US Model 1855 Rifle - restoration effort

[steved]

I recently received as a gift a worn US Model 1855 Rifle (2 band) that I’m working to restore a bit. As shown in the picture, the stock was damaged or bubba’d and the upper band is gone and the lower band is actually an upper band from a US 1855 Rifle Musket (3 band). As a result, other than where the ramrod enters the stock, there is no way to secure the ramrod to the rifle. There is a patch of solder a few inches below the muzzle on the underside of the barrel, evidence of a ramrod pipe soldered onto the barrel to hold a ramrod, and thereby have an operable rifle. http://images1.snapfish.com/232323232fp;37>nu=3238>992>;68>WSNRCG=34<355<74633:nu0mrj

It would be impossible in my opinion to try to restore this rifle to its original configuration, but I’m doing a little restoration to make it look like it did after it was field repaired or otherwise bubba’d to its current configuration. The first thing I did was to replace the missing Maynard Tape Primer cover on the lock. I purchased a replacement part from S&S Fireaarms and filed/fit/finished it in the white to pin to the lock plate. http://images1.snapfish.com/232323232fp:<8>nu=3238>992>;68>WSNRCG=34<355<74533:nu0mrj http://images1.snapfish.com/232323232fp;3:>nu=3238>992>;68>WSNRCG=34<355<36;33:nu0mrj

The next thing I did was to age the part to match the patina on this 151 year old rifle, using bleach, rock salt and LMF Browning Solution.
http://images1.snapfish.com/232323232fp:<7>nu=3238>992>;68>WSNRCG=34<355<74433:nu0mrj http://images1.snapfish.com/232323232fp:<:>nu=3238>992>;68>WSNRCG=34<355<37333:nu0mrj

The final stage of my restoration effort will be to solder a ramrod thimble to the barrel, first aging it of course. I already purchased a replacement ramrod from S&S and aged it appropriately, and I’ve got an eye on an appropriate thimble offered by Track. Ideally I’d like to solder the thimble to a 2” piece of under rib. I’d like to avoid paying $20 + S/H for a full length piece of under rib from a parts supplier, only to use 2”+/-. Does anyone have a piece laying around left over from a build to donate to my cause?
Thanks,
Steve

 

[sc45-70]

send me a PT
SC45-70

 

[Swede50]

Looks like a very nice wall hanger.
It would be something to use to make a new copy from if it was mine.
I don't think I would want to shoot it but I know nothing about this type of rifle.
The closest I had was a Mississippi rifle I bought at Four Flags that got ripped off.

 

[mazo kid]

It was very common to cut the stock down after all the conflicts were over and the soldiers returned home. I have 2 similar muskets. Also have a mdl 1816 that was re-converted to flint and the forestock joined under the first barrel band.

 

[gonzomann]

That's a cool project, Jersey!

Curtis

 

[steved]

mazo kid,

Thanks for your comments. The more I handle this piece and study it, the more I come to the romanticized conclusion that this rifle ended up with the shortened stock as a result of a battlefield reclamation. Since this rifle is the shorter 2-band variant of the more common 3-band 1855, with its 33" barrel intact and not shortend, it makes no sense to me why someone would shorten the stock and not the barrel, removing the upper band that holds the ramrod, and changing the shape of the forearm to replace the original lower band with a smaller band that is not big enough in diameter to slide the ramrod underneath. The only way to secure a ramrod to this rifle is by soldering on a thimble to the exposed barrel. In researching this rifle I've seen a bunch of cut down/ shortened 3-band rifles, but most of them have the stock cut down above the middle band and the two remaining bands hold the ramrod. I'm imagining that this rifle had its stock splintered in battle and was subsequently fixed up to make it operable, since the barrel and lock were not damaged. Secure the remaining stock with an upper band from a 3-band rifle and solder on the thimble and you're back in business. Of course, it could have been damaged post-War when Bubba used it as a lever to remove a rock from the field, but I like my theory better.

