Opinions on a Springfield 1842 "shorty"

[WartHog555]

Hello, I am a new member so please go easy on me... I hope you can help. Sorry if this is somewhat long winded.

Some time ago, I acquired a Springfield 1842 with a shortened barrel (27"). It is a .69 smoothbore. I've done quite a bit of research, but can't pin down why or when this was shortened. The gun is in overall excellent condition, and appears to have seldom, if ever, been fired. When I first saw it, I thought it was an 1847 Musketoon, but their barrels are 26" and it didn't fit the typical Cavalry/Artillery/Sappers configuration. I compared it with an 1847 Cavalry carbine that I had, and it was apparent from lock and trigger size that it was larger, hence an 1842. Barrel and lock are dated 1850 with Springfield proof marks.

I think the key to this mystery is the stock - this is no military acceptance cartouche. There are tiny initials in the stock behind the trigger guard. Looks like "SRC" or "STC" depending on angle. I tried looking up arsenals/armories, inspector initials, and military colleges/academies (thinking it could be a cadet) to no avail.

I believe this is a contemporary modification - the underside of the barrel is pristine, the top or exposed part of the barrel is slightly mottled, but under the two barrel bands it matches the pristine underside. The stock seems to have been refinished to some extent, but still retains its stock-to-buttplate dimensions. I don't think it was sanded enough to completely remove the cartouche. There seems to be some type of wood filler used in spots, particularly on the nose. It may have been sanded just enough to level the wood filler repairs. I was wondering if a similar repair material was used back then, or it is more modern. If peroid filler, perhaps a rejected stock that was repaired/reused?

I read all sorts of stuff about Confederate capture/modifications, Bannerman or cadet modifications, or just someone with good skills that wanted a shorty. The TG swivel has been ground off, I've also read this could be an Artillery or Cavalry mod. Whatever it is, it was nicely done. Seen lots of them on auction sites with all kinds of stories attached to them. Most of these shorties seem to be in the 31"-36" range.

I am posting some pics that I think are relevant, the gun is currently disassembled. If there are other pics needed that would help, please let me know.

I would greatly appreciate any/all information, thank you in advance...

 

[Nobody85]

I’m thinking it’s possibly a confederate calvary modification. Looks like a very well made new stock but period. I say not original stock because the inspection cartouche is missing. Very professionally done if you ask me. I’ve seen them made into shotguns after the war, but they just used the original stock cut down. Please post more if you uncover any new information. Cool find!

 

[WartHog555]

I’m thinking it’s possibly a confederate calvary modification. Looks like a very well made new stock but period. I say not original stock because the inspection cartouche is missing. Very professionally done if you ask me. I’ve seen them made into shotguns after the war, but they just used the original stock cut down. Please post more if you uncover any new information. Cool find!

Hi Nobody (I like that name), thank you for your reply. I did find an auction listing description that somewhat supports your opinion of Confederate modification, though my gun is shortened more than 5 1/4 " and does not have any other stampings beside the small initials, see below.:

"The most noticeable feature is the fact that the musket has been shortened, approximately 5 ¼ inches. It should be noted that the age of the stock matches the metalwork of the musket perfectly, which leads us to believe that this was a period conversion. The stock, however, is unique in that it does not appear the original stock. Undoubtedly it is a period stock, which just so happens to be made from the same reddish colored walnut used on C.S. Richmond .58 Rifle Muskets. Our belief is that this was a Confederate replacement stock, fitted during the war. Oddly enough, the stock does not have an inspector's cartouche, but a stamped number 27 to the side of the trigger guard."

Hopefully some others will chime in and try to solve this mystery... thanks again.

 

[WartHog555]

Sorry, also further down in the description:

"the sling swivels have been removed, with the loop for the upper sling swivel being completely filed off. Period Vise marks on the breach are evident, which is yet another hallmark of some CS salvaged and repaired arms."

Besides the swivel being filed, there do appear to be two marks on the muzzle (not breech) end of the underside of the barrel, a couple of inches down. Not sure if they could be considered vise/clamp marks.

 

[Nobody85]

When I first saw the SRC stamped, I immediately thought of the Sharps Rifle Co. I’ve never read anything about them doing any modifications to existing arms though. Same with Spencer. It would definitely make a fine horseback shotgun though, albeit a might heavy.

