Serial Number Check - Trapdoor Please

[Bergerboy]

Hi Folks,

Looking for any and all historical info on serial #71657 I recently picked up at a LGS.
Its an 1873 model full-length Trapdoor in pretty nice overall condition.
I've shot about 10 rounds through her so far, and it operates as if it was new (as if I knew!).
What I have been able to research is that it was made somewhere late in the July to Sept 1876 timeframe.

The only strange thing is that I can not detect any stock cartouche, no matter how hard or close I look.
It doesn't appear to be a recently changed stock, and the typical cartouche area doesn't look like it was sanded or repaired that might have obliterated the cartouche stamping.
So, its a bit of a mystery to me.

Any help would be appreciated.

Pictures available if needed.

[Dick Hosmer]

Please post pictures. I have not found any reference to the number, but perhaps the pictures will suggest something.

[Bergerboy]

Thanks Dick.
Here's some quick photos of the Trapdoor taken today. (Had to wait for the snow to melt off the deck finally!)
Let me know your thoughts.

3049130492304933049430495

[Bergerboy]

3049630497304983049930500

[Bergerboy]

Batch #3 of 33050130502305033050430505

[Bergerboy]

OK - 1 more, because I think the Hammer cross-hatching is soooo sexy!30506

[raymeketa]

That serial number is right on the border line when a lot of parts were being changed and improved. That could account for the stock having no cartouche if it was a field replacement. Of course, the down side is that it could be a rebuilt or refinished parts gun.

But, Mr Hosmer is the expert and he can give you the straight scoop. Trust him, not me.

Ray

[Bergerboy]

Thanks Ray,
Yeah - my cursory research placed it right toward the end of the July-Sept 1876 build range, which ended with #71673 - less than twenty rifles after mine.
She's a beauty, in my opinion, and fires really well for a 140 year old girl.
I especially like the "active" ejection mechanism of the empty shell.
Reminds me of the lively "ping" of my M1 Garand when I've shot my eighth round.

[ebeeby]

Nice rifle! I think that it would have been issued with a long wrist stock so I agree the stock is a replacement.

But Dick will soon have an expert assessment...

[Bergerboy]

Bumping up to the top, for Mr. Hosmer's consideration.

[Dick Hosmer]

Sorry to say, but - due to what features are present, and the nuances of several non-matching finish colors, I think that is a very nicely-rendered assembly of parts. Glad you are having fun shooting it.

The stock could go either way, but it is crucial that there not be a step in the inletting at the barrel-receiver joint. With no cartouche, that is one of two ways to tell if the stock is an early or late short-wrist. The other is to pull the trigger guard (VERY carefully) to see if there is a ramrod cleanout hole - there should not be.

The two horizontal bars on the hammer are, I believe, not original. The hammer, thumblatch, and block are the very earliest versions of each, and all were long gone by 71xxx. Early hammers and lockplates (but not blocks) were used on the "star" rebuilds of the early 1880s.

The rear sight has been up-dated from the expected 1873 stepped version, but that is almost a given, so really not a big deal.

[Bergerboy]

Thanks for the quick feedback on this rifle.
No need for apologies on what you're seeing - I'm not THAT personally attached to it!
However, I wouldn't mind understanding what you'd classify this as, in general.
"a very nicely-rendered assembly of parts"?
Is your assessment that this was cobbled together recently? Out of authentic or questionable parts?
Or was it typical of (and does this represent) period rebuilds due to military damage, updated parts, etc.?
I can do a little further digging on the parts (like the stock ramrod hole) as you suggest, but what exactly would that tell me? Is the difference between early or late short-wrist stocks really critical to anything, like authenticity, value, hisotorical signficance?
Sorry for what might be newbie questions, but this is my first trapdoor. I'm familiar with these types of nuances in several other weapons I collect, but not-so-much here (but willing to learn!).
I mainly want a little "stroking" to let me know if I still have a worthwhile piece of history that may have seen period updating. Or whether I've got a recently "Frankensteined" monstrosity, that I should just be happy shooting without much of an eye towards its history.
Thanks for your patience!

[Dick Hosmer]

Fair questions, which I'll try to address.

(1) I cannot tell how recently it was assembled - even if I held it in my hands. I do not, however, believe the parts themselves are faked, or not genuine, though the hammer has been, shall we say, 'customized'.

