M1866 Short Rifle (Two band variation)

[Luger1914]

I did a rather quick examination of a trapdoor that appears to be a Short Rifle. Most, if not all of the characteristics follow Dick's book. Even has the shortened ramrod. Only difference is the lock plate is marked 1864, not 1863 at the rear of the plate. Could this be a short rifle? It has proper cartouche and N. What else should I look for? Is there something that will give it away as being a Bannerman? It is a nice example if truly a short rifle. Thanks

[musketshooter]

In 45+ years of collecting Springfields, I have never seen a legitimate two band M1866. Look closely for a filled in band spring slot and a soft soldered front sight.

[Dick Hosmer]

I don't believe the date difference would be meaningful, or would serve as positive ID one way or the other. The real key seems to be the stock without a band spring filler - that and the fact that all proportions should be correct and all fit and workmanship should be up to snuff - nothing slipshod allowed. The rods maintain the same muzzle setback, and are a bit thinner. I got my short '66 from Ed Hull, and he pointed out a minor difference in the block strap milling, though I'm not sure that makes a difference either. The short ones were repaired arms, not a new model where everything should match a certain pattern.

[John Sukey]

Trapdoor conversions for West Point cadets were made from shortened rifles for one year.

[Luger1914]

Thanks for help. Dick, I will use the Table in your book to check dimensions closely and look at the workmanship and stock also.

[Kragrifle]

Dick,
I have several of these rifles, one with a filled in spring slot, one without. Isn't the difference whether the stock was from a early or late 1863 musket?

[Kragrifle]

One other point, I have two two band rifles from first Model Allins. Both of these have the filled in spring as is correct (?). One has the ESA and SWP cartouche, the other as not inspector's marks. Why does this version of the two band Allin only have the filled in slots on the stock?

[Dick Hosmer]

I, too, have a 2-band 1st Allin, and have seen perhaps 4 or 5 others identical to it - with a filled band spring. I think they are "right", but Al Frasca - who has done more research than I says they are not. There is an Ordnance Dept. letter during the period where the arms described therein almost HAVE to be short M65s, yet Al says it refers to muzzle-loaders. I honestly don't know who is right. What I DO know is "wrong" is any two-band 1865 or 1866 with (a) a thinned wrist and/or (b) an inappropriately placed (mid-band left as was) front band. The 1865 situation is, except for lack of a paper trail, physically clearer than the 1866, in that there seem to be only two variations - the nice one which looks right and the really ugly Bannermans. The 1866 is a mess as there are numerous iterations, more than one of which are almost right in appearance. I suspect this is at least partly due to the flurry of work done in order to sell guns to France. In fact, a small book could be written on the 1866 alone.

A seldom discussed aspect of the short arms is rod retention. Prior to the positive lock introduced in the Model 1868, rod slippage under discharge was always a problem, but, the rod of a muzzle-loader needed to be instantly available. After the conversion to breech loading occurred, the rod could be secured by threads, so a proper rod of the conversion period will be threaded to screw into the keeper above the trigger guard. So, this feature should be also be considered when evaluating a short rifle. What has always been a mystery to me is why SA did not (in 1871) apply the M68 keeper and rod to the reworked M66s, especially since they did not simply cut the existing rods by 4". One way or another, I'd have done it differently.

Bottom line, don't invest a whole lot of money in either "short rifle" as there does not seem to be an ironclad answer/consensus as to what is right and what isn't. Eliminating the really bad ones still leaves some head-scratchers.

[Luger1914]

Dick-what would be your definition of"a whole lot of money".
Thanks

[Dick Hosmer]

I would not want to go much, if any, over $1000 in an M66 short rifle, and I'd be real careful at that. I paid $1100 for mine about 5 years ago, because it was on my short list of affordable guns I did not own, I trusted the seller (still do), and, recall that prices were higher then. You should be able to do better in this buyer's market.