Tell me more! Springfield 1863 - No barrel proof?

Pgapro112

Cadet
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
I recently came across this Model 1863, type 2, Springfield, 3-band, rifle that looked like a nice example...great inspector stock cartouches! I do have a concern though...as you can see in the pics thebarrel isn't dated and isn't VP/eagle proofed...is this OK or has it been messed with / replaced at some point. I will say that the overall rifle matches in patina, isn't a looker (well used!) and certainly looks like it's been together for the long haul but I'm concerned about the lack of proof on the barrel.

I'm new to Civil War rifles (mostly a WWII guy) and wanted to know your thoughts?

20200816_120201.jpg

20200816_120214.jpg

20200816_120259.jpg

20200816_120249.jpg
 
Joined
May 1, 2015
Location
Upstate N.Y.
Well I see something on the barrel flat, but can not make it out. The stock cartouches RPB is Robert P. Beals which would be correct. The other one I believe to be EBB. Only listing is a Edgar B. Boyd an inspector in 1862, but no listing of where. So can't say for sure on that one.
 

Pgapro112

Cadet
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Thanks John - you're right...on the barrel flat is an old date (hopefully you can see it the pic - it's hard to get a good pic of it). I can make out "186" can't read the last date but looks to have a curve at the top so I'm thinking 1863.

I also added some additional pics of the barrel, bands and other pics. I was surprised to hear someone say that the barrel might have been replaced as to me it look like the bands and barrel have patina'd almost perfectly together and if the barrel was replaced I'd be expecting a different wear or patina. Maybe now having a date on the barrel flat will help that thought one way or another?

Also, to me the rifle looked pretty all original which is what I've been hunting to find - except for the buttpate which I'm guessing is a replacement since it lacks the "US" marking - replacement right?

I'm just trying to get an old warhorse that's as close to all original as I can get for a good CW representative piece...I was willing to bend with it having a replacement buttplate but if the barrel was replaced then that kinda sours me on this piece even though it was a few items that I found as major pluses (original ramrod, both sling swivels intact, and nice inspector cartouches).

Any more thoughts on the barrel or changes since I was able to find a date?

20200816_175147.jpg


20200816_175315.jpg


20200816_175348.jpg


20200816_175405.jpg


20200816_175422.jpg


20200816_175432.jpg


20200816_175454.jpg


20200816_175500.jpg


20200816_175508.jpg
 

mofederal

Major
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
Location
Southeast Missouri
Thanks for the pics Pgapro112. It looks very good to me, the barrel being replaced might effect value, but it is still a fine looking rifle. The barrel might have been replaced a long time ago.
 

johan_steele

Regimental Armorer
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
South of the North 40
I’m looking at pics via my phone. But I agree there is something off about that barrel to wood fit. You’re right about the patina matching though. Whatever was done was done a long time ago. I would hang it on the wall and be happy with her though. If you’re wanting it appraised or valued that’s another thing.
 

ucvrelics

Colonel
Forum Host
Regtl. Quartermaster Shiloh 2020
Joined
May 7, 2016
Location
Alabama
Any more thoughts on the barrel or changes since I was able to find a date?
Thanks for the additional photos. The butt plate is a replacement but still a nice looking piece. The 1863 are very week on most but look real close and see if you see the VP and Eagle head mark as these are normal deep stamping. Also, if you look the tang fits pretty well on most of these.

courtesy of Harry Ridgeway
1597619360161.png
 

Jeff in Ohio

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
This rife-musket still has pitting, and that area at the breach of the barrel is often the most pitted because of the corrosive spatter from the percussion caps - just look at the corrosion on the bolster where the nipple fastens, and the heavy pitting on the rear sight.
That area you've asking about was cleaned up by someone who filed it down to make it look better and that removed those markings. You can see how the barrel next to the rear sight still has some pitting, but the flats farther back are smooth!
I don't see that the buttplate is replaced. I think it was filed down to remove roughness and might well be the original plate. Look at that heavily pitted screw though the tang of the buttplate - the whole buttplate might have been that rough before it was smoothed out.
Especially when a longarm has been left for decades standing on dirt or concrete, that butt area gets moisture and will rust heavily
 
Last edited:

Story

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Location
SE PA


I'm new to Civil War rifles (mostly a WWII guy) and wanted to know your thoughts?

View attachment 370066

Look at those 45 degree diagonal scars on the barrel, just in front of the tang.

If there's matching marks 180 degrees from those, on the bottom of the barrel, then it's an indicator that the barrel could have been clamped in a vice and cranked into that tang.
 

Pgapro112

Cadet
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Story - No marks underneath and those scratches extend onto the tang, and others are present solely on the back of the tang as well, as well so I don't think this are vice marks.

All - any idea of a ballpark value on this rifle?
 
Top