SN&WTC 1863 type 1 Springfield 2 band

[Davesb]

I recently purchased a 1863 Springfield musket from a local man that seemed to have limited info on the gun. I tried searching the interweb, with not much luck. I was hoping someone here may have a bit of knowledge on it. I've searched this site and have seen the ancient post:

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?4013-SN-amp-WTC-Rifle-Information-Wanted

Rather than bringing it back from the dead, I started a new one.

I understand pricing would probably not be possible without having it in one's hands. I'm curious maybe unit info, production numbers on the artillery models.. maybe what type of artillery Massachusetts had in 1863. Basically any info related to SN&WTC and the state at that time, revolving around these weapons. I would also like to know who, preferably local to me, would be able to grade such a weapon. I'm in South Bend, Indiana.

Note: In some of the pictures there is a brass cover over the front sight to protect it from damage.



Thanks all!

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: SN&WTC 1863 type 1 Springfield 2 band

Hallo!

Kinda, sorta, mosrly... ;) :)

Being polite here....that is an inventive, incorrect, and misleading "label" description.

Samuel Norris and W. T. Clement of Springfield, MASS received several contracts for "Springfield Rifle-Muskets" directly from Massachusetts in 1863 and 1864. It is believed, but not confirmed, that the first were for M1861's and the second for M1863 RM's. The 1863 contract called for 2,000, the 1864 for 1,000. However, the AG's report for 1864, citing the Master of Ordnance's report said that "11,000 Springfield Rifle Muskets & Appendages were purchased. At a cost of $206,112.50 or averaging $18.75 per stand.

The number of surviving S. N. & W. T. C. M1861 and M1863 would appear to support that over the 3,000 number.

In addition there are numbers found of So-called "artillery rifles" with 31 inch barrels with inspector's 8ntials of 'I.F.R." on the barrels but no stock stamps.
Some believe, conjecture these were made up specifically for some unknown Massachusetts regiment, likely artillery (because of the hobby/collector view of the concept of 'artillery rifle."
Others believe, conject, that these and other Springfield and contractor made M1861's, M1863's, "M1864's" were not artillery arms (ordnance reports do not appear to support large numbers of rifles in the hands of artillerymen) and are, instead, just post War surplus RM's docked and shortened for military school or national guard use.

Curt

[ACo.]

Re: SN&WTC 1863 type 1 Springfield 2 band

Sorry to disappoint you but there is no such thing as an "Artillery Model". Your rifle musket was shortened after military ownership, likely for a military school or some other reason. As far as I know - and I could be wrong but 40 years of study tells me this - they are civilian modifications post Civil War. No American soldier, Federal, Confederate or state troops, of any service was ever issued such a short gun.

[Fahlem]

Re: SN&WTC 1863 type 1 Springfield 2 band

No such gun model made. It is a post war cut down, likely for NS-SA competition. And furthermore, the description in the photo is false. 33" rifle barrels with 5 lands and groves, are accurate. Rifled musket barrels cut down with the 3 land and groves, not so much, as the twist rate and rifling are intended for the longer length.


Michael Fahle

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: SN&WTC 1863 type 1 Springfield 2 band

Hallo!

Pooh, my reply did not post and disappeared. :(

Historically...

The British with their "Enfield" and Pritchett ball determined that 1:78" was optimal.

However, the Americans in their Harpers Ferry trials, found that 1:60" was far more accurate, but tended to cause rotational drift at distances knocking accuracy off. So the U.S. went with a standard of 1:72", which was as fast as the Minnie with its ballistic coefficient could spin without causing rotational drift.
Most all U.S. and C.S. RM's and R's rifles in .54, .58, and .69 were rifled 1:72". (Exception... the Remington Model 1863 Contract Rifle (aka Zouave) which was 1:60".)

But the British decided that for the Enfield Rifle, Volunteer Rifle, Musketoons) that 1:48" twist was optimal. But what they did is just ignore the rotational drift for the "fast twist." (Fast twists cam out of patched round ball rifles.)

For the N-SSA most all targeting is 50 yards, with some 100 yards, so, up to a point, their ranges are too short to worry about rotational drift anyways.

