Spencer and Sharps Carbine question

[irish9]

I recently purchased Spencer and a Sharps(originals)
Im looking on any info on the Spencer as to unit or issue information. It is a Model 1860 serial number 61241.I purchased it from Gutterman Historical weapons and its pics are still up on his site. I have Marcots book and know the Spencers went up to 62,000. I can find nothing on Spencers after 59,000 range and have seen only 2 others in the 61000 range for sale. I think the late issued Model 1860's were still being made when the new Model 1865's came out, production over run.
My Sharps is a New Model 1863 I purchased it from College Hill Arsenal its id to Samuel Crompton of the B Co9th Ilinois Cavalry. Plenty pics of it are on the internet still on his web site. Its serial number is 76233 its early 63 with the patchbox. I find no 76000's in the Sharps book but did find one 4 numbers off from Ccompany 6th Illinois Cav. I am told being one number off dont mean anything according to Norm Flaydermans book.(9th edition). Any info on Sharps in this serial range with the 9th. I have contacted Cromptons family descendents on ancestry.com and they did say they had some of his stuff that was sold off years ago. Im told dont put faith in ordering the soldiers military records cause even if the soldier bought his weapon at end of the war its not listed half the time as they were being mustered out and the quartermaster had already sent his forms back. I ordered anyway and did find the serial number but 2 other numbers also and nothing to explain why they are there. Id be interesting in shooting the Sharops the bores rifling looks fine I did order some of Dixie gun works ringtails and the nitrate paper kit. Any help or suggestions on the 2 weapons would be appreciated. Joe

[John Holland]

Joe -

Here is a website, the Spencer Shooting Society, that is entirely dedicated to everything Spencer. It is a very good site and moderated by a very nice fellow who goes by "Two Flints." The information you will find on Spencers, both original and reproduction, and the collecting and shooting of them is just staggering.

http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?board=35.0.

Congrats on two very nice additions to your collection!

JDH

[irish9]

JDH Thanks I joined them a while back no one on that site has a clue on Spencers over 59,000 range. I posted under irish9th you can see my post around 100 views no answers. They all use the 4 volume Springfield books and just post numbers that are within a 20 or 30 numbers of the requested weapon which is pretty useless. My Sharps from the 9th Ill Cav is 4 digits off from a Sharps listed in McCaulys book (6th Ill Cav). Maybe my Sharps went from the 6th to thje 9th I dont know. I do know the owner enlisted late in the war. Feb 1865. Read Flayderman(edition 9) and he states even one number off means nothing when iding Civil War arms. Its amazing that there is nothing on 2000 Model 1860 Spencers.60,000 to 62,000. Once again thanks for the reply Joe

[irish9]

If you want to see my Sharps here it is
http://www.collegehillarsenal.com/shop/ ... t=9&page=1 (http://www.collegehillarsenal.com/shop/product.php?printable=Y&productid=461&cat=9&page=1)
Joe

[John Holland]

Joe -

Like it, or not, the 4 volume set of serial numbers from Springfield Research Service is all that is available to the public. They are now out of print and will stay that way forever, so says the new owner of the printing rights.

There are numerous researchers who have accumulated many, many, more serial numbers from their own research in the National Archives by combing through thousands of regimental returns. But, they will not share the serial numbers publicly....period! That is because they all haunt the gun shows and auction sites looking for something that they have a serial number for. They buy the item and then resell it with the ID information, with a big premium markup in price.

What you read in Flayderman's concerning serial numbers is very accurate. I have seen copies of original invoices from the Springfield Armory showing new trapdoor carbines shipped with the serial numbers varying by several thousand, and nothing consecutive, all in the same shipping crate going to the same regiment.

JDH

[irish9]

JDH that is sad those who research and do not share records found. For the past 20 years I have researched the 9th Connecticut Irish Infantry , I have about the largest cdv collection and letters and that isnt many as they were irish and had many who could read and write. We have a organization we just put up a stature to them in Vicksburg at Grants Canal they dug it and was one of the first statutes put up in many years I mean meany years. Look it up its a beautiful statue they lost over 200 men digging the canal. Thing is I share all the info I have, I have given my letters to Qunnipac University to be posted and photo's and other things but there are those in the organization who have info that they will not share. I find people like that low class dirt trash. Do they want to take the info to the grave. What you say about those who have info and wont share hits a raw nerve as I know what you mean. I have 2 of the Springfieldbooks I paid hundredsfor and all the Shapes and Spencer books out there. Im still amazed that 2000 Spencers are in limbo. I do think some wound up with Fetterman, and Kidder and other small units out west in 1866 and 1867. You can find my Spencer on Guttermans Historical weapons site its listed as sold . I paid 3200.00 for it. I paid 3500.00 for the Sharps Im not hesitant to state what I payed. Thanks for your help. Joe

[John Gross]

Its amazing that there is nothing on 2000 Model 1860 Spencers.60,000 to 62,000.

Actually, you should be amazed that there is any serial number information at all. There was no requirement by the government to serialize firearms. Witness the more than 1,500,000 rifle-muskets made during the war without sn's. And the reason private armories sn'ed their guns was not so collectors could "trace" the guns a century and half later, but mostly for inventory and bookkeeping purposes.

