Trent on "Model 1863 ramrod, splitting hairs?"

Trent — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:33:20 +0000

Well he doesn't say it is original to the gun. Ramrods have been mixed in the heat of battle and over the years. He probably didn't know better and just wanted to make it sound good. I think it is getting picky, for that price anyway.

derek on "Model 1863 ramrod, splitting hairs?"

derek — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:25:33 +0000

The tulip ramrod is correct for Type I, this appears to be a Type II. It might be more correct to say that the tulip ramrod is correct for a model 1863, but is not original to this type.

According to Flayderman's this auction is for a Springfield Model 1863 type II - see the date on the lock. However, he presents what he calls the correct ramrod, which would actually go to a type I. The type II ramrod had the knurled and slotted tulip.

Gun Broker:
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?item=42735234

Seller:
The Cavalry Soldier

Firearms 1st Guntalk Forum Thread: Model 1863 ramrod, splitting hairs?

Trent on "Model 1863 ramrod, splitting hairs?"

derek on "Model 1863 ramrod, splitting hairs?"