For those not following, rate of twist is how "far" does it take to rotate the projectile one time in inches. Obviously, a full rotation in the barrel is not achieved in a 33, 34, 39, or 40 inch barrel, and that then becomes a complicated relationship between rate of spin, rotational drift, and other ballistic coefficient issues.

In N-SSA competitive shooting many lads use modern forms of Minie balls rather than the Civil War style. And reduced powder charges. Both have an effect on accuracy, and it I not unusual that modern "unusual" ball and powder charges at 50 and 100 yards out perform the CW era cartridge.
IIRC, modern barrel maker Bob Hoyt deals with loads by NUG offering as standard a 1:56 twist stabilizing or tweaking the modern versions of the Minie, but also the radical substitutes such as the 375 grain semi wad cutter pushed by only 36 grains of FFF I used that would fire a quarter sized, benched, group at 50 yards.

In the 1980's there was a small minor 'fad" in the N-SSA of some lads going to the (so-called) artillery rifles (AR's). On my N-SSA team, I and a pard had M8155 (II) AR's, and three other lads had M1863 AR's. The advantage was in an extra round or two per minute.
Benched, I noticed no difference between the RM and the AR. AT 50 or 100 competitive distance, the shorter barrel was no less accurate. However, the shorter sight radius of the AR made it slightly less accurate in the shooting of it (not the gun itself), up to a point, as the shorter weapon veers off target a wee bit more easily than a longer barreled one (think pistol versus rifle at the same distance).
And for me, the heavier weight of a true rifle, was harder for me to hold perfectly true and fire rock-solid steady at competition speed.

Original (so-called) Artillery Rifles are sometimes found with age and patina, and non N-SSA related provenance... "greater" than the 60 some year life time of the N-SSA.

Off the top of my head, I cannot remember or recall, other than S.N. & W. T. C's, seeing a non-arsenal version of an "artillery rifle." They "all," (dangerous use of a Universal so noted) have (yet) been sundry M1855, M1861, M1863/M1864's with barrels turned down to reaccept the M1855 socket bayonet. (And in varying shortened barrel lengths of 31, 32, or 33 inches.)
On the other hand, I may just was not paying... attention

At any rate, actual, factual historical documentation on these is totally (yet) lacking, and different lads believe different things about them (mostly wrong... ;) :) :) )

Curt

[Davesb]

Re: SN&WTC 1863 type 1 Springfield 2 band

Looks like Mr. Brett Wolff screwed me. I know he shoots N-SSA, this is probably something he was trying to get rid of. I was kinda surprised how he had some info, but was limited on others.. I really began to question it when I found the socket bayonet, graded VG-fine, didn't fit. Even if it did slide over the muzzle, it would interfere with the stock before locking in place.
Here's the difficult question, I paid $900 for this musket. Did I totally get taken? Is it worth confronting him or just selling it on Gunbroker? I guess I am wondering, if any of you found yourself in the same position, how would you proceed?

[Michael McComas]

Re: SN&WTC 1863 type 1 Springfield 2 band

No American soldier, Federal, Confederate or state troops, of any service was ever issued such a short gun.

A dangerous assertion, since there is plenty of documentation for short rifle use in the Confederacy, for instance the Richmond Mounted Infantry Rifle, as well as some re-worked rifles from Richmond.

[ACo.]

Re: SN&WTC 1863 type 1 Springfield 2 band

You are correct, too broad a statement on my part. But the issue and use of the so called "artillery musket" by Federal forces is not documented. The use by Confederate troops is rare.

The example shown is a post-war modification of a standard rifle musket. If anyone can prove otherwise, I am open to learning.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: SN&WTC 1863 type 1 Springfield 2 band

Hallo!

My understanding of the statement was in regards to cut-down S. N. & W. T. C.'s.

I believe Brett Wolff is the brother of my old pard Bron Wolff.

"Here's the difficult question, I paid $900 for this musket. Did I totally get taken? Is it worth confronting him or just selling it on Gunbroker? I guess I am wondering, if any of you found yourself in the same position, how would you proceed?"

IMHO, no.

HOWEVER, apples and oranges are being mixed here.

Yes. $900 for an N-SSA type competitive gun, using an original surplus cut-down as a bed or base is a fair deal.

