1863 Springfield Build

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Springfeld

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
70
Location
South Georgia
Good Morning,

Does anyone know of anyone who has an 1861/63 3 band Springfield stock in good condition? Possible anyone who makes or sells them new? I have emailed Dunlaps, but they have apparently went up on their prices. I'm not trying to go over 400.00 on a stock. In the 300.00 range is within my budget.

This is for an Original Built to specs not repro.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the info, I've read a few reviews about people receiving stocks with cracks in them from Numrich, so I'm too nervous to take the chance.
 
Last edited:
Dunlap Woodcrafts sometimes has sale prices on stocks with slight imperfections. (I used such a stock on my M1842 musket build. It has a tiny knothole that is hardly visible.) It might be worth giving them a call. They make a lot of 1861 3-band stocks, so it's very possible there's a "second" or "blem" somewhere in there.

(Of course they are local to me, so I had the benefit of a personal inspection before I bought.)
 
I was unaware they did that. Thanks for letting me know. I noticed the price on the website hasn't changed. Do you mind me asking, how much the minor defects, change the price? As of now I know the price will be 400 for the Dunlap stock.

Yea, being local is a good way to inspect personally and ask them directly.
 
Last edited:
Springfeld said:
Do you mind me asking, how much the minor defects, change the price? As of now I know the price will be 400 for the Dunlap stock.
Click to expand...
It was many years ago, but I seem to recall that it was something on the order of 15% discount. You're still going to be over your $300 price point.

Dunlap makes quality products, both as to the wood itself and the machining. They might be expensive, but at least you know what you're going to get.

On the other hand, Numrich (Gun Parts Corp.) is really hit and miss. You would understand if you went up to West Hurley and got a tour of the facility (as I did in the 1980's). It's controlled chaos. Similar to the situation at Sarco.

Buying a stock from Numrich would be like buying a ticket to the lottery. Who knows? You might win. (I routinely take chances with Numrich, but only on low-priced items.)
 
Yes from what I hear Dunlap is very good. I'm trying to not spend too much. Well Dunlap has them listed as 325.00 on the website, but in the email I was quoted 375.00.

I actually found The Rifle Shoppe and there's is listed as 295.00 so that is a big difference. I was intending to go with Dunlap at the price of 325.00. From what I hear The Rifle Shoppe is good quality just a longer wait time. So going to try to go that route.
 
Just an update. I am no longer going to build the 1863 rifle. I plan to just buy an Italian replica. The navigation and trying to get all the parts is too complicated. Along with USPS losing my barrel from Whitacre and that whole process of getting it proven. I know the Italian Replicas have debatable opinions but I could have already had an 1842 Springfield at the price and money I’ve done spent.
 
If you're going with an Italian replica, do a bit of research. They are not all the same.

(The best and most authentic were made by Miroku of Japan, but that's a thing of the past.)

Next to Miroku, the Euroarms were the best. Euroarms has gone belly-up too. But their tooling has been passed on to Pedersoli. So right now, Pedersoli is the best.

Beware of Armi Sport (Chiappa). Their M1861 is clunky, way too heavy in both the stock and barrel. Which is odd, because their rendition of the M1842 musket (both smoothbore and rifled versions) is almost indistinguishable from the originals.
 
Update. I ordered the rifle stock from The Rifle Shoppe back in August and got an email it was shipped today. Shipping and Handling was almost 80 dollars. So if you do order from them maybe good to ask for a more economical price for shipping.
 
DSC07207.JPG
AlexanderA said:
Beware of Armi Sport (Chiappa). Their M1861 is clunky, way too heavy in both the stock and barrel.
Click to expand...

For the purist this is true. It is a heavy gun. However, the fit, finish, machining and the bore on mine is superb to say the least. The wood is beautiful and perfectly fitted to all metal parts. The lock feels like the hammer of Thor. (?!?!?!?!?!) Solid! And she's accurate.

I would not call it clunky by any means. It's a beautiful rifle. Perhaps a bit "beefy" and a little bit heavy. I've carried it around all day hunting many times, and did not cry, snivel, or moan.
 
Ugly Sauce said:
View attachment 1063661

For the purist this is true. It is a heavy gun. .
Click to expand...

The Italian's are good looking guns, the 1842 I do consider to be very good gun.

This is one reason I wanted to have an 1864 made to original specs. I have read that the Italian Repros are more heavy. I have an original 1864 that was cut down as a cadet rifle and converted to a trapdoor and the weight is not bad. Another reason I was hesitant to consider a Italian is the one piece rear cast breech that some have with the odd firing channel.
 

Attachments

  • 993D6241-26D7-417F-8B97-92F164864506.jpeg
    993D6241-26D7-417F-8B97-92F164864506.jpeg
    228.5 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
Springfeld said:
This is one reason I wanted to have an 1864 made to original specs.
Click to expand...
My Miroku M1863 was a strange hybrid: it had band springs and clamping bands. I changed the top and bottom bands to the solid type to make it a proper M1864 (aka M1863 Type 2). I'm still not completely satisfied with the fit of those bands. They look OK.
 
Springfeld said:
The Italian's are good looking guns, the 1842 I do consider to be very good gun.

