Springfield M 1861-M1863 date of change.

[Old Hickory]

Is there an exact date of change when Springfield Armory changed over from the M 1861 to the M1863? Did the entire production line shut down on say, Jan. 1 1863 to change over? I've never seen a M1861 with Springfield markings dated 1863, or a M1863 of Springfield manufacture dated 1862.

Apparently the change from type I to type II M1863 was on a gradual basis, as I've seen type I's dated 1864 and type II's dated 1863 as if the change came on a machine by machine basis while the production line continued in late 1863-early 1864.

[GPM]

I can't help with an exact date. On page 42 of "Echos Of Glory" (Union), top left picture shows a 1863 dated Springfield with a 61 type bolster and what appears to be a transistion hammer. Shaped like a 63 hammer but not exact. Of course a standard 63 hammer will not align with the cone on a 61 bolster. The picture does not show the bands , they could be the clamping type or standard 61 type.
The credits say the the musket is in the Smithsonian.

[John Holland]

I think the problem with having seen mixed dates on the 1863/1864 arms is due directly to the interchangeability of parts. I think there has been too much opportunity for mix and match of parts in the 150 years since they were produced.

I had one woman at a flea market become very indignant when I told her that her .50-70 Trapdoor wasn't a Civil War musket. She absolutely refused to believe me because the lock plate said "1863 Springfield".

JDH

[John Gross]

Is there an exact date of change when Springfield Armory changed over from the M 1861 to the M1863?

The change was approved on February 9, 1863 (see Claud Fuller's THE RIFLED MUSKET, pages 23-24).

No doubt the change took several days or weeks to take effect, and some overlap (using up of old parts) probably occurred also.

So, it is certainly possible to have an all original Model 1861 Springfield dated 1863 on lock and barrel. I've seem one or two over the years but did not pay enough attention to them to determine if they were authentic, but, as noted, it is possible.

John Gross

[Old Hickory]

I think the problem with having seen mixed dates on the 1863/1864 arms is due directly to the interchangeability of parts. I think there has been too much opportunity for mix and match of parts in the 150 years since they were produced.

I had one woman at a flea market become very indignant when I told her that her .50-70 Trapdoor wasn't a Civil War musket. She absolutely refused to believe me because the lock plate said "1863 Springfield".

JDH

Thanks John. I've seen a few mixed 1863/1864, but I was refering to matched guns of either type I dated 1864, or type II dated 1863. I've seen both. I beleive in the case of the 1863 type I to type II it was a gradual change occuring late 1863-early 1864.

[Old Hickory]

[quote="Old Hickory":2hy4tz8g]Is there an exact date of change when Springfield Armory changed over from the M 1861 to the M1863?

The change was approved on February 9, 1863 (see Claud Fuller's THE RIFLED MUSKET, pages 23-24).

No doubt the change took several days or weeks to take effect, and some overlap (using up of old parts) probably occurred also.

So, it is certainly possible to have an all original Model 1861 Springfield dated 1863 on lock and barrel. I've seem one or two over the years but did not pay enough attention to them to determine if they were authentic, but, as noted, it is possible.

John Gross[/quote:2hy4tz8g]

Thank you John. That's the information I was looking for. I've never seen a U.S. M-1861 made by Springfield dated 1863 myself, it seems as though a bolt from the blue decreed that on Jan 1, 1863 a new musket would come out of Springfield Armory and the older model would no longer be made.

In the case of most U.S. small arms changes took months, or even years to impliment after approval and using up old parts stock.

[John Holland]

Old Hickory -

Now I'm curious! How can you tell that a musket, with fully interchangeable parts and no serial numbers, has matched parts?

I mean, if I take an 1864 Model musket and put an 1863 dated lock of the same condition in it, how do you tell?

Thanks,
John

[Old Hickory]

Old Hickory -

Now I'm curious! How can you tell that a musket, with fully interchangeable parts and no serial numbers, has matched parts?

I mean, if I take an 1864 Model musket and put an 1863 dated lock of the same condition in it, how do you tell?

