Looking at an original Spencer Rifle

[GrantThompsonIII]

New to this forum but I figured this would be the best place to find some answers. I local outdoor shop is selling an original M1865 Spencer Rifle. I want to use this rifle for deer hunting and some target shooting, mostly deer hunting. I get a hoot out of hunting with old BPCRs and I have always loved rhe Spencer. The shop's gunsmith is an experienced guy with 54 years working that job and he pointed out some things to me. The rifle is still rimfire with 41 Sears & Roebuck .56-50 cartridges included in the sale which are also rimfire. The smith test fired the weapon and he says it functions and fires safely and flawlessly. The rifle is being sold with a Centerfire conversion breech block from Dixie Gun Works and a Centerfire magazine follower. The sale of the rifle also includes a set of Lee .56-50 reloading dies and 100pcs of Starline .56-50 brass. Here is the hang up though, online a lot of people are saying you cant use the starline brass made for the new Spencer reproductions in the originals. The shops gunsmith says he uses the new brass in his original M1865 Carbine 20" barrel just fine with no trimming needed. So I figured I would ask here, do the majority of Spencer shooters use the new starline brass with little to no issues or do you have to form brass from things like .50 Gov ? I know the easiest answer would be to buy a new Taylor's reproduction Spencer Rifle but this original is cheaper than a reproduction and I dont see any sense in paying more for a reproduction. Also when it comes to lead will a .512 diameter bullet be suitable enough ? Hopefully this explains my situation enough to allow someone with a good amount of knowledge to chime in. Thanks to all who reply.

[El Supremo]

Hello, Grant Thompson III:

For starters:

Starline 56-50 brass was designed for the Armisport chamber with a hook style Lane extractor at the bottom of the case. The Starline rim diameter is nominally .637", versus the 56-50 "Spencer" and 50 Sharps cut down brass that have a .645"-.650" diameter.

The original 1860 and 1865 Spencer's should have the chamber rim cut diameter of .650" or a few thousandths less.

The smaller Starline rim may allow the longer blade extractor that sits at the left side of the chamber to slip over its smaller rim. At worst, slippage may mean pushing out the case with a rod.  My sense from many Posts here, and my experience with the long blade extractor is that Starline 56-50 slippage is spotty.  In my tests, Starline's let the blade extractor slip around 40%. I shoot Starline 56-50 cases and just accept a bit of slippage because half that slip are still pulled a bit rearward and the cases can be fingernail removed.

Slugging the bore and carefully measuring should give GROOVE diameter.  Most use bullets in a harder, Lyman NEW #2, 16BHn - 18BHn, alloy that are sized .001" over groove OD.

A good source for more info is Dave Gullo of Buffalo Arms in Montana.

I suggest you wait for others in our Forum to share. Smiles.
El Supremo/Kevin Tinny

[DJ]

Welcome aboard.

My experience is similar to El Supremo's, except I think I'm well over 50% or more failed extraction with the original long Spencer blade extractor and Starline 56-50.  The failures to extract seem to occur more frequently just when I don't need them to.  The original Lane extractors (usually in M1867 and NM Spencer) work better with Starline brass, but I haven't worked with one extensively enough to say how reliable it is.

I mostly use cutdown .50-70 brass with the rim slightly reduced in diameter and beveled front and rear for both .56-56 and 56-50 in original Spencers.

If you go through with the deal you might consider using the Starline for target shooting or plinking and get some reformed .50-70 for times when you really need a reliable second shot.  It's also possible the Starline brass would work reliably, or, if you're a tinker, it might be possible to bump the Starline rims a little wider, but you'd be fighting the battle of smashing the rim to make it wider while trying not to thin it too much.

[GrantThompsonIII]

I messed up my info. Just called the shop gunsmith the rifle is an 1867 dated Spencer Infantry Rifle Serial No. "96487". What is the visual difference between these Hook and Lane style extractors ? Can it be seen by opening the action and looking into it ? If so I will look to confirm.

[GrantThompsonIII]

Gunsmith took a photo of the rifle. The barrel is stamped M1867, Patent 1860 on the reciever and the serial number is actually 95481.

[DJ]

This discussion of Lane extractors might help.

https://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=17709.msg226960#msg226960

I should probably re-shoot the photos--image quality has improved in the 16 years(!!) since these were originally posted.

[GrantThompsonIII]

Its been a while since I posted but I had the shop gunsmith verify what extractor was in the rifle and he sent me a picture. Is this a lane extractor ? I will attack the photo to this post.

[DJ]

That breechblock has a Lane extractor--in my experience it worked a little better with Starline cases than the Spencer blade extractor.

You should also note that the rifle you are showing has the Spencer cutoff--it's that wide forked cartridge guide on the top of the breechblock.  The top part of the "fork" pivots to fill the gap in the fork and that keeps the breechblock from opening all the way, so cartridges won't feed from the magazine.  The reproduction breechblocks I have seen are not made to fit a Spencer cutoff; I did manage to modify one to work, but it involved a bit of trial-and-error labor to widen the groove on the top of the block.