 

[baer19d]

I also like your theory, and you never know, there could be a little truth to that.

Mike

 

[hawkeye2]

You have the remnants of an 1855 rifle. This is not "the shorter 2-band variant of the more common 3-band 1855" but rather an entirely different gun. If you were to cut down an 1855 rifle musket (the 3 band you speak of) to 33" you would not come up with what you have. The rifle has a much thicker barrel and at a point 33" from the breech it has a much larger outside diameter than a rifle musket does at the same point.
This gun was never modified by the US to this configuration, they simply did not do this type of work. It would have been repaired correctly.
You have done some excelent work on the Maynard tape primer cover and I think your idea of adding a thimble under the barrel is fine too. It's in keeping with a post CW "sporter". More photos as you go please.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Jersey Flinter, I appreciate your "romanticized conclusion" as you call it, but I am afraid that Hawkeye2 has it exactly right, it is a post-War sporter made from a used M8155 Rifle (not a shortened Rifle Musket) - all of the work you see was done after military service. No service, not US or CS, would have wasted the time doing this type of modification for military use, it would have been broken up for parts that could be used on other damaged weapons. As far as the condition? It is not a battlefield pick up, it is obvious that it was put away dirty in a damp location after long use by it's civilian user and allowed to rust up to it's current condition.

That being said, you did indeed do excellent work on the replacement of the Maynard primer door as Hawkeye2 said and, if you like, would do well to restore the forearm with a new forestock with the proper M1855 Rifle bands, muzzle cap and ramrod and a correct rear sight if you so desire but there would be a lot of work matching the condition of the remaining original parts.

 

[steved]

Hawkeye2 and Va.Manuf.06

Thanks for your compliments on my restoration work so far. I'll post more pictures when I mount the ramrod thimble and ramrod.

Regarding the actual model of the relic in my hands, I'm convinced it is the 1855 2 band rifle. The lockplate is marked Harpers Ferry, which is the only arsenal that made the 2-band rifle, the barrel is exactly 33 inches from breech pug face to the muzzle and there is a dovetail on the top of the barrel where the (missing) front sight would be. Too big a coincidence in my opinion that Bubba would cut a HF 3-band rifle to exactly 33 inches and make a dovetail on the barrel where the sight would be, only to also put in a bead ahead of the dovetail. Also, the stock appears to be the original military stock for the rifle. It has two inspectors' cartouches on the lock bolt side, and it has the patchbox which I think was on all 2-bands produced but not on every 3-band produced by HF and Springfield. There also inspectors initials stamped in the wood in the lock mortise and in the wood inside the patch box.
http://images1.snapfish.com/232323232fp;32>nu=3238>992>;68>WSNRCG=34<3;:7;5733:nu0mrj

As for how the rifle ended up in it's current configuration, that of course will never be known. Regardless, in my opinion it had to have ended up this way as a result of stock damage (battle, hunting accident, tomato stake, etc) because no one in their right mind would intentionally modify it the way it is now. If it was a 2-band, or 3-band for that matter, and the stock was cut ahead of the lower band, why discard the original lower band, thin the stock ahead of the ramrod entry hole and replace the original lower band with a narrow upper band from a 3-band rifle (stepped oval band, not a full oval of the 2 band variety)? Doing as such leaves no way to capture the ramrod except by adding a thimble. Even bubba'd rifles were done so with a sense of utility. Of course this is my two cents and I greatly appreciate the different points of view provided by the forum members.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

We all appear to be talking about the same gun - The M1855 Rifle, not the M1855 Rifle Musket. The former, the M1855 Rifle had a 33 inch barrel and the M1855 Rifle Musket had a 40 inch barrel. We agree so far that we think you have a Rifle as opposed to the Rifle Musket, correct?