Thanks,
John

Not guns with mixed dates on the lock and barrel so much, John. Guns with matching dates on the lock and barrel. There are type II 1863 Springfields with 1863, (matching dates) and type I 1863 Springfields with matching dates of 1864 that at least appear to have been made that way. Yes, stocks and sights could have been changed for a number of reasons, ( stocks being broken or damaged) but isn't it as likely that some machnes at Springfield began the change before others? And parts left over from the previous year assembled with parts made the new year? (assembling type II metal in a type I stock/ vice-versa?) I'm not saying anyone is wrong, or trying to start an arguement. I'm exploring possibilitys, and sincerly appologize if I've complicated things, (the 1863 type I/II was just a side bar, more or less). I've never seen, or even heard of a model 1861 made by Springfield dated 1863, or a model 1863 made in 1862, it's like Jan 1, 1863 was a cut-off of sorts. It seems odd to me that these changes happen like a bolt of lightning at the change of the new year. Could someone have planned it that way?..And why wait if the machines are available and the changes approved? John Gross pretty much answered my main question with the date of, Feb. 9, 1863. (I'll have to get a copy and look into Claud Fuller's book).

As for mixed dates on individual rifles, I agree field armorers would have repaired more than a few damaged weapons with mixed dated parts, etc. I think it's also just as likely that parts at the armory were mixed and assembled, "as-is". I owned a Tryon Mississippi with a date of 1847 on the lock, and 1848 on the barrel, it probably left Tryon that way in 1848. Also, I currently have a Winchester 1894 sporting rifle with a receiver sr. # indicating it was manufactured in 1898, how-ever the completed rifle wasn't assembled and received in the warehouse until 1901, ( according to the Cody letter). Nothing wrong with the receiver, it just got neglected, or shuffled to the bottom of the "deck" a few times.

[John Holland]

I think we are actually very much on the same line of thinking with this. It would probably take some extensive research at Springfield in their archives to determine such things as if there were ever 1863 Models newly produced dated 1864. Unfortunately I don't have the time allotment required for a project like that.

Even though the Model 1863 musket was officially approved and adopted on Feb. 9, 1863, the initial discussions of a model change from the 1861 Model began in April, 1862. The terminus date for production of the Model 1863 was Dec. 17, 1863 when the Model 1864 was approved and adopted.

Nomenclature: Model 1863 Type 2 versus Model 1864. I’m not quite sure where the transition came from, but the official Springfield Armory term is “Model 1864”. Even Claude Fuller used the Model 1864 term as far back as 1930 in his early work, Springfield Shoulder Arms 1795-1865, published by none other than Francis Bannerman & Son. Included in that publication is a copy of a Springfield Armory chart showing the interchangeability of parts in all models of rifle muskets from 1855 to 1873. Then, when Robert Reilly published his book, United States Military Small Arms 1816-1865 some 40 years later in 1970, he was using the term “Model 1863 Type 2”. Is Reilly responsible for the new term? I don’t know. But, because of that the N-SSA Small Arms Committee picked it up and has used it ever since.

Could there have been new Model 1864 arms fabricated at the Springfield Armory after Dec. 17, 1863 that were dated 1863 on both the barrel and lock? I would suppose so just by the preponderance of parts in progress. But, would there be Model 1863 muskets dated on the barrel and lock 1864? I highly doubt it. My reasoning is that the stocks were the same as the Model 1863 with the exception of the inletting for the band springs, which I’m quite sure was no difficult chore to retrofit for an armory worker who did it on a daily basis. The Armory knew they had a serious problem with keeping the bands tight on the Model 1863 muskets, so I seriously doubt that they would have condoned any further muskets being approved without band springs after Dec. 17, 1863.

You haven’t complicated anything, much less started an argument. I think things like this are meaningful discussions, which if we’re lucky, may turn up yet even more research information! These arms discussions are what I had hoped this section of the BB would be used for.

Just my thoughts, back to you!

John

[Old Hickory]

This is exactly the type of information and discussion I'm looking for, John. Thank you very much! If I understand correctly, Springfield had almost 2 weeks in 1863 to produce the 1864, (or type II 1863) in 1863 which should equate to several thousand U.S. Model 1864's, (or 1863 type II's) stamped 1863.

I see your point of view on 1863 stocks more clearly now also. I imagian Springfield would have used up the finished stocks and inletted those unfinished for retaining springs for the improved model, (thinking out loud here, feel free tocorrect me).

Would the Quartermaster/Ordinance people have kept a number of stocks on hand to repair damaged weapons? If so, could this partially explain the number of rifles with 1864 dates and type I stocks? I can certainly see parts guns being made-up post war also, of course.

