Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: Springfield M 1861-M1863 date of change.

  1. #1
    Old Hickory is offline
    Team:
    Visitor (non-N-SSA Member)
    Member
    NA
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Enders Pa.
    Posts
    64
    Region:
    Carolina - North Carolina and South Carolina

    Springfield M 1861-M1863 date of change.

    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.

  2. #2
    GPM is offline
    Team:
    Visitor (non-N-SSA Member)
    Member
    NA
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    149
    Region:
    Visitor

    Re: Springfield M 1861-M1863 date of change.

    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.

  3. #3
    John Holland is offline Moderator
    Team:
    44th NY Volunteer Infantry
    Member
    00973V
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,871
    Region:
    Northeast- New York

    Re: Springfield M 1861-M1863 date of change.

    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

  4. Re: Springfield M 1861-M1863 date of change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Hickory
    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

  5. #5
    Old Hickory is offline
    Team:
    Visitor (non-N-SSA Member)
    Member
    NA
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Enders Pa.
    Posts
    64
    Region:
    Carolina - North Carolina and South Carolina

    Re: Springfield M 1861-M1863 date of change.

    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    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.

  6. #6
    Old Hickory is offline
    Team:
    Visitor (non-N-SSA Member)
    Member
    NA
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Enders Pa.
    Posts
    64
    Region:
    Carolina - North Carolina and South Carolina

    Re: Springfield M 1861-M1863 date of change.

    [quote=John Gross]
    Quote Originally Posted by "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.

  7. #7
    John Holland is offline Moderator
    Team:
    44th NY Volunteer Infantry
    Member
    00973V
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,871
    Region:
    Northeast- New York

    Re: Springfield M 1861-M1863 date of change.

    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

  8. #8
    Old Hickory is offline
    Team:
    Visitor (non-N-SSA Member)
    Member
    NA
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Enders Pa.
    Posts
    64
    Region:
    Carolina - North Carolina and South Carolina

    Re: Springfield M 1861-M1863 date of change.

    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    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.

  9. #9
    John Holland is offline Moderator
    Team:
    44th NY Volunteer Infantry
    Member
    00973V
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,871
    Region:
    Northeast- New York

    Re: Springfield M 1861-M1863 date of change.

    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

  10. #10
    Old Hickory is offline
    Team:
    Visitor (non-N-SSA Member)
    Member
    NA
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Enders Pa.
    Posts
    64
    Region:
    Carolina - North Carolina and South Carolina

    Re: Springfield M 1861-M1863 date of change.

    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.

Similar Threads

  1. 1861 Springfield
    By B Staley in forum Small Arms
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-06-2011, 11:05 AM
  2. WTB 1861 Springfield
    By mpenhale in forum Wanted/For Sale Items
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-21-2011, 02:05 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-06-2010, 08:03 PM
  4. 1861 SPRINGFIELD
    By JOSEPH McAVOY in forum Wanted/For Sale Items
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-24-2009, 02:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •