1864 Springfield restoration advice

[Walter235]

Hello all!

I recently bought a very nice 1864 Contract Springfield (LG & Y) with post-war conversions at a very reasonable price. Based on the conversions that have been made, I believe this is a Bannerman gun. As I've come to learn, these guns can be somewhat of a "mash-up" of parts from many different models of Springfields. I think I have run into one of those examples, and wanted to ask everyone's advice before I continue with working on the gun.

At some point during the gun's life, someone put a model 1861 "C-shape" hammer on the gun, instead of the appropriate special model hammer (similar to an Enfield hammer). To compensate for the difference in shape, the C hammer was bent inward toward the bolster so that it would make clean contact with the nipple.

I found a very nice original special model hammer off of an LG & Y lock as a replacement, but when I went to put it on the lock, something wasn't right. The square head of the tumbler that fits through the lock is oriented to provide the correct angle only for the C hammer (the square head is rotated 45 degrees, instead of a flat square). The flat square hole in the special model hammer will not work with this tumbler orientation.

So I want to clarify with everyone two things:

1.) Were the tumbler heads of Springfield's using the "C" Hammer oriented differently than those using the special model hammers?

2.) If I replace the current tumbler with a special model tumbler, will this alleviate the problem and accept the special model hammer?

Thanks everyone. I really appreciate any help or insight you can offer based on your own experiences.

 

[Jason Lewis]

based on your post, i'd say both answers to your questions are yes, and yes. and can we have some pictures please?

 

[Walter235]

Thanks for the reply Medic. I know these questions seem a little dumb, but I don't know enough about the mechanical differences between the 1861 and special 1861 to understand if this is the correct solution. Plus, when dealing with Bannerman's, there's no telling what could be going on here!

Sorry, for no pictures. I've attached a few that will hopefully help.

The first shows the current "C hammer" and the special model replacement.

The second shows the orientation of the current tumbler (with no hammer) in resting position (not half cocked). Notice the 45 degree "diamond" shape.

The third shows the orientation of the square holes of the two hammers while in resting position.

Thanks, hope this helps.

 

[M. De Land]

If it were me and I wanted to use the new hammer that won't fit I would drill it out and bush it or TIG weld it shut, drill a small hole and square file it to fit the current tumbler stud position. It's not really that big of a deal to fix.
The TIG fix would be the best and make the repair invisible. Mike D.

 

[Zonie]

IMO, the only "correct" fix for the gun is to find and buy the correct lock.

While welding up the new hammer and filing a new square in it would make it "look right" it still would be a 1864 with a 1861 lock in it.

 

[Walter235]

Thanks for the replies guys.

Zonie, that is what makes me confused. The lock of this gun is stamped 1864, and based on all of the research I have done on special model contract muskets made by the LG & Y company, I have to believe that this gun is in fact an 1864 produced piece.

All signs point to the 1861 "C" hammer that is on the gun now being a modification to the gun. But if the tumblers of the 1861 and the special 1861 were truly different, I don't know how they got the "C" hammer on the gun.

I can't imagine someone took the time to replace the tumbler in this gun to accept the "C" hammer, but if this was a Bannerman gun, I wouldn't put it past him.

However, I am willing to replace the tumbler, but I need to know if this solution is even possible.

Thanks everyone!

 

[Rod Lassey]

It was probably a stripped plate at one time, and rebuilt with whatever parts would make it work.

Rod

 

[54ball]

I suggest doing more research to make sure that this is not an era armorer repair or some type of detail in the manufacturing that has not come to light yet.
If I did change it, I would make sure it could be undone.
Many a WWII battlefield used and field armorer repaired rifles have been "restored" thus losing their history.

 

[varsity07840]

Are there any markings on the plate that identify it as an LG&Y? It may be an altered 1861 Springfield plate. Your plate appears to have three screw holes above the tumbler hole. An 1861
Special lockplate has four. Go to www.ssfirearms.com and look at their plates for the 1861 Springfield and 1861 Special to see what I mean.

Duane

 

[varsity07840]

A clarification.

