Looking for collectors' opinions on original 1860 Army Repair

[iLikeOldgunsIlikeNewGuns]

Hello fellow black powder-ers, I know more about shooting black powder than I do about the value of antiques, and whether or not to repair them. I have a 1860 Army that has been in my family since the Civil War. It belonged to my ancestor Lt. Philip Schellinger on the U.S.S. Monitor. He was the fireman aboard that ship, which was the Union's 'ironclad' as I'm sure most of you know. Some time in the 90s I believe my little brother dry-fired it and the main-spring broke. The hammer is no longer able to be pulled into half or full cock position. I don't plan on ever selling this gun, as it has been in our family this long, I want to keep it that way. I also have plenty of replicas and don't ever plan on shooting it. But the lack of functionality bothers me a bit. Would it be better to just leave it as is, or have it repaired? Would it be ideal to find an original mainspring from that era? All feedback is appreciated, happy shooting and have a great day

 

[Hammerdown77]

Replacing the mainspring should be a fairly easy fix....however, the critical issue to me would be having to turn the screws to get the grip backstrap off. I know some folks, and smiths, are real reluctant to turn screws on old, rare guns, unless it's absolutely necessary.

Guess it depends on how badly you want to be able to cock the hammer.

 

[pohill]

If you can get it apart easily, I would replace the mainspring. It's like changing (replacing) a flat tire on an antique car. Then again, no one will ever be able to dry fire it again if you leave it as it is.

 

[Ryden]

If you do put in a new spring, make sure it's obvious that is is a new part and keep the old spring. Parts that have been "reliced" to look old demotes the value and raises concern about the pedigree wheras a new internal spare part is considered normal.

 

[bonza]

Get the spring replaced, keep the old one in a baggy with the revolver, & put a ziptie over the hammer so it won't happen again! Enjoy your heirloom, you're very lucky to have it.

 

[iLikeOldgunsIlikeNewGuns]

Big thanks to all of you that responded, every one of these posts has been helpful. Basically confirmed what I was thinking. There will be no further dry-firing of this gun ever! I don't even want to turn the cylinder, as it's in really great shape. Must have only been fired a few times back in the day, my guess is it was only ever fired to refresh the loads and finally to empty it. My mom caught my little brother with it back in the 90s, it has been in a safe place from then on until I got it, which is even safer!

One of these days if I find the right 'smith I'll have it replaced and I'll certainly keep the original spring.

 

[scrat]

You know you have to post some pics of that now

 

[Old Fuff]

I would highly recommend gunsmith David R. Chicoine who might have an original mainspring in stock, and in case there was more to the problem then is known right now he could likely do what was necessary to fix it.

http://www.oldwestgunsmith.com/

During the Civil War the Navy's standard sidearm was Colt's 1851 Navy model. Therefore the 1860 Army revolver you have might be one he personally purchased, rather then one that was issued. Additional research might prove to be interesting.

 

[loose noose]

Personally I won't own a gun I can't fire, as I've got several original old firearms dating back to before the Civil War, and I've shot every one of them, except a .52 rim fire caliber Spencer that I sold for a premium, so I no longer own that one. Guns were made to be shot!

 

[J-Bar]

Hmmm...

If Grandpa broke a tooth, would you tell him not to go to a dentist because he is an original?

Stuff happens. Replacing an internal part seems to me, (I am NOT a collector) different than an external refinishing job. Particularly since you don't plan to sell it.

Make it functional, fondle it while watching cowboy movies, enjoy.

 

[LightningMan]

I have an 1860 army conversion made in 1872, and I have shot it a few time with black powder cartridges. That said, I will say a few parts needed changing as the barrel wedge spring had broken off and the main spring (hammer spring) was IMO excessively strong (took two men & a boy to cock it) so I replaced them with reproduction parts, but I too kept the original parts in a baggy. LM

 

[Old Fuff]

No, the mainspring was not "excessively strong" when cartridges were inside primed center-fire or rim fire. Those springs however earned the revolvers of that time a nickname "thumb-buster."

Concerning antique values: The more original parts there are the higher the value, and depending on what's involved the difference can be substantial. That's why those professionals that restore or repair these guns will go to lengths to repair an original part rather then replace it.

 

[BCRider]

Since you are not ever going to sell it I would say that any harm to the cost is secondary to the desire to have it restored to operating condition.

But there are good points raised on the issue of removing old screws. Any corrosion or other issues that may have locked them into place over that length of time could result in a broken off screw. A good smith knowledgable in how to treat them would be well worth the cost.

While the gun is open it would be a perfect time to check and oil the insides. As suggested above just because Gramps is original doesn't mean that the proper perodic care should not be given. Anything made of metal and wood still requires the proper periodic care or the item will eventually rust or fall apart in your hands.

 

[arcticap]

It should probably be restored just in case there's ever an invasion from Mexico, Canada, China or for when "The South Shall Rise Again!"

 

[LightningMan]

Old Fuff, I would agree that the extra stiff spring was probably needed back then, because of the type of priming used, but for shooting with modern primers it is not, and IMO the original spring will batter the recoil shield unnecessarily. So replacing the spring will prevent that. LM

 

[Old Fuff]

Old Fuff, I would agree that the extra stiff spring was probably needed back then, because of the type of priming used, but for shooting with modern primers it is not, and IMO the original spring will batter the recoil shield unnecessarily. So replacing the spring will prevent that.

It depends on what you want to do - restore an antique artifact to its original condition as much is possible, or modify it to be a shooter using modern ammunition (hopefully loaded with black powder). There are arguments for both sides, but if you ask him, master gunsmith/restorer David Chicoine will explain in detail why it is generally a bad idea to continue shooting a 140-year-old antique revolver, even with black powder.