(2) I can tell you that, after 45 years of collecting these guns, I am 99.99% certain that the assembly as presented was not done officially, and so is not a historical artifact in the narrow sense. A very early gun with some later parts may or may not be "right", since there certainly were breakages, overhauls, refinishes, etc. But, an intermediate or late gun with very early parts generally spells trouble, so, no, it is not, IMHO, a "typical" military rebuild. It is, to me, somewhat reminiscent of many of the guns assembled at a certain large establishment in southern Nevada.

(3) The stock could be correct for the serial number. If so, it must have no-step inletting, and it must not have the cleanout hole. In my opinion, if the stock is not correct for the receiver, then yes, authenticity and value do suffer, when one is discussing a collectible gun.

(4) I do not know why you bought that gun, as opposed to another (if you were simply seeking a generic "trapdoor" to enjoy shooting) nor what you paid for it. It is a nice looking piece, and if you are having fun shooting it, that is wonderful. However, if someone blew a lot of smoke at you, and intimated that it was a correct historical piece, they were really not being truthful. I'd love it and shoot it, but not ask it to talk.

I have no problem whatsoever in helping people, nor taking the time to answer even the most basic questions. I was helped by old-timers when I started, and I see this as payback. In some cases, my candor has not made friends, and I'm not big on stroking for the sake of stroking. Sorry.

Hope that helps.

[Bergerboy]

Thanks again Sir, for all the good input and patience.
I did a little disassembly tonight, and took a few more photos to try to share some of the hidden details.
I was not able to find any clean-out hole for the ramrod in the area I would have expected it under the trigger guard.
And I'm not entirely sure about the no-step inletting aspect in the stock area of the receiver/barrel joint, so I took a few pictures in this area. Although there is a bit of a taper from the barrel hollow, wider to the receiver channel. And there is a small "notch" in the left side wall where the breech hinge spring (?) fits in.
I will say that all the "machining" of the stock to make the openings for all the hardware, all appear to be very cleanly done. The surfaces almost look to have more modern looking machining marks, and the edges appear fairly sharp and unworn. I'm not sure what the manufacturing processes were in the 1870s for wood, but these look almost too modern, certainly not hand carved looking.
Any further insight would be appreciated. I've put a bid in on a copy of Frasca's book, to try to educate myself on the basics, but its not close to being in my hands yet.
3062930630306313063230633

[Bergerboy]

Here's a few more, mostly of the hardware, since I had the parts off.
3063430635306363063730638

[Tom Trevor]

Note that the stop for the rod is broken at forend this causes poor shooting due to binding of barrel to band during recoil. The stop was designed as it is to prevent this. Just an observation.

[Dick Hosmer]

Thanks for taking time to post the additional pics. I'll gladly agree that the stock and receiver are likely contemporary, as the stock passes both tests.

However, if you thought that wood was worked by hand in the 1870s you would be mistaken. The stocks were rough-turned on Blanchard lathes - a direct ancestor of the modern duplicating machine, and all of the inletting was done by machines, with very sophisticated (for the time) equipment. Only the overall exterior smoothing involved any significant amount of hand labor. The metal parts often fit the wood so exactly and so tightly that careless disassembly can easily result in chipping. A copy of "Ordnance Memo #22" from 1878 (which has been reprinted) would be of great interest in this regard.

In the end, I'll have to stand with my contention that the hammer, latch and breechblock are not proper for that period, and that SA did not put them there.

[Bergerboy]

Note that the stop for the rod is broken at forend this causes poor shooting due to binding of barrel to band during recoil. The stop was designed as it is to prevent this. Just an observation.

Thanks for the input Tom.
Not too sure what you're seeing that I'm not. I took a couple extra pix this morning of the cleaning rod fit-up area, and I don't see anything broken.
The rod fits fully into its keeper hole in the stock, and the hourglass shape and notch seem to snap nicely into the spring tab on the underside of the stock when everything is re-assembled.
Let me know what I may be missing.
3063930640

[Dick Hosmer]

I think Tom was referring to pic #1 of post #15. At first glance it looks like the keeper is broken/cracked in line with the band spring pin - a fairly common failure - but it could just be discoloration from rust and corrosion. The fact that the rod seems to engage properly is not proof that the keeper is OK, so you would have to remove it to be sure - something I'd not recommend in this case. Tom is a VERY experienced trapdoor shooter (in addition to being a collector) so he is correct that a broken keeper can have a negative affect on accuracy. If your rifle will not group, the keeper may be part of the problem.

