Springfield stock cartouche

[military collector]

Question on Springfield stock cartouche-I have noticed on several fine to excellent model 1842 Springfield muskets the lack of a stock cartouche. I understand why there are differences in the lockplate and tang dates but have not been able to find any information on why a stock cartouche would be missing from an otherwise perfect musket. Can anyone shed some light on this subject

 

[Specster]

Question on Springfield stock cartouche-I have noticed on several fine to excellent model 1842 Springfield muskets the lack of a stock cartouche. I understand why there are differences in the lockplate and tang dates but have not been able to find any information on why a stock cartouche would be missing from an otherwise perfect musket. Can anyone shed some light on this subject

Im sure someone(s) can but I am not going to volunteer their services for them.

 

[hrobalabama]

I presume it is a replacement stock or it was sold to a private buyer. The "cartouche" was the military inspectors final mark before being issued to troops. It could have been sold to a militia or a state.

 

[Jobe Holiday]

Well, hrobalabama poses the possibility of a replacement stock, which seems reasonable.....but by whom? We have to keep in mind we are discussing the M-1842 Musket only. If the stock were replaced by a U.S. Armory, such as Springfield or Harper's Ferry, the stock would have had Inspector stamps indicating the restocking was accepted. So, where do we go from here? The answer may be to the South! The C.S. Armory at Richmond assembled many hundreds of Model 1842 Muskets from parts captured from Harper's Ferry which were sent to Richmond. Were the replacement stocks given inspector stamps, I don't know and rather doubt it. In addition to that, many thousands of M-1842 Muskets were restocked from battlefield damaged arms which were salvaged throughout the numerous depots in South. I suspect that these restocked muskets did not receive inspector stock stamps of any type! Just food for thought.
J.

 

[Craig L Barry]

Agree with Jobe, also the stocks were not deeply stamped with inspection marks and they wore off with normal handling sometimes. Refinishing the stock with boiled linseed oil will "heal" minor marks in the wood as well. I know from doing research on the Richmond Armory that they had an inspection process but have not come across any evidence that there was a certain cartouche in use as there was at the US Armories.

 

[Grayrock Volunteer]

If I really correctly, Richmond arms feature a SA inside a rectangle for Salmon Adams, the master armorer at the facility.
I personally am leery of classifying any good condition M1842 without stock cartouches as a CS restock. As Craig mentioned, it doesn't take much for the cartridges to be worn off. Additionally, US arsenals placed quite a few contracts for M1842 parts during the war. Its even possible that some of the repaired Harpers Ferry M1842 muskets from the 1849 (?) flood could have been restocked due to water damage.

 

[Jobe Holiday]

There are other indicators of salvage station restocking, such as "short cuts" used in making the stock. With all due respect to everyone....you have to know the M-1842 stock extremely well. One example, you have to be able to distinguish between machine cut inletting and superbly done gunsmith hand inletting.
J.

 

[Craig L Barry]

As to the question of why a stock cartouche would be missing, I think we painted it into a corner. The inspection stamps were usually faint or weak, other times missing entirely or so it seems. I wouldn't lose sleep over it if you like the piece for your collection otherwise.

 

[Jobe Holiday]

Craig has lightly touched upon a topic that is sort of my "Mantra", only buy something because you like it! I have only bought things because I liked them.....if I liked them 50 years ago.....I still like them today! Speculation and resale has never been part of my collecting philosophy.
J.

 

[Craig L Barry]

Well, none of us is Claud E. Fuller, after all...even if such a collection as his was possible today even Fuller "concentrated" on the US 1861 with all of the various contractor made specimens. Clearly he was fond of American model military arms, including CS models but specifically there was something about the US 1861 that appealed to his individual preferences. More guys today seem to be Enfield P53 enthusiasts than US 1861. I don't know why that is. Whatever the case, if there is something about a particular arm that appeals to your eye, then there doesn't need to be a better reason than that.

Oddly, I am not a Civil War arms collector. The only historical long arm of any era on display at all in my house? An American mountain rifle in flint that I built from a kit many years ago. It is nothing fancy but it took me a very long time to get it "just right" to my eye and set up the way I wanted it to be when I shot it, the lock timing, etc. And I feel good about it every day when I look at it perched up there. One does not "buy and sell" an old friend...