And on guns which did have sn's there was no requirement to record them by the military. Some units took it upon themselves to do so, mostly to make the soldier accountable for the firearm, and these are (for the most part) the scant records that have survived as most of them were likely destroyed or allowed to rot away after they were no longer needed.

As to Spencers in specific, the company went into receivership more than 140 years ago and is no longer in business, so it should be no surprise that company records are nowhere to be found. And even if serial number records were found, exactly what would they tell you? Spencer (as well as other private armories) did not ship contract arms directly to Private Joe in the field. Look at Colt factory letters on martial 1860 Armies. It will tell you; barrel length (which you already know); caliber (which you already know); type of grips (which you already know); finish (which you already know); date of shipment (which you can already get a general idea from the available sn tables); and finally who it was shipped to. Aha! That's what you want to know!! Unfortunately this almost always shows shipped to a government inspector, an arsenal etc. What happened to it after that, which is what we need to know, is not in a Colt letter (might be some rare cases where a juicy morsel is found, but most often not). And that "information" from Colt's factory letter will cost you $300.

As to there not being any Spencer sn's recorded by SRS in the 60000-62000 range, my GUESS would be that these were made very late in the war and most were never issued for Civil War use. Now, maybe they saw Indian War use, but the vast majority of SRS records on Spencers are for the CW. For example, in their Volume 4 they list 1,569 Spencer sn's. Now I'm not going to go through each one to come up with an exact figure, but I would say that at least 95% of them (and likely more) show dates or regiments associated with the CW. Therefore, since Spencers in the 60000-62000 range saw very limited CW use, and SRS has darn few listed for IW use, it's logical to understand why you don't see any listed in that sn range by them.

John Gross

[John Holland]

Hello Mr. Gross -

It's nice to see you back again. Your statements are well done, to the point, and absolutely correct. What I posted earlier for Irish9 was the short version.

To Irish9 - I understand your frustration, and how you feel about sharing information I share arms information all the time. But, what you are willing to share about the history of the 9th Conn. Irish Infantry isn't going to make any $$$ for anyone. It's just interesting history. On the other hand, arms collecting is big money and always has been. What you have to understand about the archival researchers is that time is money. They pay for all of their research costs, gasoline, lodging, food, etc., out of pocket. Not to mention the hundreds upon hundreds of hours they spend in the National Archives. That is why they hunt for arms at shows, auctions, etc. that they have recorded serial number information for. That's how they pay for the research expenses, by buying and reselling arms that they have ID'd. Finding an arm that has a matching serial number to one that has shown up in archival records is much akin to looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. I have all four of the SRS publications plus additional SRS serial # info that never made it into another volume. Over the years I have looked up probably somewhere near 1,000 serial numbers....with only one match. One or two numbers off was not uncommon. But at that point, understanding how arms were shipped, the numbers may as well be a thousand apart.

Frank Mallory, who was the founder of Springfield Research Service and the publisher of the 4 volume set of serial number research was condemned by the rest of the serial number researchers for divulging the information. He agreed with you, he thought everyone should have access to the information. He made his money by selling copies of archival documents of ID's arms to the owners of said arms. Unfortunately, Frank lost his battle with cancer. We will never see another like him. His successor, Wayne Gagner, nearly immediately chose to shut down the serial number part of the SRS website, and go the way of the rest of the researchers. The only way you can get him to check a serial number for you is to spend $35 per year for a subscription to his quarterly publication. Even then there is a restriction on how many serial numbers he will check for a subscriber.

Historic information on a specific regiment is fascinating, but it has no monetary value. Personally, I've studied the 44th New York Vol. Inf. for years, and what is all that history worth? Not one red cent! But, historic documented information on an arm, such as what unit it was with at a certain point in time, and better yet who actually carried it once, has monetary value. Hence the refusal to share serial number information by those who have paid for it out of their own pockets.

JDH

[irish9]

I can see your point JDH and Mr Gross. For me doing research its fun and takes up my time as I was medically retired from military I have nothing but time to do research and try to help others out when I can.I do have my arms room book from Iraq showing weapons serial numbers and who was assigned what weapon maybe 100 years from now that will be a good research tool for collectors but I doubt we will see saw's and other automatics in collectors hands in the future. I would tend to think the Civil War weapons that served in the post war should have more records on them but then again they only have a few Custer carbines they can prove were at LBH.And Mr Gross I know what you say about Colt. I have a family owned 1911 made in Oct 1918 and all I got in my letter was the day it was made and shipped to Springfield Armory. After that letter I didnt bother sending for a letter on the 1851 Navy as I knew what the results would be. Joe

[John Holland]

Irish9 -

God bless you sir for your service and sacrifice to our country.

If I can ever be of any assistance to you on Civil War arms information (with the exception serial numbers!) please don't hesitate to ask.

Sincerely,
John Holland
Chairman, Small Arms Committee

[devisser]

I have one of the first 1000 Spencer Carbines shipped to the gov't in October 63. (sn 124xx). You would think there would be some information about the weapon, but noting I researched gave me any information about its history.

