.58 1863 Springfield value?

[Detached]

Ran across one today at my buddy's gun shop. Someone brought it in as a consignment sale.

Appears to be all original, dated 1863 on the lock. I don't know much about these, so I'll try and describe it as best as I can. Pitting was there but minor, military sights, letters VM (I think) on barrel, 3 barrel bands, smoothbore. Stock in good shape. All metal in the white with some sort of shellac or something, brownish streaks on the barrel. Ramrod good.

I can get it for around $800.

Understanding you really need to see it to be accurate, what is the market on these currently? Is $800 low, high, or right in the ballpark?

[mario]

Ran across one today at my buddy's gun shop. Someone brought it in as a consignment sale.

Appears to be all original, dated 1863 on the lock. I don't know much about these, so I'll try and describe it as best as I can. Pitting was there but minor, military sights, letters VM (I think) on barrel, 3 barrel bands, smoothbore. Stock in good shape. All metal in the white with some sort of shellac or something, brownish streaks on the barrel. Ramrod good.

Original 1863 Springfields weren't smoothbored.

Post-CW, many muskets were sold as surplus. Places such as Bannermann's bought them by the case, bored them smooth and sometimes cut the barrels, made them into half-stocks, etc.

They are sold as "foraging guns", but it seems that Springfield never made them as such. So, in effect, it wouldn't be "original".

 It MAY have some collector value, but as far as an actual price tag, I don't know. Brand new repros that you can shoot can be had for around $1000 or so.

Mario

[Detached]

 Original 1863 Springfields weren't smoothbored.

I wondered about that based on the period, but had somewhere to be yesterday evening and didn't have time to research. To be honest I didn't even look down the bore, I stuck my finger in the end of the muzzle and felt for rifling. A Springfield wasn't anything that was on my radar so I didn't look at it too closely, then got to thinking about it on the way home.

It was atypical to see something like that in his shop. He sells modern stuff with one small rack set aside for muzzleloaders, which are usually in-line. Right now he has a half dozen of those and one Traditions trade style rifle. To see the Springfield behind the counter was surprising.

Thanks!

[Detached]

Maybe a nice moderator could move this to a more appropriate section?

Been poking around on the 'net and learned a few things, just enough to be dangerous! In thinking about this rifle, I noticed that the hammer didn't seem to line up with the nipple very well, the hammer being too far out from the barrel. I see there were two versions, the Type I which used barrel bands held on by screws instead of retaining springs, eliminated the cleanout screw, had a different ramrod, different rear sight, etc. The Type II went back to using these features.

I found one comment that stated this change also moved the nipple more inboard to the barrel.

Now then, The gun I saw had 1863 on the lock, but had barrels bands with springs, the two-leaf rear sight for certain. I didn't look at the ramrod or for a date on the barrel. I am wondering if those two items couped with the mis-aligned lock may point to a Type II from 1864 that had the lock replaced with a Type I?

Am I on the right track here?

[Stormrider51]

Hello, and welcome aboard!  You need to go back for a second look at that Springfield.  Value for originals can range from a few hundred dollars to well over $1,000 depending on a number of factors.  As a first step, pull the ramrod and insert it fully into the bore.  Note how much is sticking out beyond the muzzle.  Now extract the rod and lay it against the outside of the barrel with the same amount sticking out.  If the rod didn't  make it all the way to the breech plug there is something down there.  The gun could be loaded.  As strange as that may sound it's not uncommon.  Great grandpa kept the gun loaded and then died and nobody thought to check.  Next shine a light down the bore and look for rifling.  As Mario said, many of the Springfields were converted to smoothbores after the war and sold.  Such a "forager" gun is worth much less that one that retains its rifling.  On the other hand, be very suspicious if the rifling looks too good.  Sad to say, there are people who are very skilled at taking a modern made replica and "ageing" it.  They then pass it off as original.

I'm sorry that I can't be more help than that but without seeing the gun I'd just be guessing as to value.  Good luck!

John

[Detached]

LOL. I've spent a sleepless night wishing I'd have checked better to see if it there was rifling and if it was loaded!

I am more cocnened at this point about the misaligned hammer/nipple.

[Stormrider51]

Keep in mind that the gun is about 150 years old.  A photo showing the misalignment would help.  The gun may not have all original matched parts for one reason or another.  Military guns could be sent to an armory where the good parts were stripped off and tossed into bins while overly worn or damaged parts, often barrels, were scrapped.  Then a "new" gun was assembled from available parts.  The fact that a hammer is misaligned with the nipple to a degree isn't uncommon even on newly made muzzleloaders.  As long as the hammer strikes the cap squarely, it's good enough.

John

[Detached]

Keep in mind that the gun is about 150 years old.  A photo showing the misalignment would help.  The gun may not have all original matched parts for one reason or another.  Military guns could be sent to an armory where the good parts were stripped off and tossed into bins while overly worn or damaged parts, often barrels, were scrapped.  Then a "new" gun was assembled from available parts.  The fact that a hammer is misaligned with the nipple to a degree isn't uncommon even on newly made muzzleloaders.  As long as the hammer strikes the cap squarely, it's good enough.

John

Thanks, I'm aware of the practices of armories during wartime and thereafter.

Pictures ain't gonna' happen, and I know that's a problem, but 'tis what 'tis. To star with he's closed, and I won't be able to get back down there during businees hours until next week.

[snapcap14]

Remember the rifling in these is very shallow. you may have just missed it especially if it is rusted. or dirty inside

[Captchee]

Yep , the rifling is very shallow and small . They are also very slow twist rates  so unless the bore is clean and bright  your probably not going to see any . Especially at the muzzle
 i would also agree with the hammer alignment . as long as it has the correct shaped hammer , you should be alright .
 and dont forget what Mario stated .

[Detached]

Thanks all. Bear in mind this thread was started 2 months ago and the gun is long gone. I had decided against purchasing it for various reasons, not the least of which being it wasn't on my wish list, just something I ran across. It would've been fun to have from an historical perspective, though.