Question About Original 1863 Springfields

[Notchy Bob]

I've been cleaning up an 1863 Springfield rifle musket which underwent "sporterization" after the war, i.e. the barrel was shortened and reamed smooth, a bead front sight was installed and the rear sight removed, and the forend was professionally cut back just a few inches forward of the lowest barrel band. The one remaining barrel band is a friction fit... It is not the "clamping" type, and there is no retaining spring. The stock is essentially sound, and the lock is excellent. The barrel looks okay on the outside, but the bore is like the proverbial sewer pipe. At some point in the 20th century, the nipple seat was welded up and re-drilled and tapped for a 1/4-28 nipple. I got the nipple out and cleaned up the threads in the bolster as well as I could, but after inspecting it I would not feel safe shooting this gun, and in fact the bore is not in any shape for shooting, anyway.

Mr. Hoyt could probably line the barrel and restore the nipple seat. However, while the gun is in my possession, it is technically not mine. It's complicated. In any event, I don't want to make any irreversible modifications to the gun as a whole or the barrel. So, if I want to shoot it, and I do, I'm looking at a new or replacement barrel which can be interchanged with the old one. It should be obvious that I am not looking at a complete restoration. It would be for recreational shooting in its "sporterized" form, just with a new barrel.

Mr. Whitacre makes and sells 1863 Springfield barrels to original specs in both two-band and three-band lengths. While the subject gun was originally a three bander, based on the remaining barrel length, I would prefer the two-band length for a replacement "shooter" barrel.

My question is, are the tapers the same on the two-band and three-band barrels? Or, put another way, do we think a two-band length barrel will fit this stock?

From the preliminary research I have done, it appears two-band muskets did exist, but I've gotten the impression these were probably cut-down three-banders rather than being purpose built in the shorter length. If that is the case, the shorter barrel made to original specs should fit the stock, but I would like some opinions from the experts before I drop $500 or so on a new barrel.

So, what do you think? Will a new barrel in the two-band length fit this stock and its friction-fit barrel band?

Thanks for your thoughts and opinions!

Notchy Bob

 

[dave951]

Yes, two band Springfield muskets exist and yes, they were made that way. IIRC, the taper is different. Given that your stock is cut down, that may not really be an issue.

 

[Trot]

I may be wrong and am sure I'll be shot down if I am, but I think all 1863 Springfield rifle muskets were made as 3 band. Any 2 band were cut down after manufacture. The barrel should fit the stock, but not sure about the band. All bands were either the clamping type or had the spring retainers, so if yours is just friction fit it has to be some kind of later modification. Edit, shot down before I even got it posted!

 

[dave951]

I may be wrong and am sure I'll be shot down if I am, but all 1863 Springfield rifle muskets were made as 3 band. Any 2 band were cut down after manufacture. The barrel should fit the stock, but not sure about the band. All bands were either the clamping type or had the spring retainers, so if yours is just friction fit it has to be some kind of later modification.

Yup, you're wrong. Two banders were factory produced. Look at 1863 Remington contract aka "Zouave".

 

[Phil Coffins]

Why not ask Mr. Whitacre?

 

[Trot]

Yup, you're wrong. Two banders were factory produced. Look at 1863 Remington contract aka "Zouave".

Ah,I know about the 1863 Remington contract rifles, but they were not made by Springfield nor were they considered rifle muskets. They were classified as rifles, like the 1841 and 1855 models.

 

[Trot]

Why not ask Mr. Whitacre?

Best idea!

 

[hawkeye2]

All the existing 2 band Springfields, either 61s or 63s, were cut down from the 40" 3 band configuration. There is no difference in the barrel profiles and a Whitacre barrel should fit with no modifications. This does not include rifles like the 55, 1841 Mississippi or the 1863 Remington contract Zouave as all the rifles had a much heavier barrel.

You could move on with the project but the question is do you want to spend that kind of money on someone else's gun.

A friend is making replacement forearms for these and the hardware is available as either new old stock or reproduction. It could be brought back as a 2 or 3 band rifle musket if you desired.

 

[hawkeye2]

I forgot to mention Hoyt can lengthen the existing barrel to whatever you desire and reline it too for a very reasonable cost.

 

[dave951]

All the existing 2 band Springfields, either 61s or 63s, were cut down from the 40" 3 band configuration. There is no difference in the barrel profiles and a Whitacre barrel should fit with no modifications. This does not include rifles like the 55, 1841 Mississippi or the 1863 Remington contract Zouave as all the rifles had a much heavier barrel.

You could move on with the project but the question is do you want to spend that kind of money on someone else's gun.

A friend is making replacement forearms for these and the hardware is available as either new old stock or reproduction. It could be brought back as a 2 or 3 band rifle musket if you desired.

I though the Colt contract Springfields were factory produced as 2 bands or are we engaging in semantics as to what exactly is a Springfield.

