ID help on a 1863 Springfield

[Nameless Hunter]

For those who know what they are looking at (I don't), does this look legit? Supposed to be made in 1864.
Right off the bat, I know the stock finish can't be original.

 

[hawkeye2]

It looks like a 63 lock & barrel in a 61 stock, note the flat barrel band retained by a spring. Does the rammer have the 61 swell and does the stock have the cut for the swell, 63 rammers are straight and the channel in the stock is too. The metal has been extensively "cleaned" but with care, markings still visible. The lock and hammer show the mottled coloring from casehardening.

 

[dave951]

That gun looks waaay too clean and nice to be original. Could be a refinished parts gun

 

[Nameless Hunter]

Maybe this will help - from the listing:
SPRINGFIELD ARMORY, USA
A .58 PERCUSSION SINGLE-SHOT RIFLED MUSKET, MODEL '1863 TYPE II', no visible serial number,
dated for 1864, with brushed bright (as original) 40in. barrel, block and blade fore-sight, twin leaf and aperture flip-up rear-sight, solid top-tang, plain flat bar-action lock signed 'SPRINGFIELD' and marked with an American Eagle device and the date, walnut full-stock, heavy iron furniture including three barrel bands retained by flat-springs, nose-cap and cup-ended ramrod, fitted with swivels, good condition

 

[RicM]

Definitely not original but thats not a bad thing at all. Its a beautiful rifle and it had some work done but is not original but in excellent shape. I am comparing yours to my 1863 Type 2 which I know for a fact its 100% original came out of Virginia stayed in family when they relocated to California a close friend got it running an auction abaout 10 years ago and knew I was salivating over it. So I bought it and spent 45 deligate hours on a total breakdown and careful cleaning. It was pretty dirty neglected but it was all there with the bayonet. It came into my hands last year. And I still shoot it and its spot on at 100 yards! Oh yes .58 cal miniball 60 grains powder. Side note the 1864s were still called 1863s cause in 1863 they made slight changes from the 1861 model particular the barrel bands and the rear site. So it was called the 1863 Type 2.

Yours looks like a 1863 Type 2 which were made in 1864 as the lock plate shows. Has the correct rear site but its not original and missing the second leaf and there should be numbers stamped on the two leafs. The top of the barrel near the nipple should say 1864, but its missing, it just may be worn. Also some of the proof marks on the left side of the barrel near the lock plate screws seems to be missing or worn. The top screw that holds the barrel in place on the stock is not original, its a flat head and it should have the same type head as the locking plate screws. The barrel bands are the correct year, spring type but the designated "U" on them is missing so those may be replicas, should be 3 of them. The stock definitely was redone no the proof markings on the left side. The metal butt plate should have a U.S. stamped on the top and its solid no trap door. The ram rod should be tulip shaped on one end. ** There are no serial numbers on these rifles** Attached are similar shots of mine. Still an excellent find!!

 

[RicM]

Still posting pics from previous reply I posted

 

[RicM]

Full shot and at the range. I really hope this helps you and others. So are you considering on it or already have it?

 

[hawkeye2]

RicM, it might be old eyes but I swear I see a flat 61 band on the OP's gun as opposed to the rounded ones on your gun (which really looks good). The 61 bands are also wider than the 63 type I & II bands. Unfortunately we can only see the rear band on the OP's gun. Good catch on the tang screw.

 

[RicM]

Hawkeye2, thanks, your eyes are not that old , Up this morning I took a closer look (with my glasses on lol) they do look flat and not rounded.

Also this download I found off the internet (its clean/safe, no viruses) has the "what to use and how to clean" etc start to finish an 1861 Springfield. The product I always use on all my firearms in a cotton non abrasive cleaner called "Nvr-Dull" its sold in Auto shops such as Advance Auto etc. I used it always back in my racing and car show days. Check out this pdf download link. Its a 25 page illustrated and easy to work with instructions and what tools are needed. I uploaded here a screen shot of the front page. I did not go hog wild with scrubbing and cleaning and left some things alone on mine, not to hurt any originality, "a man has to know his limitations" But its a great template to follow.

https://regtqm.com › wp-content › uploads › 2018 › 04 › M1861-Cleaning-Instructions.pdf

 

[TNBandit]

The V, P and Eagle stampings on the barrel don't look right to me. They're all over the place rather than in line and in the proper order. Also has a screw holding the sling swivel on. Not bashing it by any means. Looks like a fine shooter. In fact my own until I find an original is a Numrich stock with an unidentified aftermarket barrel and mostly original lock & small bits assembled into a fair representation and a good shooter. Just trying to determine what exactly you have there.

