1866 Short Rifle before and after

[Carlsr]

Before
51701517025170351704

[Carlsr]

After5170551706517075170851709

[Carlsr]

Won this rifle in a recent auction. I took a chance on it thinking it would clean up well with a little kroil and also cleaning up the stock. There was no description of the bore condition but it was shiny with nice rifling. It also came with a bayonet which must have been in a scabbard as only what would be out of the scabbard was quite brown and also cleaned up well.
This short rifle has the filled in band spring but all measurements seem to be as stated in Dicks book.
Inside bore dimension is correct along with band spacing, cleaning rod and overal length. Bayonet also fits well after carefully filling of a small bugger on the muzzle.
I believe it came out well??

[Allen]

You did a great job w/o overdoing it.

Congrats on that bore. I've bought a few w/o any bore description and found out why the hard way.

[Carlsr]

Thanks Allen! I didn't want it shiny new looking, just clean with the right amount of age left.
I laid it under my 1868 trapdoor and it seems to me that it is exactly the same in all respects other then a different action and cleaning rod position. Here they are.
51710

[Tkacook]

That turned out great! I have two cutdown 1866 rifles in my collection. Neither done professionally. Yours being a real short rifle is something special. Enjoy!

[Carlsr]

Thanks Tkcook but that’s where I’m confused.According to Al Frasca if it has the filled in band spring it’s not a real short rifle but rather one from say Bannerman’s. The wrist does not look to be thinned out next to my three band 1866 and all looks good next to my M68. All looks too good to be a cutdown???

[Carlsr]

Would you happen to have a photo of your cut down Tkacook?

[bruce]

Simply remarkable rifle ... both before and especially after Kroil. My compliments to you on a very good job well done. Sincerely. bruce.

[Tkacook]

Would you happen to have a photo of your cut down Tkacook?

51711

Not a great picture, but here it is. Please ignore the cleaning rod as it's a bad reproduction.

[Carlsr]

Thank you Tkacook. I can definitely see the difference in your short rifle as the band spacing is different. Makes me wonder if Springfield did produce short rifles with stocks that had the band spring slot filled in.

[Dick Hosmer]

There are all sorts of takes on the short '66s (and '65s). Many of the guns with middle band left as is have severely/grotesquely thinned wrists. Some, clearly, do not. There are unanswered questions - why did guns like Cook's have the tip moved back so far leaving the rod unsupported? Why are there so many different barrel lengths on the short guns? Why, even on the the ones that look right, do some have the front-end parts geometry screwed up? Who REALLY made the "nice" short '65s? Whitney? Why, since they used new stocks, didn't SA use the '68 rod and keeper on the correct short '66s? BTW Carl, your clean-up job came out looking VERY nice.

[Carlsr]

Too many why’s there Dick LOL and thank you.
The only thing on this rifle that doesn’t match exactly to the information in your book is the date on the lock.
Just a thought but on the short 66 manufactured by others does a bayonet fit on them?

[Carlsr]

Thank you Bruce!!

[Dick Hosmer]

I really do not worry about lock dates on any '65-'70 arm, especially between 1863 and 1864 on the later arms. The plates are absolutely interchangeable, except for the shallow relief milling at top edge of First Allins, only, for the extractor slide.