Springfield 1861 Rifled Musket Rear Sight

[Johnm1]

I'll trade you for that old beat up iron, take it off your hands

Cubans? No, I couldn't take advantage of a fellow forum member like that .

Nice looking rifle. Bet it shoots good.

 

[Johnm1]

Well while we're at it, here's the 1842. It was made in 1851. Sun was going down so the pictures are a bit darker.

 

[dave951]

The only way I'd do the replacement barrel is to send the orignal barrel so the maker could replicate it. I would not
fit an original stock to a replacement barrel.

The 1842 has a wide spot in the barrel. That and I've done little more than toy with it. I haven't invested the time to figure the best load or patch thickness. I have only tried 60 grains of 2F. Way short of the full load.

Bobby Hoyt can fix the original barrel. The key to getting a smoothbore to shoot well without a patch is to cast the ball .005 under the measured bore size. That leaves .0025 windage and obturation on firing deals with that. You can still get a ball down the barrel for subsequent shots. Here's my 1842 Macon repop and a offhand target at 25yd. I can take headshots out to 50yd with no issue. That's a 5 shot group with one called flyer. Load is 65g 3f Old E or Swiss.

 

[AlexanderA]

Well while we're at it, here's the 1842.

By way of comparison, here's my "hybrid" M1842 -- original Harpers Ferry lock and trigger guard, and repro (Dunlap) stock and (Whitacre) barrel:



Here's my straight Chiappa (Armi Sport) M1842 repro, in the "rifled and sighted" version:

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Bobby Hoyt can fix the original barrel. The key to getting a smoothbore to shoot well without a patch is to cast the ball .005 under the measured bore size. That leaves .0025 windage and obturation on firing deals with that. You can still get a ball down the barrel for subsequent shots. Here's my 1842 Macon repop and a offhand target at 25yd. I can take headshots out to 50yd with no issue. That's a 5 shot group with one called flyer. Load is 65g 3f Old E or Swiss.
View attachment 1074512

Yup, that's exactly how a smooth bore should shoot at 25 yards, really not much difference from a rifle, at 25. And of course still grouping good at 50, but beyond fifty they will really start to spread out. Now no offense Dave, but I believe a patched "chewed" ball would group a bit better than that. I have found, and maybe it's just me, or my results, that smooth bore accuracy usually improves as the charge is increased. Or at least that is true with my Brown Bess. All muskets and rifles are individuals of course, and that would not/might not be true for all. And I will admit, in my Bess, a tightly patched ball over a heavy charge is only good for three shots before wiping.

Speaking of Hoyt, I think that if I had an original 1861 with a "not so great" bore, I'd have him reline the barrel, and rifle it for round ball. (I bet he could get that old cone out too) I have thought about seeing if he could smooth bore my Armi-Sport '61, and rifle it for round ball. As the three groove minne' ball rifling is so shallow, I don't think it would compromise the strength of the barrel, as those Armi-Sport/Chiappa tubes are heavy to begin with. ? With an original barrel, I think a re-line would be smarter. Okay, random thoughts!

 

[Ugly Sauce]

By way of comparison, here's my "hybrid" M1842 -- original Harpers Ferry lock and trigger guard, and repro (Dunlap) stock and (Whitacre) barrel:

View attachment 1074550

Here's my straight Chiappa (Armi Sport) M1842 repro, in the "rifled and sighted" version:

View attachment 1074557

Dang, you guys got cool guns. I've always wanted a carbine or short rifle version of the Armi-Sport rifled and sighted version of the 1842.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Cubans? No, I couldn't take advantage of a fellow forum member like that .

Nice looking rifle. Bet it shoots good.

Ha, you are too kind, to not shamelessly take advantage of my generosity. Heck, I'd even wrap it in that cougar skin for you. Cubans of course. Yes she shoots good. Likes the LEE REAL over 85 grains of 3fg. Paid $400 for it, thought I was buying a used rifle, turned out to be NIB. ??!!! What was the seller thinking? That was a probably eight years ago, but even then they weren't going for that.

 

[dave951]

Yup, that's exactly how a smooth bore should shoot at 25 yards, really not much difference from a rifle, at 25. And of course still grouping good at 50, but beyond fifty they will really start to spread out. Now no offense Dave, but I believe a patched "chewed" ball would group a bit better than that. I have found, and maybe it's just me, or my results, that smooth bore accuracy usually improves as the charge is increased. Or at least that is true with my Brown Bess. All muskets and rifles are individuals of course, and that would not/might not be true for all. And I will admit, in my Bess, a tightly patched ball over a heavy charge is only good for three shots before wiping.

I've experimented with patched and "chewed" ball and they do NOT group better than this load in this gun. The group in the pic was shot offhand and would have been tighter from the bench. I found that 65g 3f Old E was the optimum for this barrel length. In smoothbores, barrel length is a huge consideration and only careful experimentation will yield best results.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Truth. I've heard that before, how some guns will shoot best with lighter charges and no patch just tow under and over the ball. Sorry, I missed that your group was shot off hand, I was thinking in terms of a bench-rested group.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I've experimented with patched and "chewed" ball and they do NOT group better than this load in this gun. The group in the pic was shot offhand and would have been tighter from the bench. I found that 65g 3f Old E was the optimum for this barrel length. In smoothbores, barrel length is a huge consideration and only careful experimentation will yield best results.

Ha ha, says right in your post "offhand". Need to work on my reading comprehension.

 

[Springfeld]

By way of comparison, here's my "hybrid" M1842 -- original Harpers Ferry lock and trigger guard, and repro (Dunlap) stock and (Whitacre) barrel:

View attachment 1074550

Here's my straight Chiappa (Armi Sport) M1842 repro, in the "rifled and sighted" version:

View attachment 1074557

When did you purchase your Dunlap Stock?