[Southron Sr.]

The U.S Army referred to the Springfields as either (1) The Model 1861 or, (2) The Model 1863 or, (3) The Model 1864.

Show me any place in the Ordnance Manual or any other official Ordnance Department publication where the 1864 Springfield is referred to as a "Type II." That critter dosen't exist!

The U.S military was then and still is very particular about terminology. Just ask any vet!

[John Gross]

Show me any place in the Ordnance Manual or any other official Ordnance Department publication where the 1864 Springfield is referred to as a "Type II." That critter dosen't exist!

I don't see what the big deal is. One could argue that a "Trapdoor" Springfield doesn't exist either :D

Whether one uses Model 1864 or Model 1863 Type II it has no effect on me, and it doesn't seem to bother the Springfield Armory Museum either as they use Model 1863 Type I and Model 1863 Type II. Here's a link to a Model 1863 Type II from their website.

http://ww2.rediscov.com/springar/VFPCGI.exe?IDCFile=/spring/DETAILS.IDC,SPECIFIC=11056,DATABASE=61160812,

And they've been using that terminology for over 100 years at least, as the Springfield Armory Museum 1909 Catalog lists them as Type I's and II's, not as Model 1863 or 1864.

John Gross

[Southron Sr.]

Obviously, the Springfield Armory Museum made an error in terminology over a hundred years ago. I can easily believe that because I used to work for a museum.

In 1865 the U.S. Army referred to the "Type II" as the Model 1864. That is the correct terminology.

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

Give me a break. Did the government really call the Colt rifle a Special model. Did the Government really call the two models of Smiths, one a Cavalry model and the other a Artillery model. No NO NO. These are just terms someone came up on to use to easily describe the differences in similar models.

[Old Hickory]

No need to turn this into a whizz'in match over terminology. I don't think the soldiers who used them really cared, the important thing to them was, they had a Springfield. They didn't even really care if it was a contract, as long as it was a Springfield pattern rather than one of Europe's cast-offs.

[John Holland]

Oh well, I guess that nice, intelligent, discussion we were having on arms just went out the window :roll:

John

[Old Hickory]

Oh well, I guess that nice, intelligent, discussion we were having on arms just went out the window :roll:

John

Not really. I took a breif look on my book shelf and found I have Fuller's book on Springfield, haven't had a chance to dig into it yet, but maybe today. Another change I need to look into was the 1855-1861 Model change. I'm beginning to wonder how much Erskin S. Allen had to do with fitting dates of change into the calender year, (just a thought). The history of the arms of Springfield is a very important chapter in American history, producing the finest arms of it's day.

The purpose of this thread was to gain information and find rescorces for further study. I'm not writing a book, just through the course of looking at various .58 Springfields that I've never seen an 1861 dated later than 1862, nor an 1863 dated earlier and thought it a bit odd.

Shall we continue?

[John Gross]

In 1865 the U.S. Army referred to the "Type II" as the Model 1864. That is the correct terminology.

And in 1865 the Army DID NOT use the following terminology.

Model 1860 Spencer.

Remington Zouave rifle.

Model 1858 Remington.

Model 1851 and 1860 Colt.

And what we all call shoulder stocks for revolvers the Army referred to as a "Detachable Breech."

John Gross

[John Gross]

The purpose of this thread was to gain information and find rescorces for further study.

Claud Fuller's THE RIFLED MUSKET and THE US MODEL 1861 SPRINGFIELD RIFLE MUSKET by Hartzler, Yantz and Whisker are two good references.

John Gross

[R. McAuley 3014V]

It probably matters little that the United States International Exhibit of 1876 had featured various small arms as part of the Ordnance Department’s exhibits including the figure of an “Infantry Soldier, undress, 1858 to 1866"... "clothed and equipped as prescribed during the closing scenes of the war of the rebellion,” the musket being merely described as the “Springfield muzzle-loading rifle musket, caliber, 58” and “accouterments to match.”

Among the martial arms on display included “No. 22. Springfield rifle. Model 1864” and is described as: “this is the arm made in greatest numbers during the war of the rebellion. It differs mainly from the model 1855 in the change in the rear-sight, and the omission of the Maynard primer. The necessity for the immediate production of guns did not allow time for changing the lock-plate tools so as to reduce the thickness of the lock-plate from the thickness required by the Maynard primer. Some of the minor details of the mountings are also altered.”

