M1861 Contract muskets

[Curt Schmidt]

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

[JustinPrince]

Re: Two newbie questions

Ah thanks very much for the info. I figured this would be the place to ask then. As I said I would rather have an 1861 Springfield than a farby contract musket.

I like the idea of how you have your Springfield, an 1862 lock and a '61 barrel. Most stuff that I have read suggests that an 1861 Springfield would be fairly rare, especially among volunteers, and that an 1862 Springfield would be more plausible.

As to Springfields Armory muskets being issued more to regulars, I got that idea from "American Martial Flintlocks" obviously it doesn't deal with the Civil War, but it states that the regulars were first priority for the Model 1816 musket, with contract muskets being slated for volunteers. As I said I have no real good book on Civil War era firearms, but it seemed to me that if that was the practice from 1816 (1812, if one counts the Springfield Model 1812 musket) I would have thought it would have continued in the Civil War, or at least as Springfield was attempting to get more and more rifle muskets in the hands of the army.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Two newbie questions

Hallo!

Just an aside...

The Federals used a "four tiered" concept for their long arms: Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, and Class 4 type arms that were "parcelled" out under a bewidlering variety of "pecking orders" complicated by the inevitable influence of military need, expediency, and the personal influences of some politicians and some generals being greater than others.
However, IMHO, PEC and NUG, contract models of the M1861 Springfield were of the same quality, and specified interchangeable parts, as the Springfield Armory produced
M1861's and I know of no distinctions being made between them.

However, we "moderns" have an 1861 through 1865 "total" view of Civil War ordnance. Meaning, we see the whole picture of Springfield Armory and roughly 20 plus contractors (some who never actually made any arms at all).
When in fact, Springfield Armory for example was really slow in tooling up for the new M1861 and they only trickled into the field over the summer and fall of 1861 (with only 33,572 being made in 1861 followed by 102,410 in 1862, 217,284 in 1863, 276,200 in 1864, 195,341 in 1865 , and 2,405 in 1866.

But we also tend to look at contractors as "totals," not realizing that the contractor made M1861's did not kick in immediately and even the earliest such as the Jenk's Bridesburgs started arriving in larger nunbers well into 1862, with many others coming in 1863 and into 1864 and 1865.

But again, IMHO, unless unit time and place specific research/documentation speaks to a particular type of gun, I would look more toward the sometimes political, preferred, and casual/random, or as needed, type "pecking order" of who received Class 1-4 arms rather than a distinctions between Springfield Armory and contractor made M1861's.
(Ordance Department sometimes even being casual about SM1861's and even M1863's as being just "Springfield" or
".58" muskets...)

Others' mileage may vary...

Curt

[Craig L Barry]

The PS Justice Scandal

Anyone interested in the Philip S. Justice musket contract "scandal"? Among all the hundreds of thousands of domestically produced U.S. Civil War Federal government contract muskets, some of the most controversial are the weapons produced by P. S. Justice of Philadelphia early in the Civil War. The fallout concerning the condition of the muskets produced under this particular contract resulted in a small scandal during the early days of the Civil War, and lawsuit(s) afterwards that made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

There is an examination of the Supreme court's decision in US v Justice (1871) in an upcoming issue of "Civil War Historian". We will leave that part of the story and the analysis of the legal questions for CWH subscribers to enjoy, and concentrate on the actual musket itself.

The P.S. Justice early contract muskets are considered by some to have been the most inferior of all arms delivered to the Ordnance Department during the US Civil War, and given what Whitneyville Armory produced during that same time period, this is a bold claim. Claud E. Fuller in The Rifled Musket (Stackpole 1959) calls the Federal handling of the PS Justice musket contract "...A striking example of the apparent confusion that existed in the Ordnance Department (which) seems to have resulted in an injustice in this case.” No pun intended on the part of Fuller.

Any opinions or insight on PS Justice from any "students of the Civil War musket" in our ranks? Anybody seen one?

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: The PS Justice Scandal

No insights, unfortunately. However, I love pictures!