(Edited to specify improved performance was with Starline cases and again to fix silly typo)

[Trards]

If you experience any problems with Starline brass, you can try annealing the brass before reloading it. This will make it softer and more pliable, which should help it to chamber properly.

As for the bullet diameter, a .512 diameter bullet should be suitable for your Spencer rifle. This is the standard diameter for .56-50 Spencer rifles. However, it is always a good idea to experiment with different bullet weights and diameters to find the ones that work best in your rifle.

[El Supremo]

That breechblock has a Lane extractor--in my experience it worked a little better than the Spencer blade extractor.

You should also note that the rifle you are showing has the Spencer cutoff--it's that wide forked cartridge guide on the top of the breechblock.  The top part of the "fork" pivots to fill the gap in the fork and that keeps the breechblock from opening all the way, so cartridges won't feed from the magazine.  The reproduction breechblocks I have seen are not made to fit a Spencer cutoff; I did manage to modify one to work, but it involved a bit of trial-and-error labor to widen the groove on the top of the block.

Wow, DJ:
Thanks for pointing out the obvious, which I never noticed.
Very helpful for c-f block buyers.
Smiles,
El Supremo/KevinTinny

[DJ]

Here are photos of a couple of breechblocks to illustrate the difference.

The one on the top/right of each photo is the type used on the standard M1860 and M1865 models.

The other one was used on probably most of the M1867s.  I'm not sure about the NM/M1868--I feel as if I have seen them both ways on those late models.  But looking at the cartridge guide will tell you pretty quickly.

--DJ

[El Supremo]

Hello:

For years, I wondered about a detailed parts list for original Spencer's.
Couldn't find one in Marcot. Then Arizona Trooper kindly suggested I look in the orig Patent. 
That Patent # 27,393 of Mar 6, 1860, for the first prototype, not the Model 1860, is partially shown in Marcot, 2nd Ed. on page 14. 
I downloaded the entire, three-page Patent and within its written specifications are terms for a few parts. 

The spring loaded, narrow, finger-like part that lays on the top of the upper block is called a "tongue" by Mr. Spencer. 
A modern term for it is Armisport's "cartridge feed guide lever".
Marcot uses "cartridge guide" on 2nd Ed. pages 107 and 136.
Patent 58,738A of Oct. 9, 1966 refers to the cutoff on top of the block and uses the term "cartridge guide with its swinging stop attached".
Parts dealers often refer to it as "cartridge keeper/cartridge guide/cartridge follower".
Because Spencer's original Patent did not include the two thin upward projections on the top, forward portion of the lower block, I have no official terms for them. Thanks.
El Supremo/Kevin Tinny

[GrantThompsonIII]

That breechblock has a Lane extractor--in my experience it worked a little better with Starline cases than the Spencer blade extractor.

You should also note that the rifle you are showing has the Spencer cutoff--it's that wide forked cartridge guide on the top of the breechblock.  The top part of the "fork" pivots to fill the gap in the fork and that keeps the breechblock from opening all the way, so cartridges won't feed from the magazine.  The reproduction breechblocks I have seen are not made to fit a Spencer cutoff; I did manage to modify one to work, but it involved a bit of trial-and-error labor to widen the groove on the top of the block.

(Edited to specify improved performance was with Starline cases and again to fix silly typo)

Apologies for the late reply. Thank you for this confirmation and the new bit about the Spencer Cutoff. I looked the cutoff up on the internet and found something called a "Stabler Cutoff". Is this similar ? Also how do I tell if this is a rimfire or centerfire breech block. I read that a lot of these rifles were converted to centerfire in 1871 by the U.S. Government. If this rifle isnt centerfire I was going to buy a breechblock from Dixie Gun Works.

[DJ]

The picture you show is a rimfire breechblock--the firing pin is that flat piece that slides along the right side of the block.  On your photo that is the rounded piece peeking out from underneath the block.

A centerfire breechblock will have a hole in the center of the breechblock.  Those can sometimes be tough to see without disassembly, because the cartridge guide (or whatever it's called) is in the way and the block drops down where it's hard to see.  It can also depend on how the conversion was done.  I have attached a crude photo showing the two firing pin locations.  The dot is approximately where a centerfire firing pin would poke out.

The Stabler cutoff is a different animal.  It served the same function as the Spencer cutoff, but is mounted on the bottom of the receiver.  It vaguely resembles a wing nut.

I have not heard of many Spencers being converted to centerfire by the government in 1871 or any other time.  There may have been a few for experiments, but I don't think a lot of them.  The Belgians made some centerfire copies in the 1870s.  Or you may be thinking of the 1871 conversions of Burnside-manufactured 1865 Spencer carbines that were converted into rifles, but those remained in rimfire.  Your best bet is probably a Dixie block.

It looks like a decent gun.  Post more pictures when you get it.

[Arizona Trooper]

On the possibility of original center fire conversions, there is a mention in Marcot's book of Frankford and Springfield making some bar anvil, Martin and Farrington centerfire Spencer cartridges for trials (pg 208 in the 2nd edition). I have never seen a Spencer with an obviously period conversion. However, Spencers weren't the only breechloaders chambered for Spencer ammo. I have a 56-56 Ballard rifle with a period centerfire conversion.