Question about a ram rod

[Blair]

I found a very nice restoration of an original M-1863 type II Springfield, some may call this the M-1864 Springfield.
Here are some photos.

http://cwsutler.hypermart.net/RC901L.jpg

Notice anything odd about the ram rod?
It is, by the way, the correct ram rod for this model Springfield.
I was just wondering if any of you have seen this type of ram rod used any where else?
Thank you,

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Actually, it IS the correct ramrod for the "M1864" Rifle-Musket (M1863 Type II).

The specifications called for the ramrod to be replaced so as to conform more closely to the "Enfield" arms.

On February 3, 1863, Dyer recommended:

"The ramrod is increased two hundreths of an inch in diameter over the present rod, and the swell is omitted. This change wil reduce somewhat the cost and at the same time protect the thread of the screw from being marred by the rod spring."

Although it appears they did not go all the way as the "The Manual of the Model 1863 Musket" said:

"RAMROD- The 'swell ' is omitted and the body made larger, with a ball-screw cut on the small end, and a brass cap to protect it from injury."

("It" being the implement tool threads at the lower end.)

I may be wrong, but to my knowledge, no one makes a correct repro "M1864" ramrod for the repro "M1864's." So, folks are not used to seeing them.

CHS

[Blair]

Curt,

That is correct.
There are some minor differences in the two ram rods.
The Springfield is, of course, longer being designed for a 40 inch barrel, the threaded end would be for the Springfield whipper and ball puller. The knurled and slotted ram rod head is also slightly different. One would really need to have both ram rods side by side to really be able to pick out the small differences/variations.
There are many people under the assumption these ram rods are incorrect for this model firearm.
I hope folks will understand that if they find an M-1864 Springfield with this type of ram rod in the gun... be very pleased with your find. Not many have survived with this ram rod.

[TheQM]

I'm taking care of a M-1863 Type II. (Dated 1864) This weapon has the standard M-1863 ramrod. It looks to be original to the weapon. The ramrod is short, as was mentioned. Did they use up existing parts?

[Blair]

Bill,

I would not recommend using the date stamp to determine the actual Model of the firearm.
The best way to tell a M-1863 from an M-1864 Springfield is by the type of barrel band and how the barrel bands are secured to the stock/firearm.
M-1863 uses oval, half inch wide screw clamping bands The screw on the bands are the only thing that holds the band to the stock.
M-1864 uses oval, half inch wide solid bands. (The middle band retains a screw like the clamping band but this is how the sling swivel is held to the band.) All three bands are held to the stock using the conventional band springs of the same type as the "55's and '61's.
It is because of these differences that actually make the M-1863 and M-1864 two different models and not a "type" variation.

When you say your ram rod is short, How or by what method are you measuring it?
A sizable number of M-1864's do seem to have come with the tulip headed M-1863 type ram rods

[TheQM]

Bill,

I would not recommend using the date stamp to determine the actual Model of the firearm.
The best way to tell a M-1863 from an M-1864 Springfield is by the type of barrel band and how the barrel bands are secured to the stock/firearm.
M-1863 uses oval, half inch wide screw clamping bands The screw on the bands are the only thing that holds the band to the stock.
M-1864 uses oval, half inch wide solid bands. (The middle band retains a screw like the clamping band but this is how the sling swivel is held to the band.) All three bands are held to the stock using the conventional band springs of the same type as the "55's and '61's.
It is because of these differences that actually make the M-1863 and M-1864 two different models and not a "type" variation.

When you say your ram rod is short, How or by what method are you measuring it?
A sizable number of M-1864's do seem to have come with the tulip headed M-1863 type ram rods

Blair,

The weapon in question is a standard Type II except for the ramrod. It has the solid cast bands, held in place with band springs and the single leaf blued sight with "peep holes". The ramrod has a tulip head and is roughly 3/4" shorter than the barrel. (When dropped down the barrel) The ramrods on other .58 rifles and the M-1840,42 muskets are roughly 1/4" longer than the barrel. The M-1822's ramrods are roughly 1 1/4" longer than the barrel. This short ramrod is threaded to accept a worm.

[Blair]

Bill,

The M-1816, '22, '35 and 1842 should all have 42" inches long barrels. The ram rods will all be shorter that the overall barrel length due to the amount of space the breech screws into the breech. A ram rod length of about 41 3/8th plus or minus 1/8th.
I would suggest you measure the overall barrel lengths to see if the may have been altered
The Rifle Musket M-1855, '61, '63 and 1864 all have 40" inch long barrels Their ram rods should also run about 1/2 inch to 5/8th of an inch shorter than to overall barrel length as well.
N-SSA Skirmishers are allowed to put new custom or re lined barrels on their guns that are up to 1/2 inch longer that the originals barrel lengths. This is so they can re crown the muzzle every couple of years to help keep the rifling from having as much wear from the ram rod usage.

[TheQM]

Bill,

The Rifle Musket M-1855, '61, '63 and 1864 all have 40" inch long barrels Their ram rods should also run about 1/2 inch to 5/8th of an inch shorter than to overall barrel length as well.

Blair,

The weapon in question has the standard 40" barrel, but the ramrod is only 39 1/8" long. My question is pretty simple. Has anyone else seen another M-1863 Type II with a short tulip headed ramrod? This "short" ramrod would work quite well if you were loading live rounds.