Does this look like an original?

[GreyGus]

I purchased this rifle years ago when I first started getting interested in studying the CW era. I had a reproduction Enfield at the time and thought this would be a good mate.

This was the only BP arm the seller had on a table full of modern rifles, he said he “thought” it was original. The asking price was less than a good condition reproduction so I bought it.
With my recent new found interest in shooting BP I got if off the wall for a good cleaning. To me the wood looks too new for an original. The metal shows use, but not 155 years of patin, so if original, it has been cleaned.

I would appreciate the opinions of the knowledgable folks here about what I have.
thanks,

 

[Sam squanch]

Looks original to me, if not a great de farbing job.

 

[Conquerordie]

Something isn't right with it. Looking at Whisker, Hartzler, and Yantz, it doesn't match the one pictured. Couple things stand out to me, the STEEL marking you see on Colt barrels, but not usually on L,G, and Y. The buttplate inlet is not a good as it should be. These were all done on precise machinery. The stock looks to be in real good shape, but I can not make out any cartouches on the panel opposite the lock. The panels are so sharp, like no age, you would think something id the cartouche would have survived. Plus some of the screw heads show no wear at all, crisp as can be. The sling mounted to the triggerguard looks like it should be a tapered pin, and not a screw. Modern repros are done with screws.

My guess, maybe a gun made up of parts, L,G and Y lock, Colt barrel ( probably a repro), and a new replaced stock. Other reproduction parts thrown in.. I say shoot it, but not an original civil war.

 

[hawkeye2]

A reproduction Colt 1861 Special Model. They were made for and sold by Chattahoochee Arms (out of business) after Colt finished their Colt marked production. No defarbing done. There are no parts available and they are not interchangeable with the Springfield 1861 (different guns).

 

[GreyGus]

A reproduction Colt 1861 Special Model. They were made for and sold by Chattahoochee Arms (out of business) after Colt finished their Colt marked production. No defarbing done. There are no parts available and they are not interchangeable with the Springfield 1861 (different guns).

If the metal parts are reproductions, made after Colt ended their Signature Series production, wouldn’t it have to bear Italian proofs? I will take it out of the stock tonight and see what markings are covered by the wood, they may be hidden there.
The more I look at it I am convinced the stock is a repro.
I will try to add more pictures tonight

 

[64Springer]

It doesn't have the patina that a 160 year old rifle would have naturally developed.

The stock looks like it was made yesterday.

And the breech to stock fit is so tight on originals that a human hair could not be inserted. The gap that's present looks like Stacey Abrams front teeth.

Not an original.

 

[TFoley]

If the metal parts are reproductions, made after Colt ended their Signature Series production, wouldn’t it have to bear Italian proofs? I will take it out of the stock tonight and see what markings are covered by the wood, they may be hidden there.
The more I look at it I am convinced the stock is a repro.
I will try to add more pictures tonight

Component parts of guns made in Italy, for assembly elsewhere - in this case, maybe Manhatten - are NOT subject to Italian proof laws. This is because the components arrived in the USA literally as separate items - particularly the barrel and breech plug.

They can NOT be proofed until assembled into a state suitable for test-firing/proofing.

What happens to them when they are assembled in the USA is outside the jurisdiction of Italian, and other CIP nation, proof laws.

As there are no Federal/national US gun proof house in existence there are no proof marks.

In case of doubt, check out any kit gun originating in Italy or Spain for proof marks - there are none, unless the kit arrived stateside with a breeched barrel.

 

[GreyGus]

Component parts of guns made in Italy, for assembly elsewhere - in this case, maybe Manhatten - are NOT subject to Italian proof laws. This is because the components arrived in the USA literally as separate items - particularly the barrel and breech plug.

They can NOT be proofed until assembled into a state suitable for test-firing/proofing.

What happens to them when they are assembled in the USA is outside the jurisdiction of Italian, and other CIP nation, proof laws.

As there are no Federal/national US gun proof house in existence there are no proof marks.

In case of doubt, check out any kit gun originating in Italy or Spain for proof marks - there are none, unless the kit arrived stateside with a breeched barrel.

Thank you for this information

 

[hawkeye2]

I don't know if Chattahoochee got parts and assembled the parts themselves but the parts were made on the same machines and by the same manufacturer as Colt. I believe the manufacturer was Chiapa/Armi Sport but am not certain. At the last two N-SSA nationals Chattahoochee had a booth at he had a fair amount of parts for sale and he told me he planned to sell anything remaining on eBay. The locks were the weakest point of these guns and to this day he still owes me a lock for a gun I bought as a kit.

 

[brushblind]

Looks like a 40 year old repro.

 

[GreyGus]

I don't know if Chattahoochee got parts and assembled the parts themselves but the parts were made on the same machines and by the same manufacturer as Colt. I believe the manufacturer was Chiapa/Armi Sport but am not certain. At the last two N-SSA nationals Chattahoochee had a booth at he had a fair amount of parts for sale and he told me he planned to sell anything remaining on eBay. The locks were the weakest point of these guns and to this day he still owes me a lock for a gun I bought as a kit.

I have been researching Chattahoochee Arms on the internet, and find several reports these guns are not safe as they are prone to cook-offs.
Apparently the threads for the breech plug were cut too deep into the barrel and the internally exposed threads hold residue that will set off the next powder charge.
Others say this is only an issue with the two band models, and the three banders are fine. Anyone have any insight on this issue?

 

[PathfinderNC]

Does it look like an original?
Nope.

 

[Pratt]

No it not original. It all looks to new. The wood is not worn. There is no evidence of patina.

 

[SDSmlf]

The asking price was less than a good condition reproduction so I bought it.

Appears you got good deal on a reproduction gun.

 

[Feltwad]

Sorry no another repro
Feltwad

 

[GreyGus]

As promised in an earlier post, I disassembled the rifle to look for any additional markings.
on the top flat beside the nipple is: 186?
just in front of the word “steel” is a faint script R
on the bottom of the barrel about eight inches from the breech: PM