If there happens to be a seam in the bar stock used to make the cylinder, or bits of carbon from the open-hearth furnace where bar stock was rolled in those days, you can have a weakness that will unexpectedly produce a cracked or expanded chamber, even if the cartridge that did the dirty deed was loaded with black powder.

Then you face two unhappy situations. First, no matter what the monetary value of the piece was, it will be considerably reduced. Second, if it can be repaired the bill will not be inexpensive. Unfortunately Mr. Chicoine can cite a number of instances where this has happened, but he stays in business because some people never learn until it's too late.

Fortunately any and all of the risk can be reduced to zero by using modern reproductions for shooters. They are made for shooting using materials far superior to what was available during the 19th century. The cost of a replica would likely be far less then that related to repairing a seriously damaged original.

Hopefully the gentleman who started this thread will take my advise, and as a result be able to pass his Colt 1860 Army revolver down to future generations intact.

 

[hawkeye74]

I think it should be repaired with original parts if available. I would locate someone qualified to repair an original piece, not an ordinary smith. If you can give a location, maybe we can direct you to a good one. Lodgewood Mfg. of Whitewater WI can do this type repair and might have the original spring in stock.

 

[loose noose]

Like I said I won't own a gun I can't shoot, regardless of how old it is. That is what magnafluxing is for.

 

[J-Bar]

Old Fuff, I would agree that the extra stiff spring was probably needed back then, because of the type of priming used, but for shooting with modern primers it is not, and IMO the original spring will batter the recoil shield unnecessarily. So replacing the spring will prevent that. LM

One of the reasons for having really strong hammer springs on the old guns is to reduce blowback through the nipple when the gun is fired. A heavy spring holds the hammer down on the nipple. We can get away with lighter hammer springs on modern guns that have smaller flash holes in the nipples, since less gas flows backwards during firing.

I have heard of cap and ball guns that recocked the hammer when fired, but thank goodness have not experienced that myself!!

 

[Old Fuff]

Like I said I won't own a gun I can't shoot, regardless of how old it is. That is what magnafluxing is for.

So far I have never heard of anyone in the "I won't own a gun I can't shoot" side of the argument who ever went to the trouble of getting a cylinder (or barrel and frame) checked out using non-destructive testing, of which magnafluxing is an example, but it won't detect all internal flaws. You may (or may not be) a possible exception.

One of the reasons for having really strong hammer springs on the old guns is to reduce blowback through the nipple when the gun is fired.

True, and that would apply to an 1860 Colt. However the 1872 used metallic cartridges with an internal center-fire primer. These too required the heavy hammer spring.

 

[BCRider]

For a gun of this significance to the family I could see it never being shot. It's simply too much part of the family's heritage to risk even light charges creating an issue. But if it were in my care I know I would want to see it restored to functional condition even if merely to cycle the action in an appreciative manner at the periodic regular strip downs for cleaning and oiling that should be done to maintain the gun.

Along those lines if the screws are tight and thus it is sent off to a proper smith to deal with them I would ask that the screws be reset to just tight enough to allow detail stripping in the future for the sake of the cleaning.

As part of this I'd custom grind and hone some screwdriver bits for the perfect fit on the screws to minimize the risk of any damage to the screws and frame.

At least this seems the prudent course to me.

 

[J-Bar]

True, and that would apply to an 1860 Colt. However the 1872 used metallic cartridges with an internal center-fire primer. These too required the heavy hammer spring.

My bad...I missed the comment about the 1872 and cartridges; I was still thinking of the original poster's percussion gun. Thanks.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

Get the spring replaced, keep the old one in a baggy with the revolver, & put a ziptie over the hammer so it won't happen again! Enjoy your heirloom, you're very lucky to have it.

This is what I'd do, but probably not the ziptie. I would probably put a note in with the revolver to warn against dry firing it.

Also, if your family has any documentation of the revolver's ownership by a crewman of the USS Monitor I would include that (or a copy) with the gun. Historical provenance adds to an antique gun's value, especially when it was used, for example, on an historically significant ship.

 

[iLikeOldgunsIlikeNewGuns]

Hey everybody, thanks again for all of your advice, I will keep a copy of this thread in a document for any future specialty-gunsmith needs, but I have some GREAT NEWS!!!

I live in an apartment, and my folks have a house, so I keep The 1860 at their place where it is much safer. Today I visited them and brought my gun oils, as the 1860 has been overdue for a lube. I broke it down to its three major components and oiled it really well. In my original post I said how I was convinced that the main-spring was broken, as the hammer had a weird feel to it and could not be cocked even to half-cock. Well I squirted a just a tiny bit of oil into the internals via the available orafices, and when I went to re-assemble it, I pulled the hammer back as far as it'd go, to allow the cylinder to pass the cylinder-stop, the hammer just suddenly pulled into half then full cock! I wasn't even pulling hard, I was being very gentle as it's a 150 year old gun. When I first originally cleaned it, I found powder residue in the barrel and cylinder, which would have been from the 1920's or '30s! I am now convinced that it was just a broken piece of percussion-cap that got lodged in the internals. My jaw just about hit the floor when that hammer cocked back. I gently lowered the hammer, and had to tell my father immediately

Oh and Scrat

You know you have to post some pics of that now

here ya go! My Dad snapped this pic, I forgot my camera today, I'll be taking much better photos when I visit him on Father's Day



So I do have one additional question for you black powder guys and any antique experts. The whole gun had light surface rust on its exterior when it was handed down to me. I cleaned it up real nice, but the brass trigger-guard has a reddish stain to it now from the light rust. Is this the type of thing I should just leave alone, as it's 150 years old? Or is there a gentle polish that wouldn't hurt the gun at all? I'll get a photo of what I'm describing on Sunday.

 

[dlon21]

No, that's original patina. I suggest leaving it as it is!