Questions about Defarbed Springfield Sight!

[Blair]

Re: Questions about Defarbed Springfield Sight!

There are several notes that should be considered here,
1. When were these screws heads polished? After 140 plus years, I can't hazard a guess.
Why would a War production Armory take the additional time to polish these small parts? When getting the completed firearm out to the troops had greater presidence?
2. Springfield Armory Museum displays many firearms. Along side many that were not made by Springfield Armory. Many contract model variations are displayed. Including a great selection of M-1841 Rifles (which Springfield never produced)
3. Colt Special Model's don't fallow any Springfield pattern arm. This is why they are refereed to as "Special" model's. They actually more closely fallow the design pattern of the Enfield but with some American influence in the finished design. Springfield will even copy the Colt design, to some degree, with their Model 1863 and 1864's

[GPM]

Re: Questions about Defarbed Springfield Sight!

I think George is on to something with the anealed screws. I've known of the blued screws theory for some time and look for this detail. A high percentage of blue on the rear sight and nipple are often found on "minty" examples, it seems at least some would survive on the screw heads if they were blued as well. Never say never, but I have not encountered blued screws yet.

[McKim]

Re: Questions about Defarbed Springfield Sight!

Well rather than speculate I have made an inquiry of the staff at Springfield Armory for clarification..a verdict if you will. Out of impatience I also made contact with a few experts that have had a relationship with the armory. I will add this piece of info now, the blue is the result of the hardening process and they (screws) were polished bright at assembly.

[Blair]

Re: Questions about Defarbed Springfield Sight!

Here are some examples of parts made of steel (according to the '61 and '63 manuals) but not showing any evidence of having been blue/hardened.
Butt plate, trigger plate, trigger bow, barrel bands. All you need to do is check on the underside.
Nose cap, according the the '61 and '63 manuals, these are made of malleable iron. Why would the screw holding it in place need to be made of blue hardened steel? If you look they are indeed blued.
Butt Plate screws are blued, they screw into wood, Why would they need to be blue/hardened steel?
Trigger plate screws are blued, why do they need to be hardened, they screw into wood too. Trigger bow nuts are blued, but the trigger bow is made of steel yet not blue/hardened. Why? The 1861 and 1863 Manuals says all these "small" parts are made of steel.
The lock plates are indeed hardened after they are stamped showing their acceptance, yet the are made bright along with the hammers. Why the difference?

No doubt some parts are hardened to make them more durable like springs. Some part don't need to be harder but are blued! Why. It is a simple question.
Parts made of steel do not need to be harder! Barrels are an example of this.
Bluing protects the finish of these small parts until it is taken out of the storage bends in the assembly portion of the Armory to be installed on a finished firearm.
I can just picture Springfield Armory workers taking hand fulls of small blued parts back over to the machine plant to be polished before they carry them back to the assembly plant to install them on firearms. An extremely efficient way of producing firearms during War time needs of the M-1861.

[McKim]

Re: Questions about Defarbed Springfield Sight!

To be clear I am just focusing (currently) on the finish of exposed metal. As to the other points, I'll have to speculate here a little and I'll use butt plate screws as an example. Think of "Blazing Off". Not only will you harden the steel but you can get a very pretty high gloss, deep, wet blue protective finish if you desire. We can all understand wanting a protective finish but why hardened butt plate screws holding the butt plate to the stock? They were battle weapons in their time.

It would be interesting to test the hardness of various screws which I could/would do if some were offered for research.

[GPM]

Re: Questions about Defarbed Springfield Sight!

I think they were hardened to prevent the screwdriver slot from distorting/marring.
Unfortunately, these small details have never attracted much attention in references. I'm of the opinion they left the armory bright, but thats just my opinion.

[Blair]

Re: Questions about Defarbed Springfield Sight!

quote, "I think they were hardened to prevent the screwdriver slot from distorting/marring."

Now, I wonder who it is that maybe causing this "distorting/marring" of the screw slots? When the common soldier was not allowed to remove the cone/nipple of the firearm without permission.

Screws, like most of the other parts were made of steel. This is a type of steel that has just enough carbon to make it tougher and more durable than the older iron screws. But not so much carbon to allow the screws to be hardened through a normal heating and quenching process. A modern equivalent designation would be "mild steel".
Springs on the other hand have to be made of a higher carbon steel. This is so they can be (after being made and shaped) heat hardened and quenched. This makes them brittle hard. Too hard to use as a spring. They then have to be tempered. This is another heating process that removes or draws back the brittle hardness caused by the original hardening and quenching. All the springs and spring like parts will be treated in this manner.
Hardened parts like the hammer and lock plate will go through a process known as "Case Hardening". This is where the parts, after being forged and machined, are baked in a carbon rich environment/atmosphere to add to or increase the metals carbon content to the surface. When they are removed from the baking ovens they are cooled quickly in oil or water to make that carbon enriched surface hard"er". Providing a better barring/wearing surface.
This is why it is called "Case" hardening. It provides an outer "casing" of hardness to the surface of those parts.

Just another area of detail that wont attract much attention in the references.

[GPM]

Re: Questions about Defarbed Springfield Sight!

According to the Manual For The Model 1863 Rifled Musket, Page 18
MATERIALS OF WHICH THE PARTS ARE MADE.

STEEL.
Tumbler; Lock-swivel; Feed-finger;
Finger-spring; Cover catch; Sear;
Sear-spring; Mainspring;
Ramrod; Rear-sight, (except the screw)
Screwdriver; Wiper; Ball-screw;
Cone; Tumbler and Wire Punch
_____________________________
MALLEABLE IRON.
Tip for Stock
______________________________
WOOD
Stock; Tompion
______________________________
IRON.
Socket of the Bayonet, and ALL OTHER PARTS NOT ENUMERATED.
_______________________________



So according to the manual the screws were indeed made of Iron.
Also on page 2 of the manual it states that "Each soldier should have a screw-driver and a wiper" and on the same page "The arms should be inspected in quarter at least once a month, with the BARREL AND LOCK SEPERATED FROM THE STOCK.
Also in the same manual are instructions for the Armorer on more complete dismounting including the trigger guard and buttplate screws.
In short, it was forseen that the screws would indeed be removed and installed while in service.
Blair, I also build muskets as a hobby and have always used original screws when I could get them for the simple reason that they don't strip/marr/bugger (what ever term you prefer) as easily as reproduction screws when care is taken to prevent it. Considering the high level of workmanship displayed in U.S. arms of the time I do not consider it odd that time and effort would be used in what seems to us a wasteful step, such as hardening the screws.

[Blair]

Re: Questions about Defarbed Springfield Sight!

Yes Greg, I too have a copy of the "1863" Manual.

quote from the 1863 Manual, "Feed-finger; Finger-spring; Cover catch;" refer to the Model 1855 Maynard Tape Primer Magazine mechanism/s

"Materials Of Which The Parts Are Made"
------------------------------------------------
Steel.

Refers to those parts made of "hard-enable steel", and will therefore be hardened accordingly! Such as "Tumbler; Lock-swivel; Feed-finger;
Finger-spring; Cover catch; Sear; Sear-spring; Mainspring; Ramrod; Rear-sight, (except the screw) Screwdriver; Wiper; Ball-screw; Cone; Tumbler and Wire Punch

What, No Barrel?
Of course not. It was not intended to be made of "hard-enable" steel. Neither were the screws. Which is listed in the aforementioned list in the form of "Rear sigh, (except the screw)"!

There is only one item listed as;
"Malleable Iron", and that is the "Tip for stock"

Where does this Manual mention screws will be, quote, "hardened to prevent the screwdriver slot from distorting/marring."?

You are more than welcome to your opinion.

[GPM]

Re: Questions about Defarbed Springfield Sight!

"Where does this Manual mention screws will be, quote, "hardened to prevent the screwdriver slot from distorting/marring."?

Throughout this series you have posted nothing more than you're opinion. No references, no quotes, just you're experience. Yet you scoff at other's experience if it differs from you're own.

This same manual does not name the blued parts.

You are also more than welcome to your opinion.

No more from me on this subject.

[McKim]

Re: Questions about Defarbed Springfield Sight!

I finally received a response to my request sent to the Springfield Armory, according to the armory the rear sight and nipple are the only parts with a blue finish on a completed '61.

[Blair]

Re: Questions about Defarbed Springfield Sight!

Thad,

All I can ask you to do is look at the internal parts of the exact same model firearm Springfield is tell you about.
For that matter look at the internal parts of any of the interchangeable U S Armory models from the 1841/42 vantage.
It is perfectly OK that you don't believe me... just look at the surviving originals, pull the screws and other small parts I have suggested, you may be very surprised at what you will find under the exteriors of those parts. Don't believe me... just try it with any firearm you can get a hold of.
Pull those same parts at the Springfield Armory Museum and ask them to explain the bluing on those parts?
This is where you will find the documentation you seek, through actual physical examination of the original items.

[McKim]

Re: Questions about Defarbed Springfield Sight!

Oops, I did make a mistake in my post, change to "the rear sight and nipple are the only parts with a visible blue finish on a completed '61."

[gsusat]

Re: Questions about Defarbed Springfield Sight!

I thought this topic was dead and gone.

What is there:

With all due respect there is no period evidence that screws were blued - And to be quite honest today what you (or I) see in looking at originals sights, nipples, interior lock parts and somtimes triggers being blued. Other than that what I see with originals is real sketchy. I too have taken apart many nice originals and on some (no where near a majority) the screws sometimes there is a dark color. It looks to me the reminate of forging or heating process, rather than an intentional finish process. It is not consistant even when I do see it.

But that will not change some minds. Rather the question to me is that some people are ordering "defarbed" rifle muskets and getting/ paying for blued screws... It just seems like waste of time, money and effort. And I would encourage everyone to do their own study. There are great Civil War shows in both the east and west where you can look at a lot of original stuff for the price of admission.

I have posted a picture of just a few guns with some of the screws backed out.

Anyway if I were ordering a defarbed musket I would not get the blued screws.

George Susat