1864 Springfield Musket

[Specster]

If you had the opportunity to buy one Civil War Era rifle, would the Springfield 1864 be on your list? I have a chance at obtaining one but, I also had a chance at similar rifles. I do not have the means of buying many period rifles, would people consider this model desireable? It does have a bayonet and sling.

 

[Old Hickory]

If condition is nice, you bet! The 1864 is a gem, and with conversions done to many to center fire, they're tougher to find than production numbers suggest. They're the pinnacle of Springfield muzzle loaders.

 

[frankconrad]

I would have no qualms about the 64, depending on the condition and the price. the bayonet and sling being a plus.
To me do you like and want it, buy it for you, not what someone else thinks, enjoy it, if you enjoy it, great you are the one who should be happy.

 

[johan_steele]

I own one because I wanted an M1864 as the last percussion & muzzle loading arm adopted by the US Army. I paid a little too much for mine because it is essentially non fireable and I didn't know that at the time I bought it. But outwardly mine is in really nice condition w/out the bayonet. As Old Hickory suggested they are harder to find than one might imagine.

 

[Specster]

I saw the 1864 and I have my boubts now as to it being authentic. The bayonet had no maker marks and did not have "US" as most do. The barrel did not have maker markers. On the plate the Eagle, the word Springfield and the date 1864 were weak, they look etched as much as looked engraved. The rifle only had 2 bands. I will send pics shortly. I need to use a different device.

 

[Specster]

If you had the opportunity to buy one Civil War Era rifle, would the Springfield 1864 be on your list? I have a chance at obtaining one but, I also had a chance at similar rifles. I do not have the means of buying many period rifles, would people consider this model desireable? It does have a bayonet and sling.

 

[Specster]

View attachment 53178

 

[Specster]

View attachment 53179

 

[Specster]

View attachment 53180

 

[johan_steele]

That is an M1866 Trapdoor Springfield not an M1864. It is a desirable Trapdoor for those who collect such.

 

[frontrank2]

That is an M1866 Trapdoor Springfield not an M1864. It is a desirable Trapdoor for those who collect such.

You bet! Those 50-70's are getting harder to find. My first collectible firearm was my 1884 trapdoor which I bought in 1983 for $225. I got a mint bayonet with a decent scabbard a year later for $35. And I still got both the rifle and the bayonet. I used to shoot it competetively with a light load of smokeless powder. Can't touch a decent trapdoor now for under $600 and so - so bayonets are $150 & up.

 

[Specster]

That is an M1866 Trapdoor Springfield not an M1864. It is a desirable Trapdoor for those who collect such.

Would an 1866 Trapdoor be marked on the plate 1864? It is the rifle just below the japanese sword.

The Trapdoor was never used in the ACW, correct?

 

[frontrank2]

Would an 1866 Trapdoor be marked on the plate 1864? It is the rifle just below the japanese sword.

The Trapdoor was never used in the ACW, correct?

Perhaps I can answer that question. The models 1866, and 1868 were surplus .58 cal. muskets left over from the ACW and converted for the use of a center fire cartridge by installing .50 cal. sleeves into the old .58 cal. musket barrels. The Army wanted to keep costs down so they salvaged many parts from the obsolete muskets. Locks, stock furniture, and stocks themselves were reused with some minor modifications to construct these upgraded rifles. So IMHO, it is entirely possible that the trapdoor in question could have an 1864 date on it. Unfortunately the advent of the Trapdoor Rifle is post - Civil War.

 

[Specster]

Perhaps I can answer that question. The models 1866, and 1868 were surplus .58 cal. muskets left over from the ACW and converted for the use of a center fire cartridge by installing .50 cal. sleeves into the old .58 cal. musket barrels. The Army wanted to keep costs down so they salvaged many parts from the obsolete muskets. Locks, stock furniture, and stocks themselves were reused with some minor modifications to construct these upgraded rifles. So IMHO, it is entirely possible that the trapdoor in question could have an 1864 date on it. Unfortunately the advent of the Trapdoor Rifle is post - Civil War.

I dont know if I can agree. This rifle is not center fire, The firing pin is offset to the right. The rifle lacks marks and has two rings holding the barrel to the stock and it should have 3, or am I mistaken on all this. Does the fact that there is no "US" mark on the bayonet not raise a red flag?

 

[frankconrad]

I would be willing to bet that if you open the breech fully that you will see that the firing pin comes out in the center of the face of the breech block. It is offset on the back end so that the 1864 type hammer will strike the firing pin, with out major rework and if that was done the hammer and firing pin would obstruct the sights.
I am not a bayonet man but bayonets without US stamp are not uncommon.

 

[johan_steele]

There are no modern repro's of the M1866 Trapdoor Springfield. That said it is possible to put one together from original disassociated parts w/ relative ease. One of the major reasons the Trapdoor System was adopted over the excellent Peabody or Sharps was that there were so many M1864's on inventory and the trapdoor system could easily convert existing models as well as use up the on hand elements at Springfield Arsenal.

The girl you have pictured is a post war M1866, likely made up from leftover M1864 parts. It's important to understand that there were elements of the M1864 still present in the M1903. Springfield did it's best not to waste parts.

As to the value of the M1866... I've seen them in the $2600 range for one in mint condition w/ bayonet but I've also recently seen one go for $850 which was IMO a good price even though the stock was quite rough.