[irish9]

There isnt much on them at all. I even received an email back from Marcot who wrote the Spencer Book.
Joe,
I can't add much to your quest, as Spencer records are fragmentary, at best.
The serial number range is also an estimate, based on known examples.
Springfield Research Service is our only source in determining which carbines/rifles were actually issued, and to which unit.
There is little doubt in my mind that these high number 1860s were issued.
All my best,
Roy Marcot
Arms Historian

[devisser]

It would have been interesting to know the history. The closes I even came was a number close to the Spencer I have was issued to the 6th Ill. Cav. in 64, but the number was off by several thousands. I have a feeling that the Spencer I have has was never re-issued and held in storage after it was converted to 50 cal. I know it should be in a collection, but what fun is that. It is interesting to know that most of the Spencers were issued to the western calvalry units first. Interesting!!!! I also do living history and a member of the 9th NY cavalry. They were with Custer and were the first to fire the first shot at Gettyburg. (THe 9th Cav.) (They were armed with Sharps and Hakens carbines). To bad the Carbine can't talk.........Who knows what history I have......

Funny, the weapon is over 100 years old and still works.........

I bought the at the nationals many years ago before Spencers became the "in" thing to shoot. They guy I got it from says his father used it ti deer hunt. This guy was old so it does make sense. A 50 cal will stop a white tail deer in its tracks................ It is still cool that you have seven shots with a level action carbine in a large bore. Henrys never really could hold a candle to a Spencer. It is like a 44 mag against a 38 Special.

History does repeat itself. The government never kept records of the things you need to know.........................

[irish9]

Most of the Spencers were issued and used in the Indian Wars. It was the main carbine till 1870's when the springfield single shot was issued. My carbine is in the 61000 range has saddle bar wear and stock has used look. Custers 7th had the Spencer at the Battle of the Wa****a but I never seen any info on 7th cavalry Spencers at Wa****a everyone is researching the 45 70 carbines at Little Big Horn. The 7th used the Spencer for years. Im curious if any of the 18 Spencers lost with Major Elliots command have ever surfaced. The indians were using Spencers at Little Big Horn. Tom Custer was said to have carried a Sporting Spencer and it may have been recovered as his jacket was recovered at the Dull Knife battle along with 2 white handled revolvers, and a Spencer Sporting Carbine. I purchased 23 original Spencer 56 56 rounds had my bore inspected and I fired one original round weeks ago and it fired fine on first pull of trigger. I was told that most of the rimfire cartridges wouldnt fire but mine worked fine. The others stay in my display 20 in my cartridge box and 2 on display under the carbine. I just purchased a box of ten Sharps carbine rounds made by Fay, Potter and Tolman 52 caliber for my id sharps ,the main supplier of Sharp Rounds in the Civil War was Fay Potter and Tolman.My box is from 1860 to 1863 period as it has the manufacturers name on box, they stopped putting that on in 1864. I got it for a lil bit under a 1000.00 and Im happy with it as Ive seen them go for 1600.00 at auctions. I wish someone would make 56 56 Spencer rounds. Firing originals can get exspensive but at least I can say I fired an original Carbine and round. Im waiting on my 3rd original carbine its on its way its a Burnside 5th Model.

[devisser]

I admit it is fun shooting a weapon that has some history. I had a 56-56 and it was a pain to reload. It always chambered cockeyed. The 52-56 is smoother loading and easier to shoot. When I was referring to Custer Guns I was talking about the 1864 in the valley. (Same gun). Scared the heck out of the Confederate's. They must of realize the tech. that the north had and at some point realized they were out of touch with the 19th century.

Ever wonder what if the 7th were armed with the Spencers instead of the 45-70's. Not sure the outcome would have changed, but there would be more dead Indians then Soldiers. The Spencers were a great short range weapon which would have been idea for Custer's 7th.

Funny you wrote about the Burnside. The 9th NY were first issued Bursides and they hated them. Not sure why. Maybe the cartridges were hard to obtain from the QM. It is kind of a neat design but I guess it never shot very well. (Opps, I think I just opend up an new thread)

[Eggman]

That Custer question is an interesting can of worms. The archaologists and historical researchers have determined that there were still unfired .45-70 cartridges all over the battlefield by the time of Custer's demise. The army had a tactical doctrine at that time - do not fire your weapon unless you can see your target. The Sioux and Cheyenne were at least as hard to see in the tall grass as your standard VC, maybe harder. Custer's battalion, and in particular, Calhoun's company on the far left flank, the position nearest the enemy approach from the south, needed to lay down a heavy suppressive fire to keep the infiltrating Indians in check. This was not done and eventually led to the disintegration of the army position on Greasy Grass Ridge (the tipping point was when the Indians got to the held horses in Calhoun's rear). The Spencer would have allowed a much heavier blanket of fire providing the officers had ordered the men to "fire your weapons!!"

[irish9]

That is like you said speculation. The 1984 digs proved nothing. First off the Hostiles looted the bodies and horses for anything on them. Also they picked up as many shell casings as they could find as they would reload casings some times leading to bad results. The Cheyenne Wooden leg talked about going back to the Battlefield a few months later to further scour it for shells and cartridges. Then you had 100 years of tourist picking the battlefield clean starting in the early 1880's. Then you had the first park superidendents seeding the battlefield with shell casing from nearby Fort Custer for tourist to find . On top of that they had a Battle Reenactment in the late 1880' s. When Fox wrote his report many relics were already gone.