A couple of questions if I may;

(1) What is the diameter of the muzzle on your gun?

and

(2) You say there is a dovetail near the muzzle of your gun where a front sight was located? We can see the rear dovetail where the rear sight was located but I can not see the front dovetail. Neither the '55 Rifle or '55 Rifle Musket had a dovetailed front sight, both were welded blocks and were quite similar in appearance. Could you post a picture of the dovetail? If not, your word on this is certainly good enough, it is just interesting.

 

[Tumblernotch]

Me too. That was a rifle-musket. And based on the presence of the patch box was made after 1859, at least the stock was. The lock appears to be marked 1860.

 

[steved]

Va. Manuf.06

From what I can tell the gun in question is the M1855 Rifle with the 33" barrel and 2 barrel bands, not a M1855 Rifle Musket with a shortened barrel. I will measure the muzzle diameter when I get a chance and report back the findings. As for the "dovetail" that I noted in my above post, I will take a picture and post it. In my minds eye it is less of a dovetail and more of a flat to place the front sight. A picture will certainly help clarify this question. I'd never put my hands on either model M1855 until I received this one (a gift from a random stranger I started talking to during a 4-hour delay of our flight from Milan to Newark), so it's great for me to get information from those with more knowlege of these rifles.

KanawhaRanger

You have good eyes. The lock is dated 1860
http://images1.snapfish.com/232323232fp;37>nu=3238>992>;68>WSNRCG=34<3<6:;6533:nu0mrj

And marked Harpers Ferry
http://images1.snapfish.com/232323232fp:<4>nu=3238>992>;68>WSNRCG=34<3<6578;33:nu0mrj

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Va. Manuf.06

From what I can tell the gun in question is the M1855 Rifle with the 33" barrel and 2 barrel bands, not a M1855 Rifle Musket with a shortened barrel. I will measure the muzzle diameter when I get a chance and report back the findings.

You may very well be right, I have been going on that assumption as well but the muzzle diameter will tell us a lot.

As for the "dovetail" that I noted in my above post, I will take a picture and post it. In my minds eye it is less of a dovetail and more of a flat to place the front sight.

That is an important piece of information. Both the Rifle and the Rifle Musket had similar block front sites welded to the top of the barrel and did not have or require a dovetail. The small "flat" that you mention is probably from the original front sight's removal by filing and is another piece of information that, coupled with the muzzle diameter, could show that it is indeed a Rifle instead of a shortened Rifle Musket barrel. [/quote]

You are a lucky guy to have run into this stranger and it was very kind of him to pass it on to someone that would appreciate it. And Kanawha Ranger has chimed in, that is always a good thing. :hatsoff:

 

[hawkeye2]

The stock is an 1855 rifle stock as a rifle musket did not have a patchbox. There is no need to refer to a rifle as a 2 band rifle, it probably will cause confusion in the minds of those who are aware of rifle muskets cut down to 2 band configuration. By the way these cut down rifle muskets didn't have 33" barrels, they were shorter. ALL arsenal manufactured RIFLES had 2 bands, no more, no less. Please, oh please no one sidetrack this thread with a discussion of whether the existing 2 band cut down rifle muskets were done by US and Confederate arsenals or not. That is a seperate subject that could be argued in this forum for years with no resolution.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

The stock is an 1855 rifle stock as a rifle musket did not have a patchbox.

The '55 Rifle Musket begain manufacture in 1856 without a patchbox, true, but the patchbox was added in 1859 and was used throughout the rest of the '55 RM's production. Since this example is dated "1860" it is possible that it is a Rifle Musket stock. I'm not saying that it is, I'm just saying (for the first time) that it is possible. Don't read too much into what is being said or suggested.

There is no need to refer to a rifle as a 2 band rifle, it probably will cause confusion in the minds of those who are aware of rifle muskets cut down to 2 band configuration. By the way these cut down rifle muskets didn't have 33" barrels, they were shorter.

Am I correct in assuming that you refer to the so called "Artillery Variant"? I have yet to see a "rifle muskets cut down to 2 band configuration" that I could be convinced was done intentionally for front line military use. That being said, There are those that may have been cut down after being surplussed from the system and were used by military schools.