This is one reason I wanted to have an 1864 made to original specs. I have read that the Italian Repros are more heavy. I have an original 1864 that was cut down as a cadet rifle and converted to a trapdoor and the weight is not bad. Another reason I was hesitant to consider a Italian is the one piece rear cast breech that some have with the odd firing channel.
Click to expand...

My Armi-Sport weighs in at 10.8 pounds...I do wish it was lighter. But again, I can pack it all day, and if I'm not covering a lot of ground it's not a problem. I did carry it halfway up Hanlon Mountain one time, (North Eastern Washington State...Google it!) and it/I was fine. Again-again, I do wish it was lighter. Having said that, I'll admit that I only take it hunting one or two days per season. When I hunt up North, I always take it as my "back up" or "rain" gun, to the Jeager or Brown Bess "Ranger Carbine".

I used to hear a lot about "contorted" flash channels on the 1861, but mine is not like that. ? I don't know, but believe it is true to the original design, and it's certainly utterly reliable in the ignition department. ? I don't think it has a cast breech, it would certainly be incongruent with the quality of the rest of the gun. ? "Incongruent"...I hope I'm using the right word there! o_O Anyhow, it has a very straight-forward flash channel. I does take a 90 degree turn, but it's short and sweet and she goes bang every time. Certainly not any worse than a good drum-n-nipple gun.

A cadet rifle conversion...now I'm turning green with envy. .45" or .50"?
 
AlexanderA said:
Look good. Are they made to fit originals, or repros? Either way, you'll probably have to do some fitting.
Click to expand...

Almost 90 percent of the parts I have came from Originals. Just a few minor thing like screws and band springs are reproduction for originals. The Barrel was made by Whitacre and the Ramrod is a very good two piece for an 1864.


Ugly Sauce said:
A cadet rifle conversion...now I'm turning green with envy. .45" or .50"?
Click to expand...

It's a 50-70 rifle I believe it was made from both an 1864 and 1863 parts. I just remember reading the threads about a lot of the reproduction 1861's having the Cast Rear Breech that does not have a removable breech plug. I know some models have the firing channel that makes two 90 degree turns.


myd5reC.png
 
Last edited:
Okay, no, my Armi-Sport does not have two 90 degree turns. !!! Dang, that can't work great. I wonder who had that brainstorm??!!?

I would love to have an 1855, as it was first fired in anger (in 1858) about ten miles from where I live. (When Wright came through and took on the local tribes in punishment for beating up Col. Steptoe)("Battle of Four Lakes") But, at the time the repro 1861 was as close as I could get. ! I keep saying I'm going to get a metal-detector and search for bullets at the battle site, but I never get around to it.
 
True. I could live with a non-functional tape-primer though. But, too many other rifles on my wish list that are higher up on the list. Or one or two or three at least.

I wonder if a dummy 1855 lock could be put on my 1861, and then add the year-appropriate patch box on, and abra-kadabra a repro 1855. I realize some of the early, or later rifles, I forget which, did or did not have the patch box. I would want to replicate the rifle that was used at the battle of four lakes, which would be the early production rifle I believe.

As far as I know, the 1861 is a 1855 without the tape primer. However, I'm sure there are minor differences I'm not aware of. ? That would be a good low-buck project to keep me busy! If it's doable.
 
Ugly Sauce said:
I wonder if a dummy 1855 lock could be put on my 1861, and then add the year-appropriate patch box on, and abra-kadabra a repro 1855. I realize some of the early, or later rifles, I forget which, did or did not have the patch box. I would want to replicate the rifle that was used at the battle of four lakes, which would be the early production rifle I believe.

As far as I know, the 1861 is a 1855 without the tape primer. However, I'm sure there are minor differences I'm not aware of. ? That would be a good low-buck project to keep me busy! If it's doable.
Click to expand...
I converted one of my Miroku 1861's to an 1855. The main replacement, of course, was the lock. I had it made into a functional Maynard by Zimmerman, but in those days he was not charging $700. Other than that, there was a slight bit of inletting that had to be done to the stock to account for the "hump" of the lock. Also, I changed the iron forend tip to brass.

The transition from the elaborate rear sight to the two-leaf Civil War sight took place in August 1858 (March 1859 at Harpers Ferry). The patch box and iron stock tip were introduced in July 1859 (these are late features).

Therefore, the easy conversion of an 1861 to an 1855 (no patch box and a two-leaf sight) would represent a gun made in late 1858 (Springfield) or early 1859 (provided a brass stock tip is used). And, indeed, my lock plate is marked "1859."

An elaborate rear sight and a patch box is a combination that is not supposed to exist.
 
Last edited:
Dang, you know stuff! The Battle of Four Lakes was in 1858, so obviously the rifles would be the early version. Sounds like not too hard of a conversion, not having to deal with the patch box would certainly be a bonus. I may have to seriously consider this. Thanks for the info.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Yay, now I have a Garand!
Replies
22
Views
851
GRAYRID3R
G
P
  • Locked
NEF Springfield carbine - need info
Replies
1
Views
524
Jim Watson
J
badkarmamib
  • Locked
DMR build
Replies
11
Views
535
badkarmamib
badkarmamib
H
  • Locked
M1903 Build opinions
Replies
5
Views
848
Slamfire
Slamfire
Snowdog
  • Locked
Replacement stock for 3-band 1861 Springfield
Replies
10
Views
3K
Bad Flynch
B
Back
Top