By 1861 Special, I mean 1861 Special Contract which the LG&Y is. The 1864 stamp is the year of manufacture. 1861 Springfield plates can be found dated up to 1865 if they were from contract arms.

Duane

 

[Walter235]

Thanks for the reply Duane.

The plate is stamped as an LG & Y plate. "1864" is stamped to the left of the hammer, and "U.S./L.G. & Y./Windsor-Vt" is stamped under the bolster. There is no "eagle" stamp on the plate or the bolster, which was dropped by LG-& Y in their final years of production during the war.

All this makes me confident that the plate (and hopefully the majority of the gun!) were produced at LG & Y. Just need to figure out the hammer/tumbler situation.

Thanks

 

[hawkeye2]

1.) Yes! The '61 tumbler was used on all rifle muskets, models of 1861, 1863, 1864, and the model of 1866 trapdoor. The 1861 or 1863 hammers will interchange on all these locks and can be used on the trapdoor locks when converting one to a muzzleloader. The model of 1855 sear was used all the way though the 1873 (and possibly later) trap door.

The only rifle musket to use a different tumbler was the 1861 (Colt) Special Model. All the internals on this lock were specific to this model as were the hammer and lock plate. If yours has the correct lock (1864) the eagle will be stamped on the bolster and the lock plate will be marked U.S. over L.G.&Y. over Windsor, Vt. (3 lines). Earlier locks had the eagle on the plate.

The above from "Table of Changes Made In the Springfield Rifle Musket, From 1855 to 1873".

 

[Walter235]

Thanks Hawkeye! Now were getting somewhere!

Yes, the lock plate is as you described it, withe year and manufacturer stamps in the correct places and orientations. And, after taking a closer look, there is an extremely weak eagle stamp on the bolster that is just barely visible (I had never noticed this before).

So, the lock is an LG & Y special lock, with a Model 1861 tumbler/hammer. Based on this and your information, this is my understanding of the situation:

The Model 1861 tumbler and the Special Model 1861 tumbler are able to be interchangeable between the two models (same size, shape, mechanics), BUT will not be oriented correctly to accept the proper hammer used by that model.

Is that a correct statement?

 

[hawkeye2]

"The Model 1861 tumbler and the Special Model 1861 tumbler are able to be interchangeable between the two models (same size, shape, mechanics), BUT will not be oriented correctly to accept the proper hammer used by that model."

"Is that a correct statement?"

I would say that it is a correct statement based on what you have. Interchanging Springfield/Harpers Ferry parts with a Special Model is something I have never tried nor do I know of anyone who has. If, indeed, you have a '61 Springfield tumbler on a Special lock and it is working with a bent '61 hammer I would guess that a '63 hammer would work without modification and look more correct. Mint '63 hammers are easy to find as Gun Parts were selling them till a few years back, something like 6 for $30 if I remember. The down side is that it still wouldn't be correct for the gun. If you are interested in getting the correct parts try here, he has a very large inventory of parts that came from Bannerman's:

Edward E. Kinsely
R.D. 25
York, PA 17403
(717) 741-2556

I have noticed that the eagle on the bolster seems to have been stamped lightly and can be difficult to see after all these years specially with some corrosion from the caps and poor cleaning.

 

[varsity07840]

Walter,

I see that you're from PA. I don't know if this works for you but Ed usually has a table at the gun show at the Allentown Fairgrounds that runs every few months.

Duane

 

[Walter235]

Thanks so much for the help Hawkeye. I've got a full understanding of the gun and what needs to be done now (I hope!).

I get what you're saying about putting a '63 hammer on the gun, and I agree with you--it still wouldn't be correct. Correct is what I'm going for, so I'm going to put the LG & Y hammer that I already have on the gun. I just need to get in touch with Ed to get the correct tumbler first.

Once I accomplish this, the gun will be just about as close to its original form as I can make it.

Thanks again!

 

[Walter235]

Thanks Duane.

I'm only a short drive from Allentown. I just looked up the Fairgrounds gun show schedule, and it looks like they have one coming up in February.

I'll definitely attend and try to find Ed while I'm there.

Thanks for the info!