Question about 1842 Springfield in comparison to other firearms...

matfor13

Cadet
Joined
Jan 3, 2016
Location
Chicago, Illinois
Hi guys and gals,

After being out of the reenacting hobby for a few years due to being in college, I have the itch to get back involved and join up again since I'm graduating in a few months. Reenacting provided some of my best memories and the camaraderie was amazing.

I'm going to be looking at finally purchasing a gun and I'm leaning towards the 1842 Springfield. I'm a federal reenactor and everyone has told me it is underrepresented in the ranks when compared to 1853 Enfield and 1855/1861/1863 Springfield.

I am wondering if there is a significant difference when using the 1842 Springfield smoothbore when compared to the other rifled guns. I am most likely never going to be live firing it...just using it for black power firing.

Is the pricing significantly different? Is the cleaning process more or less intensive with a smoothbore than a rifled gun? Are there more quirks and things about the 1842 model that I should be aware of? I've even heard that with some manufacturers, the 1842 is quite a bit heavier. However, I've never had them next to one another so I haven't compared and I'm somewhat skeptical of that claim.

I've never owned another firearm so this will be my first and I want to make sure I'm fully invested in what I'm getting myself into. If you know any answers to my questions, please answer. Looking for all the information I can get!

Thank you so much,
Matthew
 
The Armi-Sport M1842 is one of the best out of the box repros on offer.

The M1842 is easy to clean and maintain. The Armi-Sport M1842's I've handled are only marginally heavier than my original and I'd actually say it's lighter than their Enfield or M1861.

The cons are the added length make it a little more difficult to transport & the bayonet is more expensive though it is of a higher quality than most of the ACW bayonet repros.

http://www.lodgewood.com/Muskets-and-Other-Rifles_c_123.html
 
Matfor13 - The M-1842 is extremely versatile, having been used throughout the entire war. As for buying a reproduction the only real choice is ArmiSport. They come with a manufacturer's warranty. I would strongly recommend you stay away from the Indian imports, which are actually imported as "decorators".
J.
 
The Armi Sport 42's are nice repros. I bought mine brand new back in 2002. Carried it when I was a second unit extra in "Gods and Generals". I guess you could call that re-enacting. If you opt for the '42 be sure to get the bayonet and scabbard for it as well. Wow, they sure have gone up in price. IIRC I paid like $475 brand new for mine back then.....and that was a lot!!
 
Only drawback is the amount of powder needed for the proper "boom", if you put a .58 (60 grains) load in her it will sound like someone with bad gas. Cleaning is easier than a rifled piece but the larger bore does need more powder to go boom IMHO.

They are easier to load with the larger throat......
 
The armi sport 1842 is one of the best repros out of the box. It is very versatile for both federal and Confederate impressions as well. It is true that by 1864 they would be pretty rare in federal ranks, but so were 1861 Springfield and Enfields early war yet we see them all the time. The only drawback is it consumes more powder. I need about 100 grains for realible ignition and good report. You won't be able to borrow your pards rounds.
 
The Armi Sport US 1842 is right up there with the Pedersoli P53 Enfield in terms of being accurate to the originals right out of the box. I have written and published quite a bit in praise of this particular reproduction, which I won't repeat here other than to toss out a couple thoughts before you make your purchase. First, Armi Sport offers a "defarbed" version, which has a more accurately contoured ramrod (the original reproduction had an odd shape to it which was nothing like the original) and the modern markings relocated under the barrel. It is worth the difference to have this model over the standard version.

Second, it is so close that original bayonets will fit the barrel easily, and with the price of reproduction bayonets for this model being what they are, I would spring for an original US 1842 bayonet.
 
Last edited:
Depending on your event participation, you will find at times that having a only a "42" could be limiting you on events that are mid/late war. I'm of the opinion that you almost need a 1842, AND an Enfield, or 61 Springfield!

Kevin Dally
 
Welcome From The Heart Of Dixie. Wish I could help but my area is original CW weapons but it looks like you got a enough info to make an informed decision. Let us know what you go with.
 
The only real problem with the repro 42 is the ramrod shape, and is a typical 2-piece affair, front sight blade is steel, not brass, and the hammer had way too much of a "hump" on top of it.
The 1st picture shows a terribly shaped ramrod head, I was in the process of converting the sight blade into a brass one.
The 2nd picture shows the ramrod having been reworked to mirror an original, the sight blade is finished.
The 3rd picture shows the incorrect hammer shape.
The 4th picture shows how an original hammer looks.
The 1842 is a great repro to have. It may need a bit of work to upgrade it.

Kevin Dally
 

Attachments

  • 42 factory RR.jpg
    42 factory RR.jpg
    65.4 KB · Views: 379
  • 42 reworked sight-ramrod 2.jpg
    42 reworked sight-ramrod 2.jpg
    94.6 KB · Views: 694
  • 42 repro hammer shape.jpg
    42 repro hammer shape.jpg
    21.9 KB · Views: 470
  • 42 original.JPG
    42 original.JPG
    53.2 KB · Views: 402
Tin cup is correct on all counts! I think it could benefit from having some wood removed/thinned out, and some reshaping of the butt stock. However, at that point you are getting into a very time consuming total rebuild.
J.
 
If you want it to be reworked to that degree, I would approach it differently. The nice part is that the Armi Sport reproduction is so close to the original that you can incorporate some original parts onto it, and those that don't fit perfectly can be filed or modified so they will work. For example, an original hammer or trigger. An early problem with the reproduction US 1842s was the top of the trigger would wear and slip off the sear which left the trigger stuck in the back of the trigger guard. First thing I did with my reproduction US 1842 was replace the soft machine grade reproduction trigger with an original part. It's not just the trigger, in fact many internal lock parts interchange with originals, too (although the mainspring will require fitting). You can't really do much of that with the reproduction US model 1861 or P53 Enfield from Armi Sport. They just aren't that close.

Another thing worth mentioning is the Armi Sport US 1842 came out in 1996, which is over twenty years ago now. What I have found is that the first generation(s) made back in the mid-to-late 1990s have slightly different tolerances from those made more recently. No doubt this is due to slight differences in the tooling and casting dies as they wear out and have to be replaced. For example, parts like the top barrel band from an Armi Sport US 1842 made in the 1990s may not easily fit onto one made more recently. Todd Watts used to have a program where you could buy a top barrel band with a brass sight blade and send him yours for a trade-in. I tried that once and the reproduction front band with a brass sight that I got in exchange for mine did not fit it. I got it to fit but you would think something like that would just slide right on. Maybe or maybe not.

It really says a lot about the state of Civil War reproduction muskets that even the very best of them can require a little work to be similar in appearance and function to originals. This was actually the whole point behind writing The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy back in 2006. Some require a whole lot of work.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to agree that the top band has changed throughout the production run. I bought my 1842 around 2011 and the top part of the top band was "bent" and at an angle, so that it would prevent my armi sport bayonet from sliding on. I had to file the front of the band down for it to fit.
 
Back
Top