Questions about a 2nd Allin conversion

[Brownac1983]

Hey guys. A friend of mine has this rifle that he might be willing to part with, but I've never owned an Allin conversion before and wanted to get some opinions on it. It's in pretty solid condition with a good patina, except where someone has heavily cleaned the outside of barrel past the front band. The lock is dated 1864, and there are no visible serial numbers. He doesn't have a picture of the breech block markings but he said he'd dig it out of the safe and check those. What strikes me as odd about it is the location of the rear sight. It's set several inches forward of the receiver. Weren't all of these made with the rear sight immediately in front of the receiver? Thanks in advance for any help.
-DrewSpringfield Cartridge_84.jpgSpringfield Cartridge_86.jpgSpringfield Cartridge_87.jpgSpringfield Cartridge_89.jpgSpringfield Cartridge_91.jpg

[JimF]

Actually, I think it is a Model 1868 Springfield . . . NOT a second model.

[Brownac1983]

Actually, I think it is a Model 1868 Springfield . . . NOT a second model.

Thanks JimF. It looks like you're right. It does more closely match a 1868. In that case, from what I'm reading, there should be a serial number along the left side of the receiver and barrel, which I'm not seeing in the photos, and all the photos I can find of the 1868s still have the rear sight directly in front of the receiver. Any thoughts on what's going on there? The oddest thing about it is that there's no empty mounting hole where the rear sight should have been.

[Fred]

That is an interesting rifle. Except for the placement of the rear sight and the lack of a serial number on the left side, it appears to my eye to be a normal production 1868 rifle. However I'm wondering if the rear sight might've been put there on that rifle as an experiment. That's about the location of the sights on the later model 1873's.

[Dick Hosmer]

From those pictures it appears, save for the points noted, to be a perfectly standard M1868. I also note that the cleaning sits a bit too deep, and there are no stock cartouches visible on wood that should be crisp enough to at least have traces of same. I can think of only two scenarios, the first and by far the most likely being a "Bannerman" assembly made from parts for resale in the 1890s, and the second - VERY unlikely - is that it is some sort of "prototype" made prior to the standardization of the model. Fred G. has #6 (and has posted many pics of it here) and it, aside from a strange hole in the breechblock, looks like any other proper 1868, as do other early examples I've seen. Thanks for sharing.

[Fred]

Fred G. has #6 (and has posted many pics of it here) and it, aside from a strange hole in the breechblock, looks like any other proper 1868

Oh heck, I thought you'd remembered that part Dick. The strange hole in the breech block is for the firing pin retaining screw that, unlike the later 1868's and 1873's, entered the side of the firing pin channel instead of from underneath. The screw actually passes through the notch in the firing pin from side to side instead of straight into it.

[Fred]

[Fred]

[Fred]

[Dick Hosmer]

Shame on me - I recalled the hole, but do not remember you 'splaining it!!! Oh well.

To the original poster - note rear sight on #6 is from a musket but located (as was the long-range sight which would follow) right ahead of the receiver. I am not aware of any genuine Springfields - outside of possibly something in the SA museum with that sight far out on the barrel.

[Brownac1983]

Wow, that certainly is a head scratcher. I agree, evidence supports that it's probably a pieced together rifle. I found Fred's original thread. That #6 is NIIICE!

One question: The #6 rear sight has two peep holes, my friend's gun has one. Is that another variation of musket sight or possibly something Bannerman made?

I've asked my friend to take some more detailed pictures and check the trapdoor date and look for any other markings, but barring any interesting findings I'm pretty convinced it's a put together.

Sadly enough, he had it appraised at a VERY well known gun shop a few years ago (2011). They called it a 2nd Allen and put a $600 appraisal on it. If I could pick it up at a reasonable price I'd add it to my collection all the same, but I wouldn't want him to think I was lowballing. We'll see.

Thanks for all the help. Here's a few more pictures that he found from the appraisal.
-Drew

Springfield Cartridge_85.jpgSpringfield Cartridge_88.jpgSpringfield Cartridge_90.jpg

[Fred]

Drew, the sight appears to have an aperture for 300 yards and then at the top, a notch for 700 yards.
The aperture positioned for 500 yards doesn't appear there at all. I'm assuming that there IS a notch for 100 yards in the down position. The rear sight base is oriented in the correct way for a Rifled Musket or an 1866 trapdoor, but the sight leaf seems to be relieved in the hole and top notch on the reverse side, as if the sight leaf was reversed. I've seen this before I think on an 1866 rifle with the sight leaf's apertures reversed from what they ought to have been for a shooter, but the missing 500 yard sight aperture between the 300 and 700 yard notches is a mystery to me.

[Brownac1983]

I believe you're right Fred. There's something marked below the peep, it almost looks like a 2, but I can't tell. The original pictures are huge, here's a couple snippets of it zoomed in. I can't imagine why they'd be relieved on the back side.
rear.JPGrear 2.JPG

[Fred]

Well it's a very nice rifle. It'd be imteresting to study it.
Dick is right about it possibly being assembled by a surplus arms merchant.
Ain't it interesting though!!!

[Brownac1983]

The one at this link (I hope that's OK to post since it's a long closed auction) also has the reverse-relieved apertures, although it has both of them. https://www.gunauction.com/buy/11150246