1862 Richmond

[iron bender]

Picked this up recently for what I consider the price of the lock alone. I believe the lock is original. I'm curious about the rest as it has a couple attributes of a Richmond, but the rest appears to be not, as it has the tape cut in the stock, iron butt plate (unusual mark where a US would typically be stamped), and two of the three bands have 'inline' U mark. Any thoughts on this are appreciated. I'm definitely not in the know on any Confederate firearms, other than some history and the history of Harpers Ferry. I'm aware some HF 55 parts were used on early guns. If any other pics are necessary let me know. Thanks for looking!

 

[scooter748driver]

From what little I know it looks like it's a mix of Harpers Ferry parts and some Richmond parts as some of the transitional pieces had. The barrel appears to be Richmond while the stock and the barrel bands are Harpers Ferry. I'm not familiar with the mark on the buttplate, but I'll try to find it in my Richmond Arsenal book later today. Ive not seen a lock with the hump cut flat but as I said I know very little about Richmonds. I'll see what I can find in the book.

Congrats on the acquisition!

 

[rob63]

Thanks for posting this! We don't see very many Richmond guns posted.

As you already alluded to, aside from the lock everything else is consistent with the Model 1855 except for a handful of things. The early Richmond guns also used left over HF parts, so it becomes kind of hard to be sure of anything. That said, the rear sight itself is a later pattern although the barrel has the 1855 cut out. The screw holding the sear on the lock looks like it has a rounded head instead of the expected flat top, although I may just be seeing things, and the main spring appears to be a later pattern as well since it doesn't fit very well. None of these are big deals per se, but it does add to the difficulty in knowing who assembled the parts into the present rifle-musket, and when it was done.

Richmond locks have been assembled onto Model 1855's by people wanting a bigger return so it is certainly a guessing game. I recently spent a fair amount of time studying the online offerings of the bigger dealers for my own amusement and it was surprising to me how common it was for guns to have incorrect parts being sold for very large dollar amounts.

I have a very similar rifle-musket with an 1861 dated Richmond lock, and like you, I bought it for about the price of the lock. I assume mine is just a post-war assemblage of parts. However, it fills the hole in my collection at a fraction of the price and I am too wary of how easy it would be to fake one of these to lay out serious money for one.

The star marking on the butt plate is intriguing. I'm sure others will be along that can shed some light on that. It has been a long time since I read the book on these and I only have a vague memory of where I have seen this before.

If you would like some replacement screws for the sear and sear spring send me a pm. I have a bag full of them and would be happy to send them to you.

 

[scooter748driver]

From what little I know it looks like it's a mix of Harpers Ferry parts and some Richmond parts as some of the transitional pieces had. The barrel appears to be Richmond while the stock and the barrel bands are Harpers Ferry. I'm not familiar with the mark on the buttplate, but I'll try to find it in my Richmond Arsenal book later today. Ive not seen a lock with the hump cut flat but as I said I know very little about Richmonds. I'll see what I can find in the book.

Congrats on the acquisition!

Looking in both the CS Armory Richmond book and the book Confederate Rifles and Muskets I haven't been able to find an example or note about an iron buttplate with that type of marking. Seems the use of iron buttplates discontinued in or around March 1862. From what I've read the iron buttplates were either marked US or unmarked.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

I've never seen a mark like the mark on the buttplate, and it looks crisper than the metal on the rest of the gun, so I think likely added after the period of use.

But the flattened top of the lockplate is of the type discussed in the CS Richmond book - the author Paul J. Davies shows photos of several. His opinion is that some of the high hump lockplates (the 1861 and early 1862 dates ones) were ground down by hand for ease of use, expecially the capping by hand of the cone/nipple. The high hump lockplates provided no clearance btween the hammer curving over the hump and the plate, and I suppose created more chances to pinch fingers.
In any event, Davies wrote that these were not uniformly ground down, so not held in a jig, but done by hand. He thought these were filed down when the arms came back for repairs.
I've got a very early 1861 Richmond, made before the works was taken over the Confederate States, and so not marked CS over the RICHMOND, and it has this same type of flattened top.

 

[JackADriscoll]

Is it possible it's an armourer mark denoting spare parts?

 

[iron bender]

Thanks for all the observations and comments! I typically won't jump at an item I'm not familiar with, but this was a reasonable deal, and seeing 6k plus prices on similar pieces made me lay down the $ on this one. I have multiple books on Confederate arms/equipment, but nothing about the Richmond specifically. I know just enough to hopefully not get raked over the coals. Again thanks, and hopefully you all have a great 2024! Jordan

 

[rob63]

Coincidentally, literally today, I just read the epilogue of Confederate Odyssey: The George W. Wray Civil War Collection at the Atlanta History Center.

The curator states that "Most famously, the Richmond Armory was known for improvisation: damaged rifle-musket barrels were cut down into carbines, while barrels, bands, buttplates, and entire locks from US-made arms were cleaned, repaired, and reused to fill out production. Of fifteen Richmond Armory weapons in the Wray Collection, only two are composed entirely of Confederate-made parts."

I think that statement pretty well summarizes the inherent difficulty in being sure of anything on these guns.

 

[Lanyard Puller]

The quote above mentions the "curator" of the Atlanta History Center.
That gentleman is Dr. Gordon Jones, PhD. Gordon spent several days going through my collection on 2 different visits.
He has seen, handled, and photographed more Confederate weapons than most of us will ever see.
The " * " would have been added, in all probability, after it left the Richmond Armory