Model 1868 I just found at a yard sale...

[Fred]

Here's a rifle that I just bought that I thought I'd share for Show and Tell here.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35201&stc=1

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35205&stc=1

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35207&stc=1

[Hecklerusp45]

Nice find

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35208&stc=1

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35213&stc=1

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35216&stc=1

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35219&stc=1

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35221&stc=1

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35226&stc=1

[Tom Trevor]

Yard sale??

[Fred]

Just Kidding Tom. Actually I bought it from a Very nice gentleman and his wife who'd obtained it from the children of the neighbor who'd owned it. The children weren't appreciative of it and were cashing in on their fathers guns after he had died.
So Yes, in a sense it Did come from a yard sale.

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35230&stc=1

[bruce]

My cow! What a gorgeous rifle! Sincerely. bruce.

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35234&stc=1

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35235&stc=1

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35236&stc=1

[Dick Hosmer]

Fred saved the best shot for last - yes - it's a nice 1868 - BUT - how many have you seen with a 1868-dated block? Or, the "prototype" rear sight with small numbers and no 900-yd line?

There aren't many. Current estimate is "around 150" with less than 20 identified. Also see www.trapdoorcollector.com

I'm really happy for you, my friend.

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35237&stc=1

[Fred]

Fred saved the best shot for last - yes - it's a nice 1868 - BUT - how many have you seen with a 1868-dated block? Or, the "prototype" rear sight with small numbers and no 900-yd line?

There aren't many. Current estimate is "around 150" with less than 20 identified. Also see www.trapdoorcollector.com (http://www.trapdoorcollector.com)

I'm really happy for you, my friend.

Thanks Dick. I've noticed that there isn't a P under the wrist. Interesting. Also there are just two inspector cartouches on the left mortise. The lock appears to have been removed before but the trigger plate appears to have never been removed yet. I haven't turned a screw on anything yet. The bore is perfect. The lock could probably use a drop or two of oil on the bearing surfaces so I'll do that soon.

There isn't any extractor dent on the breechblock so just like on your rifle Dick, this one hasn't seen very much opening and closing of the breech block.

[Fred]

So, could anybody please tell me what bayonet this rifle took? 1855? A modified 1855? I can't find my copy of Dick Hosmer's book.

[Tkacook]

That is really nice and with a 1868 breech block! Wow!

Andy

[Fred]

Thanks Andy. Yea, and number 127 too. Dicks rifle is number 62.

Somebody had put an ill fitting screw driver in one butt plate screw and in the lock mounting screws. However the lock seems to have not budged from the mortise since it was put on. Tight. It didn't want to come out and so I've left it alone for now. Oh, and I Did loosen the tang screw a tad too to relieve pinching of the lock plate.

[Fred]

It's important to remember that this rifle having the serial number of 127 stamped into it only means that it was the 127th barreled receiver grabbed out of the rack when the serial numbers were being applied to them all. It's impossible to tell in which order each was actually assembled. Being within the first 150 produced though is a pretty neat thing! This is a well made rifle.

[Dick Hosmer]

It's important to remember that this rifle having the serial number of 127 stamped into it only means that it was the 127th rifle grabbed out of the rack when the serial numbers were being applied to them all. It's impossible to tell in which order each was actually assembled. Being within the first 150 produced though is a pretty neat thing! This is a well made rifle.

I'd respectfully disagree about the "grabbed out of the rack" remark if a fully-assembled rifle was meant. Did you mean to describe pulling from a stack/stand/barrel of assembled (and numbered) barreled actions? I'd think that would be more likely. Of course, the 1868 is unique in the entire trapdoor series by having the matching barrel, and one would assume that the two components were numbered at the same time, almost certainly by hand - at least in the beginning. One has to wonder if the operation was ever completely jigged and mechanized because, while the font is consistent, the spacing is not, even up into the high 5-digit numbers.

While finding the "1868" block is a major thrill, that feature was - even if almost never seen - at least well documented and expected. What I feel is the major feature of those arms recently discovered is the totally un-expected early variety of the rear sight, having higher-placed 5 and 7 lines, smaller-font numbers, and NO 9 line. This feature occurs on 127, 62, and at least one other, however, other 68/68 owners have reported their sights as standard - so there is actually a super-rarity contained within a great rarity!

