Model 1863 Springfield (Type II)

[Airman Skitters]

So, I have come across what I believe is a very nice, possibly all original, 1863 Springfield Type II Rifled Musket manufactured in 1864.

The nipple, I believe, has been replaced. The stock is in very good shape, save for small handling marks, a few hairline cracks that I don't believe are critical and a bit of a chunk of wood missing from the area to the right of the barrel tang. The metal is entirely in the white (which I understand was how these were made) and, while worn in places, does not appear to be at all pitted. The bore looks to be in pretty good shape too, the rifling is rather faint, but I understand that these guns had shallow rifling to begin with. I can only see so far down the bore with the little light I had, but it looked quite clean.

Besides what I have described, there is a rather strange feature I've noticed about the rifle, and that is the rear sight. I understand that 1863 Type II's used a simpler "One Leaf" rear sight while the 1863 Type I used a "Three Leaf" rear sight. Well, it appears this Type II has a "Three Leaf" rear sight.

Unfortunately, these are the only images that I have of the Rifle. It's a shop some ways away from where I live and when I snapped the few pictures today I wasn't thinking to take more then I did...

The Lockplate:


The damaged bit can be seen above the Eagle, there. And there's a crack to the left of the lockpate as well. The rear sight is fairly visible as well. It was a "Three Leaf" sight but it's rather strangely shaped when compared to other examples I've seen online.

Here's a shot of the top of the barrel, tang and nipple.


The missing chunk is visible to the right of the barrel tang, just in front of the cocked hammer, there. The other small crack is also visible, leading from the rear lockplate screw (bolt?) to the the barrel on the left there. The V, P and Eagle's Head are faintly visible on the side of the barrel but the date that may have been present on top of it is worn away.

Am I just nitpicking and the sight is just "natural" variation in the rifles that were produced? Or is something fishy here? I'm fairly certain the Rifle is an 1863 Type II Model, it has the right hammer, the deletion of the nipple chamber cleaning screw thingy and it sports the correct spring-retained barrel bands, not to mention the Lockplate date.

I wish I could offer additional pictures but, like I said, I wasn't thinking at the time and only snapped those few. Should have really taken a few of the whole gun... The shop was asking $1500 for it, but they were negotiable. What's the story with this old Rifle? What would be a reasonable price?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[jmoore]

If the bore is good, I'd probably jump on it. The wood repairs needed are minor in nature and the rear sight worries me not at all. Looks to have been lightly cleaned/scrubbed some time back, but nothing tragic.

[gsimmons]

As JM says I'd get it. The rear sight may very well original. They didn't just change everything all at once, they used older parts first so there was a transition to the next type. Type I and type II are collector terms to the govt it was a model 1863 rifle musket. It's also a nice example.

[Patrick Chadwick]

The nipple, I believe, has been replaced.

A percussion nipple is a consumable. Any rifle that was issued and used will have gone through a number of nipples in its active life. What would be unbelievable, would be a claim that it was the nipple with which the rifle was issued!

---------- Post added at 10:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 PM ----------

The shop was asking $1500 for it, but they were negotiable. What's the story with this old Rifle? What would be a reasonable price?

Get in there and negotiate, if they have indicated price flexibility - but have the $1500 in your wallet, for the "worst case". Just don't come home without it!

[Tom in N.J.]

It is a Model 1863 Rifle-Musket, not a rifled-musket. A rifle-musket is a rifle of musket size,... a rifled- musket is a musket (smooth bore) that has been rifled.

[Patrick Chadwick]

It is a Model 1863 Rifle-Musket, not a rifled-musket.

True, but I don't care if someone calls it a tea-strainer - I want one!

---------- Post added at 11:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 PM ----------

If the bore is good, I'd probably jump on it.

Precisely!