My new Original 1861 Springfield

[Stantheman86]

At least I hope it's original......and not a well used , aged repro but I doubt someone would defarb and age a $1000 Pedersoli 1861 to sell it to me for $1000.

The bore looks good, got to take it down and clean it. Any ideas for giving the stock a wipe down? Murphy's? I don't want to remove any original oils or finish just help to keep it from drying out.

Looks like someone used a repro (or original ?) 1863 trigger guard? On the left is my Pedersoli 1863, on the right is the original 1861 with the new hole drilled to attach the trigger guard. A period replacement? Later? I don't know.

This is the one I bought from the NSSA Classifieds that a member here directed me to, if anyone was following that thread. And of course I plan to shoot it.

 

[dd832]

Your '61 is the real deal Stan! The Pedersoli 1861 has a larger barrel breach area and it give the musket stock a hump behind the barrel tang. Look at this photo from the Pedersoli website that shows a real 1863 Springfield above a Pedersoli replica - you can see the hump (click on the photo to enlarge):

Note also how the wood around the lock panel varies in width compared to the 1863 above, a dead giveaway! (you'd think after paying that much Pedersoli could do a better job).

A lot of people are like Marty Feldman though & just say "Hump, what hump?".

(my apologies to the film Young Frankenstein)
later, Mike

 

[fourbore]

I used light application of boiled linseed oil to treat dry stocks.I shoot mine with 570 round balls. Lots of fun. My shooting is more like a quality vs quantity experience. That goes for 22LR right on up. I am not a shoot-em-up guy.

The trigger guard looks real enough in the photo. No way to know if it came with that gun. The screw is in the right place. You may never know why it has an extra hole. If the screw stripped out the wood, some one could have located a screw forward. I do know parts were replaced back when in service and for ever since. In fact there are several sources for an original replacement trigger guards. People are restoring this old stuff all the time. That was true 25,50,75,100 years ago. I personally dont think its wrong or dishonest to keep the old stuff working or looking right. To a point.

 

[Cowboy]

Wow! That’s very nice Stan. Gotta let us know how it shoots?

Anyway, would love to see more pics when ya have time? Thanks for sharing.

Respectfully, Cowboy

 

[TFoley]

View attachment 24434

I'm also looking at that hammer/cock.....

 

[hawkeye2]

I'm also looking at that hammer/cock.....

The original is an 1863 model while the repro is an 1861 model, quite a number of differences.

 

[hawkeye2]

"Looks like someone used a repro (or original ?) 1863 trigger guard?"

I just took a quick look at my '61 and my wife's '63, both have the front trigger guard screw in the same location which is the one nearest the trigger bow. The front hole should not be there. The screw heads seem to be the correct size and the top hole would have taken one with a larger head. I have some '63 parts out in the shop soaking and I'll check them later. Also have an interchange chart make up by Springfield Armory that I'll dig out later.

 

[Stantheman86]

I'll take some more pics , hopefully shoot it next week......I have lots of .575 Minies. I want to eventually get some good leather gear for it since I roll cartridges .

I think someone , at some point maybe used a guard from a weird "contract rifle " or some such, maybe even in the 1950s-ish era to replace one that got bent from being dropped or something. Or the rifle didn't have one when someone paid $2 for this at a garage sale.

So much that we'll never know

Ironically I have another '61 on layaway that is in lesser condition than this one, that a gun shop who sells on GB has. I bought this one after I found that one....I'll probably keep them both, maybe clean up and keep the more "cool looking " one as an historical example and shoot the other one. I have a P53 Enfield I don't shoot either.

 

[Stantheman86]

Wow! That’s very nice Stan. Gotta let us know how it shoots?

Anyway, would love to see more pics when ya have time? Thanks for sharing.

Respectfully, Cowboy

Beat up front sight/bayonet lug.....may have to file down the block next to the blade and thin the blade , right now the sight picture is pretty much a square .

Definitely seen some rough service , apparently 1861 dated '61's are less common? This thing might have seen use through the whole War and into the early Frontier/Indian War era. Or guarded a boot factory in NJ. We will never know.

Probably some junk keeping the rod from seating fully. The cutout for the swell is badly beat up. Typical for a piece that was carried and "stacked" at garrisons and encampments. Some of these weapons apparently were used through the late 1800's as school or Cadet rifles at college ROTC's or things like that. Mostly just for drilling and to let students get acquainted with being accountable for a rifle. Often show very rough handling . I have a Krag that was a "school" Cadet rifle and it's beat up pretty bad. By the 1880s-1900s these rifle-muskets were obviously completely obsolete and the State armories and Fed. Govt pretty much gave them away to Universities and High Schools.

Typical pitting from corrosive caps. Was definitely fired during the original period.

Buttplate with US stamp.

 

[Cowboy]

Thank you for sharing Stan. The pics coupled with the information you’ve provided are enjoyable as well as educational.

Thank you!

Respectfully, Cowboy

 

[Stantheman86]

It looks like the stock may have been hit with a layer of something, probably decades ago. I'm not worried about it, many of these kinds of weapons lived a post-military "life" above a mantle, at a Legion post, school, as a collectible from Bannerman's that sat in a basement for 50 years, used as a kids cap gun ..... A lot of years have passed since 1861

An older guy at my gun club says his Dad bought him an old Colt cap and baller at a swap meet in the 1950s and he played Cowboys and Indians with it.

I've owned lots of old weapons, some "unmentionable " stuff not much newer than this.....People are like "that thing looks rough " I'm like , how good do most things look after 150 years of being played around with?

 

[desi23]

My 1862 dated example was missing the ramrod when I got it. A new one wouldn't seat all the way so I tried running a deep hole drill bit in it by hand.... got a bunch of dirt out of it that had settled in the bottom of the hole and became a clump over time. Not a surprise as when I cleaned the barrel after I got the gun I found an obstruction of dirt in it that was thick and packed to the point I pulled the breechplug to clean it out.

 

[Stantheman86]

Thankfully the bore is clear, I would think that over the years of replacing the ramrod that was covered in fouling and dirt, it would push it all down into the ramrod channel.

Also, I'll never know if the parts of this rifle are the ones it left Springfield with , the lock is dated 1861 but the barrel, lock and stock could be from other rifles. After the war, just like all the 1860 Army revolvers that were broken down, refurbished and simply reassembled from whatever was grabbed out of parts bins to be reissued to troops on the Frontier, I would think the same was done to rifles , in an effort to put together some usable weapons out of beat up ones with broken parts.

I also think Bannerman's was known for buying big lots of surplus parts in the 1900s and putting muzzleloading weapons together to sell as collectibles or "beater guns ".