For those who may not be aware, Fred and I have been chasing this variant for probably 30 years, hence our unbridled enthusiasm!

[Fred]

Wow, are all of the other 16 rifles besides numbers 62 and 127 in pretty much the same nice condition?

Also, could you please tell me if a Civil War 1855 bayonet fits this rifle?

[Dick Hosmer]

I've handled three, and seen at least partial pictures of maybe 5/8 more. Most have been pretty decent, though 133 had heavy salt & pepper pitting and zero remaining blackening, when I encountered it in 1992.

While not having seen full pics of all specimens, I can (modestly I hope, since it is ALL luck of the draw - you don't get to make a choice) say that 62, even though it has some rough patches, shows the sharpest edges and least wear (as opposed to abuse from poor storage) of any specimen that I have, even partially, observed.

[Fred]

Apparently there was some sitting rust on the midpoint of the outside bow of the trigger guard of No.127 and on the lower sling swivel too where it rested against the trigger guard, and there is pitting on that area also. Otherwise, it all looks clean.

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35245&stc=1

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35247&stc=1

[Fred]

Slamming down of the Breech Block instead of lifting the thumb latch while closing the breech Block has resulted in some wood loss to the area of the thumb latch seat.

Also, someone has lowered the hammer down while the breech block was open, resulting in a dent from the hammer on the top of the lock mortis.
But like the gouged out chunk of wood in the butt of my Rod Bayonet 1903 Springfield, I can live with it.
Now I'm going to have to hand load some 50-70 rounds again with my Dixie 450 Grain mold and a box or two of Dixie brass and some large rifle primers. Can the primers be bought on line like Powder?

[Fred]

You know Dick, I'm thinking that I'm going to get one of the type I Springfield Armory Sharps 50-70's. I've wanted one since the mid 1970's and finally getting this one has primed my interest in that type again. Just that one rifle. Nothing more. Honest. I really mean it. This time I really do. Yep.

[Tkacook]

Thanks for all the pictures. I agree that the lock has not been removed for a very long time. Interesting that some of these exist outside of a museum. I appreciate you sharing the pictures. I know that you and Dick have very advanced collections. It's wonderful that you are able to document these for future collectors.

[Fred]

Glad you're enjoying the photos Tkacook!

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35248&stc=1

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35249&stc=1

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35250&stc=1

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35251&stc=1

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35252&stc=1

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35253&stc=1

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35254&stc=1

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35258&stc=1

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35260&stc=1

[Edatbeach]

The M1855 with "US" mark is correct. The armory had thousands available as they modified rifle muskets to breechloaders.

[Fred]

Thanks Edabeach! I appreciate the information.

[rayg]

Fred, that's a nice looking 68. Not many around as nice as that one is, Ray

[Fred]

Thanks Ray!

[Fred]

Here are some photo's of the only two or three stamps on the rifle. Nothing anywhere else
Somebody has worked the face of the breechblock down using a punch.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35292&stc=1

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35294&stc=1

[Fred]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35295&stc=1

[Dick Hosmer]

I wonder what THAT was all about?

[butlersrangers]

Does the small end of the 'clearing-rod' show any abuse?

[Fred]

No, but it would be hardened and the face of the breech block would be a bit softer I believe, so you might have just hit on what happened. Although Why is still a mystery. Looks as if a kid or someone had bounced the inverted rod off of the breechblock face. Maybe a FNG or a Recruit. The firing pin tip is OK, so the hammer must've been pulled back a notch. It was probably a Kid playing with it.

Oh well, the whole thing is screwed now. I'm just going to switch the breechblock with another and throw this one away...

NOT!


http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35296&stc=1

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35300&stc=1

[Dick Hosmer]

I think Chuck may have come up with the answer - it would probably be possible to measure whether ALL of the impact centers fall within the range of a bounced rod; if they do I'd bet that's it. The block face should be hard, too, though. Also, remember that these were essentially test guns - maybe it was a controlled experiment at the Armory to see what kind of abuse the block would stand? Somewhere I have seen instructions warning that the soldier was NOT to "spring" the rod in the bore, but do not recall the exact time-frame, or specific model. Best part about it is that the "damage" is totally concealed and can be exhibited (or not) at your option.

