1864 Springfield rear sight

[Andy Goddard]

Is replacing the 2 leaf in the type 1 for the single leaf in type 2 a known modification done by the issuing forces? I have a Type 1 and ordered a replacement leaf that when recieved was for the type 2.

[Andy Goddard]

The National Muzzleloading Rifle Association{NMLRA} uses The N-SSA rules for muskets. In our Rules and Regulation handbook section 7050 there is this sentence " Interchangingof parts as practiced by issuing military forces of the period shall be allwed". After reading The N-SSA rules I could not come up with answer of changing the Type 1 sight with the Type 2 sight is allowed.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Although the Model 1863 Type II single leaf will fit the Type I sight base, it is more common to find Type II muskets with the Type I sight leaves than it is to find Type I muskets with Type II sight leaves. It is like finding a Model 1861 musket with Model 1855 sight leaves and sometimes even the reverse, but while the sight leaves may fit they were typically only swapped out for battlefield necessity rather than any conscious effort to exchange parts as part of production or even depot maintenance. Each of the private contracts for model arms included producing spare parts, just as the national armories had done.

According to a chart prepared by Springfield Armory showing what parts of the various models are fully interchangeable, the sight bases for the Model 1855, 1861, 1861 Special, 1863 and 1864 are all different. Only the sight base screw is the same on the 1861 thru 1870 models. The leaves are also different for each model, even though they may look very much alike and may fit a particular base. Properly, the parts should match the model arm. But I am sure that our SAC members could speak more to what is permitted for use by the N-SSA.

[John Holland]

Interchanging the sight leaves as questioned is an acceptable modification. As is replacing either of the original Type 1 or Type 2 leaves with a blank L-leaf. See Section 14 of the N-SSA Rules for specifications on the allowable height of the legs on a replacement single L-leaf.

John Holland
SAC