1859 sharps carbine

[Cbob]

I am a new member and this is my first post. There seems to be a wealth of knowledge in this group. I have an 1859 sharps carbine. It is Straight breech with patchbox. It is pretty rough but I can read the serial number. It is 44407. The weird thing is it has no saddle ring and never had one. It also is still percussion and was never converted to metallic cartridge. Is it possible it was part of the navy contract for carbines in 1861? Was there a navy contract for carbines not part of the rifle contract? Were there 1859 civilian carbines that possibly had no saddle ring? How rare is the carbine if it never had the saddle ring? Thanks for information!

 

[14NYSM]

Any inspectors carouches on the stock? If it was purchased by the U.S. I think it would have been inspected.

 

[Cbob]

I cant see any. The gun is in pretty rough condition. The stampings in the metal are barely legible. The wood has seen alot of wear.

 

[JOHN42768]

Welcome, enjoy. There was a Navy contract for 300 pieces in the 43500 range per Ron Marcot's "Shaps Firearms, The Percussion Era 1848-1965". You need to post photos. Stock could be a replacement, but need to see left side of receiver to verify no hole for sling bar.

 

[Cbob]

Here are photos

 

[Cbob]

 

[UCVRelics]

Photos are needed to answer most of your questions.looking forward to seeing them.

 

[Cbob]

Photos added

 

[rob63]

Could you add a photo that shows more of the barrel and a better photo of the rear sight? I think it could be a cut down rifle, the second photo appears to show a stock that has more wood than a carbine stock would have.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

The closest SRS serial listing is for 44443, listed as a rifle, not a carbine. As rob63 says, your photo at an angle looks to show more wood in front of that barrel band than I would expect to see on a carbine in a photo from that position, which suggests the wood on the forestock is rifle wood, maybe cut down.

 

[Cbob]

I dont believe it is a cut down rifle but I'm no expert. The front sight appears to me to be in the right place for a carbine. It appears to be original to the barrel and not moved. I suppose somebody could have swapped barrels but the pitting on this barrel matches the receiver. I have not taken the wood off the forend to see if barrel serial matches the 44407 on the tang, but I would bet it does. Here are more pics for you to form Opinions.

 

[Cbob]

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

As I said, from that angle, the wood looked too long = a clear sideways view shows it is just the right length for a carbine forestock!

 

[johan_steele]

It didn't start life as a carbine, the rear sling swivel shows that. My suspicion is a rifle that someone wished a shorter handier weapon and a gunsmith put a carbine barrel and forestock on.

 

[Cbob]

The pictures of navy carbines I have seen all have the sling swivel. I was under the impression that the navy carbines all had the sling swivel on the butt from the factory in place of the saddle ring.

 

[Cbob]

This is the photo of the navy carbine in the nra museum. Pictures can be found on the internet. It has the sling swivel with a handcrafted "ring" on the original base that is the same as on my example. Also, to me the forend looks like mine.

 

[Cbob]

It didn't start life as a carbine, the rear sling swivel shows that. My suspicion is a rifle that someone wished a shorter handier weapon and a gunsmith put a carbine barrel and forestock on.

I was under the impression navy carbines had a sling swivel from the factory. Look at my example in the picture of the navy carbine in the nra museum. Picture added. Thank you

 

[Cbob]

As I said, from that angle, the wood looked too long = a clear sideways view shows it is just the right length for a carbine forestock!

Thanks Jeff. I agree with you!

 

[kenysd]

a 59 should have a brass patch box and barrel band. of course, everything happened then.
the butt could be a switch from a rifle, but my 63 has the same length.
all percussion were converted to 50 70 by the government after the war EXCEPT those carried home by the soldiers.
they were allowed to buy them...
so, you have, as do I, a percussion bring back...lots of history.
does your left butt show a mark? these are made by the shoulder sling rubbing while on horseback. I have two with the same rub mark.

 

[Cbob]

a 59 should have a brass patch box and barrel band. of course, everything happened then.
the butt could be a switch from a rifle, but my 63 has the same length.
all percussion were converted to 50 70 by the government after the war EXCEPT those carried home by the soldiers.
they were allowed to buy them...
so, you have, as do I, a percussion bring back...lots of history.
does your left butt show a mark? these are made by the shoulder sling rubbing while on horseback. I have two with the same rub mark.

View attachment 415704

View attachment 415709

I was under the impression that only the first 1859s had the brass furniture. The later ones like mine were iron or steel. Mine doesn't have any wear from being carried on a horse. Mine never had a saddle ring. I am hoping it's a navy model but don't know how to prove it. Thanks for the info!