The only other Springfield muzzle-loading rifle muskets in the Ordnance Department's exhibit were "No. 6. Rifled musket; caliber .58. Springfield, 1851.", "No. 9. Springfield rifled musket; caliber, .58. Model 1855" and "No. 10. Springfield rifled musket; caliber, .58. Model 1855". No. 9 is decribed as "Designed by Col. (then Leiut.) J.G. Benton, United States Ordnance. (See book, Small-Arms, 1856.) This particular weapons is a "model" gun having been made by hand as a standard for gauges, and to make tools by for extended manufacture. The accuracy for its parts and the time spent in its manufacture made it cost about $600 or $700." No. 10 was "one of the regular manufacture." The others on display chiefly comprised rifles and carbines of "rebel" manufacture.

Ref: Report of the Board on behalf of the United States executive departments at International exhibition of 1876 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1884), v1, pp. 703-05.

[John Gross]

It probably matters little

You are correct Richard, it doesn’t matter too much :)

I don’t believe anybody, myself included, denies that “Model 1864” was the official designation. However, many arms that all of us shoot and collect have dual names that are readily recognized by the gun fraternity. Thus, one should not be chastised if they choose to use one of the alternative, yet still widely recognized names.

Let us use the book you mention as an example. On page 703 note rifle No. 5 is referred to as the “Lindsay Repeating Rifled Musket.” I’ve never seen anyone use this name, as it’s almost always called the Lindsay Double Rifle or, gasp, the Model 1863 Lindsay. Even when it was contracted for by the Ordnance Department it was called a “Double-Musket.”

I would say that many of the names we refer to our guns by are 20th century collector terminology and not official ordnance names.

John Gross

[Old Hickory]

[quote="Old Hickory":197xt4h6]The purpose of this thread was to gain information and find rescorces for further study.

Claud Fuller's THE RIFLED MUSKET and THE US MODEL 1861 SPRINGFIELD RIFLE MUSKET by Hartzler, Yantz and Whisker are two good references.

John Gross[/quote:197xt4h6]

The book I have by Fuller is, "Springfield Shoulder Arms-1795-1865" Looks like I have some shopping to do on amazon.

[John Holland]

Old Hickory -

Did you ever consider a return to skirmishing? It's still fun!

John

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

I'd like to see more information on transition arms and using that term to describe them. The 1855 rifle is a prime example that most everyone agrees on. Maybe we should use that model as an example of what the arsenal did. It would then be a "running change" as we called it in the government language. We only shut down production when a dangerous problem was found and we addressed it immediately. Following this line of thought there is the distinct probability that there exists model 1861 stocks with 63 style locks and barrels with 61 bands, but not 1864s with 63 bands because the 63 bands were a defect. Just a thought why you see all those loose 63 clamping bands around.

[Old Hickory]

Old Hickory -

Did you ever consider a return to skirmishing? It's still fun!

John

I think about it just about every day, I still have everything I had when active in the N-SSA, but time is an issue, (and they said in the 50's & 60's we would all be working less and earning more!). You're right John, there's nothing more fun and exciting than skirmishing. I do miss it, and if time allows in the next year or so, I want to re-join the fun.

[John Holland]

Old Hickory -

If you ever decide to visit the Fort for old times sake, feel free to look me up. You can find me in the Small Arms office section of the old Hocker-Hughes building in the AM Wed - Fri, or perhaps in camp, 44th NY.

Time? Yes, I seem to have had more of it before I retired.

John

[Old Hickory]

Thank you John, I certainly will do.

Getting back on topic here now, and refering to these rifle muskets by year/model to avoid any further side-tracking. I beleive we left off with parts in the field.

