1870 50 cal. question

[phil in indy]

OK guys, I'm going to try to load some shells for my 1870. The question I have is that since it is .50 US carbine and NOT 50-70 how would you aproach cutting down the brass to the new length? Thanks

[raymeketa]

phil

It's not really any of my business but, there were only 360 of the 1870 carbines made. Why would you want to shoot yours and risk breaking some of the parts such as the hammer, mainspring, etc. ??

But, if you insist, the cases can be trimmed like any other. Use one of the common trimmers. I've trimmed 50-70 cases all the way back to 50 Spencer length with no problems.

Ray

[phil in indy]

Ray,
I doubt seriously if mine is a true carbine. I couldn't have that kind of luck. I figured it is just a Bannerman or something. I bought it as a 50-70 but the darn brass that I use in my Century Manufacturing 50-70 revolver wont go all the way down the throat so I did a chamber cast and came up with .50 US carbine. Took a heck of a while to find a bayonet that would fit it too.

[Dick Hosmer]

Bayonet? On a carbine? What's afoot here?

The ONLY short-chambered Springfield is the 1867 Navy Cadet (a rolling block) in .50-45, whose case is about 3/16" shorter.

All of the other models meant for reduced (.50-55, utilizing wads) loads (1867 Cadet, 1869 Cadet, 1870 Carbine) were full-chambered, no trimming should be required. Perhaps there is a portion of separated case in the front of the chamber?

[raymeketa]

Dick

i was hoping you'd respond and, voila, there you are!

I wondered about the chamber length but didn't say anything because I wasn't sure. If Phil's barrel is from one of the pre-1870 rifles, they would have had to shorten the barrel tenon to make it fit the 1870 receiver. Correct? That could account for the short chamber. Did Bannerman do stuff like that ?

Ray

[phil in indy]

I purchased the bayonet at an auction probably a year or 2 after I bought the rifle. The bayo was marked Springfield 1863 on the auction tag. It is only marked with a US stamp on the bottom of the triangular blade and an A on the socket. The leather belt loop is attatched via a plain brass disk with no markings. This was the only bayo that I found at that auction that fit the exterior diameter of my barrel. Now when it is attatched the barrel does not protrude all the way through the bayo socket. The barrel ends about 1/2 inch before coming through the socket. I looked in the receiver of the rifle and can see the step where the barrel screws in. The lockplate on the rifle is dated 1863 and the breechblock says Model 1870. The front sight sits about 9/16ths of an inch from the front of the receiver. On the wood just below the tang is a marking No. 8. No other marking on the wood that I see. The ramrod sticks out about 3/8 inch further than the barrel.

[phil in indy]

I placed a flashlight at he end of the barrel and using a dental mirror I can see th step at the end of the chamber with the barrel groves coming all the way down. The barrel is 28 and 6/16 inch from the receiver to the muzzle and the front of the front sight is 1 and 5/16 inches to the muzzle. The ramrod is 32 and 1/2 inches long. The stock from nosecap to buttplate is 45 and 10/16ths long.

[phil in indy]

Oh yes 1 more thing and maybe this will answer some questions I just saw this. On the left side of the barrel between the srear sight and the stock is stamped M. BAKER. All the letters are the same height and spaced the same distance apart like a single full stamping would be not like a group of letters stamped individually.

[M1Riflenut]

Pictures? :)

[phil in indy]

hope you can see these

[phil in indy]

4 more pics The pic with the 50-70 shell shows how far it slides in, with the 50-70 shell on the outside for reference. By the way the lockplate reads 1863 but I can't figure out how to get a good shot of it with this darn caamera.

[Dick Hosmer]

Dick

i was hoping you'd respond and, voila, there you are!

I wondered about the chamber length but didn't say anything because I wasn't sure. If Phil's barrel is from one of the pre-1870 rifles, they would have had to shorten the barrel tenon to make it fit the 1870 receiver. Correct? That could account for the short chamber. Did Bannerman do stuff like that ?

Ray

I'm sure that Bannerman, et al, would do anything to secure a sale. So, any barrel manipulation would be fair game. I've never had a 68 or a 70 apart, so cannot say how the threading works out, or how one could be morphed into the other.

[Dick Hosmer]

4 more pics The pic with the 50-70 shell shows how far it slides in, with the 50-70 shell on the outside for reference. By the way the lockplate reads 1863 but I can't figure out how to get a good shot of it with this darn caamera.

That is a strange looking case. Was it turned down from something else? If it were too fat at the rear, it wouldn't go all the way in. From what I see on the gun, I'd expect a normal .50-70 chamber. HOWEVER, the "No. 8" mark on the stock is REALLY intriguing, as is the Baker marking. I'm thinking it MIGHT, by some wild set of circumstances, be some sort of experimental "laboratory" special piece, in which case the chamber could be anything.

[Tom Trevor]

He may well have half a broken shell in there. Over time with cleaning and wire brushing the piece will all but vanish to casual view.

[phil in indy]

I'll pull out a dental pick a little later and see if I can feel a ridge in the chamber. The cases are headstamped dixie 50-70. They do chamber in my Century Manufacturing 50-70 revolver. Even when I resize with my RCBS dies they still won't go all the way in. Are there any other pictures you would like me to take and post?

[Dick Hosmer]

My Dixie cases do not exhibit that "ring" just above the head, nor do they show that bulge at the mouth, but, that aside, if the round in the breech is stopped where shown, it is way short of where it would be if the barrel were chambered for the .50-45 carbine round.

Given that the rear sight is in the correct position, it seems unlikely that the barrel was set back.

My money, based on facts presented so far, is on (a) a chamber obstruction, or (b) some sort of "special" which demands research, and could possibly have some added value.

Don't remember on which forum it was "adjudicated", but we had a similar situation about a year ago, in .45-70, where the guy SWORE there was nothing wrong with the chamber, but in the end it was discovered that there was about half a case stuck in there.

[11mm]

For what it is worth, one way to remove a stuck case is to melt cerrosafe into the chamber as if you were doing a chamber cast, and then poke it out with a rod. How do I know this? It happened to me once where I thought I had an oddly chambered rifle, but it turned out to be about 3/8" of an old, broken off case mouth left in the chamber. If the chamber is really made for an odd case, well, then you will find out from the chamber cast.

[phil in indy]

I'll pour another cerrosafe cast later and take measurements and a picture. If there was a partial casing stuck in there wouldn't it come out with a chamber cast? I purchased a used fn-fal a few years back and when I couldn't get it to chamber a round I took it to a smith and he removed a stuck case via the cerrosafe.

[phil in indy]

OK I finally got the 50-70 back from my gunsmith. It is truly a 50-70, not 50 US carbine. Apparently the extractor that was in the rifle was from a 45-70, :icon_scratch:, and would not allow the 50-70 case to fully enter the chamber. He was able to purchase a correct extractor for the rifle from a gentleman from Pennsylvania. Got it installed and life is good.

[Dick Hosmer]

Why the chip on the shoulder? From what I see it's a very nice example. The only question from those pics would be what appears to be an M1868 latch, but I don't see that as an issue, on a trials piece, let alone a big issue. The front of the stock, and the muzzle area are not shown, but everything I can see, which includes several of the defining bits, looks fine. As far as Al's two are concerned, I agree, though the brand-new one doesn't turn me on.