 

[Specster]

Perhaps I can answer that question. The models 1866, and 1868 were surplus .58 cal. muskets left over from the ACW and converted for the use of a center fire cartridge by installing .50 cal. sleeves into the old .58 cal. musket barrels. The Army wanted to keep costs down so they salvaged many parts from the obsolete muskets. Locks, stock furniture, and stocks themselves were reused with some minor modifications to construct these upgraded rifles. So IMHO, it is entirely possible that the trapdoor in question could have an 1864 date on it. Unfortunately the advent of the Trapdoor Rifle is post - Civil War.

You are largely correct. See my response below.

 

[Specster]

Based on your and Johnans comments, I was still not comfortable with what I was seeing in this rifle. It seemed "hinky". You guys are correct that 1864 rifles were sold as surplus and modified thereafter in a number of ways.

I took the photos I had (I did not post all of them) and went to the Springfield Armory Museum today. It is now run by the NPS. A met a ranger who had great knowledge of these weapons. My photos were not the best (Thank u Samsung), yet, even w/ the pics I had the ranger could tell there were many modifications to this rifle - u could not say it was simply a 1886 Trapdoor. From what I recall, he said the rifle had been cut down - the barrel was not as long as it should be. One of the rings is missing and the front one was is jury rigged to an arbitrary place. The receiver for the sling is incorrect (jury rigged) and the sling itself is not authentic. The maker marks on the barrel are either absent or covered by the new Trapdoor hardware. The stock itself was "rounded" in several places where it had sharp edges in the 1864 and 1866 incarnations. He showed me more rifles and said the one I had pics of was closer to or had many features of the, I think 1886 trapdoor.

The rifle is most likely a sport conversion which incorporates many parts, some of which may be unique. I was hoping to buy a rifle which had the chance of being in the civil war - he got a kick out of that and asked me if I was going to pursue this. I said no and he thought that was a pretty good idea.

PS - I have visited this armory 3 times now. I typically carve time out of my work day to go, when I am in the area. One could never assimilate all the material (artifacts, publications and video), in 6 months never mind of few hours. The ranger today showed me a Springfield that was recovered from an indian after Little Big Horn and said that they had forensic proof that the rifle was used at LBH based on ballistic analysis of bullets found at the site. I think that is pretty impressive.

Thank you all for your help and responses.

 

[frontrank2]

Based on your and Johnans comments, I was still not comfortable with what I was seeing in this rifle. It seemed "hinky". You guys are correct that 1864 rifles were sold as surplus and modified thereafter in a number of ways.

I took the photos I had (I did not post all of them) and went to the Springfield Armory Museum today. It is now run by the NPS. A met a ranger who had great knowledge of these weapons. My photos were not the best (Thank u Samsung), yet, even w/ the pics I had the ranger could tell there were many modifications to this rifle - u could not say it was simply a 1886 Trapdoor. From what I recall, he said the rifle had been cut down - the barrel was not as long as it should be. One of the rings is missing and the front one was is jury rigged to an arbitrary place. The receiver for the sling is incorrect (jury rigged) and the sling itself is not authentic. The maker marks on the barrel are either absent or covered by the new Trapdoor hardware. The stock itself was "rounded" in several places where it had sharp edges in the 1864 and 1866 incarnations. He showed me more rifles and said the one I had pics of was closer to or had many features of the, I think 1886 trapdoor.

The rifle is most likely a sport conversion which incorporates many parts, some of which may be unique. I was hoping to buy a rifle which had the chance of being in the civil war - he got a kick out of that and asked me if I was going to pursue this. I said no and he thought that was a pretty good idea.

PS - I have visited this armory 3 times now. I typically carve time out of my work day to go, when I am in the area. One could never assimilate all the material (artifacts, publications and video), in 6 months never mind of few hours. The ranger today showed me a Springfield that was recovered from an indian after Little Big Horn and said that they had forensic proof that the rifle was used at LBH based on ballistic analysis of bullets found at the site. I think that is pretty impressive.

Thank you all for your help and responses.

Too bad, that rifle doesn't sound very appealing. FYI, you should check out these guys from time to time. I've used them a couple of times and I find them honest and reliable: http://www.lodgewood.com/Muskets-and-Other-Rifles_c_123.html
Many of the rifles are repros, but quite a few are authentic.

 

[Specster]

Too bad, that rifle doesn't sound very appealing. FYI, you should check out these guys from time to time. I've used them a couple of times and I find them honest and reliable: http://www.lodgewood.com/Muskets-and-Other-Rifles_c_123.html
Many of the rifles are repros, but quite a few are authentic.

I visited the site could referred. They have a nice inventory and their prices seem reasonable and fair. Yet, I have been fooled when holdimg the item in my hands as well as giving pics to people who know much more than I do. I dont think I would ever by a CW era Springfield without holding it and examining it first. When I started collecting I met a gent who was a collector of Picasso paintings. He told me the 1st 3 he bought were fakes. He said it was part of the process - losing all that money made him doubt everything and he was never burned again (at least he thinks he has not been! 3 times a charm??).

I have been burned, I learned an expensive lesson and I question everything - an the auctioneers sometimes get livid that I pull out a loop and a magnet, take multiple pics etc., If they had nothing to hide whydo they get upset?

And I dont mean to insinuate, by extension, that your guy is a cheat. I am just saying that I am very careful now - someone on this site told me 90% of CW items are repros - and I am not talking about people selling items as repros, im talking about people saying they are true CW era. And I no this is not news to the informed but genuine Southern CW items are very difficult to find.