyone else reading (as were hawkeye2 and Va.Manuf.06 replies) that some of your statements were not accurate or relevant to the discussion. My post was not meant to be a personal attack, though you have obviously taken it as such with the commentary in your latest replies.

Continuing to throw out tidbits of information irrelevant to this discussion while insulting others in an attempt to defend what you have obviously taken as a slight to your person is not helping your cause.

Groundhog76, you have my sincerest of apologies for my part in side railing your discussion. Enjoy your musket, with that I am out.

 

[satx78247]

Fwiw, I said NOTHING "insulting" to you or anyone else on this thread . - NOTHING whatever.
(Further, I'm not interested in an argument with you or anyone else, especially with people, who believe that they are 100% correct & everyone else's opinions are 100% wrong.)

A comment to all: About HALF of the arguments on this forum is caused by lack of "reading comprehension" & making unwarranted assumptions about what other people think/believe.

just my OPINIONS, satx

 

[varsity07840]

I'm more than inclined to agree with Wpns Man's assessment.
Springfield muskets did not carry serial numbers, so the theory that "forgers" were produced in certain serial number ranges
does not hold up. Furthermore, Flayderman makes no reference to issue "forgers". Rather, he refers to numerous post war examples altered to smoothbore via Bannerman and other dealers. Keep in mid that decades ago it was believed that "Artillery" models of the 1861 and 1863 were legitimate armory
produced weapons and as such were accepted by the N-SSA. It is now generally acknowledged that these 2 band shortened muskets were altered post civil war by dealers. The N-SSA still allows them as a "grandfathered" type because so many of them were in use by skirmishers prior to the Artillery model being disproven.

Duane

 

[satx78247]

Pardon me for asking but do you have anything more than OPINION about either firearm?? (The CSA armory at Petersburg, VA certainly DID "cut down" some captured rifled-muskets.) = PROOF would be NICE.
(Union Army records mention smooth-bored muskets being issued "2 per regiment for hunting small game", so there were at least SOME such "smoothies" issued. - Unfortunately, to my knowledge, those records do NOT say WHICH smooth-bores.)

As for me, I will believe my own eyes & the curator at Gettysburg NHP, rather than anyone's "general opinions".
(Everyone else are FREE to have their own opinion, too.)

yours, satx

 

[Grumpa]

A comment to all: About HALF of the arguments on this forum is caused by lack of "reading comprehension" & making unwarranted assumptions about what other people think/believe.

just my OPINIONS, satx[/quote]

That is a problem with a forum like this, lacking voice intonation and facial expression, it is easy to "misread" what someone is "saying"/writing. All too often, the written word is subject to multiple "interpretations", and it is easy to take offense when none was intended.

It happens not infrequently on this Forum.

 

[satx78247]

TRUE.

yours, satx

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

The CSA armory at Petersburg, VA certainly DID "cut down" some captured rifled-muskets.

You mean Richmond rather than Petersburg, right? If so, then you are correct, The Richmond Armory did use shortened barrels for both M1842 smoothbores and various rifle musket barrels, both Federal and Confederate made. The Federal made barrels came from captured weapons that had been damaged and the Confederate made barrels were seconds that had failed proof due to flaws near the muzzle. All were made in military configuration though, not as shortened "foragers" and they were not intended as that. They were for use by cavalry and maybe were in some cases for issue to artillery troops. Not my opinion or inability to comprehend what I am reading, see C. S. Armoury - Richmond by Paul J. Davies.

There is no evidence of shortened guns being made for US troops other than the unsuccessful attempt at shortening a number of flint M1816 muskets (and a few earlier muskets) by Harpers Ferry. Their purpose was for Artillery but they were not liked by the troops so the attempt was discontinued. After this unsuccessful attempt at issuing a short gun, they were for a short time sent to West Point for issue to students at the US Military Academy there. They were only in use there for a short time because they were too short and too heavy for training and drill purposes and were surplussed by the government shortly thereafter. See The Guns of Harpers Ferry by Stuart E. Brown and various other works - like Flaydermans - that mention them.