[devisser]

I have several shell castings and a few bullets from the Battlefield. I never realize that the early Park Range "salted" the battlefield. :(

[irish9]

The best book on the subject is "Custer, Cases and Cartridges" by Don Weibert. It is out of print and very expensive.

[John Holland]

For a "cartridge verified" Spencer from the Little Big Horn, see Julia Auctions.

http://jamesdjulia.com/press_releases/p ... ID=firearm (http://jamesdjulia.com/press_releases/pr_2011.asp?cID=firearm).

Just scroll down a bit until you see the tack decorated Spencer Carbine and click on it.

JDH

[devisser]

Does anyone have any old brass tacks for sale? :lol:

[Eggman]

Depends on your definition of old. Mine are about 33 years old.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

For a "cartridge verified" Spencer from the Little Big Horn, see Julia Auctions.

http://jamesdjulia.com/press_releases/p ... ID=firearm (http://jamesdjulia.com/press_releases/pr_2011.asp?cID=firearm).

Just scroll down a bit until you see the tack decorated Spencer Carbine and click on it.

JDH

While I could perhaps understand if the carbine produced peculiar extraction marks if it had a Lane extractor, and that forensic testing might prove some similarities between spent casings ejected from it matching extraction marks on some recovered cartridges from the battlefield, but seeing how this is a Model 1860 Spencer Carbine (SN#3067) in .56-56 rather than a Model 1865 in .56-.50, how exactly is it possible that it would have a Lane extractor? Well, according to the link shown below, identification was allegedly made using firing pin impressions and the firing pin was matched to a spent cartridge casing supposedly found on the battlefield (field specimen #1277 or FS1277 in the forensic report).

http://www.artfact.com/auction-lot/extr ... 929e6bbbca (http://www.artfact.com/auction-lot/extremely-rare-forensically-proven-indian-used-cu-301-u-929e6bbbca)

Only problem with the above “match” is that of the eight bullet specimens recovered from the battlefield representing two different calibers of Spencer rimfire ammunition, six were of the .56-.56 type, one bearing the headstamp “U” for Union Metallic Cartridge Company, established 1867. Of the two Spencer bullets recovered from the battlefield (from the Reno-Benteen defense site), all bear the impressions made by six-groove rifling while it was emphasized in the report that most .50 caliber Spencers have three groove rifling. The field specimen #1277 was identified by Douglas Scott’s forensic report as a .56-.50 cartridge, bearing a raised-H headstamp indicating Winchester manufacture. So something stinks in Denmark. Oops!

http://books.google.com/books?id=-Z-8tI ... er&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=-Z-8tIuLsfIC&lpg=PA284&ots=2WR1Hjiq5k&dq=Little%20Big%20Horn%20field%20specimen%20%23127 7&pg=PA176#v=onepage&q=Spencer&f=false)

[devisser]

Somehow I would not trust a cartridge in 50-56 found on the battlefield. Yes It is possible, but I have a feeling that the older surplus Soencers made more sense being in the hands of the Indians then the improved 50-56. Surplus was surplus and the government had tons of civil war issued weapons. They wanted to get rid of as many of these "old" weapons as possible. When the army converted the Spencers, they looked for the best they could find to fill orders for the states that wanted arms to give away to their residences. I do not beleive the government ordered many of the Model 1865 carbines. What they did would not of found there way into the surplus market The army being what is was (and is today) always reused as much as possible. From what I have learned the "converted" Spencers to 50 cal were stored. Some when to Africa, Some to France, and many never made it out of the stockrooms of the US.

Many of the orginal Spencers were sold off and it was these that ended up in the hands of our native american friends. It is amazing that many of these "Indain" weapon ever worked at all. They were junk..... but given the way the Red man fought his battles. they worked for him.

Remember that many 45-70 shell castings were found that had been fired in 50-70's weapons. (ouch!!!). I guess anything was better then the bow.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Somehow I would not trust a cartridge in 50-56 found on the battlefield. Yes It is possible, but I have a feeling that the older surplus Soencers made more sense being in the hands of the Indians then the improved 50-56. Surplus was surplus and the government had tons of civil war issued weapons. They wanted to get rid of as many of these "old" weapons as possible. When the army converted the Spencers, they looked for the best they could find to fill orders for the states that wanted arms to give away to their residences. I do not beleive the government ordered many of the Model 1865 carbines. What they did would not of found there way into the surplus market The army being what is was (and is today) always reused as much as possible. From what I have learned the "converted" Spencers to 50 cal were stored. Some when to Africa, Some to France, and many never made it out of the stockrooms of the US.

Many of the orginal Spencers were sold off and it was these that ended up in the hands of our native american friends. It is amazing that many of these "Indain" weapon ever worked at all. They were junk..... but given the way the Red man fought his battles. they worked for him.