To me, these always looked like a hodge-podge amalgum of features from the Enfield, US M1842 Musket, and US M1855 Rifle-Musket. Very odd looking.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: The PS Justice Scandal

Wick:
Thanks for the pictures. The pics look like one of the .58 rifle muskets Justice produced, which were actually not too bad. Those were considered acceptable at the contract price. Note the brass bands, patchbox and double bend trigger guard. The old big bores that Justice bought as condemned years earlier for $2.00 (or less) per "stand of arms", then rifled, sighted and sold back to Uncle Sam for $20.00 were the source of the controversy. One charge was that the rifling only went 3" down the barrel. Justice disputes this. Another charge was that the bayonets bent like lead...interesting because they were not made by Justice, the bayonets were the same US bayonets that accompanied the muskets when Justice bought the condemned lots. Others claimed the barrels "blew up" in the soldier's hands. The government specified soldered on rear sights and then complained that the sights were merely soldered on...soldering on rear sights was standard practice, the commercial P-53 Enfield rear sight was soldered on the barrel.

Like Eli Whitney and his "good and serviceable arms not subject to inspection with gauges", PS Justice bought condemned parts and produced a variety of amalgamated rifled muskets. IIRC, the first deliveries were in Autumn 1861.The US Ordnance Dept inspected the muskets in question, accepted the lot, paid for and issued them...and then later decided they were substandard and took a charge back off a future unfilled contract, which consisted of otherwise acceptable arms like the one pictured.

[Johan Steele]

Re: The PS Justice Scandal

Both of the PS Justice muskets I have handled were every bit as good as as any Lorenz or 1822 I've seen.

The three that I have handled had decent enough workmanship and the one I live fired (a .58) had a 4-5" group @ 100 yards. The lock seemed a bit loose but I suspect that had more to do w/ the age of the arm than the workmanship. It had seen some real hard use at one time or another... IMO some soldier used it and likely appreciated it.

I actually liked the odd trigger guard, I can't quite figure out why.

Considering the three I've handled... Justice didn't get any.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: The PS Justice Scandal

Johan:
Good observation. The comparison with the M-1854 Lorenz is what might be termed "damning by faint praise". Interesting also because PS Justice was excoriated for using previously condemned parts. Eli Whitney, Jr was infamous for striking over condemnation marks and Whitney was actually filling a Southern contract in May 1861, sending arms to the Confederacy when the Federal government put a stop to it...in exchange for a Federal rifle-musket contract. If the PS Justice muskets were as bad as history notes, how did they pass even a limited initial inspection? There were certainly other Federal contractors providing sub-standard arms, and P.S. Justice was at the very least solely supporting the Union effort.

Justice also supplied a sizeable number of swords on contract, no complaint with those.

There is a lot to this story. It is unfair to categorize the PS Justice contract muskets as top grade US armory quality, they were not. They were however inspected and deemed "well finished" by Lt Treadwell of the Ordnance Department. The “scandalous” arms were subsequently issued to the 58th, 88th, and 98th Pennsylvania Volunteers; if one can depend on the regimental records. Since there was a degree of variation in the dimensions of the guns and bayonets, most were numbered to identify which bayonets belonged to what musket and therefore had the best chance of fitting.The M-1854 Lorenz was similarly part numbered for the same reason.

[davidMcL]

Armisport '61 Springfield

Hello all, I have read all the articles and topics regarding the Italian enfields and all the work involved to defarb them properly but was wondering how much do you need to do to the Armisport 1861 Springfield? Are they as bad as the Enfields? I have used the search function on this one and haven't found anything resembling an answer.

Thankyou in advance for any and all replys

David McLean

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Armisport '61 Springfield

Hallo!

The SEARCH function works, but some of the links have died over the years.
Here is one from the SEARCH, I had posted a few years back:

In addition to the wood and metal finish, and Italian markings:

1. Quality Control varies (fit and finish vary).
2. A barrel that is heavier, thicker, of a different taper, and off a few thousanths from
.580.
3. A barrel that lacks the "V P Eaglehead" stampings for "viewed, proofed, and accepted into Government service."
4. A lockplate that is thin and inlet too deep (flush) with the lock mortise.
5. The lock "internals" are not always properly hardened, tempered, finished or polished.
6. A cone (nipple) that may have too small of flash hole. (so-called "N-SSA competition nipple")
7. A cone bolster that is squareish rather than gently rounded.
8. An Italian hardwood stock instead of American Black Walnut, of larger dimensions and proportions to accommodate the larger barrel.
9. A weak profile, thicker, and more squareish comb on the stock.
10. The hammer is shorter of a slightly different configuration than the original.
11. A thicker wrist on the stock.
12. Band springs with squared instead of rounded ends, and the stock mortising that are shallow and square ended.
13. A nose cap with a weak profile and indistinct features.
14. A butt plate with a short tang with a different shape, as well as a tang with a shallower curve. And the "US" stamp stamped incorrectly below the tang screw.
15. Sling swivels that are screwed on instead of riveted.
16. The absence of the rectangular or sometimes oval two or three letter "inspector's cartouche" stamp (or sometimes two stamps) on the stock flat opposite the lock where the lock screws go.
17. Markings and stampings, such as the eagle motif, and year or production, year of barrel production, etc. that resemble but do not match the original markings.
18. Missing "U's" for "up" on the right side of the barrel bands (original bands have an internal taper that allows them to slide over the tapered forestock, so "up" is important...).
19. These reproductions vary a little among themselves over time, so some features may change a little depending upon how "old" the particular ArmiSport is.

