Bridesburg Model 1863 (Type 2)

[kotkinjs1]

Hi,
Just acquired a late Bridesburg contract musket Model 1863. The lock is 63 dated while everything else is later - 1864 barrel, spring bands. I guess at some point an earlier lock was installed in a late-produced musket 'body.' Quite normal I guess for late-war stage production or repair requirements?

 

[Cornpone and Molasses]

Wow, that's a beautiful musket and excellent photography! Congratulations!

 

[Conquerordie]

During its use during the war, a replacement lock could have been used as a repair.
These all had interchangable parts. It also could have been done in 1982 when Joe Schmo picked up a musket without a lock, and this was the first one he found that fit. The lock has a rough look, patina to it. The hammer looks like it might have file marks on it. The barrel, furniture, and stock look in a better condition. Any cartouches opposite the lock?

 

[bayonet]

During its use during the war, a replacement lock could have been used as a repair.
These all had interchangable parts. It also could have been done in 1982 when Joe Schmo picked up a musket without a lock, and this was the first one he found that fit. The lock has a rough look, patina to it. The hammer looks like it might have file marks on it. The barrel, furniture, and stock look in a better condition. Any cartouches opposite the lock?

Wondering that too in 1982! That nipple looks like its been thru a ringer. Is there a U stamped on the barrel bands? The ramrod looks super clean. Some of the musket looks in better condition than other parts. So just wondering if it's a parts gun? What you pay for it?

 

[kotkinjs1]

Any cartouches opposite the lock?

Actually yes! At first I didn't see them but after closer inspection they are very faintly there!

Wondering that too in 1982! That nipple looks like its been thru a ringer. Is there a U stamped on the barrel bands? The ramrod looks super clean. Some of the musket looks in better condition than other parts. So just wondering if it's a parts gun? What you pay for it?

Yes the whole thing is very clean (has been cleaned) except for the lock and perhaps the hammer like you mentioned - those parts don't match the rest of the rifle IMO either. But the ramrod is threaded, there are U stamps on the bands, and I bought it at auction so I usually find that's different than 'market price' in shops or on Gunbroker - only 750.

 

[plymouthairrifle]

Is it polite to come right out and ask someone "what did you pay for it"? When someone ask me what did you pay for it I always say "CASH"

 

[kotkinjs1]

Is it polite to come right out and ask someone "what did you pay for it"? When someone ask me what did you pay for it I always say "CASH"

I always take the inevitable responses (OMG that's way too much, you're crazy; OMG what a steal, you're lucky) with a grain of salt anyway. There's always going to be someone who tries to rain on your parade anyway. At the end of the day it's what I felt comfortable paying for what I could figure out about the specific example.

 

[Conquerordie]

I think you got a good deal. I think the lock is a replacement, but I wouldn't call it a parts gun. Id clean up the lock or find one that is dated 1864.

 

[Drumfish420]

Beautiful rifle! I have one as well but mine doesn't have the spring bands and its a '63 too; interesting.

 

[bayonet]

Is it polite to come right out and ask someone "what did you pay for it"? When someone ask me what did you pay for it I always say "CASH"

Here it is so we can determine if you got a good deal, broke even, or got taken to the cleaners (so take it back and demand your $ back). But I guess this generation is so sensitive to just about everything, thank goodness for Puppies to hug to make it all better! Oh yes I'd say you got a good deal and Auctions are the way to go I say.

 

[Kyle Kalasnik]

Wow, that's a beautiful musket and excellent photography! Congratulations!

I agree.

I don't know what is better. The firearm or the photo.

The OP did a outstanding job on the photography.

 

[Old Soldier]

I agree.

I don't know what is better. The firearm or the photo.

The OP did a outstanding job on the photography.

Why not both?

 

[scooter748driver]

Looks like a nice example! Thanks for sharing it

 

[kotkinjs1]

I haven't taken it apart yet but would there be any distinguishing stamps on the underside of the barrel for a Bridesburg vs Springfield?

 

[kotkinjs1]

These are the only other stamps on the barrel. I was thinking there'd be stamps underneath the barrel but must've had English muskets on my mind.

Are these stamps indicative of one maker over another? I'm trying to determine if the Bridesburg lock isn't original and I think I read somewhere, now I can't remember where, that they didn't make 'Type 2' model 63s, only Springfield did. Might the body (barrel, stock) be Springfield as indicated by the style or type of stamps on the barrel?

 

[Old Soldier]

Somewhere underneath you will find 14.4 - 14.4mm is the calibre of .557" in metric. You will also get a series of numbers or, more likely the assembler's mark - a series of straight punches into the metal - which should be the same on all major units including the stock. Your lock may well not match those - they are on the EDGE of the lock. This is from my Snider carbine, made and converted in Belgium, but on issue in Britain:

 

[Conquerordie]

I was looking at Whisker,Hartzler, and Yantz in the Bridesburg section, and the cartouches seem to be in a different place than yours. Looking at all the inspection marks on your breech and the cartouches you pictured, I think you have a Springfield rifle, with a Bridesburg lock.

 

[kotkinjs1]

Resolved!
Anyone need a Bridesburg lock?