Musket identification

[FreshPrince711]

Hello! I got this musket at a yard sale. Owner didn't know what it was, thought it was a reproduction. I scooped it up, then I looked at it closer. I can't tell if this is an old defarb, or an original. I've shown a bunch of guys from my unit, some very knowledgeable, and they said that due to primarily the inspection markings and the way the breech plug is set, it's an unusual thing for a repro to do. The ramrod is repro (two parts), and perhaps the screw. Now, I'm also looking at the sling swivel. Someone mentioned it's an 1863 Colt Contract, which due to the barrel bands I believe, but the lack of other markings (slight eagle visible, no other barrel markings) I really wonder what it is.

1861 lock plate, 1863 hammer and bands...it's such a mismatch of parts I wonder if anyone here can make heads or tails of it. I heard a Japanese company Miroku used to make excellent repros....I wonder if it's a repro or original? Thanks in advance.

 

[FreshPrince711]

And yes, I already flipped the U on the barrel bands to the correct side.

 

[Cornpone and Molasses]

That's not a re-production but it has also been heavily cleaned.

 

[bayonet]

See the how the Butt Plate extends beyond the Butt Stock at the bottom? That shows original that you will see on many originals so the stock is original. It's due to age and the shrinking of the wood over time. The nipple looks like a repro part. That lockplate should have a earlier Hammer, that Hammer belongs on a 1863-65 musket not 1861. So that was added plus that Hammer screw possibly looks repro. C&M is right it's been heavily cleaned. So what did you pay for it? That would tell us if you got a great deal!

 

[FreshPrince711]

See the how the Butt Plate extends beyond the Butt Stock at the bottom? That shows original that you will see on many originals so the stock is original. It's due to age and the shrinking of the wood over time. The nipple looks like a repro part. That lockplate should have a earlier Hammer, that Hammer belongs on a 1863-65 musket not 1861. So that was added plus that Hammer screw possibly looks repro. C&M is right it's been heavily cleaned. So what did you pay for it? That would tell us if you got a great deal!

$700. I think it is a colt contract just due to the lack of band retentions on the stock. I figure the original lock must've gotten damaged and someone field-replaced it with a 61. Considering the pitting on both the lock and hammer, I figure it happened within the same time frame to get the same damage later on.

 

[FreshPrince711]

See the how the Butt Plate extends beyond the Butt Stock at the bottom? That shows original that you will see on many originals so the stock is original. It's due to age and the shrinking of the wood over time. The nipple looks like a repro part. That lockplate should have a earlier Hammer, that Hammer belongs on a 1863-65 musket not 1861. So that was added plus that Hammer screw possibly looks repro. C&M is right it's been heavily cleaned. So what did you pay for it? That would tell us if you got a great deal!

What about the rear sling swivel screw? Wasn't that a weld job on originals?

 

[bayonet]

What about the rear sling swivel screw? Wasn't that a weld job on originals?

On mine yes, in fact it's like that on both sling swivels, no screw. Never thought about that. Someone could answer that better here.

 

[bayonet]

$700. I think it is a colt contract just due to the lack of band retentions on the stock. I figure the original lock must've gotten damaged and someone field-replaced it with a 61. Considering the pitting on both the lock and hammer, I figure it happened within the same time frame to get the same damage later on.

Well that was risky at $700 when you didn't know a lot at the time. For alittle more $ maybe got a fully original in good condition. There are many on auction right now with one auction house flooded with them. They look to be going for $1200 and less!

 

[Rhea Cole]

Just for general information. Muskets were refurbished by depots during the war. They recycled parts, so just having a collection of parts does not completely discredit your piece.

 

[Kyle Kalasnik]

I think you did pretty well, congratulations.

 

[RetiredCanuck]

If this is an 1861 should it not have solid bands?
This one looks like it has the spilt style a la M1863.
Is that a function of it being a Colt contract item?

 

[Cornpone and Molasses]

I agree with Kyle. Congratulations.

