1866 short rifle

[gunluvver]

I'm in the process of cleaning up an 1866 short rifle for display in a local museum. I'm trying to determine if it's an original or aftermarket cut down. No fillers in the stock, and there is an illegible cartouche on the left side near the lock plate screw. Barrel is 29.5" long to the tang. Centerline between bands is 11.5". The rear sight leaf is intriguing, as it hass been cut into a folding buckhorn at the lowest hole. Breechblock is 1866 marked, and the lock is 1864. Cleaning rod is a crudely cut down rifle rod with no threads. I haven't removed the stock to see if there is a threaded plate, but the rod hits something solid when inserted. The front sight looks like the original style, but not perfect. I took pictures and will attempt to post.

- - - Updated - - -

50385

- - - Updated - - -

50386

[gunluvver]

50388

- - - Updated - - -

50389

[gunluvver]

50391
50392
50393
50394
50395

[gunluvver]

50396
50397
50398
50399
50400

[gunluvver]

50401
50402

[Dick Hosmer]

From the info provided, it is almost certainly an after-market cut-down. The short '66s are the same length as the then-current M1868 rifle, while yours is of cadet length, yet is clearly not the special M1867 with all miniature parts. Crude workmanship at the tip, muzzle and front sight is another give-away, as is the band spacing which should be 19.125". You might enjoy my guidebook on the .58/.50 arms, available on Amazon.

[gunluvver]

Thanks for the quick reply. It will end up on display at the Superstition Mountain Museum in Apache Junction AZ as a representative piece for the firearms used in the settlement period of the area. Gotta have a Trapdoor!

[Kragrifle]

Two band Second Allin conversions are hard to find. First Allin conversions, on the other hand do show up now and then and I have seen and owned several variations.

[Dick Hosmer]

I'm sure you meant correct short 2nd Allins - the crude ones (like above) are quite common. It is now pretty well established that the nice-looking Firsts (not the various abortions) were assembled by Whitney, not SA - though they are still scarce if not rare. I've seen four or five over 50+ years of collecting, and picked up my own very nice one in the late '70s for $425. As I reduce my collection it will be my 1A keeper, as my three-bander is on the rough side (but does have the seldom-seen square-notch block). EXCELLENT article by Kent Johns in the current issue of MAA, by the way.

[Kragrifle]

I have seen one very nice 2 band Allin with 3-4 inspectors cartouches (can?t recall). It would appear to have been produced at Springfield. I have two, one with an unusual cartouche. I?ll try to find it and post a photo.
As for the First Allins, I have owned three (foolishly sold the one with the early square cut) . The two I still have have the SWP and ESA cartouches but interestingly have different band spacing. I have not heard of the Whitney claim.

[Kragrifle]

50404

- - - Updated - - -

50405

- - - Updated - - -

5040650406

- - - Updated - - -

50407

[Dick Hosmer]

The band spacing point is STRANGE!!! I've NEVER seen such a variance on a 'right' gun - there's gotta be a story there!

For some reason, I did not see your pics before I posted - must have crossed in the ether. I think we can all agree that the lower band is ALWAYS in the proper location and the others float depending on who did the circumcision. Barrel lengths can vary as well of course, but there is, if you will, a "proper" relationship between upper band, muzzle, length of wood exposed, length of barrel, length of metal exposed ahead of tip, fit of tip, location of band spring, etc. which I lump together under the term "front-end geometry". When it is "right" it is 'right", but when ANY component is off it affects the others, and is thus "wrong", i.e. not SA. This revelation came to me years ago on a short 2A which passed all the tests but was (just sightly) goofy up front. Sold it and replaced it with a proper one.