$900 for an N-SSA type competitive gun, using an original surplus cut-down as a bed or base, used for Reenacting or Living History, is a longer discussion. And that quickly gets into one's Hobby Community really quick bringing up the oft-discussed issues of (so-called) "Two Banders," as well as using guns that were not used (being brief here) in the CW such as Remington M1863 Contract Rifles, M1865 Spencer Carbines, P1853 Enfield 4th Models, Rogers & Spencer revolvers, or guns that did not exist such as brass framed M1863 Remington revolvers or brass framed Colt M1851's or M1860's.

Which then drifts over to being an educated consumer and informed customer, maybe.

Curt

[Davesb]

Re: SN&WTC 1863 type 1 Springfield 2 band

Hallo!


I believe Brett Wolff is the brother of my old pard Bron Wolff.


Curt

I believe so too. Bron shoots for the South and Brett for the North in the N-SSA. I met them both at our local FOP range. His brother was in from out of town and they were practicing shooting clays with a bunch of muskets. He mentioned one he had for sale and gave me the details on it. Of course, claiming it was all original. I had speculated that it had been cleaned and possibly had the stock stripped and refinished, he had agreed to the possibility. Although, still swearing it to be all original parts. I can't help but think I have been taken by someone who would have known it to not be an original rifled musket. Of course, the problem would be, getting him to refund.. I think that would be out of the question. If it was intentional, he would claim ignorance and refuse. If it weren't intentional, he would claim ignorance and refuse.. Looks like I'm just gonna have to sell it outright.
Thanks for all the help!

[Bill]

Re: SN&WTC 1863 type 1 Springfield 2 band

Were SN&WTC still making M-1861's in 1864? I own a cut-down rifle with a SN&WTC lockplate dated 1864. The origional stock and barrel bands are from a M-1861. The hammer is from a M-1863, but that might have been a replacement to match the cone on the .54 cal. barrel now on the weapon.

I've often thought about replacing the barrel and stock fore end, but I'd like to get it right.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: SN&WTC 1863 type 1 Springfield 2 band

Hallo!

Most of the older references, and opinions, on Norris & Clement's are vague or wrong. Such as the 2,000 "Springfield Rifle Muskets' in 1863 and another 1,000 of the same in 1864. Which always bothered me because it did not conform to the MASS Adjutant General's Report citing the Master of Ordnance report for 1864 of 11,000.

:(

IMHO, while we do not have the full picture, a key piece of expanding our knowledge was a look at the often talked about but not located and shared, Massachusetts' contracts.

In March 1863 the State of Massachusetts passed a resolution calling for the purchase of 13,000 stands of rifle-muskets for the use of MASS troops. Governor Anders formed a three man commission to study availability of RM arms and the costs. In April the commission toured gun makers in New England, asking for proposals.

But, none were forthcoming as they all were either busy finishing up their 1862 and 1863 contracts for M1861's or SM1861's for the Federal government.. it just recently having made the switch to the new M1863 authorized in February 1863.

Norris & Clement had no contract(s) to make M1861's.

While the getting was good, Samuel Norris wrote to Chief of Ordnance Ramsay in September of 1863 seeking a contract to make 20,000 RM's (presumed to be contract M1861's but may be not) for $19 a stand. Ramsay was suspicious as S.N. & W.T.C. were minor players. Ramsay denied a contract, in October, politely saying he was not interested in arms mostly assembled from parts made by subcontractors and not complete arms on site.

And then in stepped the State of Massachusetts looking for guns. :) MASS gave S.N. &. W.T. C. a contract for 13,000 M1863 RM's with appendages. By the end of December 1863. Norris & Clement had delivered 2001. The rest were delivered in 1864.

Ah... the M1861 S.N. & W. T. C.

A mystery gun, as the vast majority of Norris & Clements are 1863 or 1864 dated M1863's.

But there ARE a small number of M1861's with 1863 or 1864 N & C locks. One that is referenced is really nice, and came out of a Hollywood gun rental company. It is often held up as a Hollywooo composite of pieces parts with a N & C lock but on a Muir or Savage contract.
But, Muir had already been in trouble for doing what Norris did, "assembling" guns from subcontract pieces parts.

