1873 Springfield Rifle with Brass Spacer behind Hammer. PICs

[Dean L]

Picked up a 1873 Rifle which had this brass spacer behind the hammer. Took it off and everything lines up and works fine but wanted to know if anyone has seen these or what was its purpose? Thanks
http://fototime.com/D8B83C96DFC4AB6/standard.jpg

[Tom Trevor]

It may have had the bridal broken at one time and that held the hammer in position. bridal was replaced and the spacer not removed. Bubba not the arsenal performed that repair. When you removed the lock was the bridal broken?

[Dick Hosmer]

Apparently, since things align now, I guess they didn't when it was in place? I'm guessing that maybe someone had a .50 cal. (or musket) tumbler on the gun a one time??

[Dean L]

Heres pics with it on and last pics with it off.
http://fototime.com/929704630BAF63A/standard.jpg
http://fototime.com/2305D22BBA5683C/standard.jpg
http://fototime.com/D768AEBD0B3BDA9/standard.jpg

[Weasel]

Looks like it might of had a muzzle loading bbl on it at one time but I could be wrong, it's just a guess.

[Dick Hosmer]

I've looked at those pictures (excellent series of expressing the thought sequence, BTW) until I am cross-eyed. Something is clearly amiss, but what? Now, I'm thinking (guns/parts are not available at hand) that there must be a difference in offset between a M68 hammer and an M73. I do not believe that the firing pin location changed relative to the lock bedding surface, yet the early hammer was thrust outward by the thicker lockplate. When using a 68 hammer with all 73 parts, it should strike too far "in", and the spacer would be a way of correcting the problem. However, I've seen identical parts mixtures without the shim, and the fit was not all that bad - perhaps those hammers had been bent? Have to say I usually don't pay that much attention to messed-up pieces, would rarely even pick one up. Guess the next "project" will be to take some careful measurements, to see if there is a solid answer for the shim.

One other point, while I'm *sure it is the same tumbler, the slight difference in camera angle between pics 2 and 3 certainly plays tricks on the eye! In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if my original thought still has merit - how far does tumbler protrude from plate? *Hmmm, this wouldn't be an April Fool's prank, would it?

[mhaim]

The shim looks like it would line up a 1866 hammer

[Dick Hosmer]

And there's another - and quite possibly even better - theory. In fact, at first impression (you didn't cheat and actually measure, did you?) I like it!

[Dick Hosmer]

That would appear to be a Model 1866 (2nd Allin conversion) hammer, which was always used with a bevelled (raised) lockplate. Which, if one were fitted to the setup shown, would bring things into line, if the shim were removed.

I asked two questions which you have not answered:

(1) How far does the tumbler square project from the face of the plate? If "normal", some of your illustrations do not make sense at all, such as the one directly above, where the hammer cannot possibly be fully seated.

(2) Is this an April Fools joke, wherein you have been changing more than one component at a time, thus always keeping the illusion going?

If the answer to (2) is yes, I commend you for your ingenuity! I DO have all of the various parts, and, maybe I'll do some measuring. :eusa_liar: