Spencer Serial number question.

[Grayfoxx3]

I have a question concerning serial numbers of Spencer 1860 carbines. I think it is generally accepted that guns made in the serial no. range of 52,000 were made in very early 1865. This going by the accepted info that the carbines started being made and issued in late 63 and began where the serial no`s of the rifles left off at 11,000. That and it is estimated that the factory running full capacity was making about 2000 a month.
The Battle of Nashville was fought in December 64. Gen. James H. Wilsons cavalry was in the battle and was in the chase of the retreating rebs and fought with the rebs rear guard in the vicinity of Franklin on the 17th and 18th of Dec. A local museum in the Franklin area has a Spencer with a interesting history that was donated by a local family with deep roots to the area.
According to written history provided by the family on the evening of the fighting in the area Gen. Wilson commandeered the house of their great,great grandmother to use as his headquarters. He felt sorry for the woman as her husband was off fighting in the war and she was alone with small children and no one to protect her and nothing to protect herself with from the deserters and scavengers and other criminal types that always were around in those days. So when he left the next morning he gave her his personal  Spencer and ammo. It was passed down through the generations till todays generation donated it to the museum.
Now this is the "puzzlement". The serial no. on the Spencer is 52,097. now Springfield Research shows that guns in that range weren`t issued out till March 65. In fact no. 52,096 is shown as being issued to the 14th Kansas that month. In fact the MAJORITY of guns in that range went to that regiment.
So how could a gun that wasn`t made till supposedly early 65 be carried by Wilson in Dec 64? How could serial no.52,097 be in the area and no. 52,096 be al the way out in the Kansas Missouri area? So one of 2 things is apparent, either the family wasn`t telling an accurate story or the production of guns was further along than thought. I see no reason for the family to embellish the story as they were giving the gun away not trying to sell it.
Can anyone provide any possible thoughts on this?

[Herbert]

This may sound harsh ,but I put very little value in oral famly history unless it is backed up by documentation,in the day of no TV storytelling was a art form and streching the truth was the norm,no harm in this but any tales from this period should be taken with a grain of sault,even newspapers then as now have a habit of confusing the truth

[Grayfoxx3]

Thanks for your input Herbert. I agree things can be made up or embellished. But there are a couple of reasons that the story may be true. No.1 The records also show that the 1st Alabama and the 3th Kentucky also had guns in the 52,000 and a few in the 53,000 issued in Nov 64. So that lends more evidence that the factory was even further along in production and serial number sequence than always thought to have been. If the guns in those ranges were being issued in the field in Nov then I would think they were manufactured in Oct, no later than Sept. Also, for what its worth, is the condition of the gun itself. While it is not "mint" it is way above average in condition from what you usually see on the market. Lot of finish on the barrel etc.Of course Wilson himself would not have put much ware on the gun but I`m sure the family probably had put a few dings and dents in the stock over the years.
Also both the aforementioned regiments were with Sherman in the deep south at the time they were issued their guns in late 64.
The 1st Alabama was actually Shermans escort company.Wilson was not present in the Georgia, SC operations area when they got their guns so why was his in the same range and where did he get it?
In addition I must say that sometimes I wonder if ALL the info in the Springfield Research is always completely reliable.
For instance I researched a Spencer that was a direct match to the 7th Pennsylvania. According to the records they got their guns in 2/65. But the gun was a very low serial no. in the 14,000 range. One would have thought that it would have been issued before that late in the war.
I found a history of the 7th that was written by a former trooper that stated that they got their Spencers when they returned from their veteran furlough and were given new mounts and equipment in 2/64 not 65.They went to Georgia about a month later to be part of Shermans Atlanta campaign so that makes sense.
So as you said the story concerning the Wilson Spencer can never be proven. But it is a kinda head scratcher to me.
Thanks 

[ndnchf]

An interesting story, but one that will be difficult to vailidate.  You might want to focus on researching Wilson's ordnance records.  What was issued, what was accounted for at a later date.  If the General did in fact give away his carbine, there would have to be a statment in the ordnance returns explaining its disposition.  Although it may just read "lost in battle" as it would be difficult to justify giving away government property, especially a state-of-the-art weapon to an enemy civilian.  But if it is documented to be lost around the same time period, that could lend support to the story.  Another thing to look for is General Wilson's papers.  If he survived the war, did he keep a diary?, were family letters preserved?, did he write stories for publication in veterans magazines after the war?.  Many generals did some or all of these things.  It is conceivable that he would recount such a considerate and generous incident in his writings.  I don't know much about Union cavalry, but did generals carry carbines?  A Field grade infantry officer typically would carry a sword and/or sidearm, but not a longarm. A general officers's job is to lead his men, not do the actual fighting.  But I don't know about a cavalry general's equipment.