[Bergerboy]

Thanks Guys,
How would I check for this broken keeper?
There does appear to be some springiness to the nub that engages in the rod notch, which seems to press inward when compressed.
Does that longitudinal metal strip in the photo, need to be all one piece? Or is there meant to be a cross-ways separation between the main strip and the forward num that engages with the rod notch?
I have not done deep accuracy checks yet with the ~20 rounds that I've shot so far in her.
And its not like I'm going to be taking this rifle hunting any time soon, so accuracy is not as critical.
But from an OCD perspecticve, I'd really like to get it to a fully functional state, if at all possible.
If broken, is this part replaceable? And are replacement parts available for reasonable cost?

3064930650

[Dick Hosmer]

The keeper is one piece. You should be able to ascertain just by wiglging it, whether or not it has separated into two. It is retained by a pin on the band spring, which can be driven out from the left side, using a small punch. The part is readily available at modest cost (like $20 or so). See classifieds, and also list of parts suppliers, at www.trapdoorcollector.com

[Bergerboy]

30655Going back to the Hammer tooling issue, is there a good photo comparison of all the variations of hammers, that clearly shows the differences in the gnurling/hatching patterns?
I've seen the overall hammer variations of the Trapdoors, but so far, none show good views of the thumb purchase area and the cross-hatching patterns.
I'm curious if the one I've got was reworked from an original pattern for some reason, and what that reason might have been?? (like the original hatching was worn down, etc.). I can sort of make out some remnants of grooves below the existing pattern, which could lend some clues.
3065330654

[Dick Hosmer]

There are three general patterns of hammer knurling on trapdoors - the first of which (fine cross-lines in a shield-shaped border) is confined to the muskets, 1865 and 1866 Allin conversions, and the new-made .50-70 models of 1868-1870, so does not apply here.

The first of the .45-70s, up to around 30,000, had coarse criss-cross diagonal lines with no border. There was apparently no set design, as to thickness or number of lines, line spacing, etc. To the best of my knowledge, none originally had horizontal "bottom" lines like yours.

After around 30,000, all hammers had a fine diagonal-crossed-line pattern in an oval border.

Types 1 and 3 were stamped (or rolled) while type 2, yours, was clearly hand-done, since it seems they are all unique.

[Bergerboy]

Hi Folks - Quick update:
The rod keeper was broken, as spotted by Tom - Thanks!
I put in an email request with Al Frasca, as he has several originals listed on his parts website. Looks like all the ones ID'd as 45-70, would be perfect replacement for mine.
As an alternative, is there any way to repair the one I've got? (JB Weld, etc.?)
Seeing the 1870 patent stamp on the part, makes it really hard to simply replace it and relegate the original to the spare parts bin.
However, I'm guessing that if this part takes enough direct stress from the recoil to actually affect the barrel fit-up and the accuracy, then its likely not going to be enough to glue the part back together, even with high-strength metal epoxy.
Any inputs from the experts?


306573065830659

[Dick Hosmer]

It's a very common part, NOT worth repairing (or keeping the broken leftovers).

The replacement from Al will have the same patent date.

[Tom Trevor]

I have seen them brazed lasted two shots, there is a lot of force on it during recoil.

[Bergerboy]

Thanks Folks,
Went with my son to the Novi, Mich Antique Arms Show on Saturday, and asked around for Trapdoor experts with parts.
Was going there to look for a replacement rod lock piece as described above, since I hadn't heard back yet from Al Frasca on my inquiry for the same on his website.
Lo & Behold, the table I was directed to, was manned by, none other than The Man himself.
He happened to have the very parts that were listed on the website, there for sale in his bins.
So, for $15, I not only got an identical replacement part, but also a nice 20 minute history lesson from Mr. Frasca.
The rod lock fit perfectly into the groove in my stock fore-end, and I'm anxious to get it back out to the range to see if it tightens up the groupings at all.
I also picked up another Trapdoor Bayonet I needed (a "U.S" brass button frog with only 1 dot), as well as a unique dummy version of the 45-70 cartridge box, marked "SMA", used for training by the Sarasota Military Academy.
All-in-all, a pretty good day!