ALL arsenal manufactured RIFLES had 2 bands, no more, no less.

You are correct, all standard rifles had two bands. This includes the M1855 Rifle and it's predecessors, the M1841, the M1814 and the M1819.

Please, oh please no one sidetrack this thread with a discussion of whether the existing 2 band cut down rifle muskets were done by US and Confederate arsenals or not. That is a seperate subject that could be argued in this forum for years with no resolution.

I apologize if my statement can be considered confusing or inflammatory. It was simply made as a statement of fact. The use of a thimble soldered directly to the barrel is a common method of adding the thimble in lower quality conversions. Unfortunately, not all military arms converted to shotguns after their military use were done to the highest standard. The crude pipe could easily be formed from thin sheet metal and adequately soldered directly to the barrel for the job. This was not done by a military armorer. I did not mean to wander of into "a seperate subject that could be argued in this forum for years with no resolution." But I will say you are right, unsupported argument never does resolve anything but research does. I've done the research.

 

[Tumblernotch]

It's hard to tell how much of the barrel is missing from the first photo. It doesn't look much shorter than the rifle should be, but it's hard to see at that angle. It's also hard to see how thick the barrel is. Both the rifle and the rifle-musket were the same diameter at the breech (across the flats) but the rifle was 12/100ths of an inch bigger at the muzzle (.90" for Rifle, .78" for RM). I have a RM barrel here that is .78" at the muzzle. At the 33" point (the muzzle on the rifle), mine measures .795". If needed, I could measure both my barrels at a shorter distance from the breech that could be compared at the same point on the rifle in question. The other barrel is from an M1863 RM which would be the same as the '55.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

KR, you have hit on my thoughts exactly, the angle that the photo was taken leaves me thinking of a cut RM barrel but there is the flat described by Jersey Flinter where the original front sight may have been that could indicate that this was a Rifle as opposed to an RM. We'll know better if he has time to respond with muzzle measurements.

Jersey Flinter, here is a link to an original '55 Rifle that you may enjoy looking at:
http://www.collegehillarsenal.com/shop/product.php?productid=330

 

[Tumblernotch]

Yeah, if he can measure it at 1 foot, 2 feet, &c. we can get measurements from the RM barrels to compare. In that first picture, the barrel looks like it has a lot of taper for a rifle barrel. But, like we've both noticed, the angle makes it kind of hard to tell for sure.

 

[steved]

Va.Manuf.06 and KanawhaRanger,

Sorry for taking so long to get back with the barrel measurments. Was traveling on business last week. Once again, thanks for your insight on my rifle. I got out my micrometer and took the following measurments of the barrel:

.811" diameter at the muzzle
.856" diameter 1ft from muzzle
.970" diameter 2ft from muzzle

As noted before, there is a rectangular flat on the top of the barrel where I think the front sight base was welded on. It's not a dovetail - my earlier description was not correct. The distance from the muzzle to the closest edge of the sight post flat is 1.315". Below is a link to a pictures of the flat, as well as a link to a picture from an actual M1855 Rifle that I found online.
http://images1.snapfish.com/232323232fp;59>nu=3238>992>;68>WSNRCG=34<89933;233:nu0mrj http://images1.snapfish.com/232323232fp;92>nu=3238>992>;68>WSNRCG=34<899:34933:nu0mrj http://images1.snapfish.com/232323232fp;83>nu=3238>992>;68>WSNRCG=34<89933:;33:nu0mrj

While I was measuring things I dropped a dowel down the barrel to confirm its length. The barrel measures exactly 33" from breech plug face to muzzle.

Restoration update: Thanks to the generosity of forum member sc45-70, I now have a piece of under rib to mount a ramrod thimble and then mount to the barrel. I soldered the thimble to the under rib and now am aging the unit to match the pitted, browned patina of the barrel.