On the other hand, surplus Spencers were commonly available in the post war years.  Perhaps the General did give them the carbine (although it may have come from ordnance suppies, not his personal weapon).  Its also possible the family picked up another carbine sometime in the post war years.  Over time the two got mixed up and one was lost or sold and the remaining one passed down along with the story.  I don't doubt what the current family has said about it.  They are only repeating what they have heard.  But 150 years is a long time for a story to be passed along with no change whatsoever.  The loss or misuse of just a couple words in the telling of a story, can result in a very different meaning or understanding by listeners.

It may be nigh impossible to get a 100% verification of the story.  But further research, may bring to light other tidbits which could corroborate the story or explain the serial number better.

[Arizona Trooper]

Another angle. The ordnance department officially received contract deliveries when the inspection receipts were entered into the books at the War Department in Washington DC. By then, the actual equipment could have been in the field for quite a while, especially with something in such high demand as Spencers.

Be careful trusting SRS dates. These are almost never issue dates, but rather dates that unit returns were filled out. Since recording serial numbers was not required, most units didn't do it. Once in a while some gung-ho ordnance Sgt. would fill in the serial numbers on his return, but the unit may have had those arms fore quite a while before that happened. A lot of SRS dates are from when units mustered out. They could have been carrying those guns for months, or even years by then.

General Wilson would not have been carrying a carbine. He probably had a revolver. Unless he was going into battle, likely as not it was in his baggage train. If he gave someone a carbine, he would have had it pulled from the spares in the ordnance wagons.

Family stories do tend to get better with age. I can't tell you how many Trapdoor rifles I have seen that Great-Great Granddaddy carried in the Civil War. My favorite though is a Remington Navy revolver that a little old lady in Berryville Va. owned. Her husband had passed away and she said that he claimed it had been carried by an ancestor of his who had been in Mosby's Raiders, the 43rd Va. Then she added, "But he lied about other things too!"

[Snakeeater]

Although as it has been suggested that the serialization of the Model 1860 carbines began where the serialization of the rifles left off at 11,000 fails to explain those Model 1860 Carbines with serial numbers below 11,000, particularly those with just three digit serial numbers. The Model 1860 Carbines, like the subsequent Spencer Repeating Arms production of the M1865 and the M1865 Burnside Contract carbines together with the subsequent Model 1867 and New Model rifles and carbines all started over in their serialization with #1 for each production run. We can only assume that the serialization ran concurrent with the production and delivery schedules for each of these models, though we also know of examples where many of the sporting rifles that were not produced until 1867 had utilized receivers that numerically speaking correspond with rifles delivered in 1862.

Other gunmakers have their idiosyncrasies. Browning, for example, kept no record of their serialization prior to 1927. But Browning also does not serialize a gun until the day it is shipped from the factory. The same rifle or shotgun could have sat on the gunmaker's bench for 5 years or more before someone finally placed an order for a completed rifle or shotgun, after which it was serialized when shipped from the factory. It is merely assumed that Spencer Repeating Arms Company kept some sort of records on their serialization to have at least kept up with the quantities of rifles or carbines delivered. Personally, I would like to think that some Spencer family member probably has a trunk full of old company letters and records up in their attic that they don't know about, but that might be too hopeful. Company records probably do exist but like so many other things, it is just a matter of ferreting them out of their hiding place. These things take time and research.

[Herbert]

I belive that the few Spencer carbines encounted with serial numbers below 11000 are expermental pre- production carbines made for the various carbine trials,this woul also explain the very good condition most are found in as they would have been stored with other expermental and failed trials arms in the various armourys untill sold off many years later

[Snakeeater]

One of the lower serialized carbines was sold by The Horse Soldier, and was identified to Captain George W. Brown, Co. K, 72nd Indiana (1864-65). Relicman sold another carbine (SN 1758) that was mssing the rear sight but otherwise was in fair condition, while SN #440 (Collector's Firearms) was in poor condition with a cracked stock. These certainly could have been "experimentals" or even private purchases in perhaps the instance of Captain Brown. I've only been collecting such data since 2009 and have not examined but maybe 1,000 Spencers of all models.