I've only been able to find a few accounts of changing out parts in the field. One such account involves a Confederate soldier;

He had a US 1861 Springfield that was damaged previously at Stones River, and he found a Bridesburg made US 1861 with a "plugged" barrel. He put his Springfield US 1861 barrel in the Bridesburg. Here's the story, from the Nashville newspaper dated 1884, in article on the memoirs of a Confederate from the 1st Tennessee titled, "A Private in the Rock City Guards":

"Ah, my old gun! I well knew where I got it. It was on another moonlight night, of the 20th of September, 1863, the second day's battle of Chickamauga. It lay inside the Federal works, near their extreme left. It was bright, and perfectly new from the factory. "Bridesburg" was stamped on the lock-plate. It was like a foreign country to me, but I knew it was a suburb of Philadelphia. Though twenty years younger than I now am, I was still too old a soldier to give up a trusted friend, without knowing more of the merits of my new one. So I strung both muskets over my shoulder, and, at the first opportunity, in the firelight of the night, proceeded to examine my new friend. The lock was perfect - bright as a new-coined silver dollar. I drew the rammer, and running it down the barrel, found that it stopped within a foot of the muzzle. I got a ball-screw and drew out ball after ball, with great labor, and found that its previous owner, doubtless a gallant Federal soldier, had simply been snapping caps at us. The job was hopeless. I gave it up, and taking off the barrel of my old musket, made at Springfield Armory, Massachusetts, soon had as fine a weapon as any Confederate possessed. The parts were interchangeable - our arms were rifle muskets. Just as its brightness attracted me then - it now formed (November 26th), 1863, the last object of my solicitude - I "own a kindly debt of old remembrance" for it. Some Federal, perhaps more worthy, may have the same feeling for parts of the same gun. A kind of love for your engine grows with its use. A good workman comes to like - shall I say love - the machine which seems to share his labor. It is thus I feel toward the "Bridesburg" musket. I was not a loser, but simply the gainer by its two months use."


Then referring to his own Springfield Armory made US 1861 he says...



"Long before this I had another gun, which I recollect with a feeling of grim satisfaction. While useful in sending bullets at the battle of Murfreesboro, it did me the service to stop one. The ball passed between the two lower bands, taking off half the stock between them, springing the rammer as it passed between it and the barrel. At many a regimental and brigade inspection, I "fessed out," as the West Point boys say, on that gun. "What's the matter with that gun, sir," would say the inspector. "Shot in battle, sir," would be the answer, and it saved me, for many months, a deal of rubbing and scrubbing...I have endeavored in the foregoing to depict the experiences of a private soldier, in connection with the operations of his regiment and brigade, in a notable battle. I am well aware that from the ranks, the field of observation is extremely limited. It extends only to the front and a few companies or regiments, to the right or left. Generally he finds enough to do in front."

Another account I have to cite from memory, seems as though the Army of the Potomac found itself short on rammers during the Petersburg Campaign and a number were ordered to fill the need, (say 1,000 I don't remember exactly). At any rate the number sent was 10 times the number thought to have been ordered. The weapons missing rammers were so equiped and re-issued, the surplus rammers were available for the asking, and as I recall some Union troops at Petersburg had a grand time shooting rammers over the trenches at the Confederates for no other apparent reason than they were ammused by the "whirring" sound they made flying through the air. I beleive I read that story in Bruce Catton's, "A Stillness At Appomatox."

From reading Greg Coco's books on Gettysburg and the aftermath,I get the impression that damaged muskets and battlefield pick-up's were sent to the ordinance depot in Washington to be cleaned, repaired, and inventoried. Stories exist of private soldiers exchanging damaged weapons on the battlefield, and entire units "up-grading", laying down their issue arms for something better. What parts and maintance existed for the AOP in the field?

[jannypan]

I think the problem with having seen mixed dates on the 1863/1864 arms is due directly to the interchangeability of parts. I think there has been too much opportunity for mix and match of parts in the 150 years since they were produced.

[mikec]

I know this is an old thread, but I thought I should mention that there were 1863 dated Model 1861 Rifle-Muskets. I have one that is in mint condition. It is in every way a typical Springfield made M1861. The 1863 dated barrel has the Springfield style eagle and the normal 1861 bolster. The stock is a crisp M1861 stock with sharp inspectors marks, including Erskine Allen's. The lock and hammer are standard M1961 with one exception. The lockplate shows its case-hardening colors like a M1863 plate instead of being polished.


FWIW - I spent a lot of time some years back going over the Ordnance Dept records group in the archives. Never once did I see the use of Type I or Type II. Having said that, I freely admit I sometimes use the terms myself, just as I call my Lindsey a "Lindsey Two-Shot". Sometimes it's better to be understood than pedantic.

With regard to Fuller's "The Rifle Musket". It was a great book in its day, but like many older firearms references it has been somewhat overtaken by more research.

Cheers