1863 type I/II

[hawkeye2]

I recently picked up an 1863 Springfield that is of questionable configuration. The lock and barrel are dated 1863 and the rear sight is the 3 leaf type with blued blades and base. The hammer shows faint case hardening colors and the lock is somewhat gray, bright barrel. The stock, which has been refinished and shows very faint inspector's marks, has round faced solid bands with springs. The following parts are blued: trigger, sling swivels & screws, all screws except the hammer screw, band springs. All parts are original and and with the exceptions mentioned are finished bright. I strongly suspect someone has swapped some parts or is there a remote chance this left the armory like this?

[Robt. Propst]

According to Moller American Military Shoulder Arms, the Model 1863 had Color Case Hardened Lockplate and Hammer. Heat Blued were internal lock parts and screws, nipple, rear sight, trigger and screw, guard bow nuts, ramrod friction retainer and the shafts of the side screws, tang screw, and wood screws. Although initially bright, the heat blueing of the following parts was introduced during production; barrel bands and screws, sling swivels, and trigger guard assembly. Bright all other metal parts.

He describes the 1864 changes from the Model 1863 as the following parts were bright instead of blued, barrel bands, sling swivels, trigger plate, and trigger guard bow.

the barrel bands changes to use of band springs, no change to middle band but upper and lower are solid. Rear sight has the single L shaped leaf with a peep sighted for 300 yards.

Ramrod was changed to having a cupped head with six grasping grooves around its circumference, and a one eighth inch slot for a wiping rag, and the rear threaded for ball screw and wiper. My comment, like an Enfield

My comment. Sounds like it could be an arm that was repaired, intermingled, or a transitional arm made during a transition period.

if you take it to the nationals some real hands on experts at SAC could probably give you an informed opinion. But sounds nice. Enjoy!

[hawkeye2]

Bob thanks for the input. I totally overlooked the rammer while I was posting. It is straight, cupped end, threads on the other end though I haven't checked the pitch, not like an Enfield. The screws do seem to have a faded fire blue as opposed to any other type of blue. There is a small 0 at the back of the barrel on the same flat as the view proof and another at the every back end of the trigger plate.

I had thought of the SAC at the Nats. but I know how busy they are and didn't want to take any of their valuable time.

[Carolina Reb]

Here are a couple further comments.

On the rammers, the Enfield style rammers were specified for the Type IIs, but my experience is that they are very rare. Most Type IIs have the regular tulip tip rods. Just speculating, maybe Springfield had a huge supply of the earlier rods to use up before the switch, or maybe the Enfield rods got converted to M-1866 rods (which would only account for about 40,000 of the 250,000 Type IIs.)

Type IIs were authorized in December of ?63, but the first ones weren?t delivered until about April of ?64, so chances of leftover ?63 dated lockplates appearing on Type IIs are pretty slim.

I suspect that you have a Type I that was repaired or rebuilt with a Type II stock and bands. This could have been done during the war, or recently.

The SAC guys love to see oddball stuff. If there's not a line out the door, stop by and see what they say.

[Robt. Propst]

As an additional resource, if you are not a member, you might consider joining the American Civil War Original Longarms Study Group on Facebook. Post a number of pictures there and you might get a pretty good sensing of the history of your arm. There are a great number of informed experts who view and post there, both skirmishers and non-skirmishers. I have learned so much from that group, and enjoy the discussions of arms like yours.

[hawkeye2]

Again thanks guys. I went into this thinking someone had assembled this with what was on hand and that's probably the most likely explanation. It would be wonderful if this were a rare transition piece between a Type I and a Type II but the odds of that are about as probable as a colony of small green men living at Area 51. A wartime repair would make a great tale for a gun show but I doubt very much it happened that way. I'll try to get it to the SAC at the Nats., does anyone know the hours they will be open?

[Carolina Reb]

The tentative schedule is 9-11, Wed. through Fri.

[hawkeye2]

I took the gun to the SAC this morning and John Holland said that everything was correct as is for a type II and added that it was a nice piece. I feel better now knowing that it wasn't put together from a pile of parts. Again thanks for your help.