Mr. Hosmer

[5MadFarmers]

I just pulled out one of my trapdoors and I notice it's marked "1878" on the breechblock....

Dick, I do in fact want to cover that. I'm currently actually writing the Krag book, I'd say 100 pages are about done but this is probably revision 8 so I've written 800 total or, in another view, the same 100 8 times, revisions 9-? will follow, and the "Model" issue is something I just went over.

The change from narrow to wide receivers took place in 1878. Kind of a strange date given that the marking confused seems to be "1878." "A deeply stamped 3" is generally accepted but I really do want to explore the other possible cause: it's an 8. Given the number of breechblocks you've seen, what is the percentage of those being confused for "8" versus those being clearly "3?" Considering that, where do those "8" ones fall? Ignoring the guns they're parked on, just considering those blocks themselves, are the following possible:

1) They marked some "8" but reverted to "3."
2) The "8" marked ones show all the features one would expect from blocks immediately preceding the "1884."

Why open this up again? Because the patterns are pointing to something odd. Taking the Krags as following the trapdoors, and comparing what I see in the ordnance department papers, a strange pattern is emerging.

[p246]

I'm waiting on this answer pop corn in hand. Having seen stamps that look exactly like an 8 trapdoor geeks want to know.

[Dick Hosmer]

Well, where to start? There are five possible markings (excluding various dimensional changes, etc., except width) on .45 cal blocks:

(1) Model/1873/eaglehead/crossed arrows/US (always narrow)
(2) US/Model/1873 (small font) (narrow AND wide)
(3) US/Model/1873 (large font) (always wide, from here on)
(4) US/Model/1884
(5) US/Model/1888 (only occurs on the 100 positive cam rifles, has NOTHING to do with the rod bayonet guns)

The width change occurred (between 96271 and 96309) around the middle of (2), so the first of the (3)s would NOT have signified the wider block.
(2) and (3) are ROUGHLY equal in quantity, perhaps a slight edge to (3).
(3) is the one with the "8 problem", but not all specimens exhibit the fault (die flaw, heavy hit, block too thick, all of the above?) Percentage? I don't know. I DO know I have NEVER seen an "8" - the serif balls are ALWAYS there, even if indistinct.
The (3) block was used to exhaustion, WELL after many rifles had been issued with M1884 sights, because of what you state, they ARE the same as (4) except for the date. "Model 1884" was really all about the Buffington sight, as nothing else really changed.

Does that help? If not, let me know.

[5MadFarmers]

Thanks. I long dead birdie named Pitman has been whispering in my ear. Along with a few others.

The hardest, and easiest, part of the book is done. Pictures and tables are what's left. That's hard and easy in its own way. I had to reach back and fly over the trapdoors and, as I did so, I saw them from another angle. Most of it panned out but that marking proved to be a problem.

They were so consistent in some ways and so inconsistent in others.

Thanks. I'm going with "3." No, I don't mention that in this context anyway. The receiver width change date just struck me.

[Dick Hosmer]

I wouldn't presume so far as the Krag data is concerned, but if you'd like me to look at whatever TD preamble you may have included, I'd be honored to do so.

[p246]

Based on this thread I went and looked at my friends trapdoor that looks like an 1878. With a magnifying glass (does that mean I'm getting old) I can just tell it is indeed a 3. I think when newer with less handling it might have been more evident. There is no oubt though why so many think there are a 1878 version.

[Dick Hosmer]

Oh yes, it's a very common misperception. I was fooled originally as well, following much the same logic as Joe expressed, figuring it somehow signified a change and really was an 8. Not.

Some people even get angry about it, but, with the application of sufficient light, and magnification, they have always - even if reluctantly - agreed.

Not the only SA mystery - when they had the recall of guns under 50,000 in 1879/80, the wide receiver was well-established - why pick that number, as opposed to simply turning in all of the narrow arms, the vast majority of which had the weaker high-arch block? Why did they repeat the thin-wrist/thick wrist problem on the Krags. Joe doesn't "like" the OD, at all, stay tuned for the exposé.

[Rick B]

How a bout a section on movie rifles :) I got one to show for yah with original paperwork if wanted. Rick B

[Dick Hosmer]

I'm not really big on movie rifles, since most are mixmasters, and usually thrashed to within an inch of their lives, or made into some sort of Arabian whatchimacallit - sometimes all three. But, if I can help with the answer to a question, go ahead.

[Rick B]

I was just having fun but in all honesty my " R.K.O." & "FOX" Krag movie rifles are more like what you mention but have super nice bores and are 100% correct not mixed up. My "MGM" Trapdoor is nice all around with just a stock swap and a nice bore. I have fired it and she shoots great. I may try to take a deer this year with it. Rick B

http://imageshack.us/a/img15/9723/011fie.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img402/8330/007aan.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img710/325/064ed.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img834/4526/065fn.jpg