1863 Confederate States, Richmond Carbine & Linen Sling

If you’ve been following the Civil War Arsenal for enough time you know I have a soft spot in my heart for Richmond made weapons. I’m always on the lookout for affordable quality Carbines, Short Rifles and Rifle Muskets.

So recently Rick Burton of http://www.ccrelics.com made available a very good condition 1863 Richmond Carbine with a linen sling. I contacted him and we negotiated a fair price that we both could live with. I received the Carbine shortly after and “WOW” I was extremely impressed with the condition of the weapon.

It was the first CW weapon I’d purchased from Rick and was impressed with the overall experience. His website was user friendly and he had a large selection of neat Confederate pieces (and Union)…..and he’s got some nice edged weapons….if only I was rich…haha

So anyway back to my new 1863 Richmond Carbine, she’s a beauty the stock, barrel, lockplate and all hardware are correct and in very good condition…..heck it’s even got the original rear sling swivel screwed into the stock…..for anyone who doesn’t know the rear sling swivel is generally missing from most Richmond Carbines. And the icing on the cake is that it came with a Confederate Linen Sling, I will admit the sling is not perfect however neither am I…..lol

The butt plate is steel and marked U.S., the rear sight is original and the front sight hasn’t been filed down, the barrel band closest to the breech is Richmond made due to the U being offset, the brass nose cap has a nice patina and the lock plate has very good markings as well as good action. The stock is in great condition with some initials and the year 1865 lightly carved on the right side.

This brings my collection of Richmond’s to 9……6 Carbines, 1 Short Rifle and 2 Long Rifles……not bad if I do say so myself.

If you have any questions about this weapon or any of the other weapons in my Arsenal feel free to contact me at civilwararsenal@yahoo.com attn: Gene West

8 thoughts on “1863 Confederate States, Richmond Carbine & Linen Sling

  1. Gene, I received from a north Florida resident what looks like a Richmond rifle in poor condition. HBC is carved on one side of the stock and what seems to be 8 MC on the other. Disassembled it only and soaked in deep creep only to loosen parts. Modem looking drill & tap on the lock plate. Some sanding marks behind the hammer might explain lack of stop studs and numbers. US marked on butt plate. Is missing ram rod. Looks like end cap was cut off. I would like to restore as best I can by fixing the stock. Would you recommend fiberglass, epoxy, wood filler? I will not sell but don’t want to do anything I might regret. Thanks for any input and found your writings on this subject very helpful. Thanks!
    Frank Mc.
    Cumming Ga

    • Francis, based on the images you’ve provided I’m not convinced what you have is the remains of a Richmond weapon. I can’t tell what markings are on the Lock Plate, but if it doesn’t say C.S. & Richmond Virginia it’s not correct……what I can see from the image you’ve provided of the lock plate doesn’t have a hump on it…..that leaves me to believe it’s not a Richmond……all Richmonds have a hump under the Hammer.
      The remaining pieces are extremely rough……and the bolster on the barrel is absolutely not correct to a Richmond weapon……..you may want to reconsider restoring the weapon unless it’s just for the love of history.

      Regards Gene West

  2. Hello Eugene,
    I am a new collector. Your site and confederate relics are mind blowing!. Thank you so much for sharing your collection and explaining it!.
    If you have the time I purchased this 1863 from a local old timer. He has taken me under his wing. I am researching it after I purchased it… a bit backwards.
    However I’ve raised a few concerns and he said he will refund all my money no questions asked. In fact he wants to learn more about it as he’s had it for 30 years. (when I say old timer -he has NO computer!)
    If im going to invest in a richmond I do not want a yankee counterfiet!
    I have attached some photos , I would value your expert opinion. My concerns
    1. 1863 – no brass nose cone, iron US butt plate.
    2. no rifling
    3. no “T” mortice.and site has been replaced with a 1864-65 sprinfield.
    4. I removed lock plate and i believe i see the cut out for a maynard primer? I”ve never seen one but comparing to your site.
    5 what is up with the nipple??
    IF this is a yankee gun with just a richmond plate… then what kind of rifle is it?
    Again , I am sorry to bother you. If you do not have time I understand. Just looking for some help and PLEASE dont worry about feelings (some collectors seem reluctant to tell the truth) . I just need toknow wether to keep it or return it .
    Best , Chuck

    • Chuck,

      1. I’ve never seen an iron nose cap on a Richmond Carbine, only on some early Richmond Long Rifles and Short Rifles. Many Richmond Carbines have butt plates stamped U.S.
      2. Many Richmond’s were bored after the war so they could be used as shotguns.
      3. No mortise at the rear sight, is suspicious……I’ve never seen a Richmond without it, however it’s not unusual to see the rear sight replaced with a Union sight.
      4. The cavity under the lockplate is correct, having a Maynard Primer cutout.
      5. The nipple is old and worn out, it’s not unusual.

      It’s my opinion that the Carbine originally started out as a long rifle but has been cutdown at some time. The barrel is absolutely not original to the weapon……I have handled many original Richmond Carbines over the years and have never seen one with a Union front sight, it should be a “pinched sight” as well as the mortise missing on the rear sight.
      The stock started out as a Harper’s Ferry, which is correct, but the nose cap for a Carbine would “only be brass” not iron……even on most 1863 long Rifles the nose cap would be brass…….some early War Rifles were iron………the front barrel band is not correct…….
      To be fair, without physically handling the Carbine it’s hard to say for sure…..however….I’ve owned and handled enough over the years to know when to stay away…….and I personally would stay away from this one………

      Regards , Gene West

  3. Eugene thank you very much for the quick reply. I was trying to make last nights email short to you ha ha. I never told you what kind of gun it was I do apologize it is a long rifle. It is not a carbine. I’m assuming that changes absolutely nothing. Being a novice at this to reiterate what you said.
    So the front site is a union site it is not correct. ?
    And am I correct the cavity is code for a Maynard primer- so that’s a sign it’s not a true Richmond ?
    And as you said the barrel is not correct .
    Just sharpening my knowledge on this.
    Again thank you for the reply and the big picture is I should stay away from this. I will continue my search
    I hope to finally get one if you don’t get it first !!!!
    Best chuck

    • Chuck,
      I apologize for not understanding……I thought I was looking at a Carbine and not a long Rifle……..the barrel is not correct and the stock and butt plate are in poor condition…….be patient and another Richmond will come your way…….


  4. Good morning and happy new year,

    I was looking over your 1863 Richmond Carbine, the one posted on January 13, 2016 that was all Southern made. I was curious. Are there proof marks on the barrel and was the barrel date stamped? Thank you,

    Tom Johns

    • Tom,
      I currently own 3 Richmond Carbines and yes all 3 have viewed and proof marks on the left side Breech of the barrel. Two are Richmond proof marks and one of the barrels are from cutdown Union barrels (based on the proof marks) which was not uncommon late in the war when the South had shortages of metals/barrels.

      Regards Gene West

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *