Musket ID

[gary1978]

I recently bought what I thought was an original configuration 1864 rifled musket. Upon closer examination, I now think it may be a "parts gun" but want to be sure before I work on it any longer. It is a standard 3-band rifle and looks like a typical Type 1 1863 model. The lock markings are "SN & W.T.C. For Massachsetts", US Eagle and 1864. The barrel is stamped 1864. The barrel also bears the initals "L.F.R" both on the left side near the breech under the wood line and on the underside of the barrel about 12" forward of the breech. The stock cartouches appear to be a rounded rectangle with what looks like a "J G" and an oval with what appears to be "ELA". My first hint that there was a problem was that it has flat barrel bands that are obviously too wide to be secured by the band springs. So I suspect the barel bands are from an 1861. The ramrod is a tulip tip with a threaded base end. The rear sight is a two-leaf type and appears to have been blued. So does anyone know if the stock may be original to the rest of the gun and what kind of barrel bands I should be looking for to replace these? I'd really like to put this back into the original configuration but don't want to buy the wrong parts. And if this is the wrong stock, I may not continue the project.

[Jim_Burgess_2078V]

Gary, Pardon our confusion. First you thought it was a M1864 rifle-musket but then you say it is a typical Type I M1863 and later we learn it has M1861 flat barrel bands. Norris & Clement reportedly made both M1861 and M1863 rifle-muskets. It is assumed your lock has the M1863 style hammer and the barrel lacks a clean-out screw on the bolster. Since M1863 rifle-muskets (Type I) did not have band springs and the springs on your musket do not allow adequate space for the M1861 flat bands, you must have a M1864 stock. The "ELA" inspector mark on the stock is probably "ESA" for Springfield Armory Master Armorer Erskine S. Allin. M1864 rifle-muskets were only made at Springfield. To restore your parts gun you would need a set of solid oval barrel bands, and a M1864 Springfield lock at the very least.
Jim Burgess, 15th Conn. Vol. Inf.

[gary1978]

Sorry for being coufusing. The lock and barrel are dated 1864 but I had only read about there being "1863 Type 1 or Type 2" guns as a style or category. But that they were manufactured in both 1863 and 1864. I am somewhat ignorant regarding Civil War muskets. But I am certainly eager to learn. It has barrel band springs. The barrel and lock are both dated 1864. It does not have a bolster clean-out screw. There is an eagle stamped on the bolster. The stamping of the initials "L.F.R." on the barrel in two places may help to indicate if the barrel was a Springfield barrel. The barrel does have the "VP" and Eagle Head markings on the breech, which are typical for Springfield Armory. Could SA have provided barrels for SN&WTC? I would rather not have to replace the lock because it is in really superb condition and the hammer aligns with the nipple perfectly. I have read that some of these particular maker's guns were also put into "Federal Service" which could account for the dual cartouches on the stock. I do want to put this back into as close to original condition as I can.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

From the sounds of it, you definitely have a "parts gun". As Jim noted, the "ELA" script inspector mark in oval is probably "ESA" (Erskine S. Allin), which would be correct for a Model 1863 - Type II (sometimes called the Model 1864 or band spring model). Although the earlier Model 1855/61 flat bands will fit a M1863 stock, the bands will not lock into place on account of the bands being too wide for the band springs unless someone has re-cut the Type II band springs to accept wider bands (at which point you would need to install new band springs as well as replacement barrel bands). It could be that rather than the band springs having been so modified, the stock could be from a Model 1861? Since you are looking to restore the musket, you could either consider the SN&WTC lock and L.F.R. marked barrel as trade goods and find the correct lock and barrel for a Springfield, or find another SN&WTC stock for that parts set because the musket you have was evidently assembled from combining the parts of two or more muskets. If it was me, I would try to restore both muskets, and if I could not afford this, I could simply use one parts set to help finance the restoration of the other?

Below is a link to another Model 1863 (Type I) SN&WTC bearing the inspector cartouches that should be exhibited on this contract arm.

http://www.relicman.com/weapons/w1033sell.htm

Richard McAuley 3014V
37th GA

[gary1978]

I agree with your assesment. I think the stock was a Springfield and that the lock and barrel are a matching set. Also, the lock screw bolsters on the stock are circular and made of steel. The band springs are external, but machined for thinner "oval" bands. There is a small letter "s" stamped immediately behind the trigger guard tang on the underside of the stock. Other than the cartouches, I could find no other stampings on the stock.
It looks like an original SN&WTC stock should have brass bolsters, different cartouches and internal band springs. I doubt I could find an original SN&WTC stock in good enough condition to match the condition of the metal parts I have, so I think my best course of action is to attempt to find an original Springfield lock.
But other than the letters "L.F.R." on the barrel, would there be any difference in the barrel markings or configuration between this and an ordinary 1864 Springfield? (this barrel is in very fine shape and has an excellent bore.) On the underside of the barrel, it is marked "L.F.R." again along with a "P". The only other markings I could find that were hidden were a large "V", small "D" and small "O" stamped into the very rear face of the barrel breech where the tang screws in. If Springfield supplied barrels to SN&WTC, were they they same as standard Springfield barrels? I guess what matters is when the "L.F.R." markings were applied; at Springfield or at SN&WTC ?
And should 1864 Springfield upper and lower barrel bands have screws or not?
I really appreciate the help. If I can be correct with both the barrel and the stock, then I will only have to replace the lock and bands. Maybe I can find someone to swap locks. I think mine is probably the less common of the two.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