 

[gemmer]

Confederate cut down 1842s were predominately done by the Macon Arsenal. Barrel lengths were 30, 34 or 36 inches. To me, it looks like a nice recreation of a Macon utilizing a shorter barrel. However, I'm no expert. I would strongly suggest you post your inquiry on the N-SSA website forum. I'm sure you'll get some feedback. www.n-ssa-net.

 

[hawkeye2]

Right up front: 98% of gun show stories are pure BS, 99.7% of tales concerning Confederate usage or reworks are pure BS.

Is this description from IMA?

The stocks of all Springfield and Harpers Ferry were of the same wood, black walnut, so they would appear the same. The inspector's stamps which would have been on the opposite side from the lock were shallow and likely sanded off when the stock was refinished. I have never seen any filler used on any Civil War stock I have ever seen/handled. I expect the stock is original to a 42. The upper sling swivel has not been filed off; it would have been on the middle band which has been removed.

The 42 probably saw more reworking during and after the War than any other CW firearm and skirmishers are redoing Bannermans and other damaged/cut down 42s today for skirmish guns. I have one in butchered condition that I may eventually redo as a Macon conversion.

This rework is not typical of a Bannerman (or others) job. An interesting piece and in nice shape. If it were mine I would research the various conversions and modify it (if necessary) to conform.

 

[Walkabout]

Nice, envious.

 

[WartHog555]

Confederate cut down 1842s were predominately done by the Macon Arsenal. Barrel lengths were 30, 34 or 36 inches. To me, it looks like a nice recreation of a Macon utilizing a shorter barrel. However, I'm no expert. I would strongly suggest you post your inquiry on the N-SSA website forum. I'm sure you'll get some feedback. www.n-ssa-net.

 

[WartHog555]

Thanks Gemmer for the N-SSA suggestion. I'll try them at some point, maybe I chose the wrong forum for this particular gun. But I'm still interested in other's opinions on this site to see how far it goes...

 

[WartHog555]

Right up front: 98% of gun show stories are pure BS, 99.7% of tales concerning Confederate usage or reworks are pure BS.

Is this description from IMA?

The stocks of all Springfield and Harpers Ferry were of the same wood, black walnut, so they would appear the same. The inspector's stamps which would have been on the opposite side from the lock were shallow and likely sanded off when the stock was refinished. I have never seen any filler used on any Civil War stock I have ever seen/handled. I expect the stock is original to a 42. The upper sling swivel has not been filed off; it would have been on the middle band which has been removed.

The 42 probably saw more reworking during and after the War than any other CW firearm and skirmishers are redoing Bannermans and other damaged/cut down 42s today for skirmish guns. I have one in butchered condition that I may eventually redo as a Macon conversion.

This rework is not typical of a Bannerman (or others) job. An interesting piece and in nice shape. If it were mine I would research the various conversions and modify it (if necessary) to conform.

Hello Hawkeye2, thank you for your input.

I think your statistics about gun shows and CS usage are spot on and quite amusing!

And you hit it right on the head, the description was from IMA. I don't know how knowledgeable/reputable they are, but there's usually a grain of fact, if tiny, that can be gleaned from such sites. There's not much to go on for a gun like this.

You are also correct about the upper swivel - the description quoted was for a three band, I was just pointing out that the swivel(s) were filed off, in this case it would just be the TG.

It's very possible that the inspector's stamp was sanded off, but it seems those tiny initials, whatever they are, would have disappeared too... who knows.

In any event, the two-band configuration seems to have been done very early in this gun's life. The stock was also probably done early, with later repairs and refinishing. It would be nice if one could date the repair material, but maybe it really doesn't matter.

As you mentioned, researching various conversions would be key, but seems to be very difficult. Is there a definitive book or author? All I seem to come up with are auction sites and such...

Thank you for the compliments on its condition, the gun is in quite nice condition. The bore, though it has some surface rust down deep that I am trying to mitigate, has very little pitting and would probably make a great shooter.

I am attaching a pic of the internal lock works, they are in really good condition.

Thanks again for taking the time to share your knowledge...

 

[RjSixgun]

Very nice cutdown musket, but it is not a Macon conversion nor is it an 1847. Judgeing by the finish on the stock it looks like it is a modern modification.
The Macon Arsenal did the the most if not all 1842 cutdowns. 30, 34 or 36 inches with 2 and 3 bands. 3 bands had 3 band springs but the 2 band the front sight band was held on with a screw. This is documented in the Book of Confederate Rifles and Muskets and also in Confederate Carbines and Musketoons. If you would like I can give you the page numbers but I cant recall them off hand.
There was also an 1842 Carbine the stock was very cruedly cut down and sight was simply soldered on to the barrel this configuration only had the one band.

