1855 Springfield Use

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: 1855 Springfield Use

Hallo!

Rich Cross makes a most excellent reproduction of the M1855 lockplate (drop in for originals) that is correctly milled to take the "Maynard" mechanism (the only one available).
However, there are no reproductions of the "Maynard" ratchets and hands that make up the tape advancing mechanisim. (When I shot one in the 1980's and 1990's, I simply used repro original M1861 "guts" and greased/sealed
the "Maynard" tape slots to keep blow-back out of the inside of the lock.
So, one can go with a repro lock but will need the original Maynard parts to supplement the repro original M1861 internals.

No one makes repro Maynard tape primer rolls, but historically they fell from use in favor of the standard musket cap anyways.

And an aside... Once the supply of Harper's Ferry parts was quickly used up, Richmond starting replacing the iron buttplate and nosecaps with brass versions. So, unless one is creating one of those early Richmonds that still had HF iron mountings, simply swapping out an M1855 lock for a later 1861 or possibly early 1862 dated Richmond would not work due to the brass parts.

Curt

[Slouch]

Re: 1855 Springfield Use

Monocacy NBP has a 63 Richmond on display with iron harware. But who knows, it could have been an earlier piece sent back to Richmond for work and recieved a new lock.

[David Fox]

Re: 1855 Springfield Use

Richmonds from all years of manufacture may have iron buttplates. Iron chiefly through much of 1862 production, battlefield salvaged iron buttplates and rebuilds for the balance. I once owned an honest attic condition 1863 Richmond w/ all iron funiture. And yes, percussion caps were routinely used on Maynard tape-primed weapons, tho' it's a pain, especially decapping w/ that bloody great lock hump in the way. That's why Richmond went to the low-hump plate, circa March, 1862 and why they ground-down high-hump plates on early pieces returned for repair. Dave Fox

Dave Fox

[gsusat]

Re: 1855 Springfield Use

1855's were in great demand being the latest rifle musket. One other interesting aspect is that the US army had finished outfitting most of the troops in the field (Texas and New Mexico have a large percentage of the troops) with the 1855 rifle muskets. San Antonio had a stockpile of them in storage. Mansfield left Texas in February 1861 after touring the army posts and inspecting the troops. He comments on the rearming and even mentions that he did not like the later rear sight.

Even so at the beginning of the war what you tend to see is that the flank companies received the best weapons. So in a regiment two companies might have 1855's while the rest had converted flintlocks. For example co K 3rd LA had Miss rifle while the other companies had 1816's either flint or percussion, Co B 4th Texas got 1855's while the other companies were less well armed. There is the famous photo of Co. B 9th Miss with 1855 rifles and I would presume that most of the regiment had something else.

The basic 1816 percussion conversion would be the most common arm for the first half of the war. Looking at the boxes of them that were shipped from 1858 to 1860 is staggering. The 1842's would be a close second.

1855's show up in all theaters, though not as the predominate or perhaps even a common weapon.

George Susat
Confederate Guard

[FTrooper]

"Harper's Ferry Rifle"

Just a side note guys when doing research.

As Andrew Roscoe points out...9 times out of ten if you see a reference to a "Harper's Ferry Rifle" it usually means the M1855 Rifle...BUT sometimes the term IS applied to M1841's that were altered to .58. Unless both weapons arelisted in the inventroy, you never really know. It also seems that at one point ALL single shot horse pistols were being called Harper's Ferry Pistols (and HF did not produce a single shot from 1812-1855...go figure how terms are used).

I have a huge love for the M1855 Rifle and was surprised to learn that few were ever really issued ( according to most current published research) as they lacked rear sights...those rear sites that were made were attached to converted M1841's. The army felt the that M1855 RM in .58 was the priority and that the .58 and bayoneted M1841 Rifles would suffice. If anyone has more up-to-date research please share it with me!