In my heresies there is a remote possibility that the M1861 N & C's were Muir, and Savage, and other contractor assembled parts as part of Norris sample models for their sales pitch to show that they could do the work and deliver guns. (Stampings such as barrel proofs V, P, Eagle Head) and inspector stamps and cartouches are IDable to contractors as the Government wanted to trace barrels if flawed in service..)
But in the Vacuum of History, they may also be Hollywood composites or for that matter composite surplus sold off post War. (However, it is impossible to know whether say Bannerman's replaced a missing site with an
"M1864" rear sight, or a dealer did it in 1961, or a hobbyists in 1991. There is a well known collector and dealer here in town that is infamous for swapping parts to make guns 'better' etc., etc.).

At any rate, not everything in the "literature" and knowledge pool" adds up to the complete N & C story- but the more recent dated documents is helping.

Curt
Heretic

[Michael McComas]

Re: SN&WTC 1863 type 1 Springfield 2 band

He mentioned one he had for sale and gave me the details on it. Of course, claiming it was all original. I had speculated that it had been cleaned and possibly had the stock stripped and refinished, he had agreed to the possibility. Although, still swearing it to be all original parts. I can't help but think I have been taken by someone who would have known it to not be an original rifled musket.

I think the problem here is one of idiom. In the N-SSA, when someone is selling a gun and says "all original parts", it's commonly understood that said parts aren't from the same gun, and may not be in the original configuration. That means something different to a living history participant than it does to a skirmisher.

If I were in your position, I would offer it for sale on the N-SSA web site for $50 more than you paid for it (with the understanding that they're going to try to talk you down on the price), and using mostly the same words he used: SN&WTC "artillery rifle", made from all original parts, good shooter, just need to thin the herd. Something like that. With Nationals coming up in two weeks, I bet you won't have to wait long.

[ACo.]

Re: SN&WTC 1863 type 1 Springfield 2 band

Well said and evaluated Herr Schmidt.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: SN&WTC 1863 type 1 Springfield 2 band

Hallo!

Danke sehr, Herr TP.

I would like to emphasis Herr Michael's excellent advice, and add that I find it highly useful to look at "Reenacting" and N-SSA "Skirmishing" competitive target shooting) as apples and oranges. Being
different "hobbies," the culture and language are different. The members of reenacting/living history and the N-SSA who "cross over" and do both are statistically very very small (look at N-SSA skirmish photos aside from the Miller Award competitors).

(Not saying one is superior or inferior to the other, just that culture, language, and activities are different branches on a Civil War interest tree with different fruit.

An aside to that language and culture, is jargon and terminology. I well remember the heyday of custom-builts were lads like myself were "building" long arms using various approaches such as restoring originals, using original parts gathered and collected from a number of sources, or mixing and matching increasingly available exact reproductions of original parts (unlike Italian parts).

Unfortunately in my opinion now, we contributed to the death and destruction of many intact original arms because to feed the demand where supply was small, a number of dealers and suppliers started striping down intact originals (not just post War surplus shotgun pieces) because parts were worth 4-5 plus times more than the cost of an intact arm.

Anyways... "original parts" can mean just that, that the pieces are parts are original.. not necessarily ALL from one intact "original" gun. IMHO, saying that a gun is "original" implies its being intact. Saying it is "original parts" means it may have parts from other guns.

Were the N & S "artillery rifle" mine, and I were NOT a member of the N-SSA.. and I was a member of the Civil War Community segment where I could not use it.. I would do as Herr Michael suggests and sell it on the N-SSA market.

Oh, another aside. A quick way to spot an N-SSA gun, NUG, is to look for modifications to the rear sight, and particularly most often its front sight being replaced with a taller "blade" to facilitate 50 yard target shooting.
As a result of the higher front sight to lower POI at 50 yards, the bayonet no longer fits. Especially so in "artillery rifles" if the barrel end has not ben turned down. Since fixed bayonets are not much part of the N-SSA.. a fixable bayonet is not important.

And every once in a while, I see an N-SSA gun for sale that still has traces of day-glo orange, green, etc., paint on the front sight.

Curt