*** Photos Added *** M1865 Spencer Carbine (Burnside Contract), SN 8296

[Snakeeater]

While attending the N-SSA 2011 Spring National, "Oz" (Osborne) at Lodgewood showed me a M1865 Spencer (one of the Burnside contract carbines) he had recently acquired that he said had been "professionally restored". No sooner had I held it in my hands, shouldered it, and glanced down the mint-like bore, I wouldn't turn it loose or lay it down for fear someone else might not hesitate to buy it. I bought it and though it would have been great to have shot it at National, I waited until I got back home to fit it up with a new center-fire block.

It was while I was trying to install the new center-fire block that was when I really began to notice just how tight the action was. Unlike most restorations, when you remove any metal in the restoration process, parts generally get smaller not bigger, and the breech on this carbine is so tight, the first time I tried to lower the breech, I near sliced my finger on the trigger as my finger passed by. But I found the action to be just as tight with the lower block and rim-fire block it came with, as well as with another M1865 lower block I had on hand, and I was never able to install a center-fire block because I found the length of the opening in the receiver to be nearly a 1/10th inch too short for the block!

Not long afterwards, I happened across another carbine that had recently sold for $9500, and low and behold if its serial number (8802) identified it as out of the very same lot of carbines delivered in mid-June 1865. Though I had suspected that my carbine wasn't all original, enough of the carbine appeared to be original that I began wondering whether the story Oz gave me about it being "professionally restored" was indeed true or not. Below is a link to the photos of the other carbine (8802) and you can see for yourself why I was so curious.

http://whiskey-wolf.tumblr.com/post/27286027352/spencer-model-1865-carbine-one-of-the-finest

Oh don't get me wrong, since then I have re-examined the carbine by direct comparison with other carbines, and while I believe the receiver, upper and lower blocks, and lever (and their internal parts) are indeed all original, certain other parts appear to be replicas (i.e. barrel band and band spring; forend and butt-stock; rear swivel, hammer and hammer screw, and the sling bar with staple and ring).

But because the action was so tight, I wondered whether the other carbine had been just as tight? So I rang up the dealer that had recently sold the other carbine, and inquired of the tightness of the action, which sure enough the dealer related how that carbine (which was in nearly mint condition) was also exceedingly tight, just as mine appeared to be.

While these other parts appear to be replica parts, they appear simply too finely made to have been made by Armisport, and though they may have been custom-made, I cannot determine whether they were made by The Rifle Shoppe or exactly who made the parts. I suspect that the initials "HBT" in the inspector's cartouche could possibly identify the restorer's initials but that is mere speculation. Though I have not yet had the carbine all into pieces to see what might be marked beneath the wood, it's not a Romano because the parts of his rifles don't interchange with original parts, nor does even the magazine. And even though it may not be all original, if someone is making these as replicas, they most certainly have missed an opportunity to market them.

Photos to follow and added by Two Flints

[ndnchf]

That's a beauty!  Someone put a lot of effort into restoring that one. FWIW, My M1871 Springfield Spencer infantry rifle is made from a M1865 Burnside Spencer.  I fitted the S&S centerfire block to it and compared the original vs. S&S dimensions.  They were very close, not more than a few thousandths difference. It took very little work to fit the block.  Determining appropriate cartridge length was a lot more time consuming.

[Snakeeater]

When I first examined this carbine, someone had wrapped the end of the magazine with clear plastic packing tape so it would "stay" in the magazine well and not fall out. I bought it anyway! Later, when I removed the tape, I tried and tried to play with it and get the magazine to lock and it was so close a fit, you could "feel" the lock engage but it was as though the diameter of the tube base was just too small to lock. Upon removing the butt-plate and examining the magazine lock, I noticed that the "cupped" side was turned around and point away from the magazine. I thought to myself, I wonder whether it is just that simple... to turn the magazine lock around the opposite direction? That was exactly the problem. Once the lock was turned the other direction, the maagazine locked into place!

[Snakeeater]

Earlier this year at Mike Kent's Chickamauga Civil War Show at Dalton, GA, where I usually attend as a dealer, I was away from my table purusing the show when as I was returning to my table, I spotted another very nice condition Spencer carbine on another dealer's table. As I began to examine the carbine, I noticed first that it was a Burnside contract piece then I looked at the serial number then went back to my table to fetch my carbine to show it to the dealer. As noted above, my carbine is serial number 8296 and the carbine I was examining at the show was serial number 8298 -- just two digits apart! Like what are the odds. The dealer who had 8298 for sale had it priced at $7500 because it was in like-new condition. It had been used but only lightly, and had been converted for the Stabler device so was not quite as bright in its finish to the one pictured above.

Of course, the two carbines created a sensation among the dealers because it is not an everyday occurrence to find two original guns with serials numbers this close in sequence, and be in the fine condition of these two carbines. As was mentioned above, there was some contention that my carbine may have been "professionally restored" and some present noted that one difference between the two carbines was that my carbine has a butt-plate that is rust blued, while the other carbine's butt-plate is color case-hardened. I recently brought this matter up in a conversation at the recent N-SSA national, and was told by a very knowledgeable expert that the blued butt-plate might have been the correct finish at the time of delivery, as it was right at the end of the war that the Ordnance Department had begun the transition from color case-hardening to the rust blue finish as a wartime expediency. Another period example of this is the use of blued barrel bands on the Model 1863 Type 2 (or Model of 1864) rifle musket.

I do not know that anyone else here has ever seen any of the "U.S. Model" arms that were exchanged between the national armories. They are the arms that are stamped "U.S.M." for U.S. Model. Each of the national armories were to exchange ten such "model" arms each year but this rarely occurred with the arms produced at Springfield Armory. But in having examined one of the U.S. Model arms for the Model 1855 Rifle in its original armory finishes, these rifles were not finished "in the bright". Rather, the Model 1855 rifle had a color case-hardened lock, with blued barrel bands and furniture and the barrel was finished with a reddish-brown lacquer finish produced from Dragon's Blood, a resin derived from a rattan palm of the genus Daemonorops of the Indonesian islands. This finish was only used on the U.S. Model 1855 rifle and the earlier U.S. Model 1841 rifle. It was not used on any of the contract rifles.

So while the only difference between these two Burnside contract Spencer carbines is the "blued" butt-plate, it very well could be a color case-hardened butt-plate beneath the rust blued finish. In further discussions with other Spencer experts, there seems to be some contention that the specimen arms that are stamped with just one inspector's mark are guns that were re-finished by Springfield Armory sometime prior to being sold as surplus, whereas the specimens not refinished, had two inspector's marks. Most government contract arms had two inspector cartouches, one for the assembly inspection, and one for the final inspection. The contention anent those arms with only a single cartouche is that those arms that were refinished prior to being sold as surplus bear only the one cartouche, since the second was applied by the master armorer in accepting them into service, and this never occurred with the arms sold off as surplus.

The inspector's mark on 8296 is "HBJ" (for H.B. Johnson), being the same inspector's stamp as is also found stamped on a M-1858 Navy Starr revolver (last photo at the link below). H.B. Johnson was a Armory sub-inspector on M1860 Colt revolvers and also for Remington Beals Navy revolvers, 1862-63 -- and evidently for Model 1865 Burnside Contract Spencer carbines.

https://www.collegehillarsenal.com/shop/product.php?productid=641