Two-Band Springfield

[D Harrelson]

Anyone know of any manufacturer making a reproduction two-band Springfield?
I've checked the usual gang of suspects (EOA, A-S, Taylors etc.) and came up blank.
'42,'55,'61,or '63 would be acceptable.

D Harrelson

[David Fox]

Re: Two-Band Springfield

Since it appears no "two band Springfields" were issued in models 1842, '55, '61, or '63 it's unlikely you'll find any replicated by the big boys. Some controversial 19th Century two-banders exist in 1861 and 1863 configuation. The jury is out as to where these came from: arsenals or Bannerman put-togethers for sale to military schools and the like after the war. North-South Skirmishers utilize them, I believe. Check the www.n-ssa.org website. You aren't talking about the 1841 U.S. rifle or the 1855 Harper's Ferry rifle, are you? These and Confederate two-banders are made by custom fabricators such as James River Armory (www.jamesriverarmory.com) for skirmishers and reenactors.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Two-Band Springfield

Hallo!

Yes...
The so-called "artillery rifles" are M1855, M1861, SM1861, M1863, and M1864 RM's that were shortened to a barrel length of 33 or 34 inches.
They are shrouded in mystery as to why and when.

IMHO, the "artillery rifles" was/is an N-SSA "thing" to allow their use as not being a post War invention. Some lads hold that they give a competitive ede because they are somewhat faster to load than a RM, but are easier to control than a heavier rifle of the same length. (I played with one, an M1855and for competition liked it better than M1855 rifles or rifle-muskets. I could fire off 4-5 rpm versus 3-4.)

There are no commercial makers of these arms. But, custom-built versions can sometimes be found for sale through the N-SSA.
Or for the skilled, a Italian repro RM can be shortened to an "AR."

And that is skirting the discussion of documentation, as well as the "two bander ban" commonly found in some segments of the CW COmmunity.

Curt

[rogue]

Re: Two-Band Springfield

Should you choose to go the two band route, go to the N-SSA bulletin board and do a search for "Chattahoochee Arms", they make a two band that is well though of, and the company is now owned and run by a N-SSA member.
S.Sullivan

[M.Latham]

Re: Two-Band Springfield

Richmond Armory made two band rifles with 33" barrels beginning in 1863 and continuing for the rest of the war, at first made with damaged rifle-muskets and then as a separate and distinct class of arm. With several Confederate idiosyncrasies through-out the production run.

I would refer you to one of the single best books written of Civil War period small arms, "C.S. Armory Richmond" by Paul Davies. This somewhat overlooked book has ironclad documentation of these rifles.

[David Fox]

Re: Two-Band Springfield

All the above is valid. I believe the N-SSA accepted 2-band Springfields at a time the lack of their Civil War use was not well established. Now they're grandfathered in. As someone else noted, friend Harrelson, if you're considering a purchase for reenactment purposes, be sure your unit accepts them. By your photo you appear a veteran and this advice is likely redundant. And Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Two-Band Springfield

Hallo!

Kinda/sorta...

The Richmond Armory did not make rifles, that Harpers Ferry M1855 machinery and parts being sent to Fayetteville.

However, starting in June of 1864, they started producing "Richmond Rifles" or "Short Rifles" which were essentially rifle-muskets made short by utilizing RM barrels and stocks damaged near the muzzles. (The previous "two bander" being the .58 "carbine" introduced late in 1862.)


Being shortened RM's, they were two pounds lighter than the Fayetteville rifles which were "true" rifles made with the thicker rifle barrels from the Harpers Ferry M1855 rifle works.

But yes, a "Richmond Rifle" would be a so-so potential choice for post June of 1864 impressions. (However, without reading all of the reference materials, they seem to have been sent to the cavalry.)

Curt

[D Harrelson]

Re: Two-Band Springfield

I've heard of a "Fremont" model which I understand was a shortened '42 rifled Springfield made specifically for Fremont's western expedition somewhere around the late 1840's.

Also had an old pard back when I started in this hobby in the mid-1990's who used to carry a two-band '61 or '63 (I forget) that he claimed was original....

Seems like the consensus is that a two-bander is a N-SSA thing from a Springfield perspective.

D Harrelson

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Two-Band Springfield

Hallo!

"Seems like the consensus is that a two-bander is a N-SSA thing from a Springfield perspective."

Largely, mostly, because of the lack of any documentation that would put them into 1861-1865 usage.

What we have is numbers of these "cut downs" appearing in the artifact pool.

Sensible conjecture and theory that they were post War military school modifications done to surplus arms; that they were post War state guard modifications, etc. go along with perhaps not so sensible rationalizations as the "artillery rifle" thinking that the shorter lengths could be better "slung" on horseback for the CW era artillery crewmen than full length RM's. ( ;) )
Or that we ust don't know...

And yes, in 1847 3200 M1842's were reworked to have 33 inch barrels, and were rifled and sighted, for the Fremont expedition.