The middle band for the Model 1863 Type II is the same screw-clamping band as the Type I except that rather than being finished national armory bright, the Type I bands were blued as was the trigger-guard and plate, butt-plate, and of course, the lock-plate and hammer were color-case hardened. The Type II furniture was finished in the bright, and the lower and upper bands were solid bands rather than the screw-clamping bands of the preceding model. Another distinction between the Model 1861 and 1863 stocks is the latter was fitted with a “spoon” spring in the barrel channel to retain the ramrod which should NOT be present in the former model’s stock, which was instead equipped with a wider channel forward of the top band for the former swelled ramrod not present in the latter model. The lock screw bolster or washers should be iron, not brass, and this is another factor anent these muskets, the only part which was cast steel was the front sight. All the lock parts and furniture was made of iron, hence why these parts are so easily broken because they could not be hardened except on the surface. You'll notice that the 1863 Remington "Zouave" and Colt's 1861 Special Model has the word "STEEL" stamped in the barrel to indicate it was made of cast steel rather than of iron.

As for salvaging the SN&WTC barrel, much depends on the fit of the bolster to whatever new lock you should find. I don’t know that there is any evidence to support Springfield Armory supplying barrels to any government contractors, but I have noted that the inspector’s initials “L.F.R.” are not listed in Stephen Fuller’s 1971 TM-157, though I have noted these same initials appear on Smith Carbines and on another Model 1863 (Type II) Springfield. While there is some evidence that the government supplied contractors with the dies for the stamping the view and proof-mark, and eagle, the model arms produced at Springfield Armory were all machine-made, while many of the contractor-made arms were still a mixture of machine-made, and cast steel and iron forgings requiring a higher degree of hand-fitting. It was for this reason why many privately manufactured arms produced for various state contracts were not manufactured to the same exacting standards as was demanded by the national armory for equality to the government-made arms.

Richard McAuley, 3014V
37th GA

[John Holland]

Just a few things I've picked up over the years on SN&WTC muskets.

The contracts were literally for the State of Mass. and no one else.

The "LFR" inspector marks on the side barrel flat are correct for the SN&WTC contract muskets.

The "I.C." does in fact stand for "Inspected & Condemned". But, these marks are post Civil War, and were done when Mass. was condemning their muzzle loading muskets in order to get new breech loading arms from the Federal Gov't.

JDH

[gary1978]

I greatly appreciate all the info. Since my lock and barrel are not marked with the "IC", my guess is that it "left the service" of the state of Mass. sometime during or immediately after the war, and therefore was not left in inventory to inspect and condemn. I'm going to try to find a correct stock for the matching barrel and lock. It may be a fools errand, but it's worth a try. I've found hen's teeth before.

[Southron Sr.]

Here is a couple of possibilities for you to keep in mind regarding your "parts" musket:

Possibility #1:

After the Civil War was over and the Union Army was "de-mobilized" their arms were turned in and many were sent back to Springfield. Back at Springfield these worn and battle scarred muskets were "cleaned and refinished" and brought back up to military specs for re-issue. They were then packed away for storage. So your musket might be one of those examples with a new stock added at Springfield during the post-war "C&R" process. As such, it is a valid historic piece.

Possibility #2

After the war, hundreds of thousands of surplus muskets ALONG with spare parts were auctioned off by the Ordnance Department. So your musket might be a "Parts Musket" assembled by one of the many surplus dealers from spare parts for sale to the public.

If your barrel and lock are made by the same manufacturer, then I would GUESS that your parts musket went thru the C & R process at Springfield after the war and as such, is a valid historic piece. Unfortunately, there is no way to prove what its exact origin!

[gary1978]

The matching lock and barrel tend to make me think it was a "C&R" at Springfield. If there is any way to determine the origin or meaning of the second inspectors marking of "J.G.", it would help to establish more of a dateline. Especially if "J.G" was a Post CW Springfield inspector. It would make even more sense if he was a Post CW Massachesetts inspector. I wonder if anyone has a compendium of the various inspectors that worked in Springfield Armory in the 19th century? if "J.G" marks showed up on Trapdoors or Krags, that would be a clue. But I'll bet the flat barrel bands were put on by someone else at a later date. Somebody probably needed a good set of oval bands and swapped them out. The band springs were not fitted for them, so at least I can restore that part of the design. I would just put the oval bands on and call it good, if it were not for the unfortunate fact that all the SN&WTC rifles appeared to use stocks with internal band springs instead of the external band springs as Springfield Armory did, so there is no way to make the rifle "appear" as it did when manufactured with the current "Springfield" stock.