Civil War foraging shotgun

[Bibs]

Is there any truth that Springfield made some shotguns taking game for feeding a Army? I have a Springfield lock stamped 1864 smoothbore no rear site no sign of having a rear site shorter barrel than rifle shorter stock.

 

[toot]

yes they did make them, also after they were taken out of service and made into shotguns.

 

[hawkeye2]

No truth at all, usually a story told by a seller at a gun show trying to palm off a well worn Bannerman conversion of a percussion Civil War rifle-musket. Springfield Armory did make forager's guns in the cartridge era. They were smoothbored trapdoors but never a percussion gun.

 

[ppg1949]

I saw one at a gun show that was a Remington 16 gauge barrel with a U.S. Eagle stamped on the lock. The seller said it was carried by the “bummers” traveling with the Union army through the Southland during the war between the states. But I agree with hawkeye2 that a lot of it was made up by Bannerman but there is evidence of scoungers roaming the countryside. But I doubt they used shotguns on game and most probably a 58 caliber Springfield pointed at some farmer’s family asking for a “donation” to the Union cause.

 

[toot]

rite, I ment trap doors, not civil war guns. a person / farmer needed a shotgun more then a rifle. jmho.

 

[sawyer04]

No truth at all, usually a story told by a seller at a gun show trying to palm off a well worn Bannerman conversion of a percussion Civil War rifle-musket. Springfield Armory did make forager's guns in the cartridge era. They were smoothbored trapdoors but never a percussion gun.

I find this interesting as some distance from here I know of a wall hanger that has the story of being carried by ancestor's foragers during the war between the states. It is percussion fired. It resembles a Springfield lock, can't be sure. Evidently, it is one of the many concoctions put together for the purpose of foragers.

 

[hawkeye2]

Most likely a combination of wishful thinking and a story, family provenance is often wrong. There were no specific forager's guns made for that purpose during the Civil War by the armories. It's possible the family's ancestors foraged during the war but they could have used almost anything for a gun. If the gun has a Springfield lock and cut down barrel & stock it was done by someone like Bannerman post war.

 

[TNBandit]

I've never heard of any legitimate 1861-1865 Springfields made new as smoothbores. And why would they ? There were plenty of Model 1842 muskets still in inventory that were already smoothbore and could easily be issued as needed for providing food.

 

[sawyer04]

Most likely a combination of wishful thinking and a story, family provenance is often wrong.

I have no reason to disbelieve the story, but you have debunked the maker as Springfield. The gun is before Bannerman time, from stories of old the southern fighter around here carried anything that would shoot, and the country was scattered with blacksmiths/gunsmiths. I think someone beat ole Bannermen to the draw. enjoyed.

 

[Trot]

I've never heard of any legitimate 1861-1865 Springfields made new as smoothbores. And why would they ? There were plenty of Model 1842 muskets still in inventory that were already smoothbore and could easily be issued as needed for providing food.

I agree, also tons of 1816 percussion conversions, smoothbore Potsdam muskets, Rench and Belgian smoothbores, thousands of smoothbores that were taken out of service to be replaced with the newer rifle muskets, there would be no reason to make new ones for such limited use.

 

[Bibs]

pictures

 

[mushka]

regardless of what it is, it's a neat looking old gun.

 

[hawkeye2]

It's a Bannermanized 1863 Springfield rifle-musket that has seen a (typical) hard life. That rework was done after the War by one of many outfits turning these out for civilian use. These were sold by hardware stores and mail order (Sears, Montgomery Wards and others) up into the early 20th. century for a price of $3 or even less. They were disposable, ridden hard and put away wet. In most cases they are worth the collective value of their useable parts and no more.

 

[BEP]

In my humble, the barrel band alone eliminates any chance of a military conversion. And I've seen just a few Bannerman examples over the years; they were actually done fairly well where workmanship is concerned. So it could be anything. I must say that, based on other other on-line firearms auction sites and the number of so-called "forager" smoothbore conversions said to be done by the military back in the day, it's a wonder that it was necessary for soldiers during the Civil War to ever need any kind of meat ration at all; each company would had to have upwards of a dozen of these "foragers" in their posession for hunting use if the claims are true.

 

[SPQR70AD]

how could you feed an army by hunting? you could barely feed yourself. only hunting buffalo herds could do it but they were not in the east where all the fighting was

 

[Bibs]

In my humble, the barrel band alone eliminates any chance of a military conversion. And I've seen just a few Bannerman examples over the years; they were actually done fairly well where workmanship is concerned. So it could be anything. I must say that, based on other other on-line firearms auction sites and the number of so-called "forager" smoothbore conversions said to be done by the military back in the day, it's a wonder that it was necessary for soldiers during the Civil War to ever need any kind of meat ration at all; each company would had to have upwards of a dozen of these "foragers" in their posession for hunting use if the claims are true.

If this is true. Why were the Federals taking and killing livestock from farmers in the South. No I believe some of the Southern men did not have regular meals

 

[Bibs]

It's a Bannermanized 1863 Springfield rifle-musket that has seen a (typical) hard life. That rework was done after the War by one of many outfits turning these out for civilian use. These were sold by hardware stores and mail order (Sears, Montgomery Wards and others) up into the early 20th. century for a price of $3 or even less. They were disposable, ridden hard and put away wet. In most cases they are worth the collective value of their useable parts and no more.

I agree I was told by a 70 year old gun collector that it could have started off as a shotgun because there is no cutout for rear sight

 

[Trot]

The Bannerman shotguns had the sight screw hole and cutout filled. Regardless, it has undoubtedly had a long and interesting life!

 

[Bibs]

I did not know that. I had seen some But they must have been home done. No doubt the front clamp is a home job.Thank you that is what I was looking for.Yes It is well used. Just hangs on wall here.

 

[hawkeye2]

I agree I was told by a 70 year old gun collector that it could have started off as a shotgun because there is no cutout for rear sight

Here is why you'll probably never see a cutout for a rear sight. These photos are of my 1863 Norfolk conversion which is the finest one I have seen and has never been "cleaned". (I haven't seen everything yet, still working on that). You'll see that it wouldn't take much for the filler in the rear sight dovetail to disappear and I'm unable to find where the screw hole (10-32) was filled. As BEP said these conversions were well done and it's quite possible the barrel band on the gun above which is held in place with a nail is a later repair in keeping with the crude stock repair.

Probably the biggest reason the Union was taking and killing livestock and burning anything they could was to starve the Confederates, including civilians.