M1861 Contract muskets

[Bill]

Re: Modern Marks

[QUOTE=paulcalloway]
The Company Quartermaster is not an Approved Vendor on this forum.

Paul,

Maybe they ought to be! Their defarbed Enfield Rifle is far superior to the basic out-of-the-box Euroarms or Armi-sport. Please check out their website at http://members.verizon.net/~vze3jhwa

I've got no axe to grind, other then I have examined one of their Enfields and was impressed.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Modern Marks

Hallo Kameraden!

Odds-n-ends...

The same also applies to mounting a shoulder stock on "cap and ball" revolvers such as the M1860 Army or M1861 Navy versus the "Luger" or "Broomhandled Mauser."

I would add, and nothing against our local law enforcement men and women- please do not count on them to know the "Law." Know it yourself.

There is a process for becoming an AC Forum Approved Vendor.

And yes, there are companies that will make hardened steel "stamps" for "Springfields" and "Enfields."

I have had both Springfield and Enfield inspector and barrel proof stamps, as well as maker and inspector stock cartouches made as part of a failed (or at least not launched) business. By using originals, digital imaging, and computer graphic programs- they can be reproduced, but they cost between $200 and $250 each. (BSAT barrels used four (five actually but the gauge stamp goes twice), do the math... London Armoury/London makers are another set)

Period letter and number stamps can sometimes be found at antique tool and Civil War shows. I have a set whose wooden box was marked and dated by each successive owner beginning in 1837 and ending in 1912- that I picked up for $25. (Modern stamps are different fonts/serifs, etc.)

A major problem with stamping lies with hard modern steels and particular modern barrel steel versus the period iron or mild steels. One simply cannot, or rarely ever, achieve great "PC" stampings with a hand held steel hammer these daze. I went to a two-ton striking arbor, and a 10 pound lead mallet, and wish I had a three tonner as I often get shallow strikings.

And, in general, IMHO, attempts to improve the "look" of Italian repro weapons to begin to resemble arms used during the ACW is a plus for the individual and the hobby. (But "Right is Right," and what we accept as "okay" for weapons simply has not kept pace with what we accept for clothing and gear.)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[AzTrooper]

Re: Did Springfield ever do a production run of the 1861 like Colt did a few years back?

Curt and Michael,
Thank You for taking the time to share your knowledge with Me. I am really thankfull for this forum, and for everyone that is kind enough to share their knowledge and enthusiasm.I really appreciate it a great deal.. Thank You all very much.
Sincerely, John Rogers

Howdy all,
I recently bought a 1861 Springfield rifle .The craftsmanship and fit is exceptional.The letters SFC appear on the left side of the breech plug and SC is stamped on the left side of the stock between the heads of the two fasteners that attach the lock plate.The loops for the sling are attached with pins . There is a faint design on the stock located roughly a inch behind and slightly lower than the rear most fastener that attaches the lock plate . There are no spring retainers for the bands, and there is a U stamped into each band.There is no "VP" stamped anywhere on it. I looked in several books and the rifle looks exactly like the pictures I saw of what they called a Colt special model 1861.Instead of having Colt stamped on the outer surface of the lockplate, "1861" is stamped at the rear of the lock plate,forward of the hammer "US" is stamped and below it is stamped "SPRINGFIELD FIREARMS Corp." Below that is stamped "SPRINGFIELD Mass"There is no fastener below and to the side of the cone for cleaning, instead of the rounded area that I have seen there is a flat faced ,comma shaped surface with a Eagle stamped on it. The letters SFC is also stamped on the inside of the lockplate. I have had three gunsmiths inspect it and they all agree that the worksmanship is exceptional.They think it was produced by Springfield, it is just when that they dont know.
Im curious, could it have made by Springfield? It is in incredible shape and if it is a Springfield I doubt it was built 140+ years ago,thats why I was wondering if Springfield possibly produced some 1861's in recent years.
To be perfectly honest, I just really like the rifle ....so weather it was produced by Springfield or someone else. old or new, does not really matter,for all I know it may just be a really well made copy or something of the sort. The fit, finish and quality of this is NOTHING like My IAB Sharps carbine thats for sure ! hahaha.
If anyone has any ideas who made this rifle I would really appreciate your input .
Thank You very much,
Respectfully, John Rogers

[james faulkner]

Re: 1861 Springfield

Maybe I am missing something, but I have been using the search feature for the past two days for advice on defarbing an Armi-Sport 1861 Springfield, but I cannot find any real advice.