I leanred this when studing the 3rd Cavalry in New Mexico in 1862, they carried "Harpers Ferry" Rifles only to to more research and learn that the General who made the quote was actually referring to the M1841's in .58 :-( too bad as I was looking for a GOOD reason to invest in a M1855 Two-bander.

Chris Fischer
Fort McKavett
&
F-Troop

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: 1855 Springfield Use

Hallo!

"I have a huge love for the M1855 Rifle and was surprised to learn that few were ever really issued
(according to most current published research) as they lacked rear sights...those rear sites that were made were attached to converted M1841's."

??

Curt

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: 1855 Springfield Use

Hey, Chris,

I think you've got a wire crossed somewhere. Check this out...

Here's a Rifle Musket with a rear sight:

http://historical.ha.com/common/view_item.php?SaleNo=6015&LotIdNo=22112

Here's a Rifle with a rear sight:

[FTrooper]

Re: 1855 Springfield Use

I did not say there weren't any M1855 rifles, nor did I say they didn't have ANY made with rear sites.

The information came from:

Rifles of the U.S. Army, 1861-1906
by John D. McAulay (2003).

Basically bunches of the M1855 rifles were made up, but as the precision sites were made for the rifles, they went to converted M1841's first. At the outbreak of the war most (but not all) of the M1855 rifles were still at Harper's Ferry and were still lacking sites! Again, this was what was found in the above book...if someone has more recent documentation I would be very eager to get a hold of it. (please also note I am talking M1855 RIFLE, not Rifle-Musket).

BTW, I do not have a copy of the book in front of me...so if I am misquoting the research, would someone who DOES have a copy handy correct me please.

Christopher Fischer
Fort McKavett
&
F-Troop

[FTrooper]

Re: 1855 Springfield Use

While on the topic, there are several "variants" of the M1855 Rifle, though only three seem to be regularly identified. That being the brass mounted with long range site and the patchbox cut figure-8 for the "sniper" ring. And then Iron mounted versions with both the long range sites and flips sites with oval patchbox inlets. I have also handled two diffent iron with figure-8 inletted patchbox (basically a "Type 1.5") one with a long range site and one with no site, and have seen them both with brass and iron stock tips.

There will always be transition peices, especially if they were siting them at random in 1861!

NOW if I can just find a M1855 Rifle-Musket with the patchbox AND the long range rear site! :D

Chris Fischer
Fort McKavett
&
F-Troop

[David Fox]

Re: 1855 Springfield Use

All patch-boxed M.1855 rifle-muskets were assembled at the two U.S. arsenals w/ the familiar small rear sights. The use of the large "long range" sights, (a sight adopted and downscaled from the M.1842 .69 calibre rifled-musket) was terminated in 1858. Patch box rifle-musket production began sometime after October, 1859. Some may exist w/ both, but they'd be Richmond assembly. My 1861 date Richmond high wall rifle-musket sports the patch box but no cut for a spare nipple in the recess, for instance: the Commonwealth of Virginia using up captured Harper's Ferry patch boxes and the wooden stocks pre-cut for them. They'd as likely have slapped a Maynard lockplate on it, if that's what was on top of the parts bin that day.

[FTrooper]

Re: 1855 Springfield Use

Yeah, that's what my research showed too... there was such a gap from the time they terminated using "long range" sights on the Rifle Musket to when they started to add the patch box that there is no logical way to have one with both...sad. The only chance is a restocked/repaired on from about 1860...but know collector nor expert I have ever talked too has ever seen nore heard of such a creature.

I am very fascinated by the idea of the "Richmond" with a patchbox though! and I have seen a few "Richmond" with maynards locks as well.

While on this topic, does anyone know when the M1855 Rifle-Musket officially startes to disappear from the US Regulars? I am not sure if they are listed seperate or together as .58 cal.? I am just curious as a "regular" how late a person could justify a M1855 as opposed to a M1861 or M1863.

Chris Fischer
Fort McKavett
&
F-Troop

[FlatLandFed]

Re: 1855 Springfield Use

"Are there tapes that work?"