As for the 1847s, their lock was larger than the 1841 but smaller than the 1842, to the best of my knowlage there are no past or current accurate reproductions of this arm or any of the 3 versions of it.

There was also the 1842 Fredmont which this most resembles but that was a rifled barrel with a long range rear sight and I believe the barrel was longer aswell

 

[WartHog555]

Very nice cutdown musket, but it is not a Macon conversion nor is it an 1847. Judgeing by the finish on the stock it looks like it is a modern modification.
The Macon Arsenal did the the most if not all 1842 cutdowns. 30, 34 or 36 inches with 2 and 3 bands. 3 bands had 3 band springs but the 2 band the front sight band was held on with a screw. This is documented in the Book of Confederate Rifles and Muskets and also in Confederate Carbines and Musketoons. If you would like I can give you the page numbers but I cant recall them off hand.
There was also an 1842 Carbine the stock was very cruedly cut down and sight was simply soldered on to the barrel this configuration only had the one band.

As for the 1847s, their lock was larger than the 1841 but smaller than the 1842, to the best of my knowlage there are no past or current accurate reproductions of this arm or any of the 3 versions of it.

There was also the 1842 Fredmont which this most resembles but that was a rifled barrel with a long range rear sight and I believe the barrel was longer aswell

Hello RjSixgun, thank you for your opinion and reading suggestions. I found and purchased a signed limited edition copy of Confederate Carbines and Musketoons, should get it in a week or so - the Book of Confederate Rifles and Muskets was hard to find inexpensively, but I'll keep looking.

I agree the refinish on the stock is modern, though it may have been the original modified stock from the period with repairs. It appears to be lightly sanded, as you can see how flush the sideplate is in pic #265.

Seems if they went through all this trouble, they would have retained the cartouche. And those tiny initials behind the TG, whatever they are, would/should have disappeared with a heavier sanding.

You can see from pic #250 that the 2-band configuration has been with the barrel a real long time, unless someone cleaned up the barrel, put on the bands, and then aged it.

Not a Macon, not a '47, maybe post CW, who knows. The search continues...

Keeping an open mind, I'm not locked into any theory.

 

[RjSixgun]

In Confederate Muskets and Musketoons youll find the most information on smoothbores under Macon and Richmond Armouries
Its a fine looking musketton whom ever made it, shoot it and enjoy it!!
And yes the books are expencive but are well worth it for doing research on Civil War era firearms, many pictures, records of production, receiveing and shipping or arms and repair of arms as well as detail discriptions. The books are by armoury not by firearm

 

[springfield art]

Hello, I am a new member so please go easy on me... I hope you can help. Sorry if this is somewhat long winded.

Some time ago, I acquired a Springfield 1842 with a shortened barrel (27"). It is a .69 smoothbore. I've done quite a bit of research, but can't pin down why or when this was shortened. The gun is in overall excellent condition, and appears to have seldom, if ever, been fired. When I first saw it, I thought it was an 1847 Musketoon, but their barrels are 26" and it didn't fit the typical Cavalry/Artillery/Sappers configuration. I compared it with an 1847 Cavalry carbine that I had, and it was apparent from lock and trigger size that it was larger, hence an 1842. Barrel and lock are dated 1850 with Springfield proof marks.

I think the key to this mystery is the stock - this is no military acceptance cartouche. There are tiny initials in the stock behind the trigger guard. Looks like "SRC" or "STC" depending on angle. I tried looking up arsenals/armories, inspector initials, and military colleges/academies (thinking it could be a cadet) to no avail.

I believe this is a contemporary modification - the underside of the barrel is pristine, the top or exposed part of the barrel is slightly mottled, but under the two barrel bands it matches the pristine underside. The stock seems to have been refinished to some extent, but still retains its stock-to-buttplate dimensions. I don't think it was sanded enough to completely remove the cartouche. There seems to be some type of wood filler used in spots, particularly on the nose. It may have been sanded just enough to level the wood filler repairs. I was wondering if a similar repair material was used back then, or it is more modern. If peroid filler, perhaps a rejected stock that was repaired/reused?