Can someone point me to the correct thread or let me know what has to be changed/replaced/reworked in order to make it as close as one of these reproduction can be to an original.

Thanks a bunch!

Have you tried John Zimmerman, Harpers Ferry W.V.
Jim
3rd VA.INF

Hallo Herr Jim! Welcome to the AC Forum! Forum rules require that you sign or auto-sign your full name to your posts (even though it is also your "screen name." Thank you. Curt-Heinrich Schmidt, Moderator.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: 1861 Springfield

Hallo Kamerad!

"Have you tried John Zimmerman, Harpers Ferry W.V."

The request was "Can someone point me to the correct thread or let me know what has to be changed/replaced/reworked in order to make it as close as one of these reproduction can be to an original."

I would suggest using the SEARCH feature to review previous discussions on the concept and practice of so-called "de-farbing" Italian reproduction arms, as well as opinions and experiences with Mr. Zimmerman.

While there is some fine work in this area attributed and credited to Mr. Zimmerman, there is also some questionable and poor as well.
Also, Mr. Zimmerman provides a range of separate so-called "de-farb" services over a spectrum of areas that start with only as "basic" simply removing the modern Italian barrel stampings. (At one end of the FMPCHA end of the CW Community, that is considered "de-farbed.")

The question posed, "...what has to be changed/replaced/reworked in order to make it as close as one of these reproduction can be to an original." goes beyond the totality of that Mr. Zimmerman presently can be hired to do on, or for, an Italian reproduction.

Thanks for you helpful reply, but please remember to use the SEARCH feature, as well as reviewing some of the AC Forum posts and threads to get an appreciation of what goals, objectives, and purpose the AC Forum is striving for as being "for the Authentic Civil War Living Historian.

Thanks, and we look forward to many fine posts and discussions from you!

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Moderator

[Yellowhammer]

Re: 1861 Springfield

I recently examined an Armi-Sport copy of an 1861 Springfield and the barrel was 3/8's inch shorter than my original and my Euroarms.

Regarding Zimmerman, and to echo Curt's comments, if you buy an 1861 Springfield from him, be sure to ask why he is bluing screws, springs and other parts that were never blued on any original 1861 Springfield or contract gun. "Un-Zimmermaning" Zimmerman defarbs is getting to be a growing cottage industry.

[Bill Cross]

Re: 1861 Springfield

Regarding Zimmerman, be sure to ask why he is bluing screws, springs and other parts that were never blued on any original 1861 Springfield or contract gun.

Thanks, John, but I'll leave that conversation to you. :p Talking to Zim always make me feel like my Dad is about to ground me for a few months....

[BobSullivanPress]

Position of the Hammer at Half-Cock

Hello,

After reading the NPS musket drill, I have a question about a repro M1841 rifle I own.

It's been a while since I've drilled with anything other than a pen, so excuse any inaccuracies. My specialty now is paper, not weapons.

In that Vicksburg NPS drill, they want you to put the cap on the musket while the hammer is at half-cock. Now, I could do this with my repro Springfield, because at half-cock, the hammer clears the cone enough to do this.

However, on my M1841 repro, which is an Italian repro purchased in 1975, the hammer at half-cock does not clear the cone, but stops so close to the cone that a cap placed on the cone will not fall off, because the hammer is not far enough away from the cap to let it fall. In fact, to cap this musket, one must take the hammer to full-cock, cap the weapon, and then, if preferred, ease the hammer back down to a half-cock position. This is not the safest of procedures, but then again, a lot of what we did in the 70s when reenacting wasn't safe. Anyway, when returned to half-cock the hammer is not touching the cap, and it's perfectly safe (then). And frankly when I was using the weapon back in the dark ages of reenacting, I found the feature rather comforting, because I could carry a loaded and capped musket around without losing the cap and without worrying about accidentally discharging the weapon.