A friend wants to buy a functioning reproduction M1855, so I looked up John Z while at AHT this past summer. I was mostly looking at fit and finish and, yes, it was neato to open the little door flap and watch the parts move as if the primer tape was being advanced.

I asked John if he knew of a supplier of tapes or if my friend could try to fashion some of his own, similar to children's cap gun tapes.

I was told in no uncertain terms that first, it might be dangerous to work with the chemicals needed for such an endeavor and, second, my friend would be promptly sued by the current patent holder (3M?) of the tape for copyright infringement. John has no intent to make the tapes.

Seemed a little harsh, but I was assured John's reproduction firearm would fire just fine with the standard cap on the nipple "just like they did it when the tape got wet, broken or kinked."

Anyway, I don't know if John's version would feed an original Maynard system tape, only that he doesn't know of a supplier and advises against trying to make your own.

Just saying ...
Paul Hadley

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: 1855 Springfield Use

Hallo!

There appears to have been five "variations" in the M1855 Rifle between its start in 1857 and its end in 1861.

1. 1857-1858. Brass furniture, long range rear sight, long brass nose cap. All stocks cut for the long nose cap were inletted for the "Figure Eight" add-on front sight in the "patchbox." Barrel browned, locks and hammer color case hardened,

2. 1858. Brass furniture, short range rear sight, long brass nose cap.

3. 1859. Iron furniture, short range rear sight, long brass nose cap.

4. 1859. Iron furniture, short range reat sight, short brass nose cap

5. 1859-1861. Iron furniture, short range rear sight, short iron nose cap.

The "short range rear sight" for the Rifle was .10 inches shorter than the one used on the Rifle-Musket.

The "most complete" Confederate M1855 Rifles and Rifle Muskets were those assembled from finished and semi-finished parts by the State of Virginia before they were shipped to Richmond to be "CS Richmonds."

Curt

[FTrooper]

Re: 1855 Springfield Use

Thanks Curt. Your #3 is what I have seen two of an have been calling the TYPE 1.5 SO the long nose cap usually means figure 8 patchbox? neat!

When you say "short range" site are you referring to the 400yrd version or the two leaf flip? I was referring to the leaf-flip...if your referring to the adjustable 400yrd (as oppsoed to the 500yrd, am I correct in that? found on rifle-muskets) then there is a whole slew of variants not discussed...also, I have seen repro made long iron nose caps...did any such creature really exist???

Chris Fischer
Fort McKavett
&
F-Troop

[David Fox]

Re: 1855 Springfield Use

Re: arms of the regular Army infantry. If my memory serves, by the early 1850s, the first ("old") eight infantry regiments were equipped primarily with the M.1842 .69 calibre smooth bore musket. Some isolated companies stationed primarily on the west coast (most of these regiments were parcelled-out on one and two company posts and never saw a full regimental muster) made-do with converted flintlock muskets as late as 1861. The two "new" regiments, the 9th and 10th Infantries authorized in 1855, were equipped with more-or-less experimental gear, as, incidently, were the two new cavalry regiments. These new infantry regiments were outfitted as foot riflemen with appropriate accoutrements, odd uniforms, and M.1855 two-band rifles. The older regiments were re-equipped with M.1855 rifle-muskets, beginning about 1857. Circa 1862 all regular regiments were re-equipped again with M.1861 rifle-muskets which, with some admixture of M.1863 and '64 (aka: M.1863 type II) rifle-muskets, they retained until issued Allin M.1866 or M.1868 trapdoor rifles in 1871 and 1872. The wartime-formed new regular infantry regiments were all pretty much issued M.1861s as they were raised. There was also limited post-war trial issue of experimental breechloaders, Spencers, and Sharps. Odd limited Civil War issue arms, such as the 7th Regiment's 1864 issue of a couple hundred Colt's revolving rifles, complicate the picture.