 

[Cornpone and Molasses]

If this is an 1861 should it not have solid bands?
This one looks like it has the spilt style a la M1863.
Is that a function of it being a Colt contract item?

The lockplate was possibly replaced during the war.

 

[Old Soldier]

That's the problem with strict interchangability. It leaves the contract firm's factory with parts from the contractor. Some have parts whose STYLE is unique to that contractor, but still interchangable. This ideal ends as soon as the arm goes into depot refurbishment. It can be fitted with parts from any other maker to make good any defects or damage sustained in the field. This can be new parts supplied as 'spares' or, more likely, good parts salvaged from damaged pieces that have been written off. Equally, it could be sold on and repaired by a local gunsmith using those same components. You cannot win.

 

[Conquerordie]

I think the only thing you can say is it's a Parts gun. They may be original parts from the time, and it's a possibility that it was done during the time, but the end result is the same.

Like Old Soldier stated, it's the curse of interchangeability.

 

[bayonet]

Just for general information. Muskets were refurbished by depots during the war. They recycled parts, so just having a collection of parts does not completely discredit your piece.

It was also done after the war. Bannerman was probably king of that.

 

[Rhea Cole]

It was also done after the war. Bannerman was probably king of that.

The major steps forward in standardization of parts made the remanufacturing both possible & profitable. A far cry from when every matchlock had a custom bullet mold.

I recently examined a bored out rifled barrel shotgun conversion. It has hung over a fireplace for (+/-) 100 years.

 

[bayonet]

The major steps forward in standardization of parts made the remanufacturing both possible & profitable. A far cry from when every matchlock had a custom bullet mold.

I recently examined a bored out rifled barrel shotgun conversion. It has hung over a fireplace for (+/-) 100 years.

Sounds like what my Father had, a bored out cut down barrel of a 1863 Windsor Locks that he hung over the fireplace. I traded it away when I inherited it. Guess you have it now!

 

[Old Soldier]

No, not a real 'Windsor'. Windsor went bust in 1856 and transferred the machinery and a british contract to Vermont Arms Co, who also failed in 1858 and sold up after completing the British order for the Crimean War. 15,000 of their 25,000 Type 2 P53s were send to Britain - and inspired Enfield to bulk up their mass-production. The remainder stayed in the USA and were sold off, many to Georgia. All bore the name Windsor on the lock plate.

Colt bought the machinery in 1858 and hid it away. After Harpers Ferry was destroyed the federals needed arms ASAP so Colt resurrected the machinery and used it to fleece the federal government, signing up to manufacture the Springfield M1861, but producing the P53s instead with a few tweaks in design - the cheap way. It became known as the Special Model 1861 Contract Rifle-Musket and was produced on the old R&L Windsor Enfield tooling by Colt, Amoskeag Manufacturing, LG&Y, and EG Lamson from 1861-65.

 

[bayonet]

No, not a real 'Windsor'. Windsor went bust in 1856 and transferred the machinery and a british contract to Vermont Arms Co, who also failed in 1858 and sold up after completing the British order for the Crimean War. 15,000 of their 25,000 Type 2 P53s were send to Britain - and inspired Enfield to bulk up their mass-production. The remainder stayed in the USA and were sold off, many to Georgia. All bore the name Windsor on the lock plate.

Colt bought the machinery in 1858 and hid it away. After Harpers Ferry was destroyed the federals needed arms ASAP so Colt resurrected the machinery and used it to fleece the federal government, signing up to manufacture the Springfield M1861, but producing the P53s instead with a few tweaks in design - the cheap way. It became known as the Special Model 1861 Contract Rifle-Musket and was produced on the old R&L Windsor Enfield tooling by Colt, Amoskeag Manufacturing, LG&Y, and EG Lamson from 1861-65.
View attachment 566476

No as in Wm Muir & Co of WINDSOR LOCKS, Connecticut that made 30,000 muskets for Uncle Sam at $20 each but some went as low as $15.90 if not up to snuff!