Springfield 1863 Sight Identification

[johnmcl]

Hi all,

BLUF - Sight Identification

A reproduction Springfield 1863, a Moroku manufacture, 1960's vintage, has come to me. The rifle has a sight on it which is different from what I have seen on other 1861/1863 rifles.

Do you august Civil War weaponology experts have any insight to provide? I'm particularly interested in what ranges the three possible sight settings provide.

 

[AlexanderA]

My Miroku M1863 repro has the same one-leaf rear sight.

It's actually correct for the late-production M1863 Type II (aka M1864). The Mirokus are a sort of Type I/Type II hybrid (clamping bands and band springs).

When the leaf is folded down, the V-notch is regulated for 100 yards. With the leaf up, the peep is regulated for 300 yards and the notch at the top for 500 yards.

(To make your gun correct for a Type II, you need to substitute solid lower and upper bands, and an Enfield-type ramrod.)

(BTW, the Miroku Springfield was made in the 1980's, not the 1960's. It's considered the most authentic of the reproductions.)

 

[johnmcl]

Thank you Alexander, that is exactly what I was looking for. I have clamping bans, and no clue on the Enfield style ram rod.

 

[AlexanderA]

I have clamping bans, and no clue on the Enfield style ram rod.

The clamping bands were an Enfield feature that was picked up in the M1861 Special model made by Colt, Amoskeag, and Lamson. (Apparently these companies used machinery made by Robins & Lawrence, intended to make Enfields.) The M1863 Springfield was an amalgam of M1861 and M1861 Special features (the latter including the clamping bands). But for some reason the clamping bands didn't work out, and in the Type II, Springfield went back to solid bands retained by band springs.

If you want to change to solid bands (for authenticity, since you already have the band springs), be aware that any replacement bands on the market will require quite a bit of hand fitting. Probably the best starting point would be bands made to fit original muskets. All you need are the upper and lower ones (the middle band is OK).

The Miroku M1863 ramrod should be .245" shaft diameter X 39 7/8" overall length. Replacing it with an Enfield style is harder than it should be, because reproduction M1853 Enfield ramrods are about 1 1/4" shorter, and their shaft diameter tends to run .270". In other words, too thick to fit the Miroku channel. In any case, here's a picture showing the tulip head (above) versus the Enfield head (below).

 

[Springfeld]

A reproduction Springfield 1863, a Moroku manufacture, 1960's vintage, has come to me. The rifle has a sight on it which is different from what I have seen on other 1861/1863 rifles.
View attachment 1064819

Miroku is a very good reproduction. From my understanding they were sent an original to copy and copied everything very well even the removable breech plug. As others have said it favours an 1863 Type I with band springs. One more thing that was common on original 1863 Type II's were the trigger guard swivels were screwed on, the earlier pin 1861 versions you find on both 1863 type I and type II originals. I've read that some 1863's have the swell ramrods with an odd pointed screw end with a cap, but was discontinued in favour of the basic threaded ends.

The problem lied (Original 1863's with just clamping bands from what I read) in the fact that the armoury went to clamping bands but did not correctly cure the stocks and they shrunk slightly and the bands became loose.

 

[AlexanderA]

One more thing that was common on original 1863 Type II's were the trigger guard swivels were screwed on, the earlier pin 1861 versions you find on both 1863 type I and type II originals.

My Miroku, Euroarms, and Pedersoli M1861's all have screwed-on guard swivels, as does the Miroku M1863. The only one with a riveted swivel is the Colt-branded (2nd Generation) M1861 Special. So the repros don't necessarily follow the originals in this regard. But trigger guards (with swivels) were considered interchangeable for all the 1855-1864 series, and even going on to the Trapdoor era.

I've read that some 1863's have the swell ramrods with an odd pointed screw end with a cap, but was discontinued in favour of the basic threaded ends.

The M1861 ramrods (with or without the swell) have a shank diameter of around .230", whereas the M1863 rod bumps up to .245". Therefore, an M1861 rod would be noticeably loose in an M1863 channel.

The very earliest M1861 ramrods had a built-in ball screw at the end (covered by a cap), but this was deemed impractical. The swell (to retain the rod in the stock) lasted longer, but was also eventually dropped.

The problem lied (Original 1863's with just clamping bands from what I read) in the fact that the armoury went to clamping bands but did not correctly cure the stocks and they shrunk slightly and the bands became loose.

Theoretically you could keep tightening the clamping screws to make up for that. But that could become annoying. The British had the same problem. They solved it by putting a transverse pin through the stock just ahead of the band, protruding slightly on each side. You can see this on our M1917 Enfield.

 

[Springfeld]

The very earliest M1861 ramrods had a built-in ball screw at the end (covered by a cap), but this was deemed impractical. The swell (to retain the rod in the stock) lasted longer, but was also eventually dropped.

Very good information!!! Those are specs that I was unaware of. I would assume a slightly larger ram rod would be less prone to warp. I was aware a lot of the parts interchange which is great when building a rifle. I do prefer the screw swivel. I don’t have much experience with reproductions and did not know a lot of them had the rear swivels that screwed on. I like the Enfield style ramrod as it’s easier to run a patch down the barrel.

So just curious how many reproduction Springfields do you know have the removable breech plug compared to those who don’t?

 

[AlexanderA]

So just curious how many reproduction Springfields do you know have the removable breech plug compared to those who don’t?

I haven't really looked at this in depth. But because of the difficulty of making the nipple bolster, most modern reproductions use castings for the entire breech (including the bolster) and then screw the rest of the barrel onto that. That method does away with a separate breech plug. You find removable breech plugs in more flintlock reproductions.

It's interesting to study the originals, and then overlay that with a study of the reproductions. The reproductions in themselves have become collectible. And then there is "defarbing," in which reproductions are altered to be more like originals. It can get very confusing.