Remember that many 45-70 shell castings were found that had been fired in 50-70's weapons. (ouch!!!). I guess anything was better then the bow.
In case there is any doubt, the .56-.50 cartridge was the improved “tapered” cartridge used for the Model 1865 Spencer carbine as opposed to the "straight walled" .56-.56 cartridge case used for the Model 1860 Spencer rifle and carbine. Nearly 19,000 Spencer carbines were made under the Burnside contract, all of which were of the Model 1865 in .56-.50 with 3-groove rifling, while the Spencer Repeating Arms continued manufacturing the Model 1860 until April 1865 by which time they had made nearly 47,000 carbines, all in .56-.56 with six groove rifling. It wasn’t until they began producing the Model 1867 that they changed to the new .56-50 cartridge along with incorporating the Lane extractor, though very soon after problems surfaced with it deforming the brass, they changed back to the blade-type extractor.

At war’s end, some 8,000 Spencers were purchased by the soldiers who had carried them compared a tenth of that figure of the Henry rifles issued during the war and purchased at war’s end. More than a million Spencer cartridges were bought by the U.S. government during the war, of which fewer than 100 failed to fire (the Henry ammo being far less reliable), and I don’t know that anyone has an accurate figure on post-war ammunition production. Similarly, I don’t know exactly how many Model 1865 Spencer carbines were produced by Falisse & Trapman in Liege (circa 1872-74), but based on the known serialization it was in the thousands, probably in the range of 2000-5000? But one of the chief reasons why the Spencer Repeating Arms Company went into receivership was because of the glut of surplus Spencer firearms on the international market, and Spencer carbines remained in state use (i.e. Oregon National Guard, for example) until the Span-Am War in 1898. Bannerman obtained hundreds of Model 1865 Spencer carbines that had never been used, and ammunition too! But countless other Spencer rifles and carbines were converted to the new .56-.50 cartridge in the post-war period, a few by Springfield Armory but many more by gunsmiths who frequently re-barreled the Spencer action with longer barrels for medium-range hunting.

The problem with Doug Scott’s letter supposedly certifying that Julia auction carbine was used at the Little Big Horn is that specimen is a Model 1860 carbine chambered for .56-.56 while the cartridge matched to its firing pin is from the longer .56-.50 cartridge which will not fit in the shorter .56-.56 chamber. Even apart from the loaded length, the .56-.56 case length is shorter (like 0.88-inches) while the .56-.50 case length is 1.15-inch long. I don’t care how hard you push it just isn’t going fit and go bang! Unlike the 45-70 shell casings found that had been fired in 50-70's weapons, the problem is not necessarily the cartridge diameter but the accuracy. The government or Springfield .50 caliber rimfire cartridge was the basic case used to develop several cartridges, including the .56 Spencer. In fact, the U.S. 50 Caliber Carbine cartridge is also known as the .50-45 (45 grains of BP) with a case length of 1.337 as opposed to the .56-.50 Spencer’s 40 grain charge. You can get 45 grains in the case but you just about cannot get the bullet to seat without compressing the powder first, and you really don’t want to compress BP.

In 1879 Springfield Armory conducted a study of hundreds of captured Indian firearms to investigate whether the western tribes had any weaponry superior to that of American troops. The study concluded that although some Indians had repeating magazine-fed firearms, the Army’s single-shot arms had the long-range power and accuracy needed for trans-Mississippian warfare. Below is part of that report:

Report on Indian Arms by National Armory, Springfield (27 July 1879)

Of the large number of arms received by the National Armory from the various Indian agencies, the larger portion of which were muzzle-loaders— some even having flint-locks— four were evaluated as being the most powerful or the most rapid firing guns in the collection. The four evaluated were:

No.1— Sharps breech-loading target rifle, cal. 44 CF, old model, set trigger; weighing 12 pounds, 12 ounces; 30-inch octagonal barrel, buckhorn rear sight.
No. 2— Sharps breech-loading target rifle, cal. 44 CF, old model, set trigger; weighing 9 pounds, 6 ounces; 23-inch octagonal barrel, buckhorn rear sight.
No. 3— Winchester repeating (17 shot) rifle. Cal. 44 RF, Model 1866, 24-inch barrel.
No. 4— Winchester repeating (17 shot) rifle. Cal. 44 RF, Model 1866, 24-inch barrel, no rear sight (broken off).

On account of the small charge carried by the Winchester repeater it was tested in comparison with the Springfield carbine for accuracy, rapidity and accuracy combined, power both by penetration in white pine and computed energy, and initial velocity. Similar comparisons were made between the Sharps and Springfield rifle. Note: In 1879 saw the first Regular Army trials of the Winchester-Hotchkiss magazine fed bolt-action six-shot rifle and carbine, but this was not the Springfield rifle used in these evaluations.

“One thousand yards was the extreme limit at which the Sharps with long barrel could be fired unless special sights were prepared for it. As the evaluation board was required to text these arms in the condition received, and as used by the Indians, this, was, of course, inadmissible. It may be said briefly that the long-barrel Sharps is a more powerful arm than the Springfield rifle, its barrel alone weighing more than the Springfield complete. It is not, however, a practical service arm on account of its great weight, 13 pounds, and that of its ammunition. While this one gun is undoubtedly capable of firing at longer range than the Springfield, this very quality has been ignored by the Indians, as may be seen by examining its sight and those of other arms received at this armory from the Indian agencies. Both the Sharps have had peep-sights, and the longer one probably a telescopic sight, judging from the slots in the barrel. All of these have been removed. Evidently the Indians did not desire to waste their ammunition (which they probably obtained with more or less difficulty) at long ranges.”

An inventory of some 200 breechloading rifles, carbines, and muzzleloaders all captured from the Sioux and Cheyenne Indians and shipped from Cheyenne, Wyoming Territory to the National Armory at Springfield for evaluation, of the last category, some 94 of 148 muzzle-loading rifles were made by one maker, H.E. Leman of Lancaster, PA, in calibres .38 to .58. Ten others were made by J.P. Lower, Philadelphia, PA and six by S. Hawkens of St Louis, MO, while six others were by J. Henry, St Louis, and four by Henry Folson, also of St Louis. Five others were by other civilian makers. Of muzzle-loading military arms, included: two Model 1863 by Savage (one with Springfield lock); Model 1861 Spl by Colt (short rifle); Parker Snow & Co; E. Whitney; Watertown (razee); two M1822 smoothbore muskets (one of which was razeed); M1855 Whitney; M1842 Harpers Ferry; two M1841 Harpers Ferry rifles (one razeed); 1863 Whitneyville musket; M1841 rifle by Whitney; three 1861 and one 1862 Tower Enfield muskets; also 1861 Enfield by London Arms Co, and one (not dated) marked Enfield; and assorted other makes, mostly civilian.

Of breechloading rifles and/or carbines, there were four Henry rifles, 12 Winchester rifles (three of which were 1866 and the rest carbines), 13 Sharp’s carbines (metallic cartridge); as well as 23 Spencer carbines, Model 1865; three Warner carbines; three Josyln; three Starr; four Wesson; two Remington (.50 caliber); three Ballard rifles (one razeed); as well as a Gallagher, a Smith, and a Merrill carbine.

[Annual Report to the Chief of Ordnance to the Secretary of War for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1879 (1879) , App. V, pp303-320]

Archaeological studies of the Custer Battlefield in 1984 and 1985 show "overwhelming evidence that the Sioux and Cheyenne outgunned the soldiers." Of probably 1500 warriors in the battle, "perhaps 200 carried 16 shot repeating Winchester and Henry Rifles." More than a third had one of the forty-one different types of Indian firearms identified. See Robert Paul Jordan, "Ghosts on the Little Big Horn," National Geographic, p. 797; and Douglas D. Scott and Melissa A. Connor, "Post-Mortem at the Little Bighorn," Natural History, pp. 50-51.

[John Gross]

Richard,

You have raised a valid point. The carbine is identified as a Model 1860 in caliber 56-56, but the cartridge case that "matches" the carbines firing pin is a 56-50. However, before accusing the auction house or Dr. Scott of fraud or gross negligence, there is a very important piece of information which needs to be confirmed. And that information would be...

Is the carbine actually in 56-56 caliber as originally made, or is it one of the many thousands of Spencers which were relined after the Civil War to caliber 56-50? Knowing whether it has a 3-groove or 6-groove bore would answer the question, but I did not see the number of grooves mentioned in the description. In other words, it could be a simple matter of a typo of the caliber in the description. You might say, that is the $100,000 question :P

John Gross

[R. McAuley 3014V]

In the first link I provided above provides a written description of the carbine in which describes it as:

"SN 30670 Cal . 56-56 Standard Civil War carbine with 22" bbl, square base front sight with German silver blade and 900 yard Spencer ladder rear sight..." then at the bottom remarks that "no original finish remains being an overall dark brown weathered patina with areas of surface rust & light pitting. The wood shows very heavy wear with a few missing tacks and damage to the stock with a few missing silvers. However, the mechanics are fine, strong sharp dark bore."

Surely had the auction house realized that the SN#1277 cartridge was in 56-50 and would not fit the 56-56 chamber, they perhaps would have realized this and changed the above description to reflect that fact. However, that they examined the carbine and evidently determined it to be in its original Civil War caliber suggests they don't know that a 56-50 cartridge won't fit in a 56-56 carbine. Easy enough to resolve, just write them and ask if it is 3-groove or 6-groove rifling? It would have been different had they designated it as 56-52 but that's evidently not the case. By the way, the link below features some of the Spencers on display at the Buffalo Bill Cody Museum, but does not include this Julia Auction carbine.

http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index. ... ic=16150.0 (http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=16150.0)

As a follow-up, an inquiry was sent of the auction house asking them to verify whether the carbine has 3-groove or 6-groove rifling? I will post their reply when it is received. I might add that the same carbine is illustrated by Roy Marcot in his 1990 monograph "Spencer Repeating Firearms" (bottom of page 147) bearing the caption "Indian gun originally a Model 1860 Spencer carbine (serial number 30670). It shows honest Indian influence. Dr. Kenneth O. Leonard collection." Marcot does not associate the carbine with the Custer battlefield, and in fact the Custer letter appears on page 152 along with that info. It makes one wonder just when was this carbine so identified, and by whom?

[John Gross]

As a follow-up, an inquiry was sent of the auction house asking them to verify whether the carbine has 3-groove or 6-groove rifling? I will post their reply when it is received.

The number of grooves may now be a moot point, as I found evidence that the 56-50 can be used in a carbine chambered for the 56-56. While you are correct that the 56-50 is longer than the 56-56, I began to think about how the 56-50 has a considerable taper to it, so much so that it's even visible to the naked eye. For those of you not familiar with Spencer cartridge nomenclature, Spencer cartridges are referred to by their base and neck diameter in inches. Hence, the 56-56 is .56" at the base, and .56" at the neck. Whereas the 56-50 is .56" at the base and .50" at the neck. Apparently, because of this considerable taper, this is what allows the 56-50 to chamber in a 56-56.

Now, as to the proof that the 56-50 can be used in the 56-56, but not visa-versa, here is General Order No. 29 from Brigadier General A. B. Dyer, Chief of Ordnance, dated March 2, 1865. It is from page 376 of Round Ball to Rimfire, Part II by Dean Thomas. Note the first two sentences which state:

"The calibre of the Spencer Carbines, which have heretofore been issued to the army, is 52"; that of the Carbine model of 1865, is 50". The ammunition for the latter may be used in the former; but the ammunition for the 52" calibre cannot be used in the 50" calibre carbine."

John Gross

http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/414/414550/pages/1126157/spencer.jpg

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Got to love the ‘bean counters’ to come up with a “field expedient” Spencer ammo; this would have been akin to the government releasing a similar memo approving the use of .308 Winchester in a .30-06 rifle. Guess we know accuracy was not a prime consideration but rather it was the rapidity and volume of suppressive fire not to forget the possible extraction failures this must have caused. But I suppose having a soft copper foil case must have made this possible since having experimented earlier tonight, it doesn’t quite work with a 56/50 round and an original 56/56 Spencer barrel using modern cutdown 50/70 brass. It doesn’t work any better with Star-Line brass either because of the thicker rim, the action will not close tight because of the headspace. One does have to wonder whether Chief Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse received a copy of the 1865 memo, or whether they just discovered the “improved” cartridges would fit by trial and error?

In receiving a response back from Julia Auctions today, they indicated that the carbine has 6-groove rifling, so as was suspected the carbine is indeed a standard 56/56 by Spencer Repeating Arms Company and not a Model 1865 or Model 1867. However, in having reviewed the archaeological data presented in Douglas D. Scott (2000) Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn (specifically Chapter 7: Artifact Descriptions and Specialist Reports), I discovered another curious issue having a bearing on this matter.

Item 1 (page 115):

Two historical accounts suggest that the Indians did indeed have extraction problems with which to contend. George Herendeen (Hammer 1976:225) commented on finding a dead Sioux warrior during his attempt to rejoin the Reno command. Near the warrior’s body he found a gun with a cartridge stuck fast in the chamber. Captain Michaelis (1876) reported that he had in his possession a cut-down .50/70 musket used by the Indians during the battle. It is possible the gun referred to is the same one Herendeen noted. In any event, at least one Indian gun had an extraction problem.

The archaeological record contains further information. About 8 percent of the .50/70 and Spencer cases have pry or scratches on them. Forty-six .50/70 and Spencer firearms are represented by the cases; 9 percent exhibit extraction problems (6.6 percent at the Custer battlefield and 11 percent at Reno-Benteen). These figures exclude the .45/55-caliber army cases that were fired in .50-caliber arms. Those cases all exhibit extraction failure, as might be expected with a ruptured case. From the archaelological data, the case-extraction failure rate during the battle was about the same on both sides. This information on Indian extraction failure further reinforces the argument that extraction failure did occur, but not in large numbers. That extraction failure did occur is not debatable but it was not significant to the outcome of the battle.

Item 2 (page 175-76):

Spencers

The Spencer carbine was a military firearm used during the Civil War and the early Indian Wars. It was also produced in civilian models, was widely available, and was a popular weapon. The two calibers of Spencers found were produced for both the military and the commercial markets (Barnes 1969:281; Gluckman 1965:388). Eight cartridge cases from the Custer battlefield representing two different calibers of Spencer rimfire ammunition were found during the inventory.

Two cases represent calibre .56/50 Spencer carbines (FS1257, 1277). Of these, one has a raised-H headstamp (FS1277) denoting Winchester manufacture; the other case is not headstamped (fig. 50j). The six remaining cases (FS6, 1056, 1290, 1295, 1297, 1298) are from calibre .56/56 carbines. Only one is headstamped, and this one is with a U (FS1290) denoting Union Metallic Cartridge Company manufacture. This company began business in 1867 (Logan 1959). One of the nonheadstamped cases (FS1298) was torn on the edge (fig. 56b) by the carbine’s extractor when the case was extracted from the weapon. Only one identifiable Spencer bullet (fig. 52a) was recovered during the inventory of the Custer battlefield. It is a .50-caliber variety (FS1200). Three .50-caliber Spencer bullets were found at the Reno-Benteen defense site. One type is a flat-based bullet with a crimping groove high on the shoulder. The two bullets in this type (FS2453, 3297) have impressions of Spencer six-land-and-groove rifling. The third bullet (FS4905) has a raised base with three lubricating cannelures. This bullet also has six lands and grooves. Undoubtedly a number of other .50-caliber bullets were fired in Spencers; however, most Spencers were rifled to arsenal specifications of three lands and grooves. Most U.S. military .50-caliber should weapons of this period were rifled to those same specifications, so it is very difficult to determine weapon type from bullets with three-land-and-groove imprints. Firing-pin and extractor-mark analysis indicated at least two .56/50 Spencers were present at the battle. At least two .56/56 Spencers were also used (table 7).

Unidentified .50-Caliber Rimfire Case
A single .56/50-caliber rimfire Spencer case (FS644) with an as-yet unidentified block firing-pin imprint was found. The case is the standard Spencer cartridge case with a raised-H headstamp. The rectangular firing-pin imprint has not be identified and associated with a specific firearm type.
In examining the abovementioned .56/50 Spencer case, the unmarked case (FS#1257) exhibits in inward indentation at the case mouth as well as the imprint of a rectangular firing-pin (fig. 50j) on page 156. The imprint of the firing-pin is almost perpendicular to the case rim. The other .56/50 case (FS#1277) bearing the raised-H headstamp was not illustrated in the report but it should be noted that if either was struck by the firing-pin of a Model 1860 Spencer, the imprint of the firing-pin would not have been at the same angle as is found on FS#1257 but would have been 90-degrees to it (or parallel to the rim) unless the face of the firing-pin had been so deformed at which point it might not have operated properly. That the report does not remark to any significant distinction between the firing-pin imprints of the two cases could infer that the imprints are at the same angle, and thus could not have been fired from a Model 1860 Spencer carbine but rather was fired by some other firearm using .56/50 ammunition? In comparing the angle of the firing-pin imprint, it makes me think the arm used may have been a Josyln, Ballard, or Warner, if not a Gallagher, each of which were specifically mentioned as captured from the Sioux and Cheyenne Indians in the 1879 report? When Scott's report was written up it does not appear that any due consideration was given to other firearms chambered for .56 Spencer, and it was simply assumed that all were fired by Spencer carbines. But FS#1257 was not fired from a Spencer carbine unless there was some way to turn the firing-pin sideways and I'm curious to know whether the same applies to FS#1277. See NPS firing pin analysis for Spencer 56/56 caliber cases below, as the firing-pin imprint observed in FS#1257 looks very close to the imprint illustrated in Figure 43b identified as fired by a Joslyn.

http://www.nps.gov/seac/mc-archweb/ch5/index.htm

Subsequent studies of firing-pin imprints introduced additional evidence for the use of other .56 Spencer firearms beyond that of the M1860/65/67 Spencer carbine as it provided in Douglas D. Scott (2006) Archeological Mitigation of the Federal Lands Highway Program Plan to Rehabilitate Tour Road, Route 10, Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, Montana, Midwest Archaeological Center, Technical Report No. 94 below:

Item 3 (page 14):

Spencers

The Spencer carbine was a military firearm used during the Civil War and the early Indian Wars. It was also produced in civilian models, was widely available, and was a popular weapon. The two calibers of Spencers recovered during the fieldwork were produced for the both military and the commercial market (Barnes 1989:281; Gluckman 1965:388). Eleven cartridge cases representing two different calibers of Spencer rimfire ammunition were found during the previous inventory efforts (Scott et al. 1989; Scott and Bleed 1997).

The 2004 investigations recovered five additional Spencer rimfire cartridge cases. One (FS 9609) is a 56–50-caliber case with a semi-circular firing pin imprint indicating it was fired in a Joslyn carbine (Figure 18a). The case has tool point marks from the power head used to seat the bullet that are consistent in type with those known to have been used by Frankford Arsenal.

The remaining four cases are all .56–56-caliber. FS 9753 has a raised H headstamp indicating it was made by the Winchester Arms Company (Figure 18b). It was fired in a Ballard carbine. FS 9756 has no headstamp but has five Spencer firing pin marks indicating it misfired four times before being fired (Figure 18c). FS 9807 also has five Spencer firing pin marks, two from one gun and three from another, although none fired the round. This case also has the distinct Joslyn semicircular firing pin imprint, and it was the Joslyn that finally fired the cartridge (Figure 18d). The same Joslyn also fired FS 9829.

Thus there are now six or seven Spencers, one Ballard, one Ball, one Sharps, and two Joslyn rimfire guns attributed to the battle based on the unique firing pin imprints on the archeologically recovered cases.

I have since made yet another inquiry of the auction house, specifically concerning in their description of the carbine noting “a casting of the original cartridge casing head will be available to the buyer of this historic item.” As is noted above in Douglas Scott’s 2000 report wherein notes the two Spencer cartridge cases associated with this cache of spent cartridges found at the Greasy Grass Ridge site, the report only illustrated the unmarked case head (FS#1257) in fig. 50j. The other (FS#1277) is noted to bear the raise-H headstamp denoting its manufacture by New Havens Arms Company (i.e. Winchester) is the case in which was supposedly matched to this Spencer carbine used by the Indians. So I have asked whether the auction house intends to provide a digital image of this cartridge headstamp showing the firing-pin impression prior to bidding? That was asked last week, and so far I have not received a reply. But as is shown in the NPS circular above, wherein is featured compartive images of the firing pin imprints from both a Spencer carbine (on the edge of the rim) as well as a Joslyn carbine (with its rectangular imprint perpendicular to the rim like is found on FS#1257), in Scott's earlier report in 2000 it was not then known that there were other firearms other than Spencer carbines that shared the same cartridge, so I am simply curious to see what evidence they have supporting their claim.