Model 1865

[FrankTrost]

I decided to buy the Model 1865, and through my noob eyes, using all my resources, everything looked good to me . I was concerned that the cartouches were a little hard to see but they were there. I am curious about the sling it does have age. It did have RT on the left flat side and looks like a name under the lockplate.

IMG_8208.jpg (32 KiB) Viewed 246 times

IMG_8203.jpg (67.55 KiB) Viewed 246 times

IMG_8204.jpg (29.9 KiB) Viewed 246 times

[John S.]

Based on the photos, it appears to be well above the condition of most I have seen on the market. No excuses, and you won't feel a need to upgrade to a nicer one.
Congratulations!

Now, although not trapdoors, you really need a couple other to "complete the set" of early Springfield Armory cartridge rifles.
Certainly the Joslyn rifle (not the carbines) And of course the "Remfield" Rolling blocks- the M1868 "transformed" musket conversion and the Navy 1867 carbine and cadet, and 1870 rifles, and the Army 1870 trials and 1871 production rifles. And, if you are feeling lucky one of the Morse conversion muskets is the real breechloading cartridge starting point.

[FrankTrost]

Thanks, The deeper I dive on this the better I feel. I must have spent 45 minutes examining before I pulled the trigger, figuratively. I have a Model 1870 and that is what started it all. I do want an 1866 and 1868.

[carlsr]

Thanks, The deeper I dive on this the better I feel. I must have spent 45 minutes examining before I pulled the trigger, figuratively. I have a Model 1870 and that is what started it all. I do want an 1866 and 1868.

Great looking 65!! I have a 65 that I purchased from Al before he retired, it's a nice rifle but not as nice as yours. I absolutely love it and I also shoot it.
I also have a 1866, 1866 short rifle, 1868 dated 1868-69-70 a long with a type 3 1870 and what I call a type 4 1870 made in I think the last quarter of 1873.
I'd like to one day upgrade my 1865 as I'm always looking a short 1865 would definitely be a plus!!
Congratulations on your purchase!

[FrankTrost]

Thanks, never really considered the others, though I do have a Burnside carbine that I have not spent any time on researching. But am looking for that right Model 1866. Ultimately, I want an 1868 and an early 1873.

[Fred Gaarde]

IMG_4787.jpeg (154.78 KiB) Viewed 198 times

“And of course the "Remfield" Rolling blocks- the M1868 "transformed" musket conversion”

That’s what I’ve got. It’s in .58 centerfire.
It was converted from a 1st type 1863 Springfield Rifle Musket.

IMG_4859.jpeg (99.82 KiB) Viewed 193 times

[Dick Hosmer]

The short 1865s come in two basic flavors. (1) the crudely done, badly proportioned ones where the middle band remains in place and the front looks weird. These usually have the wrist severely thinned as well. In my opinion, they are not collectible and really should be shunned. (2) the nicely proportioned ones as described in Fladerman. 270 are supposed to have been made, presumably at SA, but it is now thought they may have been converted by Whitney, perhaps under authority. They are a nice, if mysterious, acquisition. I've seen 6 or 7 over the years, all identical.

Short '66s are best left alone unless you REALLY know what to look for; some are abortions like (1) above, but others are very well done and LOOK like SA work but they are not.

[carlsr]

The short 1865s come in two basic flavors. (1) the crudely done, badly proportioned ones where the middle band remains in place and the front looks weird. These usually have the wrist severely thinned as well. In my opinion, they are not collectible and really should be shunned. (2) the nicely proportioned ones as described in Fladerman. 270 are supposed to have been made, presumably at SA, but it is now thought they may have been converted by Whitney, perhaps under authority. They are a nice, if mysterious, acquisition. I've seen 6 or 7 over the years, all identical.

Short '66s are best left alone unless you REALLY know what to look for; some are abortions like (1) above, but others are very well done and LOOK like SA work but they are not.

My short rifle, if laid next to my M68, are identical in length and proportion.
Also all measurements are correct but the middle band has been "expertly"may I say, filled in. From reading Al's books, Springfield did not do this but I do believe there is a memorandum speaking of doing just that??
I'm not quite sure at the moment as age is affecting my memory
I just think it is odd that someone would go to that much trouble to fake a rifle so precise that really had no demand "then or now" I might add.

[Dick Hosmer]

I have always felt the short 1865's were real. Al disagrees, and he is above me on the totem pole of trapdoor nuts! It IS clear that SA did NOT fill spring cuts on the (legitimate) short 1866s, but I do not believe there is definitive info on the short '65s.

Every one I have seen has been exactly the same, and generally in pretty nice shape - whatever the explanation may truly be, they apparently did not see much use after conversion.

When I pare my collection down the the basics (one each of the various models) my short 1865 will be my keeper for that action design..

[John S.]

What we might view as "fakery" today, and correctly so if the work has been done in the last 40 years or so, was likely nothing but an attempt to turn nearly worthless items into a product which would sell (at a huge profit).

There was an active movement with "Boys' Brigades" which were sort of a more martial version of what we call Boy Scouts, as well as many veteran groups looking for arms for youthful cadets or veteran color guards and the like, and even schools sometimes had armed color guards. (As mine did in the 1960s with chrome plated Constabulary size Krags.)

The "skinny wrist" guns were obviously for the Boys Brigade market niche, but the larger, closer to martial pattern alterations were likely for the Veterans groups. Bannerman certainly cranked out a lot of these, but their cohorts/competitors (who often connived to bid in a lot at the surplus auction and then split it among themselves rather than competitively bidding and driving the price up) all had workers who could do gunsmithing/butchery. Schuyler, Hartley & Graham dis a lot of work, but over the years, many other players did as well. W. Stokes Kirk of Philadelphia was a big player, but not on the scale of Bannerman or SH&G. Some of the mail order houses (Sears, Roebuck, etc) also peddled similar stuff circa 1900, likely sourced from Bannerman or others. They were not catering to a gun collector market (not that there was much of that at the time) but to customers who wanted a gun for a specific use. Most people, even shooters at that time, probably could not tell the difference between a M1866, 1868, 1870 or 1873 except for caliber, and they only cared about that if they wanted to buy blanks for funeral honors or parades or mock battles.

IIRC, the Stokes Kirk inventory was inherited by two daughters circa 1960s, and they were the source of the material divided up between Ross Kircher of Gettysburg, and Joe DeChristopher of Feasterville, PA. The latter has descended into what is now operated as "Grandpa's Gun Parts."

So, the origins of many of the oddball guns will remain a mystery, but unless recently done, were probably done as a legitimate market driven business move, not an attempt to deceive or imitate some rare armory item.

Anyway, that's my opinion, worth the cost. Like Dick, I'd stay away form most of the cut downs, but defer to Al Frasca's expertise and wealth of data on the existence of real ones.