Real 1866 Short Rifle or Bannerman?

[jbrower]

First time posting to this site since it was revamped a few years ago.

I recently came across someone who would like to sell what they described as an 1884 model Trapdoor which obviously isn't what they think it is. He just wants a few hundred dollars for it.

It appears that this rifle may be what Richard Hosmer describes as an 1866 "Short Rifle" in his book "The .58 and .50 Caliber Rifles & Carbines of the Springfield Armory." I can find no reference to this model rifle in Waite & Ernst's book "Trapdoor Springfield."

I have read that while Springfield Armory did apparently make a little over a thousand of these rifles, there is a lot of uncertainty as to whether or not they were ever issued. Some way that they were made-up and intended for sale to France for the Franco-Prussian war but the war ended before they were delivered.

My real concern is that this may be a Bannerman rifle.

The seller claims that there are no filled-in keeper spring slots on the stock between the upper and lower bands, and the pictures seem to prove that.

Any opinions here as to whether or not this could be the "real deal" or is it an obviously Bannerman or other put-together rifle? Any questions I could ask the seller or additional pics I could have him take?

Here are a bunch of pics:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y103/jbrower/1866%20TrapdoorShort%20Rifle/QEtw7TGh_zpse67af070.jpg (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/jbrower/media/1866%20TrapdoorShort%20Rifle/QEtw7TGh_zpse67af070.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y103/jbrower/1866%20TrapdoorShort%20Rifle/noLlo0bh_zpse33fe418.jpg (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/jbrower/media/1866%20TrapdoorShort%20Rifle/noLlo0bh_zpse33fe418.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y103/jbrower/1866%20TrapdoorShort%20Rifle/YpH9eL6h_zps1571b05d.jpg (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/jbrower/media/1866%20TrapdoorShort%20Rifle/YpH9eL6h_zps1571b05d.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y103/jbrower/1866%20TrapdoorShort%20Rifle/ma87mruh_zps5e22c406.jpg (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/jbrower/media/1866%20TrapdoorShort%20Rifle/ma87mruh_zps5e22c406.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y103/jbrower/1866%20TrapdoorShort%20Rifle/kHb4bzxh_zpsd0496a87.jpg (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/jbrower/media/1866%20TrapdoorShort%20Rifle/kHb4bzxh_zpsd0496a87.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y103/jbrower/1866%20TrapdoorShort%20Rifle/HumyBcbh_zpsb53a90e6.jpg (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/jbrower/media/1866%20TrapdoorShort%20Rifle/HumyBcbh_zpsb53a90e6.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y103/jbrower/1866%20TrapdoorShort%20Rifle/gpkJfFBh_zps34862ce5.jpg (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/jbrower/media/1866%20TrapdoorShort%20Rifle/gpkJfFBh_zps34862ce5.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y103/jbrower/1866%20TrapdoorShort%20Rifle/EuhNuHth_zpsdace9279.jpg (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/jbrower/media/1866%20TrapdoorShort%20Rifle/EuhNuHth_zpsdace9279.jpg.html)

Thanks for any input.

[Dick Hosmer]

It might be; though my first thought is Bannerman, even though there is (apparently) no filled middle band prep. The stock has been excessively sanded (and not recently) to remove the flats in the lock area, though the cartouches appear untouched. The rod should set back from the muzzle just like a normal 1866, but that could just be dirt in the hole/threads. This should be checked. Cannot tell if the rod has a stop shoulder or not (it shouldn't). Does the rod have threads on the end? It's not a bad-looking rifle at all, aside from the sanded stock. How much is a few hundred? If the rod/hole situation can be cleaned up to conform with my book, it might be worth it. Due to the stock sanding, it will never be totally correct, but they are scarce. What is overall length?

[John Sukey]

A West Point cadet rifle? I believe those were made from shortened regular rifles for one year

[Dick Hosmer]

I wouldn't think so . There was a very special miniaturized Cadet rifle made (424) during that period which has little in common with either length of the regular 1866. This was followed by the Model 1869 Cadet, made in sufficient quantities to arm "ROTC" units at other colleges.