(Union Army records mention smooth-bored muskets being issued "2 per regiment for hunting small game", so there were at least SOME such "smoothies" issued. - Unfortunately, to my knowledge, those records do NOT say WHICH smooth-bores.)

Can you quote the source? What official "Union Army records" are you sourcing? IF it was done, it is in writing somewhere. I've heard that sort of "documentation" on the subject for 50 years but have never found or seen quoted actual Federal records that can be documented. And neither did Flayderman.

As for me, I will believe my own eyes & the curator at Gettysburg NHP, rather than anyone's "general opinions".
(Everyone else are FREE to have their own opinion, too.)

yours, satx

The curator (if he said that) is welcome to his opinion, just like anyone else, but unless he or you can quote and show official documentation in writing, then that is all he and you have provided - opinion, nothing more.

 

[varsity07840]

First, my apologies for my poor spelling, forger instead of forager.

Actually, even if such a piece was armory built and issued, which
I truly doubt, the gun being discussed certainly would not be one of them. The rear band is not the correct one for either an 1861 or either version of an 1863. It appears to be from an 1812 or some other Charleville type musket with the swivel stud ground off. Note the hole for a
band spring pin which was not used on any rifled musket.
AND, there is no band spring of any kind to retain it in position. On their worst day nothing as crudely done as that would come out of Springfield Armory or any contract factory.

Duane

 

[satx78247]

Once more (and hopefully for the final time), I'm NOT interested in participating in an argument with you. = Feel FREE to believe anything & hold any opinion that you like.

Actually, I meant exactly what I said: The PETERSBURG group of metalworking shops(and YES, Tredegar Ironworks at Richmond, too) "cut down" rifled muskets for the PACSA, as did (reportedly) other "government contractors"/CSA depots.
(The late Joseph Cotton's, the noted actor, family owned one of those shops, btw. = My lady & were guests in his home when I was PM at Ft Lee & he showed us numerous family heirlooms.)

yours, satx

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

:shake:

 

[lyman1903]

Once more (and hopefully for the final time), I'm NOT interested in participating in an argument with you. = Feel FREE to believe anything & hold any opinion that you like.

Actually, I meant exactly what I said: The PETERSBURG group of metalworking shops(and YES, Tredegar Ironworks at Richmond, too) "cut down" rifled muskets for the PACSA, as did (reportedly) other "government contractors"/CSA depots.
(The late Joseph Cotton's, the noted actor, family owned one of those shops, btw. = My lady & were guests in his home when I was PM at Ft Lee & he showed us numerous family heirlooms.)

yours, satx

you don't happen to recall the names of those shops by chance do you?

I live about 20 minutes north of P'burg, and would be interested in that info,

and are you referring to J. Cotten? IIRC he did the video that is shown in the Seige Museum and is burried at Blanford's Cemetery,,

 

[satx78247]

NOT off-hand. = I'm sure that The Siege Museum will have a list of the various "PACSA contractors" & "for the asking". = When we lived there the volunteer/professional staff was quite helpful to visitors & responsive to that sort of request.

And YEP, my ex-wife & I were privileged to have known Joseph Cotton, the noted actor & star of A PORTRAIT OF JENNIE, when we lived in P'burg.- He & my "ex" became friends through community volunteer work; I worked so many hours as PM that I was only "an acquaintance". = Fwiw, I think of "JENNIE" as his best work.
(I had no idea where he is buried, as Margaret & I divorced not long after I was, for the 4th time, stationed "on an unaccompanied/extended period of TDY" OCONUS. The MPC is "well-known" to be "H on marriages". - I haven't been back to P'burg in at least 25 years.)

Note: He gave my "ex" a signed copy of a script that he had appeared in of THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO, as a "going away present" & sent me a bottle of good Scotch.=======> He was the very essence of a true "Virginia Gentleman".

yours, satx