Tips on Authenticating m1861

[18smithl]

Hello,

I recently picked up this supposed special contract 1864-dated L. G. & Y. m1861 at a gun show. I didn't know much about the m1861 going in, but the guy seemed honest and wasn't asking for much, and I had been thinking about doing more muzzleloading. I had not previously handled any gun older than 1950.

Anyway, I was hoping you guys could give me some tips on things to look for if I encounter another of these guns in the future, and maybe I could get your thoughts on this specific gun. Recommendations for the most comprehensive book on the m1861 would be great.

From the little research I've done, some things seem authentic--cartouche on stock, date-appropriate screws on the bands, butt plate markings--but it has a lot of problems. Screw for the trigger swivel. Head of the ramrod screws off. Knurling on the hammer. Perhaps most glaring is the barrel, which has no exterior markings (haven't removed to check underside, though) and has 8 rifling grooves.

Would appreciate your insights.

Thanks,

 

[OldSarge79]

Just a few quick observations.
It's a Model 1863.
The barrel is not original to the gun. I don't know anything about reproductions but it may very well be a modern part. The tang is a poor fit. It may be the angle of the photograph, but the barrel looks longer than 40 inches, or maybe the fore end is short.
The rear sight looks like a poor fit also.

I think you have a mixture of parts on the gun.

 

[Dbackfed29]

The gap of wood on the breech plug tang is evident that something is a replacement.

 

[Conquerordie]

I think it's a repro barrel of some sort. Besides not fitting the stock, it also is lacking the 1864 date and View and proof stamps. The rear site as mentioned is a M1858, which I do not believe it correct for this model. The lock and stock look period.

 

[JOHN42768]

I agree that the barrel is not original to the firearm, but a more modern replacement. The cartouche script HEV stands for Henry E. Valentine and his mark has been found on L.G. & Y. Special model 1861. Also lock appears to be correct. Unfortunately only half original

 

[johan_steele]

The books on small arms that we reference | Small Arms & Ammunition

I thought it might not be a bad idea to create a thread on small arms reference books. While I concentrate on the rifles, rifle muskets etc of the infantry I have other reference works. I want to encourage others to start showing off their favorite or most often used reference books. I'm...

civilwartalk.com

 

[bayonet]

Lets hope you didn't pay a lot for that parts gun. If you did bring it back. What did you pay for it? Welcome to this website where it is said over & over get the books and reference material (plus internet searches) before you buy.

 

[18smithl]

Just a few quick observations.
It's a Model 1863.
The barrel is not original to the gun. I don't know anything about reproductions but it may very well be a modern part. The tang is a poor fit. It may be the angle of the photograph, but the barrel looks longer than 40 inches, or maybe the fore end is short.
The rear sight looks like a poor fit also.

I think you have a mixture of parts on the gun.

My understanding is that some of the features of the Special m1861 were adopted for the m1863, but that they are distinct models. But it's probably not fair to call it anything other than a parts gun.

The barrel is 39in (relative to 39.5in ram rod).

 

[johan_steele]

My understanding is that some of the features of the Special m1861 were adopted for the m1863, but that they are distinct models. But it's probably not fair to call it anything other than a parts gun.

The barrel is 39in (relative to 39.5in ram rod).

What you have is a "Special Model 1861" these were made by Colt, Amoskeag and LG&Y. They were a first rate interchangeable arm. But they were not to the Springfield pattern.

While it is a bit of a parts gun it looks good enough for most collections; especially if it's a first purchase. The barrel and rear sight have been mentioned as a concern and I would consider it a legitimate one. My thought is the barrel is either off of an M1863 or it's a repro. To me, the important thing is if she's shootable. There are a lot of factors to consider: bore condition, lock functionality, condition of the wood etc.

If you got it for a good price consider it a learning experience. If you're happy with it that's all that matters.

 

[Rhea Cole]

What you have is a "Special Model 1861" these were made by Colt, Amoskeag and LG&Y. They were a first rate interchangeable arm. But they were not to the Springfield pattern.

While it is a bit of a parts gun it looks good enough for most collections; especially if it's a first purchase. The barrel and rear sight have been mentioned as a concern and I would consider it a legitimate one. My thought is the barrel is either off of an M1863 or it's a repro. To me, the important thing is if she's shootable. There are a lot of factors to consider: bore condition, lock functionality, condition of the wood etc.

If you got it for a good price consider it a learning experience. If you're happy with it that's all that matters.

I agree entirely with Johan_Steel. A book you want to get is Claude Fuller's The Rifled Musket. In it Fuller has photos & details of muskets purchased by the Ordinance Bureau during the war.

As you are new to Civil War weaponry, The Rifled Musket is a filled with information & illustrations that will be very educational.

It is out of print, but available online used at a modest price. It can also be viewed at this link:

The Rifled Musket : Fuller, Claud E. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

archive.org

 

[AdamCayne]

Its cool for your first gun!

 

[JackADriscoll]

And as a pure shooter as long as the sites are right and you didn't pay too much you're crushing. A full repro as a shooter is expensive atm

 

[Conquerordie]

I'd look closely at this before you shoot it. The barrel fits, but not like it should. The tang is shorter than the inlet, and it looks like the back of the breech might not make good contact with the stock. This is where the stock absorbs recoil created by firing. This needs to be a snug fit to be safe and for accuracy.

 

[RSMorris]

Looks like the breech screw/plug is part of the barrel and not able to remove. Have not seen that before.

 

[RSMorris]

I have an LG&Y lock plate dated 1863. Like yours it does not have an eagle and I thought that was weird. I've done some research on this and it seems LG&Y sold some of their later dated Special Model 1861's on the open market. But I wonder if it actually started sooner than later. From what I have researched, all LG&Y lockplate dated 1862 have an eagle. Some 1863 dates have an eagle and some do not. I have not seena 1864 dated LG&Y with an eagle. If that is true, that would explain why your barrel has no markings and the lock has no eagle. So your barrel may be legit. Since mine is dated 1863 with no Eagle would indicate they started open market sales sooner than research suggest. The "U.S." on those without an eagle are above the "LG&Y" stamp. The ones that have an eagle, the "U.S." is below the eagle. I don't know why it would have U.S. stamped but not an eagle.