Traditional Muzzleloading Association
Traditional Firearms => Caplock Long Guns => Topic started by: KDubs on March 19, 2021, 10:42:54 PM
-
[ Invalid Attachment ] [ Invalid Attachment ] [ Invalid Attachment ] [ Invalid Attachment ]
started this thread in general forum but thought i should move it here.
this is the 1864 Springfield i bought today.
doing some research i find references to an " artillery rifle" which it what the one appears to be. .58 cal, 31" bbl, 2 bands.
the literature also states they had either solid bbl band with springs or a pinch type screw band, this one has both? [ Invalid Attachment ]
-
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Pretty clean old rifle that looks to be in good shape, have you shot it yet? :) :applaud
-
Gonna be a real treat to shoot a 150 year old rifle! The old girl looks good still. :hairy
-
Haven't shot it yet .
Currently its in pieces on lap.
The lock is super clean and solid , no rust or pitting.
A few small cracks in the wood forestock. A little super glue will take care of that.
Finding what I assume are proof marks on all the pieces.
The bore is rough. I ran a bore scope down her , looks pretty smooth with shallow rifling but under the scope is looks like it need a little lapping .
I'll try an shoot her next week.
I need to get some musket caps.
Kevin
-
Is it just the picture angle - or is the top of the muzzle bore metal thicker there, then at the bottom?
-
You are correct . it is thicker. Run out maybe ?
I want to remove the plug , it has a taper .
I suppose there's a wrench for that.
Along with musket caps I need to pick up some conical and round ball.
I plan on paper cartridge for this . how much under size should my lead be?
Kevin
went back and mic'd the bore at the muzzle.
I set the mic a .577 as a starting point. [ Invalid Attachment ]
the bore is indeed .577 when measured horizontal across the bore 3 o'clock to 9 o'clock .
at 12 and 6 the bore mic'd .608. cant be normal right?
-
Kevin, I've never owned a .58, so hopefully some will come along with answers to the above.
I do wonder now if the heavier / thicker metal at the top of the barrel is intentional because of the way the front sight is mounted? Is it dovetailed in? :shake
-
[ Invalid Attachment ]
appears soldered .
[ Invalid Attachment ] [ Invalid Attachment ]
I found the barrel not with a matching 1864 date but 1475. and an 11 stamped on the tang. not sure if thats significant.
the lock looks awfully clean to be 160 yrs old.
I asked if this was an original and was told yes. so I bought it. friend of a friend who runs the shop so I tend to believe him.
I dont know from nothing when it comes to this stuff.
hopefully not an original reproduction.
kevin
-
the lock looks awfully clean to be 160 yrs old.
It does look like it's in very good shape for being that old. I suppose proper storage could have something to do with it, but then metal is metal, and I'm no expert by any stretch - however comparing the lock with the rest of the rifle, well it does make one wonder? Let hope for the best that it's all original.
-
Kevin,
According to the 1997 DGW Catalog, your Rifle resembles a Zouave Rifle without the patch box... 12,501 were made by Remington - but none were issued. The sights look to be correct...
The only Artillery ML Firearm I can find is the Dixie J.P. Murray Carbine, and it was made with a 23-1/2 inch tapered barrel.
Question? / Thought?
I would assume that your rifle (when new) would have come in the "white" - (the barrel not blued). It almost looks to me like someone stripped the bluing off your rifle barrel... Perhaps even used something to pit the exterior of the barrel.
I hope I'm wrong - and I certainly hope you didn't get taken on this purchase... That lock just looks way to pristine to be that clear on the inside with (for lack of better wording) no signs of usage. I don't even see a wear spot on the sear.
-
Kevin,
According to the 1997 DGW Catalog, your Rifle resembles a Zouave Rifle without the patch box... 12,501 were made by Remington - but none were issued. The sights look to be correct...
The only Artillery ML Firearm I can find is the Dixie J.P. Murray Carbine, and it was made with a 23-1/2 inch tapered barrel.
Question? / Thought?
I would assume that your rifle (when new) would have come in the "white" - (the barrel not blued). It almost looks to me like someone stripped the bluing off your rifle barrel... Perhaps even used something to pit the exterior of the barrel.
I hope I'm wrong - and I certainly hope you didn't get taken on this purchase... That lock just looks way to pristine to be that clear on the inside with (for lack of better wording) no signs of usage. I don't even see a wear spot on the sear.
I have a 1873 Springfield trapdoor,.... it is original and in nearly mint condition, the same goes for it's bayonet. :) :bl th up
They are out there! :)
-
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
I have a lot of learning to do.
Thanks for all the responses.
Kein
-
I guess there's a chance it could a "restored" antique just as there's the chance it's 100% original. It looks good and you should enjoy shooting it. :toast
-
I will pick up some projectiles this week.
Anyone have suggestions for returning the muzzle bore to round again so can shot it.
Kevin.
-
I will pick up some projectiles this week.
Anyone have suggestions for returning the muzzle bore to round again so can shot it.
Kevin.
I'm wonderin' how the muzzle became "oblong" in the first place. :o
I'm pretty sure .577 is the correct bore-size for a .58 Springfield, so you could probably shoot it "as is". :bl th up
-
If the inside of the bore at the muzzle is round - once again, I wonder if metal was left heavy on top of the barrel intentionally for the mounting of the front sight. Might want to check it with a caliper.
-
went back and mic'd the bore at the muzzle.
I set the mic a .577 as a starting point. The bore is indeed .577 when measured horizontal across the bore 3 o'clock to 9 o'clock. At 12 and 6 the bore mic'd .608. Can't be normal right?
I thought when I saw the first photo that it looked out of round. Possibly it was dropped and the muzzle was dinged. 31 thousandths of an inch (.031") difference between side-to-side and top-to-bottom measurements is pretty significant! That lock also looks super pristine compared to the barrel. Even the case colors on the hammer are nice and bright, which I wouldn't expect from a 150+ year old rifle. It will be interesting to see what the bore looks like once you have the breech plug out, and can look from end to end. Any dings will surely show up then!
All in all though, it's a very nice piece which has lots of life left!
~Kees~
-
Well I did get out yesterday and ran 3 shots thru here.
50gr ffg 1- .575 ball ( naked. ) and 2- .578 conical.( greased).
The ball shot pretty well but the conicals were off the target.
25yds off hand.
The old gal shot very well, felt great.
The breech plug came out no problem, finger tight! The bore is really pitted .
I'll try and see about working up a load, check accuracy at some point.
Right now I'm glad to know it shoots.
The lock is the only thing that looks new to me, from my research it seems everything else is period.
Kevin