Two-Band 1863 Springfield rifle

[Richard Johnston]

I took my 2-band 1863 Springfield rifle to the Knoxville Antique Roadshow last weekend for an appraisal and didn't do very well. The expert said he'd never seen one before and then started looking through the Fledermann ? handbook which said maybe it was real and maybe it wasn't. In previous threads, this has been discussed with no resolution. I purchased mine about 25 years ago from a guy that wanted to get the money for an Enfield reproduction so he'd match the rest of his buddies in his Civil War Reenactment unit. I've done some research and come up with much conflicting info. I recall finding one source that claimed about 27000 of these rifles were manufactured. Also, another source indicated that the band design for the 1863 changed in February 1863 to a new style and that indicated that my rifle was manufactured between December 1862 and February 1863.

The rifle is in excellent condition and doesn't look like it was ever issued. The barrel is 33 inches long to the end of the tang. It has a two leaf sight and the lockplate etc. looks identical to 1863 model. It has the standard VP proof mark and it is 58 caliber. Although it is claimed that no photographs exist of this rifle in the hands of an artillery unit, I would like to point out the next best thing.

About twenty years ago, I toured the Gettysburg Cyclorama and saw a contemporary Civil War artist painting hanging in an adjacent room It was titled something like "Artillery Unit in Retreat" and had a very dramatic view of a wide eyed rearing horse hitched to a caisson and a shell exploding nearby. Anyway, on the ground was a two-band Springfield rifle with no bayonet in plain view. Although no photos have been found, that artist had seen that rifle in close proximity to an artillery unit or he would never have placed it there. Anyway, artists usually have pretty good visual memories when they are composing something from memory plus imagination. I became convinced by that painting that these rifles existed and were issued to artillery units as a self-defense side arm.

Incidentally, the standard bayonet doesn't fit on this rifle as the 1863 barrel had a 1-mil per inch taper so with the shortened barrel, the bayonet is too tight. (I scratched the end of my Springfield up trying to muscle a bayonet on to it) I believe artillery units, which got overrun all the time, were instructed to get one round off to slow the rebs down and get out as quick as they could. They were not expected to defend the artillery positions against infantry attack.

Has anybody found out anything else about these rifles? I'd like to hear other people's experience with "the rifle that doesn't exist"

[Lou Lou Lou]

Can you tell us what he valued the rifle?

[B-Davis]

Not to steal the thread, but one side of my family was with the First Pennsylvania Light Artillery, Co. B coopers Battery, and a friend showed me a picture of them awhile back, and they were carrying RIFLED M1842's! So, do not take it for granted that all artillery units carried a shortened rifle or carbine.Bryan Davis

[Phil Spaugy, 3475V]

"Artillery cannot defend itself when hard pressed, and should always be sustained by either infantry or cavalry. The proposition made to arm the cannoneers with small-arms, such as revolvers, short rifles, &c., is calculated to do more harm than good. They should be taught to look upon their pieces as their proper arm of defense, to be abandoned only at the very last moment. The fate of many a battle has turned upon the delivery of a few rounds of grape or canister at short range upon an advancing column; and if they have the means, how natural for men to resort to them for personal safety in time of extreme danger, forgetting for the moment that the fate of the whole army, may be imperiled whilst they are defending themselves only! Let the rifles, therefore, be given to the infantry, and the sabres and revolvers to the cavalry; guard the artillery with these arms, and teach them that their salvation is in sticking to their pieces."

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZaE...manual&f=false

[Richard Johnston]

Can you tell us what he valued the rifle?

Fledermann's manual said that if it was real, it was worth 25 to 50% more than a standard 3-band Springfield. If it was not real, then 25 to 50% less than a standard Springfield. I don't really know what the manual meant by real or not real.

[Maillemaker]

About twenty years ago, I toured the Gettysburg Cyclorama and saw a contemporary Civil War artist painting hanging in an adjacent room It was titled something like "Artillery Unit in Retreat" and had a very dramatic view of a wide eyed rearing horse hitched to a caisson and a shell exploding nearby. Anyway, on the ground was a two-band Springfield rifle with no bayonet in plain view. Although no photos have been found, that artist had seen that rifle in close proximity to an artillery unit or he would never have placed it there. Anyway, artists usually have pretty good visual memories when they are composing something from memory plus imagination. I became convinced by that painting that these rifles existed and were issued to artillery units as a self-defense side arm.

I'd be very careful counting on artwork for documentation. Now I can't say for "modern" paintings such as those of the Civil War era, but I can tell you for an absolute certainty that many medieval paintings cover bibilical or other "historical" subject matter but portray the scene in clothing and equipment contemporary with the artist. So you'll see 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th century artwork about the same historical scene but in each painting the clothing and equipment will be of the time the artist painted the painting.

It's possible that the artist was painting something he had actually seen or documented, but it's also possible that he happened to have a 2-band rifle handy to look at so that is what he painted. You would need more information on the painting before relying on it to be contextually correct, like was the artist painting something he was actually present to witness?

Steve

[Lou Lou Lou]

RichardI guess the issue is whether it can be documented as a period modification (real)You may be able to get an expert to authenticate the period modification.