Miller breech-loading conversion: does it damage the stock?

[Nathan Dodds]

Hi,

Wasn't sure where to post this since it is an odd subject. Figured more people would view it here, so here goes. I have an opportunity to by an 1861 Springfield with a post war Miller breech-loading conversion. If I buy it I do not intend to restore it to its original configuration permanently, because it is now postwar history. But here's what I'm wondering: does a Miller conversion modify anything beside the lock and the barrel? If it doesn't, I can get a barrel and other parts that fit and I could temporarily modify the gun when I wanted it in War Between the States configuration. It could easily be changed back to its correct post war configuration. What do you all think? Can it be done? Or does the conversion also take wood of the stock?

[Bmanz1085]

Re: Miller breech-loading conversion: does it damage the stock?

Title: RIFLE/MUSKET - MILLER BREECHLOADING CONVERSION OF MODEL 1863 TYPE II RIFLE-MUSKET .58
Maker/Manufacturer: MILLER, G.W. & W.H.
Date of Manufacture: 1864-1865
Eminent Figure:
Catalog Number: SPAR 2460
Measurements: OL:142.2CM 56" BL: 93.9CM 39"

Object Description:

MILLER BREECHLOADING CONVERSION OF MODEL 1863 TYPE II RIFLE-MUSKET .58
Manufactured by Springfield Armory, Springfield, Ma. in 1864. Converted by the Meriden Mfg. Co., Meriden, Ct. - Standard Model 1863 rifle-musket converted to .58rf cartridge breechloader by the Miller system. This appears to be prototype arm as breech mechanism is unmarked and made competely of brass that has been nickel plated. Mechanism is definitely Miller's patent, although a bit chunkier than on production models and with a different extraction system. Weapon has modified M1861 hammer. Tulip-head shaped cleaning rod. Rear sight missing. Exhibit #2 in law suit.

Markings:
Lock: 1864 behind hammer. Eagle. U.S./SPRINGFIELD forward of hammer.
Bands: U.
Stock: ESA and what looks like TWS. Also a large letter S. Extraction system on this piece is also somewhat different.

CATALOGUE OF THE EXHIBIT OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT AT THE CENTENNIAL EXPOSITION OF THE OHIO VALLEY AND CENTRAL STATES, AT CINCINNATI, OHIO, JULY 4 TO OCTOBER 27, 1888. METALLIC SHELL CARTRIDGES. "46. Miller's Alteration of Springfield Muzzle Loader; calibre .58; 1866. The breech-block, which is hinged above the barrel, is made with an L-shaped arm covering the mouth of the chamber, and provided with a tenon entering a mortise in the bottom of the receiver. This mortise is a little longer than the tenon, and receives the lower end of a vertical bolt sliding in the back surface of the breech-block. When this bolt is down, the mortise is filled and the breech can not be opened. When it is lifted sufficient space is given for the tenon to clear the end of the mortise in opening. A spring tends to keep the bolt always down. A projecting arm at its forward end moves a sliding extractor in the side of the barrel."

Notes: "MILLER CONVERTED SPRINGFIELD - The patent covering the action of this rifle was granted to William H. and George W. Miller of West Meriden, Conn., May 23, 1865, Patent No. 47,902. It was one of those conversions designed to permit any alteration of muzzle-loading with the necessity of disturbing the standard lock. The invention consisted chiefly of the application of a tapering cone seat of a musket to receive a wedge-shaped projection extending from the side of the hinge breech block, which swung over the top of the barrel.
A plunger passed through this wedge-shaped projection in place of the cone in combination with the ordinary lock and hammer in such a manner that it served as a firing pin to discharge a rimfire cartridge located within the chamber.
This unique device was submitted to the Ordnance Board of 1867. They reported that this closely resembled the Allin gun previously described, being more or less of an improvement thereon. The breech receiver was formed by cutting away the upper part of the barrel in the usual manner. Length of the barrel from the end of the breech block was 37 inches. Length of chamber was 5 inches with a maximum diameter of .65 and a minimum of .63, receiver diameter .76 and length 2.5 inches.
The breech block was made with a round solid plug fitting the receiver with flanges projecting over the top event with the outside of the barrel. The block was hinged at the forward end in the usual manner and had at its rear end a vertical slot which was fitted to a sliding bolt which lock the breech when pulled.
It was given a test on the first round of 100 shots and failed to give any misfires. At the close of the 100 shots a crack was discovered in the breech block extending across a hinge occasioned by an imperfect piece of metal and the gun withdrawn for substitution of a perfect part. The test was conducted again and in the first 100 rounds there were 5 misfires. The second hundred showed 4 misfires and the third hundred 2 misfires, in the fourth 6 misfires and in the fifth, 5. The remaining 500 rounds misfires per hundred ran 7, 4, 3, 0, and 0.
These early tests showed considerable leakage of gas around the primer but the gun worked well. Four proof cartridges were fired without causing any damage. One cartridge was then doctorThe test was repeated after parts were replaced with almost the same results. This time a different kind of replacement parts was installed and four of these 'defective' cartridges were tested without any damage. Only a few of these guns were manufactured." - Unknown

