Wolfe in sheep's clothing?

[Mark Daiute]

So what about a Model 1866 in a model 1861 stock? Bannerman? Saw this yesterday at a gunshow and the owner was totally cognizant that what he had was an anomaly. I urged him to get dick's book, showed him my copy, gave him "jousterdotcom".

[raymeketa]

I think you mean a converted 1861 stock. Since both the M1865 and M1866 were essentially converted CW muskets, why would anyone be surprised to find an 1861 stock on a M1866?

[Dick Hosmer]

The 1865 used 1861 stocks with the flat bands. The 1866 used M1863 type 2 stocks with oval bands and band springs. The 1866 Short Rifle used M1863 type 2 stocks, as did, apparently, most of the 1868s and 1870s. Anything without a spoon pin hole is a new stock.

[Mark Daiute]

The 1865 used 1861 stocks with the flat bands. The 1866 used M1863 type 2 stocks with oval bands and band springs. The 1866 Short Rifle used M1863 type 2 stocks, as did, apparently, most of the 1868s and 1870s. Anything without a spoon pin hole is a new stock.

so reaymaketa, there's the answer to your question.

So what do the rest of you think of a model 1866 in an 1861 stock with flat bands? rifle looked ok, not as nice as an 1866 in an 1863 stock but it looked ok. Bannerman?

[Dan Shapiro]

So what do the rest of you think of a model 1866 in an 1861 stock with flat bands?

Unfortunately, without any documentation, anything would be conjecture as to how it got that way; ie., Bannerman, Bubba, or possibly a field expedient replacement.

[raymeketa]

As I said in an earlier post, it should not come as a surprise to anyone. The purpose of the development of the "trapdoor" rifle was to utilize the million+ CW muskets and the many millions of spare parts. My military mind tells me that Springfield Armory would utilize whatever was most convenient at the time and they could not have cared less if the M1865 or M1866 used a '61 or a '63 stock.

Correct me if I'm wrong (it won't be the first or last time) but aren't the '61 and '63 stocks the same? The difference is in the hardware, not the wood.

Or, am I missing something and there are reasons why it would be unusual to find both M1865 and M1866 rifles with a mixture of parts?

Ray

[Dick Hosmer]

No, the '61, '63, and '63-2 stocks are all slightly different.

1861 bands are wider, so band spring mortise, or shoulder location, is not exactly the same. 1861 and 1863-2 stocks use bands springs. 1863-1 does not. Proper 1866 short rifles (the 1100 or so made in 1871) either use current 1868 wood with additional cuts for the horseshoe, or modified 1863-1 stocks, since there is no band-spring filler. Yes, SA was very frugal, but some things are consistent - therefore - I do NOT believe that a full-length 1866 would be correct in 1861 wood. I would not buy one for my personal collection.

[raymeketa]

Dick

Coming from you, it's good enough for me. I've seen only a few M1865 and M1866 and have owned even fewer. If I knew then what I know now I maybe would have paid more attention to them.

thanks

Ray

[Dick Hosmer]

You're very welcome, and I hope I didn't sound too stern.

1866s are a story unto themselves, with plenty of picky little variances, but, AFAIK, that is not one of them.