My question to you weapons folks out there is this... Does anyone with knowledge of an original M1841 know, when at half-cock, were the hammers on originals this close to the cones or is this just death-wish tooling by my Italian manufacturers?

Thanks for any help here, and moderators, if this is in the wrong forum, please move.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Position of the Hammer at Half-Cock

Hallo Herr Bob!

Just changed out of my 63rd OVI kit, after a day of Shadetree Mess, saw that our Forum was alive (Bully!), and spied your older post.

The relationship of the hammer nose to the cone is set by the location of the half-cock notch on the tumbler.
Commonly, that will place the hammer roughly 3/16 to 1/4 inch from the cap/cone, which allows the piece to be primed at the HALF-COCK (Casey's 175, for example) and taken to the "shoulder" (not cocked until "Ready," 180).

A half-cock position that allows the hammer's nose to rest on the cap creates the hazard of the hammer being caught on something (say passing brush) and pulled back just far enough to slip in the tumbler notch and fire the piece.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[weed]

Re: Position of the Hammer at Half-Cock

Curt is right.

The originals were only about 3/16 to 1/4 inch from the nipple. Most of the repro muskets half cock, is way to much. There is a trick to putting on a percussiuon cap when the hammer is as close as it really should be.

John M. Wedeward
33d Wisconsin
"The Raccoon Regiment"

[BobSullivanPress]

Re: Position of the Hammer at Half-Cock

Curt is right.

The originals were only about 3/16 to 1/4 inch from the nipple. Most of the repro muskets half cock, is way to much. There is a trick to putting on a percussiuon cap when the hammer is as close as it really should be.

John M. Wedeward
33d Wisconsin
"The Raccoon Regiment"

Well, that's the way my M1841 repro is. Very close, but not touching. You can put a cap on while the hammer is in the half-cock position, but it's difficult. My Springfirld repro has a much higher half-cock position, as you mention. It seems logical to me that the lower position is better, because it's practically impossible to lose a cap when the hammer is at half-cock. The musket can be loaded. capped, and left at half cock through the entire manual of arms without losing the cap. But I wasn't sure which hammer position was more accurate, as I don't own originals of either weapon.

[Greg Renault]

Re: Position of the Hammer at Half-Cock

Bob,

My original M1861 Springfield has the half-cock exactly as you describe. It always elicits comments during inspection of arms from those who are used to the reproductions, and end up going to full cock on mine in error.

[Dreamer42]

Re: Position of the Hammer at Half-Cock

Koodos, all.
I have my own '53 EA Enfield, but I have faced similar problems when I borrow a friends '61 Springfield for a buddy of mine. During the safety check I had to completly remove the lock so the safety ocifer could inspect the piece. Right there, the tumbler was such that it had been MADE that way. It always get strange looks from folks. The lock is very strong and secure. It has never had any misfires. Perhaps now some of them, if they read this, will have a better idea of the weapon's system.

Jay Reid
9th Texas

[Michael Mantini]

Armisport '61 Springfield

Several members of my unit are having problems with misfires in their armisport springfields. They get off 2 or 3 shots and the weapon fouls at the flash port. We do not seem to have this problem with other manufacturers. I know the members who own these springfields keep them very clean. Has anyone else run into this issue and have some suggestions to correct the problem?

Mike Mantini
5NHV

[1st Maine Trooper]

Re: 1861 Armisport Springfield

I own a '55 armisport and I sometimes have trouble when firing blanks with it. What I have found with mine is that foiling builds up in the bolster area under the cone. Even though there is a clear path through to the breach, sometimes I'll get a missfire. The only way I have found to corecy thhis is to remove the cone and cleanout and scrape every bit of foiling from the area. I only offered this since the '55 and '61 barrel and bolster are the same.
Dave Myrick