The Miller transformation, patented in May 1865, cost the Federal treasury $18,000 to prevent a royalty infringement suit." - Walter

References:
Walter, John. THE GUNS THAT WON THE WEST: FIREARMS ON THE AMERICAN FRONTIER, 1848-1898. Stackpole Books. Mechanicsburg, Pa. 1999.

[Nathan Dodds]

Re: Miller breech-loading conversion: does it damage the stock?

Interesting information, Thanks. So the gist of it is that it cuts a piece off the barrel but does not actually modify the lockplate or the stock? That would be good because it would mean all that would be needed would be a new barrel.

[Bmanz1085]

Re: Miller breech-loading conversion: does it damage the stock?

Not sure, but from the photo it appears that the stock is grooved deeper than the muzzle-loading version. There appears to be no tang screw hole or mortise for the barrel tang. I will defer to the more learned.

[ACo.]

Re: Miller breech-loading conversion: does it damage the stock?

Best to leave it alone and completely as is, the Miller Conversion is a rare, high dollar gun and any attempts to "temporarily" put it back into "original" condition will damage the historical importance of the individual firearm, not to mention it's risking killing its monetary value. Why risk destroying a rare example? Keep in mind that this former rifle musket was very likely never issued in it's original configuration - its service was as a conversion and it should be respected as such.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Miller breech-loading conversion: does it damage the stock?

Hallo!

The lockplate is not altered... much. The recess for the M1863 bolster has an added "spacer" to accomodate the Miller device. I have never owned a Miller Conversion so i do not how how permanent or removable the spacer is.

The stock is much altered at the breech end. The "trapdoor" hinge pin is mortised slightly in the barrel channel's side. But the BIGGIE is that the M1863 breechplug tang mortise was completely removed and that area severely "grooved" to allow for the metallic cartridge to lined up and loaded with the "trapdoor" breech.

Here is an image from the Shiloh Relics' site:



So, NO, one cannot simply pullout the Miller barrel and replace it with the previous M1863 barrel.

Curt

[Nathan Dodds]

Re: Miller breech-loading conversion: does it damage the stock?

Thanks for the direct answer Curt. So this conversion is rare... the gun might still serve me as a model for building a reproduction, and if it was cheap would be a decent investment? I want to build a gun. My friend has a 61' that I could examine if I needed to see what the gun should look like in the tang area.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Miller breech-loading conversion: does it damage the stock?

Hallo!

Fiarly "rarer" do to the limited number converted/altered.

Here is a look at a tang. The are pretty much "universal" but the Italians do not copy originals exactly so they rareley if ever fit original stocks or repro stocks inletted for original parts.



The "joy" of owning and collecting is complex. One the one hand it is really nice to have an actual "piece of history" in the form of an original. Even if the original was never used or issued and as a surplus piece has 140 plus years of wear, tear, abuse, and unservice-related patrina about it.

On my own Journey, I moved down that path from where any original in any condition even rusted, pitted, and stock rotted was a joy to have to where I was wanting the most prime and pristine examples of originals in the condition they were in when they were in CW use. And, of course, "minty" original anything command minty prices due to the rarity.
And we used to "canibalize" so-so originals for their best prime peices/parts so that we could restore or "rebuild" them to a CW condiiton.

IMHO, a Miller conversion is a Miller conversion, and while the RM "under" it may be a source for cannibalized parts... the "Miller" is a piece of its own minor history and worthy of its own preservation/conservation as a Page of History.

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt

[Nathan Dodds]

Re: Miller breech-loading conversion: does it damage the stock?

Well, the Miller conversion I was interested in went for $700 so I guess I will keep looking for a decently used model 1861 that has not been messed with. Thanks for all the help everybody!