 

[Capnball]

That gun looks waaay too clean and nice to be original. Could be a refinished parts gun

Nothing wrong with that for the right price. And as long as it's not being sold as "all original'
I restored a barn find, sporterized 1861 a while back. It's way more presentable then it was and it even shoots ok. It went from the back of the barn (shed) to the wall in my office!
Neil

 

[Nameless Hunter]

Is $660 a fair price? I'm thinking no at this point. As TNBandit pointed out, the stampings don't look right.
More pictures from the listing:

 

[dave951]

At $660, it's worth it as a shooter. I'm curious to know if it's a "defarb" attempt.

 

[TNBandit]

Maybe this will help - from the listing:
SPRINGFIELD ARMORY, USA
A .58 PERCUSSION SINGLE-SHOT RIFLED MUSKET, MODEL '1863 TYPE II', no visible serial number,
dated for 1864, with brushed bright (as original) 40in. barrel, block and blade fore-sight, twin leaf and aperture flip-up rear-sight, solid top-tang, plain flat bar-action lock signed 'SPRINGFIELD' and marked with an American Eagle device and the date, walnut full-stock, heavy iron furniture including three barrel bands retained by flat-springs, nose-cap and cup-ended ramrod, fitted with swivels, good condition

"dated for 1864, with brushed bright (as original) 40in. barrel," This part of the description tells me the seller knew it wasn't an original gun produced at the Springfield Armory in 1864. And it gets him off the hook because he never said it was unless you had other conversations where he claimed it was. But with that said, you paid quite a lot less than the going price for an original gun and less than the price of a new reproduction so write it off as a learning experience and take it out and enjoy it for what it is. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[TNBandit]

Question. Because the barrel I used to build mine has a patent breech. In the circled area my old eyes almost see a seam where the barrel was made in 2 pieces. Is it my eyes or is there a seam ? Original barrels weren't made that way but some reproductions were.

 

[hawkeye2]

At $660, it's worth it as a shooter. I'm curious to know if it's a "defarb" attempt.

Price is right. The more I look at it the more I wonder if it wasn't built from (mostly current) parts to look old. There are some things wrong including the proof stamps that make it questionable. I would not buy it as a cleaned original without having it in hand to examine very closely. I suspect it's a reworked repro.

 

[RicM]

Well said TN Bandit!

A bit of info here;

1863 Type 2 .58 cal
Manufacturered Springfield Armory in Mass. bright metal finish, caseharden lock, tulip head shaped ramrod, double-leaf rear sight blued, with number 3 on smaller leaf and 5 on larger leaf. Three barrel bands, spring fastened, Front site doubles as bayonet lug. Production approximately 276,200 at Springfield Armory in 1864. And stamped 1864 on Lock plate and barrel.

Markings:
Lock- 1864 behind hammer. Eagle & US SPRINGFIELD stamped forward of hammer

Barrel- 1864 & V/P, Eaglehead Stamped

Bolster- Eagle stamped

Bands- “U” stamped

Buttplate- US stamped

 

[RicM]

TD Bandit your eyes are seeing correct but looking at the wrong spot but it does deserve a closer inspection if correct that’s a modified or replacement barrel. I pulled out the “Rules for the Management and Cleaning of the Rifle Musket Model 1863 for The Use Of Soldiers” adopted by the War Department. A 25 page booklet copied it on line download free.
This is page 3 .

It shows a breech-screw plug. But it’s behind the nipple and hammer area. The illustrations of the barrel on the lower left shows the point it’s attached as does the arrow in the photo.

 

[Nameless Hunter]

Question. Because the barrel I used to build mine has a patent breech. In the circled area my old eyes almost see a seam where the barrel was made in 2 pieces. Is it my eyes or is there a seam ? Original barrels weren't made that way but some reproductions were. View attachment 108727

Now that you pointed it out, there does seem to be a line where two pieces are joined.

 

[RicM]

Just want to add the US Army book i mentioned can be gotten on line free or Evil Bay for $100 bucks try these
Links. It’s full of info and illustration on the 1861-1864 Springfield’s

https://ia600307.us.archive.org/16/items/rulesformanageme00unit/rulesformanageme00unit.pdf
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL224...fle_musket_model_1863_for_the_use_of_soldiers