I read all sorts of stuff about Confederate capture/modifications, Bannerman or cadet modifications, or just someone with good skills that wanted a shorty. The TG swivel has been ground off, I've also read this could be an Artillery or Cavalry mod. Whatever it is, it was nicely done. Seen lots of them on auction sites with all kinds of stories attached to them. Most of these shorties seem to be in the 31"-36" range.

I am posting some pics that I think are relevant, the gun is currently disassembled. If there are other pics needed that would help, please let me know.

I would greatly appreciate any/all information, thank you in advance...

Lots of this type of thing was done after the Civil War for frontiersmen, Indian trade, etc., I think. Also some 'surplus' dealers in the late 1800's played around with old muskets to make them more salable.

 

[Stantheman86]

A Cadet gun or an obsolete weapon purchased or given to a University Cadet program in the 1800's is a possibility. They just used them for drilling and to learn to care for a weapon so no one cared if they were shootable but they were kept "military" in appearance and were often nicely shortened. They wouldn't have wanted the long 44" barrel for Cadet use.

I have a Krag that was shortened to the exact length of an 03 Springfield that was a Cadet rifle.

This shortened musket may be the same length as whatever was used by the Army at the time these were used by a Cadet program.

The swivel was possibly removed because Cadets didn't use slings, they were for D&C and the swivel was something that would have just flopped around and got snagged on things.

Just a theory

There were tons of long obsolete weapons floating around in the 1870's-1900's and schools, Universities and Cadet programs....or even Legion posts were often given these for free and they had them reworked by local gunsmiths or at the actual shop in the University. Every State University had or has a Cadet or now ROTC program and lots of old weapons would have been needed so they used what they could get.

 

[fiddler]

here is an 1847 for comparison.....

 

[springfield art]

A Cadet gun or an obsolete weapon purchased or given to a University Cadet program in the 1800's is a possibility. They just used them for drilling and to learn to care for a weapon so no one cared if they were shootable but they were kept "military" in appearance and were often nicely shortened. They wouldn't have wanted the long 44" barrel for Cadet use.

I have a Krag that was shortened to the exact length of an 03 Springfield that was a Cadet rifle.

This shortened musket may be the same length as whatever was used by the Army at the time these were used by a Cadet program.

The swivel was possibly removed because Cadets didn't use slings, they were for D&C and the swivel was something that would have just flopped around and got snagged on things.

Just a theory

There were tons of long obsolete weapons floating around in the 1870's-1900's and schools, Universities and Cadet programs....or even Legion posts were often given these for free and they had them reworked by local gunsmiths or at the actual shop in the University. Every State University had or has a Cadet or now ROTC program and lots of old weapons would have been needed so they used what they could get.

My local Legion Post had 24, '03-A3's issued many years ago; now there are 4! I feel that is typical of many Posts, you will note that vet posts are shrinking or dis-appering rapidly! The great population of WW2 & Korea vets is largely gone, and the VN vets started their own organizations. BTW, there were some shortened muskets issued to the VMI cadets, one of which a friend owns, but it needs the stock properly restored as it was cut off back in time. He is going to have that done at some point; the forward band is missing, so a full size band will need to be cut down to narrow it. Anyway, thanks.

 

[Stantheman86]

My local Legion Post had 24, '03-A3's issued many years ago; now there are 4! I feel that is typical of many Posts, you will note that vet posts are shrinking or dis-appering rapidly! The great population of WW2 & Korea vets is largely gone, and the VN vets started their own organizations. BTW, there were some shortened muskets issued to the VMI cadets, one of which a friend owns, but it needs the stock properly restored as it was cut off back in time. He is going to have that done at some point; the forward band is missing, so a full size band will need to be cut down to narrow it. Anyway, thanks.

My Legion has the chromed M1 Garands for events and funerals

A lot of Legion and VFW rifles were given back to the Govt and sold through the CMP. I had a 1917 with a bore roached from blank firing and never cleaning

A shortened .69 musket used by Cadets in the 1860s-1900s looks enough like a Trapdoor that it would be a good Drill rifle , and I'd assume the Cadet program took them to the local State Guard armory to shoot Trapdoors which were used right up until WWI in some cases.

Plus it would be nearly impossible for a Cadet to load and fire a .69 musket or for them to even get what you needed to fire it, so they were "Cadet Proof" since paper cartridges and caps weren't just laying around or available at stores