1841 Remington Mississppi Rifle

tesoronut

I recently purchased one of these from an on-line antique gun dealer. It looks excellent. Has probably been "cleaned" some. No pitting, at least on the exterior. My question is, did they ever make any of these without sling swivels? This one has an 1849 dated lockplate. On the brass buttplate tang, there is a faint "US", and a larger "A", with the number "24" under that. But there is NOWHERE for a sling swivel to go. The trigger guard looks to be correct, but it looks more like a civillian model. There is also nowhere on any of the barrel bands for a swivel to go. But it's supposed to be a military gun? I've attempted to post pictures here before, but had a hard time. I can, however, e-mail some to somebody. Thanks for any help. I just hope I didn't buy a "repro" or "aged" fake.

mongrel1776

My only reference concerning guns of this type is "Flayderman's Guide To Antique American Firearms". Mine (7th Edition) lists and describes 1841 and 1841-type rifles in the chapters for U.S. Primary Military Longarms, Whitney, Remington, and Confederate Longarms. In none of the descriptions or pictures is there any indication that the 1841 models were made without provision for sling swivels. On all the guns described or pictured the swivels are on the front of the triggerguard bow and the lower rear of the front barrel band. There are a few military guns (Model 1847 Cavalry musketoon, for instance) that had brass mountings similar if not identical to the 1841 parts, but without sling swivel attachments. I don't find any mention of civilian 1841 rifles that might have lacked the sling swivels, not even in the section on Whitney's "good and serviceable arms" that were built to more-or-less the pattern of 1841, 1855, or Enfield models, but featured numerous differences from the "true" models. None of this is to say your gun is incorrect -- hopefully someone with more knowledge or more extensive references than I have will be able to tell you more -- but, if there were actual 1841 rifles with mountings that deviated from the standard pattern, Flayderman's doesn't list them.

rufe-snow

No offense, but it would have been best if you had this straightened out, prior to your purchase.

Also, on what basis did the dealer sell you the rifle? Did he specifically identify it as a authentic Remington made Mississippi Rifle? Did he provide any sort of guarantee, or mechanism for the return of the rifle if it was not as advertised? Sometimes when a super deal looks to good to be true, it really turns out that way.

tesoronut

He is a "supposedly" reputable dealer, and I have dealt with him before. He claims it's authentic. For 1450.00, it should be. He has his own antique gun sales website, and that's all he does.I feel sure that he would refund a return if I found out it wasn't authentic. I would say his name on here, if it wouldn't create a problem. I don't think he sells on gunbroker. Thanks for the replies!

rufe-snow

quote:Originally posted by tesoronut
He is a "supposedly" reputable dealer, and I have dealt with him before. He claims it's authentic. For 1450.00, it should be. He has his own antique gun sales website, and that's all he does.I feel sure that he would refund a return if I found out it wasn't authentic. I would say his name on here, if it wouldn't create a problem. I don't think he sells on gunbroker. Thanks for the replies!


Take it either to a large antique gun show, or to knowledgeable dealer(s)/collector(s) for a hands on. Don't go into any of the details of the transaction. Just show them the rifle and solicit their opinion of it's authenticity. If at all possible, show it to more then one individual, i.e. try to get a consensus as to what a number of folks who are familiar with Mississippi Rifles, feel about it.

Only then can you reasonably bring up this matter, with the dealer who sold you the rifle. My 2?.

mongrel1776

FWIW -- I don't know a great deal about antique military longarms, but "civilian" pieces, particularly pre-1840, I do. And one thing that's said, over and over, in books and articles dealing with these guns, is that when something just doesn't feel right -- more than likely it isn't. Besides reading that advice, I've known several people who disregarded it, who wanted a particular something so badly that they rationalized their way around every indication that what they were buying wasn't what they wanted at all. Without exception they ended up in possession of guns that not only weren't what they'd wanted, but (naturally) were worth far less than what they'd paid.

I am not saying anything like this is the case, here. I am saying that it sounds like, to me, there's some doubt as to whether or not what was bought was actually what it's supposed to be. I'll even go one step further and say that, if the rifle in question was bought with the understanding it was an authentic, 100% correct 1841, there are grounds for requesting to be allowed to return it for a full refund of the purchase price. This is assuming there was no language in the description of the gun or the terms of sale that cancels out this option. If the dealer is, in fact, reputable, and can't provide convincing documentation or other evidence that the rifle is correct and unmodified -- and didn't state "as-is" or "no returns" or something similar in the wording of the auction -- he should be willing to take the rifle back on general principle.

I realize that with a handful of "general principles" and a few dollars you can buy a Value Meal at Mickey-D's, but that's my humble opinion. I suppose, if Tesoronut wants to return the rifle, it will come down to what the happiness of a repeat customer is worth to the seller.

Edit -- I second Rufe-snow's advice about letting some knowledgeable people look at this rifle. They'd be the ones to know whether or not this model was ever produced without sling swivels.

tesoronut

I was just contacted by somebody that has one like mine, without the swivels. I sent him pictures of mine, and he thinks mine is original, and real. He says it's not uncommon to find these Miss. rifles without the swivels. And I trust the dealer. Thanks for your advice, I appreciate it. I at least know there's somebody else out there with one just like mine(mine is in better shape)

mongrel1776

I just finished stating, in another post on a different topic, that anyone who says "never" or "always" when discussing original muzzleloaders, will eventually be shown the error of his ways. I would still have the gun checked out by someone knowledgeable about the specific model (assuming it's important to you), but it would appear that the 1841 rifles maybe didn't "always" have sling swivels. [;)]

BTW, if you decide the rifle's not for you -- and the seller won't let you return it -- and the anguish of looking at it is more than you can bear -- I will quite graciously pay the postage for you to send it to me, so that your own healing from this trauma can begin. I am well-known for the way I always look out for others [:D].

tesoronut

[B)] Thanks, but........ I'm happy enough with the old gun.

dcinffxva

There were a couple of periods where these rifles were altered that may account for the lack of swivels, but personally I've never seen one without them that wasn't a "parts" gun.

Quite a few of them were rebored to .58 cal during the Civil War, and there were a couple of other alterations done which allowed for the saber, and 1842 socket bayonets.

Is yours still .54 cal, and are there any lugs for bayonets on the end of the barrel ?

According to Flayderman's, this model was offered for civilian sale in the 1864 Schuyler, Hartley & Graham catalog. It doesn't mention any differences in sling swivels.

tesoronut

Thanks for the info. I really don't know if mine is 54 or 58. I may check it tomorrow. I also read about the civilian sales. There are no lugs on the end. There is a very small "H" on the front tang of the trigger guard, "JOB" near the receiver on left side, with a "P" for proof mark. I'll check the bore size tomorrow. Been working all day today.