*** READ UPDATE *** YOUR SUGGESTIONS FOR SPENCER IMPROVEMENTS!!

[Two Flints]

Hello SSS,

There have been countless threads and posts on SSS, and even on the N-SSA Forum, on "how to improve the Spencer", and yet, when I ask for specific recommendations on what improvements the membership would like to see made to the Spencer or carbine, I only get a few responses  

I'm really not willing to make suggestions for improving the Spencer on my own.  I was hoping for a barrage of responses from the membership (SSS, SASS, and N-SSA), but so far, they have not been forthcoming.  WHAT I NEED IS A LIST OF WHAT YOU THINK IS WRONG WITH THE CURRENT SPENCER MODEL (56-50), AND HOW IT CAN BE IMPROVED!

Take a few minutes and help me out.

As posted earlier:  I was contacted by Armi Sport-Chiappa and received the following Email.  I think it is self explanatory and have underlined the sentence that I hope all of you will respond to in some way. Maybe you could list your suggestions in a post within this thread. Please make your suggestions known for "how to improve the Spencer Carbine and Rifle" from the current models.  Serious suggestions for improving the Spencer, only!

Dear Two Flints/Fred,
Ok, talked with Taylor's, (they make all our N-SSA approvals till now) the rifle without the saddle ring will be submitted at the next N-SSA committee, they mentioned should be next Spring, but definitely it will be done.
Also, Ron Norton, our partner in CHIAPPA FIREARMS US would like to talk with you about some ideas on the Spencer that might be developped together.
He will be attending next SASS Convention. There is a chance to set up a meeting with you there ?
Look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards.

CHIAPPA FIREARMS

Two Flints

[Hoot-3rd Ga]

Two Flints: I am glad that they plan to have a production model of the rifle inspected for use in the N-SSA. That's good news! If they are serious about making some improvements..........I can discuss several which would increase customer satisfaction regarding life span of parts and the accuracy potential of the arm.  Engineering  improvements could be made in the firing pin mechanism, recoil area of the block, point of attachment for the mainspring to the lock plate, twist of the rifling to match common bullet styles, chamber length and diameter, and the quality of front and rear sights.   Hoot - 3rd Ga  N-SSA  NRA Life member  SASS  JROTC Rifle Team Coach...........

[Two Flints]

Hi Hoot,

When can you start listing your ideas for improvements   Either post them here, send them to me via Email at fsgrand2@fairpoint.net. Your ideas will be credited to you or others making suggestions. Ron Norton has already Emailed me, so I have to assume that Armi Sport is serious about making some Spencer improvements. To what extent they are willing to go remains to be seen. I have already suggested that they should work on improving the rate of barrel twist, and the rear sight, and that replacement parts should not be such a hassle to get when needed.  Your thoughts, and suggestions would be very much appreciated, and from any other members of SSS, N-SSA, and SASS, as well.

Two Flints

[Two Flints]

Hello SSS,

I'm still looking for suggestions on how to improve the Spencer, carbine or rifle, whatever caliber you feel is needed, or needs improvement.  I'd like to come up with a definite list of such improvements that could be presented to Armi Sport or whomever they designate as the receiver of such information.  One other improvement I would like to see is in the area of communication between Armi Sport, their distributors, and the buyers of their Spencers, especially those owners looking for part replacements.

Any suggested improvements in the Spencer to the satisfaction of prospective buyers will obviously lead to more sales for the Spencer and that benefits everyone involved.

Your suggestions for improvements, PLEASE!

Two Flints

[Appalachian Ed]

TF - My list.

- Real Bone Charcoal Case hardening, not the chemical color stuff.
- Correct dimensions for carbine. The 1865 should have  22" barrel.
- 1-48" twist cut rifling.
- Floating firing pin.
- Stabler Cut-off.
- Precision machined rear sight.
- Lock Tumbler either hardened or made from a harder tool steel.
- Lighter Main spring.
- Tighter chamber tolerances.
- Address the carrier over-travel problems

-Ed

[Fox Creek Kid]

Ditto what Ed said with two additions.

1.  Bevel the outside point of the hammer as true '65 Models were.

2.  Bevel the sides of the receiver opening on top per '65 originals as well.

[Hoot-3rd Ga]

Appalachian Ed: You know there is an easy home remedy for carrier overtravel?  Cut a 5/16" medal dowel pin to a length of 3/4" long,  flat on both ends, and put it inside the spring in the lower part of the carrier. The length may vary if your lever mechanism is bored a little different from mine. This will prevent overtravel when operating the lever. The lever will be limited in it's downward travel by the pin instead of wearing on the frame.   Hoot

[Herbert]

the overtravel problem could be fixed by macking triger plate to proper tolerance it would also get rid of unsightly gap between triger plate and lower block i think a spencer type cutoff would be cheaper to instal and could be an option so as not to interfear with civil war look all other idears i agree with especerly barell twist and sights also a sporting rifle 56-50 with spencer cutoff and proper twist , spencer set triger would sell well to black pouder cartrige mid range shooters low recoil

[Appalachian Ed]

As to not interfering with the civil war look, remember this is an 1865 copy not an 1860.


-Ed

[Herbert]

it is actualy a hibred 1860 type frame 1865 sights 1867 model lane extractor whith a couple of newer idears fly in lock coil spring that works cartrige guide on newer models

[Appalachian Ed]

Herbert - Understood. I thought this was one of the problems? As it currently exists it is a "fantasy"piece. It should either be a 60, 65, or whatever.


-Ed

[Hoot-3rd Ga]

Gentlemen: It is doubtful that Armisport will make all the "wishful" thinking improvements that have been described so far. Internal modifications should improve function not necessarily be more authentic. External modifications like better color case, ect. would probably only serve to drive the price up.That said, let's describe what needs to be improved first and foremost.  (1) The most important improvement would have to be with the rifling and chamber dimensions. Make the chamber correct for Starline factory brass, a cast .515" -.516"bullet and an overall cartridge length of 1.50"-1.60".  This would accomodate commonly available mould blocks and reloading die sets. Cut rifling for cast lead bullets, barrel groove diameter at .514" -.515", and a more optimum rifling twist of 1 in 48 would really increase accuracy and overall shooter satisfaction with the way the Spencer shoots. This would be a cost effective change that would require very little effort on the part of CNC operators.    (2) The second most important improvement would have to be in the construction of the rear sight ladder. It's width and thickness should be machined to close tolerances. The front sight should be taller. No firearm will shoot well with "crude" sights. A poorly shooting firearm is percieved to be poorly made.    (3) No one has mentioned this, either because it goes unnoticed or shooters are not putting many rounds through their Spencers. I believe the recoil part of the block where the firing pin comes through is improperly hardened or made of the wrong kind of steel. I am getting a crator where the metal has crumbled away poorly supporting the firing pin as it strikes the primer. I am on my second block. Yes I cock the hammer before ejecting rounds. I only shoot low pressure black powder rounds.    (4)  The mainspring softens over time and will not set off the primer. I have been through 4 -5 of them and consider it routine maintenance, but it is inconvenient. I have wondered if the mainspring could be mounted on the lock plate in such a way as not to be fully compressed when the hammer is cocked or at least be in less of a strain when the hammer is down.     *****will write more later........... I want to look into the rifling twist VS bullet wt. and length before I commit to 1 in 48
Hoot

[Fox Creek Kid]

Why 0.514 - 0.515 instead of the more common 0.512 as those that do not cast will be able to buy commercial bullets?  My carbine has no chamber problems. Maybe some had/have operator (machinist) induced problems from the factory(?).

[Hoot-3rd Ga]

Fox Creek Kid: That is a good point. I generally associate .512' barrels with shooting "original dimension" brass and bullets. Romano makes his Spencers to original specs. As a skirmisher, I have found suitable mould blocks in .515 - .518 readily available and I believe the current crop of reloading dies are  designed to load .515" bullets.  Their larger expander dies bell the case mouth excessively for .512 bullets. You may have to resize the loaded cartridge so the bullet won't fall out of the case in use. There is no best answer. Do you make the firearm to shoot factory rounds or reloaded ammo? I am aware of commercially available bullets as a reloading component , but what bullet size is loaded into commercially made cartridges? I probably wouldn't have a Spencer if I had to depend on factory ammo or components for all the shooting I do. This two bullet size difference is kind of the same as the .22 rimfire Ruger single actions that come with extra .22 Mag cylinders.    Hoot

[Fox Creek Kid]

Hoot, I cast and do not size my Rapine 350-T bullets and only use real BP. They drop at about 0.513. I then pan lube & load. However, we have to remember not everyone casts for whatever reason and I'd like to believe that with commercial bullets available that more people will try the 56-50 and more Spencer shooters = more money for Armisport = more capital for new designs in the future.    One hand washes the other, so to speak.