 

[AlexanderA]

When did you purchase your Dunlap Stock?

I put that gun together sometime in the late 1980's, when I was still doing Civil War reenacting. Dunlap Woodcrafts was local to me (in Chantilly, Virginia) so I just went over there and asked what they had available. I picked out a pretty nice one, but they gave me a discount because it was "blemished." The "blemish" was a vertical "knot" in the wood, which you can see in my picture just behind the wrist area. It's hardly visible after staining and oiling the stock.

This wood is actually better than the Chiappa wood that you can see in my second picture. Speaking of Chiappa, their Armi Sport M1861 is lousy, being way too thick and heavy in both the barrel and the stock. But their M1842 is extremely close to the originals. Go figure.

I believe that Dunlap is still in business, although I haven't checked on them in a long time. Their prices, of course, have gone up considerably.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Speaking of Chiappa, their Armi Sport M1861 is lousy,

I have an Armi Sport 1861, it is not lousy. Maybe not "close to original", for those who give a hoot about that, but it is a beautiful rifle. Fit, finish, and craftsmanship is second to none.

 

[Springfeld]

This wood is actually better than the Chiappa wood that you can see in my second picture. Speaking of Chiappa, their Armi Sport M1861 is lousy, being way too thick and heavy in both the barrel and the stock. But their M1842 is extremely close to the originals. Go figure.

I believe that Dunlap is still in business, although I haven't checked on them in a long time. Their prices, of course, have gone up considerably.

I’ve noticed from videos and pictures on the quality of the wood on the Armi Sport / Chippa rifles seems meh. Looks good, sadly my quest in the past three years to build my own 1861 flopped. I check with Dunlap occasionally and they never seem to have anything, so was curious about your stock. I can see why people buy the imports.

 

[AlexanderA]

I have an Armi Sport 1861, it is not lousy. Maybe not "close to original", for those who give a hoot about that, but it is a beautiful rifle. Fit, finish, and craftsmanship is second to none.

My standard is authenticity. I mean, if you're going to make a reproduction, why bother if you don't do it right? Put an Armi Sport M1861 next to an original, and you'll see exactly what I mean. The Euroarms (tooling later taken over by Pedersoli) is better, and the late-lamented Japanese Miroku was the best of all, in the authenticity department.

I agree that standing on its own the Armi Sport is well made. Overbuilt, actually. That's just the problem. Barrel and stock are way too thick and heavy.

But Armi Sport / Chiappa is inconsistent regarding authenticity. As I said, their M1842 is really excellent. It passes the "side by side with an original" test.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

My standard is authenticity. I mean, if you're going to make a reproduction, why bother if you don't do it right? Put an Armi Sport M1861 next to an original, and you'll see exactly what I mean. The Euroarms (tooling later taken over by Pedersoli) is better, and the late-lamented Japanese Miroku was the best of all, in the authenticity department.

I agree that standing on its own the Armi Sport is well made. Overbuilt, actually. That's just the problem. Barrel and stock are way too thick and heavy.

But Armi Sport / Chiappa is inconsistent regarding authenticity. As I said, their M1842 is really excellent. It passes the "side by side with an original" test.

Oh yeah, I get it. And, I "wish" my '61 was lighter and slimmer. I don't think my stock is too bad, (VERY nice wood) but the barrel is certainly over-built. And I meant no offense against authenticity. But when my Armi-Sport heard "lousy", she cried all night. I'm very much alone in my black powder hobby, and don't know a single person who would know a 1861 Springfield from a Bren-Gun. So, authenticity takes second place to quality.

I imagine that build quality is like any other product, some come down the line in perfection, some come down on Monday morning or Friday afternoon. Some go to the Drunk-Monkey room on the weekend for final assembly. I'm pretty sure I got one that was made on Wednesday. !!!

 

[4v50 Gary]

Replicas are for shooting. Keep the originals in the safe.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Replicas are for shooting. Keep the originals in the safe.

I understand that, but if I were Mr. Money-Bags, I'd find me a good shootable original, have the barrel re-lined, and shoot the heck out of it!!!

 

[hawg]

Replicas are for shooting. Keep the originals in the safe.

Nah, I shoot my original Enfield. I don't shoot it a lot but I do shoot it. As for Armi Sport authenticity my 1980 built repro Enfield is pretty close. The rear sight is the major difference. Original bayonets fit it better than they do my original.

 

[AlexanderA]

Replicas are for shooting. Keep the originals in the safe.

The replicas have become collectible in their own right. Some of the values rival the values of originals!

One of the rules that I came up with when I started collecting is that everything must be shootable (even though I don't generally shoot them). So, everything in my collection prior to Trapdoor Springfields (i.e., muzzleloaders) is a reproduction (except for a couple of originals that I inherited). Some of the reproductions have been going up in value faster than their original counterparts.

 

[hawg]

The replicas have become collectible in their own right. Some of the values rival the values of originals!

One of the rules that I came up with when I started collecting is that everything must be shootable (even though I don't generally shoot them). So, everything in my collection prior to Trapdoor Springfields (i.e., muzzleloaders) is a reproduction (except for a couple of originals that I inherited). Some of the reproductions have been going up in value faster than their original counterparts.

I can't believe how much the repros have gone up. I gave less than 200.00 for my Enfield but that was in 1980. My original was 900.00 in 97. I think you can still find a shootable original Enfield for around 900.00 but a repro is going to cost over 1000.00. I've got an original SXS 12 gauge percussion I shoot as well as an old Lancaster SXS. I've got an original 1887 Winchester 12 gauge I've been shooting since 68. That was my squirrel gun when I was growing up and no telling how many 2 3/4 smokeless shells I fired through it. I even accidently fired a 3 inch shell out of it and didn't hurt it.