Re: Two newbie questions
Hallo!
"Oops sorry I mean Model 1857 Cartridge Box..."
Yes, IMHO, it is a reenactorism that once having been created is hard to kill and can develop an immortal life all its own.. ;)
Just teasing.. but is "Pattern" rather than "Model." ;) :)
I would recommend:
U.S. Military Small Arms 1816-1865 by Robert Reilly
The U.S. Model 1861 Springfield Rifle-Musket by Daniel Hartzler, Larry Yantz, and James Whisker
The Rifled Musket by Claud Fuller
As a basic, quickie, "primer" three-book library.
"... I have read that Springfield Armory muskets were more likely to go to regulars, volunteers would receive contract muskets. "
I have not come across that. My understanding of Federal Ordanance practice was that it did not matter, an "M1861" was an "M1861."
"I thought of getting one of the defarbed lockplates from James River Armory or Regimental Quartermaster and turning it into an 1862 Bridesburg musket. The problem is the barrel would still have the 1861 stamp. Would it be possible (or to be more correct probable) that a contract Springfield's lock could have been mated with an older dated barrel? If not I would think it would be more correct to have an 1861 Springfield than a mismatched 1861/1862 Bridesburg musket."
Jenks & Son of Bridesburg produced M1861's under contract, as well as later M1861's with split bands of the M1863 RM's and even some M1863's. However, they are found with three lock plate stamping styles- the common "U.S" over "Bridesburg" or "Philadelphia" with the date behind the hammer (1862, 1863, 1864, 1865) and a rarer
"U.S." over "Bridesburg" over "1861' (the only "1861" dated Contract M1861).
You raise an interesting question. It is rarer but not unusal, that Springfield Armory's are sometimes found with a barrel dated a "year" behind the lock. It is believed that these are actually guns assembled in early January of the next year using what was left of the late December of the previous year locks. My personal repro is done that way, an "1862" lock with an "1861" barrel. I have an "1862" barrel stamp, but never got around to redoing it to the more common matched dates...
However, I have never seen a Contract M1861 so done. But, I do concede the "possibiity."
As well as the possibility that a gun could have had barrel damage and been armory/arsenal replaced, but that would net a newer dated barel rather than older...
The other "issue" with Contract M1861 is one of those "historically correct versus authentic versus 'who knows" kind of things.
The barrel stampings of "V, "P," and 'Eaglehead,'" can change to be able to ID the contract maker of the barrel as well. A "Bridesburg" barrel should have Bridesburg stamps, not Springfield Armory... ;) :) :)
Curt
Hallo!
"Oops sorry I mean Model 1857 Cartridge Box..."
Yes, IMHO, it is a reenactorism that once having been created is hard to kill and can develop an immortal life all its own.. ;)
Just teasing.. but is "Pattern" rather than "Model." ;) :)
I would recommend:
U.S. Military Small Arms 1816-1865 by Robert Reilly
The U.S. Model 1861 Springfield Rifle-Musket by Daniel Hartzler, Larry Yantz, and James Whisker
The Rifled Musket by Claud Fuller
As a basic, quickie, "primer" three-book library.
"... I have read that Springfield Armory muskets were more likely to go to regulars, volunteers would receive contract muskets. "
I have not come across that. My understanding of Federal Ordanance practice was that it did not matter, an "M1861" was an "M1861."
"I thought of getting one of the defarbed lockplates from James River Armory or Regimental Quartermaster and turning it into an 1862 Bridesburg musket. The problem is the barrel would still have the 1861 stamp. Would it be possible (or to be more correct probable) that a contract Springfield's lock could have been mated with an older dated barrel? If not I would think it would be more correct to have an 1861 Springfield than a mismatched 1861/1862 Bridesburg musket."
Jenks & Son of Bridesburg produced M1861's under contract, as well as later M1861's with split bands of the M1863 RM's and even some M1863's. However, they are found with three lock plate stamping styles- the common "U.S" over "Bridesburg" or "Philadelphia" with the date behind the hammer (1862, 1863, 1864, 1865) and a rarer
"U.S." over "Bridesburg" over "1861' (the only "1861" dated Contract M1861).
You raise an interesting question. It is rarer but not unusal, that Springfield Armory's are sometimes found with a barrel dated a "year" behind the lock. It is believed that these are actually guns assembled in early January of the next year using what was left of the late December of the previous year locks. My personal repro is done that way, an "1862" lock with an "1861" barrel. I have an "1862" barrel stamp, but never got around to redoing it to the more common matched dates...
However, I have never seen a Contract M1861 so done. But, I do concede the "possibiity."
As well as the possibility that a gun could have had barrel damage and been armory/arsenal replaced, but that would net a newer dated barel rather than older...
The other "issue" with Contract M1861 is one of those "historically correct versus authentic versus 'who knows" kind of things.
The barrel stampings of "V, "P," and 'Eaglehead,'" can change to be able to ID the contract maker of the barrel as well. A "Bridesburg" barrel should have Bridesburg stamps, not Springfield Armory... ;) :) :)
Curt
Comment