Curt

[David Fox]

Re: Two-Band Springfield

According to Reilly, 3200 33-inch barrelled M.1842 muskets were manufactured by Springfield for the John Freemont western expedition which wound-up on the Pacific Coast in time for the Mexican War. As you observed, Mr. Harrelson, these were sighted (long-range ladder sights) and rifled. Supposedly these were shipped to California. Reilly illustrates what is believed to be one of these on page 73 of his "United States Military Small Arms 1816-1865". It is indeed a two bander w/ the front swivel being located on the typical M.42 double front barrel band. Thus mia culpa, I stand corrected re: asserting no two-band M.42s being produced. And of course M.1842s were variously chopped and channelled by Confederate armouries, notably Richmond, apparently to salvage damaged weapons. I have seen replica Fremont M.42s bought and sold on the N-SSA website, which I should have remembered. Zimmerman, it strikes me, may have produced some of these. I have cobbled together a musketooned M42 with a 26-inch barrel from all original parts, but for rammer and rear sling swivel. it's barrel is tapered to take an M.1840 bayonet. Hoyt pressed a rifled liner in. Thus far, handy as it is, I can't get it to shoot worth a Continental.

[M.Latham]

Re: Two-Band Springfield

Curt,

In fact Richmond did in fact make rifles, commencing in September 1864 richmond lists deliveries of 420 "rifles, new short". As opposed to "rifles, short from old parts" as listed in July of 1864.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Two-Band Springfield

Hallo!

Herr Mark...

You are reading "Rifles Short New" and perceiving that to be actual rifles (rifle as defined by a heavy rifle barrel) rather than the Armory's term for a rifle lengthed arm made using a 33 inch rifle-musket barrel.

Or, in the older Hill and Anthony classification a "musketoon."

The rifle barrel making machinery from Harpers' Ferry was shipped to Fayetteville, while the rifle-musket machinery was eventually shipped to Richmond.
Richmond did not have the facilities to make true heavy rifle barrels, but used the HF rifle-musket machinery to produce RM speced 33 inch barrels that they used on the "Rifles Short New."
They also used it to make their .58 "Rifle Carbines," they having (nominal) 25 inch shortened (or recycled RM) barrels.

ALL (universal so noted) of these surviving arms have rifle-musket type barrels as the machinery to make rifle barrels was not at the Richmond Armory.

There was an attempt to crate and ship the HF RM machinery out of Richmond by train to Danville in route to the Macon, GA armory at the beginning of April, prior to the burning of the armory on the 3rd. (Macon and Burton were captured on April 20th anyways...)
The train was found, and captured on April 27, 1865.

So, with "in fact..."
Please post and share the historical and artifactual records that makes me and this history wrong.

Always keenly interested in learning.

Thanks!

Curt
Former collector and builder of custom-built reproduction Richmond RM's, Short Rifles, and Carbines

[M.Latham]

Re: Two-Band Springfield

Maestro Schmitt,

Since the question asked and discussion thusfar, regards "two band Springfields", and since the question was not regarding the 1855 series of rifles, and since I'm fairly certain Master Armorer Salmon Adams knew what a rifle was and how to define it. Explain why you feel Master Armorer Adams was wrong in his description, after all he described what his armory was producing, not I.

I did not define a rifle as needing a heavy barrel to be classified as such, nor did my post. I pointed out that Richmond Armory did produce a series of weapons, starting in 1864 at first made from "old parts" and then from newly manufactured parts, an object which they (it seems mistakenly) called a "rifle".

My apologies, as one should not get so wrapped up in single mindset typology.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Two-Band Springfield

Hallo!

"Explain why you feel Master Armorer Adams was wrong in his description, after all he described what his armory was producing, not I."

Historically, actually no.
As we are today, when reading Period accounts written by enlistedmen, officers, and even ordnance officers who should "know" better- there is commonly a looseness and a laxness in "proper" or even descriptive terms such as rifle-musket, rifled-musket, rifled and sighted muskets, rifle, musketoon, carbine, etc.

For example, men documented as armed with rifle-muskets may be found to have written about their "rifles" or their "guns."

Or as the old artillery joke goes.. as to a cannon being a "gun."

"My apologies, as one should not get so wrapped up in single mindset typology."

It is not so much being wrapped up in a "single mindset typology," as it is the research methodology of striving to more accurately understand if not attempt to reproduce/recreate the Past.

IMHO, there is nothing to apologize for.

:)

Curt

[M.Latham]

Re: Two-Band Springfield

Curt,

I disagree, Historically speaking. There is a considerable difference between an ordnance officer and the Master Armorer of the Confederacies primary arms manufacturer. As I'm sure you well know it was his duty to accurately report exactly what the Armory produced to James Burton, in terms that Mr. Burton would understand.

He states that he produced rifles, a term that I'm sure Mr. Burton was also well aware of, having been in England when they developed rifles of a non-heavy barreled kind in the P56 and P58 bar on band series.

So, if your assertion is that Salmon Adams and James Burton did not in fact know that Anthony and Hill called what they made a "musketoon", I guess we'll have to forgive their lack of current vogue typology.

I also strive to understand the past, and will let the gentlemen who knew far more about their armory than I can hope to, set the terminology in this case.