Of course, after more rumination, you would think that if SA were testing something they would have been using the other end of the rod, so, it may well have been some kid after all! Thanks for sharing.

[Fred]

Yes, these rifles Were experimental weren't they. I forgot that they weren't issued. I wonder if the one that is all Salt and Pepper pitted could be one tested for the Navy with Salt Water?
Possibly This rifle's rod was bounced off the breech block face with the Big end of the rod first and no apprecable wear or damage occuring or noted, then they reversed the rod and bounced it again. Then upon looking at this very breech block, they implemented a directive of "Do not...".

[Fred]

Also, I'll bet that they decided to fire some rounds from this rifle afterwards to take note of any problems occurring with residue build up, problems with the copper balloon head case, problems with the damaged block face preventing the firing pin from operating properly and who knows what else.
It's no wonder that Springfield Armory had to put together 150 or so rifles. They had to put each and every part through rigorous tests. Many recommendations were no doubt made and implemented. The continued regulation of forbidding anyone from "bouncing" the rod off of the breech was emphasized I'll bet. Maybe there was a decision afterwards to harden the breech block faces better.
That's why these rifles are really important. If a person was able to study each and every one of the 150 rifles tested, they would see what the Springfield Armory inspectors and testers saw. That'd be neat.
There must've been some rifles that were destroyed or that were too badly damaged and so they were scrapped. The others might've been sold off.

[Dick Hosmer]

Well, we don't KNOW that they weren't ultimately issued - recall that 1903 #1 was accidentally discovered in service in the trenches of France - but it is tempting to conjecture that at least some were not, never having left SA. Still a GREAT find.

[Fred]

I'm thinking that a rifle with a dimpled breech block face and whose rear sight leaf didn't have the final accepted calibrations on it might not have been acceptable for issue. In that case, this rifle might've been considered to have been used up from testing and was retained at Springfield Armory until somebody decided to get rid of some of the "old guns" that had been accumulating around there.
Anyway, this one ended up here at a rundown Nebraska horse ranch that was, 111 years ago, a run down Hog Farm.
Who knows where it'll end up next.

[Fred]

I think Chuck may have come up with the answer - it would probably be possible to measure whether ALL of the impact centers fall within the range of a bounced rod; if they do I'd bet that's it. The block face should be hard, too, though. Also, remember that these were essentially test guns - maybe it was a controlled experiment at the Armory to see what kind of abuse the block would stand? Somewhere I have seen instructions warning that the soldier was NOT to "spring" the rod in the bore, but do not recall the exact time-frame, or specific model. Best part about it is that the "damage" is totally concealed and can be exhibited (or not) at your option.



I don't know if anyone can tell, but I coated the back end of the rod with oil and then brought it into repeated contact with the breech block face to see how well the dents matchup with where the rod made contact with it. It's a match. So, as we suspected, the damage was indeed caused by the tip of the small end of the cleaning rod. Quite possibly it was indeed a test of some sort on this rifle.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35430&stc=1

[Dick Hosmer]

Well then, thus it shall be - unless/until someone comes up with a better theory!

[Fred]

I can see where the metal had been forced over into the firing pin hole which would've impeded the firing pin tip from coming through the hole cleanly. This had been opened up again by somebody afterwards to allow the firing pin to function and putting the rifle back into serviceable condition. Yep, probably one of the tests that these rifles went through.

[butlersrangers]

I suspect it was some Kid in the 1950s, playing 'Davey Crockett at the Alamo', bouncing the wrong end of the 'rammer' off the breech-block face of "Old Betsy", cause he like the noise it made!!!

[Fred]

That's OK. I'll just replace this breech block with another in better condition.

[Dick Hosmer]

That's OK. I'll just replace this breech block with another in better condition.

Well, if those old rumors are to be believed you are probably the only person in the world with a spare!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fred]

LOL. I spoke with my cousin via facebook yesterday and sent him photo's of mine to compare with the other rifle. He said he'd follow up on it for me.