I can shoot the Rapine bullets w/o case resizing but as of late I resize each time as well as anneal very 5th shot or so. Two things I have noticed with using the Rapine 350-T bullet which holds a ton of lube:

1.  Less blowback, as the extracted cases always have a hefty lube ring at the mouth (coupled w/ annealing).

2.  The ability to shoot 50 - 60 rounds with ease and no fear of dreaded "foul out".

It's also very accurate in my gun. I have tried the Smith carbine style bullets and fouled out rapidly and extraction was frustrating.

Your mileage may vary.

[Herbert]

as for price of    ading inprovments i dont belive it would cost much more,CNC is mainly obout the program being dun right and proper tools in heads it costs no more to doo it right than to doo it rong ,a machined back sight would be no trouble,if back sight was flat across top and a squar notch in it i think sight picture would be much beter,a slot in front sight to fit german silver blade as 1860 model would fix sight problems replacerble sight blades I found metal in frame to be very soft it needs to be harder as doo lock parts,a couple of extra tools in heads could bvell front and top of frame at next to no cost ,i agree that bone case harding would cost too much but it would be a nice extra as would be cutoff

[1816flintlock]

Spencer Improvements.  I bought a rifle in 56-50 last year made in 2007 and this spring picked up an unfired Carbine also in 56-50 which was made in 2004 according to the proof marks.  I've fired at least 500 live rounds through the rifle and perhaps 150 through the carbine.

My suggestions.

1.  I'm not a ballistics expert but, I do see the merit of having a slower rate of twist and perhaps a change in bore diameter to better accomidate available brass, moulds and dies.

2.  Screws in the firing pin assembly and lock that don't requite locktite to keep them from working loose during use.  Locktite works but makes it a pain to take the breechblock apart for cleaning.

3.  Better attention to final fit and finishing.  I'm not expecting something from Holland & Holland but, my rifle had a burr in the chamber where the slot for the extractor was cut which scraped up a bunch of expensive brass while the hammer on my carbine had the heck ground out of the left side of the nose to keep it from hitting the breechblock.  It still does hit the block when the lock screws get loose.  I've learned to expect have to do some tinkering on new replica firearms  but, still.  My expectations for a $1000+ gun are different than they are for a $500 musket.

4.  Better sights.  I think this suggestion has already been well covered.  A wider notch in the rear sight and a thinner front sight would be a good start.  I like the idea of a german silver front sight blade. 

5.  A somewhat tolerable trigger pull out of the box.  My rifle was not too bad as is, but my carbine had such a heavy trigger that I thought more than once that I'd left the lock on half cock!  Thinning the sear portion of the spring with a grinding wheel brought it into the "I can live with this" range but, again it makes for more work for me.     

6.  Better heat treatment and fitting of the lock parts and action.  The lower block on my rifle is obviously rubbing the receiver as it opens and closes up in where the exractor travels.  Ditto for dinging up the receiver where the block first meets the reciever as you close the action.

7.  Ditch the red stain on the stocks!     

Stephen

[Preston County Rider]

Own a 45 Sch version so the 56-50 fixes are out of my range. But, the first suggestion I would make is

[Herbert]

quality control would not take long just picked up my 56- 50 3 band rifle the magizine catch and screw was missing and the barell bands are that loose they look licke they were ment for another type of rifle on the upside once i ground triger spring triger pull was brilant as expected acuracy was pore with lyman bullet beter with rapine 520375 sized to .512 but carnt get enough lube on wating for rapine 350t mould to arive using black pouder

[Herbert]

found another problem with new spencer the cartrige guide needs to sit another 1/16 above frame when extracting frame sits proud and case hits it and bounces forward jaming action could grind top  of frame but higher guide would be preferable also guide could be 1/8 longer making angle of extraction less steep