A True 1866 Short Rifle

[Hammer]

Here’s the pictures of the “shorter” M1866 short rifle I got along with another M1866 from the estate of a long time trapdoor collector.

I don’t see any prior third barrel band mark or filled spring pin on the stock and the wrist is the same thickness as my other 56” M1866. The overall length of this shorter M1866 is 52”.

This short rifle came with a really nice bayonet and scabbard.

[Hammer]

More pics

[Hammer]

What does the JB stand for on the left side of the breach area? And is the 4 on the top of the buttplate more likely a rack number or a unit designation?

[Hammer]

Here’s the picture of where the filled pinhole would be if there was one according to Tony’s post (shown below) that was on the other thread.

[Hammer]

I realize this bayonet and scabbard is from post 1874, but it came with a short rifle and it’s really nice.

[Dick Hosmer]

AFAIK, that IS a proper one. Congratulations.

You would THINK, given date of modification, that they would have used the then-current 1868 stock and rod system, but they did not - the repaired arm lookied just like the full-length parent. Doubly odd, because the 1867 Cadet DID have the (slightly slimmer) rod flush out to the muzzle, though it still screwed in.

Here is a happy story: Years ago, a guy contacts me needing a rod for his 1873 cadet, because the one in it was wrong. I had been going crazy looking for a rod for my '67. Guess what, in my parts stash, I had what he needed, and - after some pics, turned out he had what I needed! A true win-win!

[Hammer]

Sometimes you just get really lucky! Dick, I just got your book in the mail and was reading about this short rifle.

I went through it quickly and I saw what the stock initials stand for and this one has three like your book says.

Also, I’m curious what the JB stands for?

[carlsr]

I also have a 1866 short rifle but it does have the filler.
It does however have every correct measurement along with the stock being as it should, other than the filler.
There's another post here somewhere that has photos of my short rifle. It is laying next to an M68 and they look identical. I believe the M68 was modeled from the short rifle as stated somewhere in Dicks book.
Most will say it's not Springfield production because of the filler but I feel that bubba would not have gone through the trouble to fake a rifle with correct measurements.

[Dick Hosmer]

My first short '66 had the filler and the upper band spacing was just a little off. I lived with it a long time before finally admitting it wasn't right. The (correct) one I have now, was acquired from Ed Hull about 25 years ago. One constant - I have learned - is that the dimensions from the upper band shoulder, and the tip, to the muzzle, are constant and do NOT vary on genuine SA arms from the CW muskets to the M1884! Lay a short rifle along any genuine rifle from that period, and if those points do not align perfectly, you have a problem with the short rifle - also, a proper short rifle will measure 36" from tang-screw joint to muzzle, or exactly 4" less than a three-bander. Sometimes the front spacing may look OK, but the barrel is off a bit. A lot of people were making these and they did not all march to the same drummer. The only easy-to-spot "bad" ones are those miserable abortions with thinned wrist and un-modified middle band.

[Hammer]

What does the JB stand for? Is that just the inspector’s initials for the breach area, or for the whole gun?