Curt

[Western Blue Belly]

Re: Armisport '61 Springfield

"19. These reproductions vary a little among themselves over time, so some features may change a little depending upon how "old" the particular ArmiSport is."

One example of that is my '61 ArmiSport does have the U's on the barrel bands as mentioned. I bought it in Nov. '94

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Armisport '61 Springfield

Curt's answer hit it on the head, although I think the Armi-Sport US 1861s now have the VP and eagle head barrel proof marks on the barrel. I hate to pile on but their US 1861s have a well earned reputation for mis-fires partially because of the bolster design, a weak mainspring, a shorter throw than the originals and a very poorly made factory cone with a pin point sized vent. The internal lock parts are cast from low carbon steel, which is too soft for the rigors of black powder firing. The parts often do not last and wear out pre-maturely. I wish I could just say "get the Euroarms instead", but alas while better it is still not a very good US 1861 out of the box. 2 lbs too heavy and not much you can do about it to start with. Rick Simmons and Bill Osborne (Lodgewood Mfg) did a review of them for The Watchdog back in 1998 and panned both the Euroarms and the Armi Sport US 1861. Now the Armi-Sport US 1842 is a much better reproduction than their US 1861. You can see the review at http://pcalloway.tripod.com/articles/wd1.html.

After the US 1842, the Armi-Sport Enfield is probably the next best choice provided you have about $200+ worth of needed work done to it to correct the various details. There are plenty of posts about that subject.

[WoodenNutmeg]

Navy Arms' Springfields (Japan or Italy)...

Way back when, Navy Arms' Springfields were made in Japan; now-a-days, they're made in Italy.

From anyone who has experience with Navy Arms' rifles, have you ever had the opportunity to fire their 1863 Springfield Type II?

Could you decifer a difference between the construction and action of their Japanese models compared to their Italian ones?

How does it compare to an ArmiSport or Euroarms late-war Springfield?

Any information regarding these questions would be appreciated.

Bryan O'Keefe, Esquire

[ACo.]

Re: Navy Arms' Springfields (Japan or Italy)...

They started out (in the mid-1970s when the M1863 repop first came out) being made in Italy, then Navy got a better price on the work from Niroku in Japan. Japanese prices rose and the Italians got the contract again. Both Italian and Japanese versions are the same, some prefer one or the other for various reasons and you will hear about them.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Navy Arms' Springfields (Japan or Italy)...

Primary difference is the weight. The only US 1863 repro widely available now "out of the box" is the Euroarms version, at a hefty 10 1/2 lbs without sling or bayonet. The old Navy Arms Miroku US 1863 tips the scales at around 8 3/4 lbs, much closer to the original specs. Armi-Sport (Armi-Chiappa) shows a US 1863 in their catalog but it is not imported by their US distributor, Taylors & Company. The Armi-Sport US 1863 is a kissing cousin to the now defunt reproduction Colt Special Model of 1861, the one that was advertised as "made in the US". It was actually assembled in the US from parts made in Italy. The dead giveaway is the parts interchanging perfectly with an Armi Sport Enfield, and the shape of their stock looks nothing like a US 1863.

The conventional wisdom these days is that the "old" Navy Arms Miroku 1863s are better mostly because they are lighter and easier to carry. Both are well made and shoot well. The Euroarms lock assembly is better in that it will take original parts, and used to come color case hardened. When sold by Navy Arms, the lock plates on the Miroku 1863s were stamped NAVY ARMS RIDGEFIELD, NJ. Up until recently there were still Miroku 1863 kits available from Dixie Gun Works, but my understanding is that the kits are now all sold. They have not been manufactured for years. This may make replacement parts a challenge for the Japanese rifle-musket.

None of my business, but why would you want a late war model US 1863 type II which has very limited utility? It would be anachronistic for most events before mid-1864.