Spiller & Burr

[pohill]

First of all, I'm not too sure of Santa Claus, but I've seen the Victoria Secret Angel, so I know there's a God and he thinks like me. With that in mind, I'm going to post this about my Spiller & Burr and see what happens.
I'm 99.99% certain it's a de-farbed replica, but it's the best I've ever seen. At least one BP shooter told me that he thought it was an original, and there are facts that point to why he said it. I don't want to be the guy who sells an antique porcelan bowl for $5 then finds out it was George Washington's bedpan.
The gun has the number 82 in various places (even handwritten on the inside of the grips) and the letters CSA on the right side of the frame. I have a copy of the book THE CONFEDERATE BRASS-FRAMED COLT AND WHITNEY by William Albaugh. In it he lists the known Spiller & Burrs' serial numbers - they run from #72, 75, 77, 81, 86, etc. No mention of #82. The de-farber probably had this book when he did his work.
But..the originals had iron cylinders, some with a noticable twist in the metal, but, also, some without the twist. If I could somehow show this cylinder to be made of steel, the case would be closed.
Like I said, I know it's most likely a replica, but would anyone know who made it and when? Just saying "it's not an original" or "it's an original" isn't enough.

 

[Roswell 1847]

Even if the cylinder or some other parts were not original there would remain a slim possibilty that the rest of the gun is.

Best way to find out is to have an analysis run on the brass frame.

These were extremely limited production handguns and more than likely researchers have analysised the alloy before, and probably can reference records of the casting operations.

Many Confederate brass frames suffered from use of recycled clock works and lamps thrown in the mix. They had intended to use better quality bronze for these frames but available bronze was reserved for cannon barrels.

Just looking at it I'd guess this was built by a re enactor from a early kit, without intention to defraud.
The numbers may be correct for an early production kit gun.
I've been planing to buy one of the kits for my next project.

But you can't be too sure.
If it turned out to be an original its in the best shape of any I've seen yet.

PS
http://www.csarmory.org/spiller/page2.html

It would appear that Spiller and Burr revolvers were marked "CS" on the left side of the frame rather than "CSA" on the right side.

 

[pohill]

As far as the stampings, Albaugh says in his book that "Most are stamped "C.S." on the right OR left side."

Would kit guns have any kind of proof marks on them? I thought of trying to raise any numbers or letters that might have been removed, but I'm not sure how.
It certainly is an interesting gun. I paid $150 for it in Maine. I've fired it, and actually had a double cylinder fire. It takes .375 roundballs - the .380s are too big.

 

[Niner]

Couldn't say on how genuine it is but the loading lever screw seems to be in backward. Of course that could have been done at any time.

 

[Roswell 1847]

Heres a site with a zoomable image of an original
http://americanhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/collection/object.asp?ID=527

Of course these brass framed guns were not really standardized in there final finishing but the front of the frame where the barrel emerges looks different in all the images I've seen so far.


As for kit gun markings, these are shallow and often disappear in the process of finishing out the frame.

Since a Spiller and Burr kit runs to $175 these days you came out okay.

 

[DrLaw]

I'm going to guess reproduction from a kit.

Check out this page. http://www.csarmory.org/spiller/page2.html

The Doc is out now.

PS. I see I duplicated a link. Oh well, guess I have to read these a little closer.

 

[pohill]

The loading lever screw/latch can be used either from the right or left. I've seen pics of both, and I've had it on the right and the left.

 

[Tommygunn]

Given the cast markings on the inside of the grip frame, I am going to say it is a reproduction -- possibly a kit gun assembled by a reenactor as a previous poster suggested.
My copy of CONFEDERATE REVOLVERS by William A. Gary shows Spiller & Burr Revolves assembled and unassembled, and the brass frames have no circular casting marks.
In addition to which, the safety slots between the nipples seem more pronounced in this than they do in the photos in Gary's book ... but I'm not sure if that's important.
I own a Pietta repro of a S&B which has no safety slots. But otherwise it's very much like the photograph here.

 

[pohill]

Like I said, I'm 99.9% sure it's a kit gun replica. But I'd rather be the guy that people chuckle at because he thinks he might have an original, than the guy they laugh at because he didn't know he had an original.
Here's a pic of the cylinder top.
Thanks for the info and ideas.

 

[Tommygunn]

I also noticed that the way the nipples sockets are cut on this revolver are different than in Gary's book. The outer edges here have a "flat" at the outer edge. The photos in Gary's book show more rounder cuts.
Also, that cylinder seems in awfully good shape to be an original -- atleast, in my humble opinion.

 

[Roswell 1847]

I just rembered an article I read when the first Spiller and Burr repros came out. I got the impression that those were made by a small family owned company in the South.
It could be that a very early production repro might have a bit of extra value compared to more recent kit guns or the Pietta repros.

 

[pohill]

I posted a pic of some ROA grips that I have that I thought might be Mother of Pearl, but I hoped they were Pearlite or plastic. My intention was to prove they weren't Mother of Pearl so I'd feel better about shooting the gun with them on. Same thing with this Spiller & Burr - I wanted proof that it was not an original so I can shoot it and not worry about it. Old Fluff provided me with some great info on the grips which just about proved they were plastic. After reading your opinions on the S&B, I'm 99.99999 +1/2% convinced it's a replica, and a good one. And, it might have been made by a family business in the South. I'm getting there.
Thanks again.