 

[Trot]

I don't believe the Colts were made in 2 band either.

 

[hawkeye2]

I though the Colt contract Springfields were factory produced as 2 bands or are we engaging in semantics as to what exactly is a Springfield.

Possible, I can't remember but I tend to forget the Colt as It's usually called the 61 special model and shows a lot of Enfield heritage. As far as I know the barrels are of a different contour than the "regular Springfields".

 

[Notchy Bob]

Thank you for all of the replies.

Why not ask Mr. Whitacre?

I will. That is an excellent suggestion, and it is in the plan. However, I thought I would put the question on the forum in addition, as this sort of discussion often brings up things I might not have considered.

All the existing 2 band Springfields, either 61s or 63s, were cut down from the 40" 3 band configuration. There is no difference in the barrel profiles and a Whitacre barrel should fit with no modifications. This does not include rifles like the 55, 1841 Mississippi or the 1863 Remington contract Zouave as all the rifles had a much heavier barrel.

You could move on with the project but the question is do you want to spend that kind of money on someone else's gun.

A friend is making replacement forearms for these and the hardware is available as either new old stock or reproduction. It could be brought back as a 2 or 3 band rifle musket if you desired.

Thank you for your comments.

I actually have a Whitacre 1861 barrel. As you know, the bolster is different from the '63, but I was hoping it might fit this stock. It doesn't. The barrel is a passable but not great fit in the stock itself, but the bolster does not fit the cut-out in the lock plate. It's pretty close, but not quite close enough, and as I said earlier, I don't want to make any irreversible changes to any part of this old gun.

You could move on with the project but the question is do you want to spend that kind of money on someone else's gun.

This is technically someone else's gun, but I don't really expect it to go anywhere. I guess I have custody of the gun, but not ownership. It's complicated. The upshot is I would not mind buying a new barrel for it, if I can get one that will drop in without modification. The Springfield stocks fit me very well, in terms of drop, cast, and length of pull, and in it's current half-stock configuration, this gun is very handy. I pick it up and shoulder it and aim it out the window every time I'm in its vicinity, and I'll have to confess I just don't do that with every gun. The lock shows its age on the outside, but the moving parts are in very good shape and somebody stoned the sear nose and tumbler notch to make a very nice trigger. These old military guns are easy to clean and maintain, and I think it would be a lot of fun to shoot in the local blackpowder matches and for recreation.

Thank you for your comments!

Notchy Bob

 

[TNBandit]

The Springfield Armory didn't make any 2 band guns. They were made by others as has already been posted and I believe the Confederates cut down some captured Springfields. If you can end up owning it my suggestion would be to have the barrel repaired by Bob Hoyt and either find an unmolested stock or buy one of the reproduction forend sections and hide the splice under the rear band. I'm doing the same with a Model 1842 Springfield.

 

[Trot]

Been doing some reading and studying up on the subject. While Colt did convert a bunch of the 1841 rifles to 58 caliber and add adjustable sights, they did not produce any 2 band rifles during the war, unless of course you count the revolving rifle, whole different story though!

 

[JCKelly]

Springfield in the 1860;s made barrels stronger than ANY made today in the USA
They were power forge welded of high quality wrought iron.

Today's USA barrels are mostly made of high sulfur, high phosphorus leaded steel not designed to hold an explosion.

 

[bang]

If it's"technically not yours" then let the owner decide. Just a curiosity.

 

[dave951]

Been doing some reading and studying up on the subject. While Colt did convert a bunch of the 1841 rifles to 58 caliber and add adjustable sights, they did not produce any 2 band rifles during the war, unless of course you count the revolving rifle, whole different story though!

Colt took on a contract to produce muskets but was unable to deliver so the work was subcontracted out. One of the interesting subcontractors was Amos Keag, a company which is still around today but makes fire fighting equipment. So you may well see what is termed a "Colt Contract" but the lock says Amos Keag.

 

[Trot]

Colt took on a contract to produce muskets but was unable to deliver so the work was subcontracted out. One of the interesting subcontractors was Amos Keag, a company which is still around today but makes fire fighting equipment. So you may well see what is termed a "Colt Contract" but the lock says Amos Keag.

Yep, Colt did make bunch of the 1861 Special rifle muskets, but farmed out the rest, LG&Y was another firm that made some of them. Interestingly, the 1861 Special came about because Colt contracted to make Model 1861's but was already tooled up to make Enfields so they got the Gov't. to accept the not really 1861's closer to Enfield pattern!

 

[Jim]

The “special” model . . . .

Colt=75,000 arms delivered
LG&Y=50,000 arms delivered
Amoskeag=27,000 arms delivered

In my collection, I have one of the Amoskeag’s, but . . . .
Unfortunately, some Neanderthal “bobbed” it at the middle band.

I have in mind to make a “silk purse from a sow’s ear” and make a “fantasy” piece from it by making a “musketoon”!