Any thoughts on this rifle?

[GcS]

I'm guessing an 1861 Springfield or a CS Richmond, but what the heck do I know...

http://home.comcast.net/~spitzegc/RASipe.jpg

[JBinIll]

From the hump in the hammer I'm guessing an 1861 Springfield.

[musketshooter]

It could be a '55 or '61 based on the looks of the rear sight.

[Johnny P]

That is the left side of the musket, so can't get a fix on the shape of the hammer.
http://i40.tinypic.com/2usivs3.jpg

[kar66]

Looks like the Billy the Kid Photo with the reversed negative. The hammer is on the wrong side.

[Embalmer]

can tell by triggerguard it is a springfield. not a 42 rear sight, so thats out. judging by the frock coat, could be a 55, 61, or 63 as most frocks were phased out by mid war, but my money would be a 61

[Johnny P]

The early photos had no negative as such, as the photo emulsion was put on a glass plate which became the photo. When the picture was taken it was a negative of the subject, but unlike film could not be flipped over as the emulsion side had to be protected, and could not be turned over.

It took historians a while to figure this out, and the mentioned photo of Billy the Kid convinced historians he was left handed. In 1958 the movie "The Left Handed Gun" starred Paul Newman, and sure enough, he was left handed. His photo was a "tintype" but again the emulsion side was the photo, and it was reversed.

[GcS]

can tell by triggerguard it is a springfield. not a 42 rear sight, so thats out. judging by the frock coat, could be a 55, 61, or 63 as most frocks were phased out by mid war, but my money would be a 61

I'm guessing the picture is from '61 or '62. Here's another pic of his brother that was likely taken the same day. I originally thought the damaged picture was my great great grandfather ( my grandmother believed it to be ). Comparing the pics to later portraits I've come to the conclusion that the undamaged pic is actually my GGGF. He transferred to the cavalry shortly before Fredericksburg and his brother went with him as well. For reasons long since lost to time his brother returned to the infantry -- which proved to be an unfortunate turn of events...

http://home.comcast.net/~spitzegc/rsipeCSA.gif

[cwartyman]

55 or 61 Springfield. The hammer is basically the same for both and the later 58 rear sight and the 61 sight look similar. The only way you would know its a 55 is if you could see the door to the Maynard tape primer under the hump of the hammer. Now the other option is if he is a Reb it could be a Richmond, which was nothing but a 55 without the Maynard tape primer milled out .
Mack

[Gus Fisher]

I agree about it being a 55 or 61 for the physical features others have pointed out, PLUS something else. In both pictures, the soldiers are wearing EARLY war uniforms of frock coats with WHITE shoulder straps for the cartridge box and bayonet. White shoulder straps indicate Mexican War or Pre War Militia equipment. The problem is in each photography studio, they kept a collection of arms, equipment and sharp pointy things to add to the "Martial Flair" of the photograph. You see the same muskets, revolvers, pistols, D guard bowies, single shot pistols and even double barreled shotguns over and over in the original Daguerreotype photographs from the same photography studio. So you can't always judge solely by the equipment or arms.

I remember seeing one original where the soldier had a D Guard bowie stock in his belt along with two Colt Navy's, and a single shot pistol as well. Then he had a musket in his left hand at "Order Arms" while he cradled a double barrel shotgun in his right arm. I doubt the soldier could have marched two miles had he actually been issued all that equipment. Grin. It was the start of the photographic age of the "Rambo" photographs by younger troops. When I first became a Marine in 1971, there were still guys who had photographs taken with all kinds of military gear on and around them similiar to the Civil War photo's.

As the war went on, USEFUL arms and equipment were either donated or confiscated from many of the photography studios in the South as the South needed more and more arms. So late war photo's show less weapons and possibly the weapon/s the soldier was actually issued. However, there is some doubt to that as usually a soldier was not allowed to leave camp with his musket or shoulder arm.

You may find this link interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daguerreotype

[Gus Fisher]

BTW, there are STILL people doing Daguerreotypes with the original equipment, materials and even METHODS in making them. When I was at the reenactment of the Battle of Kernstown (Virginia) in I think it was 1982, there was a gentleman who did that to include he had a reproduction photography wagon.

I had one done of me in my Confederate Marine Uniform and compared that Daguerreotype to quite a few orginals. Except for the fact it does not have the full age patina, it is scarey how close to originals that Daguerreotype is. As a joke, a good friend put it in an original Gutta Percha frame and displayed it with many authentic Daguerreotypes at a Civil War show. Some folks got quite excited as there is NO known Daguerreotype of an Enlisted Confederate States Marine, though there are some for Officers.

Now, if the Daguerreotype had been taken out of the Gutta Percha case, it would have been easy to see there was no aging on the back of the Daguerreotype. However, one guy got so excited, he was convinced it was real. That's when I pointed out the belt buckle was not correct. (Back in those days I had it made, it was believed a Revenue Cutter Service belt buckle was actually a C.S. Marine belt buckle. I had that buckle on in the Daguerreotype.) However, that didn't convince the guy until I held the Daguerreotype up close to my face and said, "Look Familiar? That's me in the Daguerreotype......" Took him a few seconds and then he got the joke.