[Kragrifle]

Dick
I have always been interested in the two band first Allins. I own two first Allins two band muskets that I believe are authentic. I also have two second Allin two band muskets one with the filled in band spring slot and one without. I have heard the theory that the correct variation is one without the filled in slot. I just do not buy that since the first models do have the filled in slots.
As for the musket being discussed I have been led to believe these are Bannerman guns which often have the wrist area thinned down . I have seen several muskets like this one that have had the flats removed while leaving the cartouches!

[Kragrifle]

BTW you know this is not the. 1867 cadet since this musket has sling swivels.

[Dick Hosmer]

Dick
I have always been interested in the two band first Allins. I own two first Allins two band muskets that I believe are authentic. I also have two second Allin two band muskets one with the filled in band spring slot and one without. I have heard the theory that the correct variation is one without the filled in slot. I just do not buy that since the first models do have the filled in slots.
As for the musket being discussed I have been led to believe these are Bannerman guns which often have the wrist area thinned down . I have seen several muskets like this one that have had the flats removed while leaving the cartouches!

As have I, and have always thought my 2-band 1st was correct. Over my collecting span I've seen maybe five just like it. But, after discussion with Al Frasca, it does have one "issue" - the rod is supposed to screw in, but mine does not. At first I told him I thought he was wrong, citing the fact that the parent musket had a "free" (friction only) rod - being needed for quick access in the loading process. He responded with a quote from some contemporary document which stated that the M1865 rods were, or at least should be, threaded. Having seen/handled/dismounted very few 1sts, not all of which were complete, I am at a disadvantage. That is an area which I have noted will need tweaking if there is a second edition of my book.

With regard to the 2-band 2nds, the situation is a little different, as they (unlike the 1sts which used M1861 wood) were supposedly made from M1863-I stocks which did not have band springs. We are all familiar with the strange-looking "classic Bannerman" short arms with super-thin wrists and mid-band left as-is; they can be spotted at 50 feet. What gets trickier is where the converter seemingly intended to follow what is considered the "normal" 2-band configuration, introduced on the Model 1868. This is where the patched band arms come in, and what has not been widely pointed out is the fact that the "front-end geometry" (relationship of tip, band, band-spring, muzzle, amount of wood exposed, etc.) will vary on such modified rifles, as will the overall and barrel lengths. To anyone who has a 2-band 2nd, with filled band spring, I suggest that they lay it next to a known SA product, such as an 1868, to check this. You may be surprised, I know that I was, and I sold the gun - only later getting a correct one from Ed Hull (not yet on my website - but I plan a lot of photography this winter).

[jbrower]

Thanks for the responses. Seller says that the cleaning rod has a threaded end. Overall length is 52".

[Dick Hosmer]

Well, the 52" is correct, and, FWIW, the front end looks correct as far as I can tell from the one relevant pic. Next test is to clean the rod-hole, and see if the rod will screw in and seat at or near the proper 1-1/8" setback from the muzzle. If that all works, I'd say it at least could be a legitimate short '66, albeit one with an unfortunately (though nicely done) rounded stock. All in all, it's a good-looking piece - I'm a bit disturbed by the obvious variance in finishes, but bright daylight is NEVER kind to our treasures, and if properly displayed, that one would look very nice indeed, even more so if the price is modest! :-)

[Kragrifle]

Both of my First Allin two band muskets have the swelled area behind the cupped end and appear to be shortened 1861 rods. Both of my Second Allin two banders have correct length straight rods that screw into the small female receptacle in the stock just above the trigger guard plate. Except for the band spring area they look the same . Cartouche on the plain stock is a barely visible ESA. The filled on stock has a different looking ESA. Wish I could post a photo .

[Dick Hosmer]

Rods all sound right - do the 66s seat 1-1/8" back?

What are the lock dates on your short 65s, and do they have the unique interior relief millings? Why can you not post photos?

A "different-looking" ESA is intriguing, but, given the arm involved might be a "problem".

[Kragrifle]

Dick,
I will try to find the muskets and get photos to you. I would be interested in your thoughts. May not have time till next week as I am busy at the office and trying to get away to the Tulsa show this WE.