View Full Version : And yet another 1868 dated 1868 Springfield...
This rifle is on Track Of The Wolf. It's serial numbered 6.
It appears to already been spoken for.
I had to buy it Dick. I just had to. I couldn't help myself. There it was and the next thing I know is it's a done deal.
https://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/PartDetail.aspx/500/1/AAQ-246
Dick Hosmer
12-03-2016, 06:21
[[Obviously I missed your second post - congratulations]]
WOW!! Not a site that I follow, but maybe I should!
Wonder where THAT one has been. Note musket rear sight. Wonder what it sold for.
Dang, have to update my spreadsheet again. He's not aware of yours,apparently.
Kragrifle
12-04-2016, 06:15
Great find!
I wonder how many of those ever pass us by unnoticed. I had just decided to look at their inventory for a minute to pass some time. That's when I saw the photo of the 1868 on the breechblock. I asked my wife if we could buy it while trying to educate her on its rarity. I don't think she understands how rare it is but she said OK. What a Chistmas present!
So now I have serial number 6 and serial number 127. I'm more than satisfied.
Dick Hosmer
12-04-2016, 06:59
I believe that makes you the only private individual with two, my friend. You certainly deserve it, after all the years of irritation with your aunt!
Super find, hopefully we will meet over the next couple of years.
One interesting point is the use of the serifed italic font for the serials. At least one higher-numbered gun still used the small vertical font, so there is unexpected overlap. Chicken and egg - just when you think you understand something - poof!
That other rifle that had belonged to my gramps, I have clear memories of that rifle that do not look anything like the one at my aunts house. I really feel that the rifle in Seattle isn't the same one I remember. I believe it's quite possible that somebody who had seen the original rifle switched another trapdoor for it. So, there might be another early 1868 in Seattle yet.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38651&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38652&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38653&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38654&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38655&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38656&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38657&stc=1
Dick Hosmer
12-07-2016, 04:39
You've really got something there! We need to get Al involved. What's with the hole in the block, I wonder?
Dick, the hole is for the screw that retains the firing pin. The firing pin is not like the later type we all know of. There's a groove machined out of its side to allow the edge of the screw to pass through. Really a different concept that wasn't adopted in the later 1868's.
The tip of the cleaning rod on the number 6 rifle is cupped like the rod on the 1866. The tip on the rod of the number 127 rifle is solid.
So the rod on number 6 is a type that wasn't adopted.
The recess cut into the wood for the thumb piece to settle into is cut 90 degrees into the 6 rifle from the cut in the 127 rifle.
Also, the thumb piece on the earlier rifle is thicker and is shaped differently and it doesn't come up as high upon opening the latch as on the 127 rifle.http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38660&stc=1
There is no rod retaining spoon in the forearm of the number 6 rifle and no pin either. I've not taken the barrel out of the stock yet.
Dick Hosmer
12-07-2016, 09:07
You have really hit the jackpot - there are things there that no one has mentioned before. Do get with Al - he does not audit this site, AFGAIK.
I don't know Al Dick. If you get a chance to talk to him, maybe you could bring this thread to his attention.
Dick Hosmer
12-08-2016, 12:23
Done. Every time I look at your pics I see something a little different. It certainly (having gotten past the 'clamp-on' receiver stage) is not an "1866-68", but it really stops a wee bit short of being a "true" 1868, what with all the little quirks. ANY 68/68 is worth getting excited over, but your new one could possibly be unique.
It appears to me that the trigger, trigger guard and screws are armory blued and the lockate and hammer seem to have dark finishes too. The bands and band springs were bright, the barrel and cleaning rod were bright as well as the butt plate. Everything else seems to have been darkened.
Dick have you ever had the chance to look at rifles number 1 and 8? I'm wondering if they have any features like on this rifle.
Kragrifle
12-08-2016, 06:06
Does the cleaning rod screw in like a Second Allin?
Kragrifle
12-08-2016, 06:08
What does the head of the cleaning rod look like?
Dick Hosmer
12-08-2016, 08:24
What does the head of the cleaning rod look like?
There is a picture of that. Head is cupped, otherwise looks "normal" and the rod has the single-shoulder keeper - however - to MY eye - the head of #6 looks to be smaller in diameter than that of #127. Fred?
Dick Hosmer
12-08-2016, 08:27
Dick have you ever had the chance to look at rifles number 1 and 8? I'm wondering if they have any features like on this rifle.
No, I have never been to SA (but it's on my bucket list). That is one of the reasons I'd like to hear what Al has to say. He travels the midwestern show circuit - maybe you could meet somewhere?
Dick Hosmer
12-08-2016, 10:19
Not mentioned yet is that the right upper rear of the receiver (adjacent to the "odd" thumblatch notch in the wood) is entirely different as well.
Yea I noticed the difference in the contour at the end that top flat. Very interesting. One rounded and one not.
Dick Hosmer
12-08-2016, 11:21
Are you going to post on Al's TD forum? I have sent him two emails but nothing back yet - he might be traveling.
Hi Dick, I'm FINALY in an area of our property that allows my iPhone to connect with the outside world. Out in our vehicle in the driveway.
I just now got to looking at the rifle in the sunlight through the window.
Both barrel bands are Definily blued.
The barrel band springs are blued.
The upper band swivel and screw are blued
The lock plate and hammer are color case hardened.
The barrel and the butt plate are bright.
Trigger guard, trigger and screws are blued.
I think that the nose cap was blued.
The cleaning rod is bright.
The grasping end has no threads or grooves.
The lock plate retaining screws are blued.
The washers there are bright.
The rear sight is blued.
Are you going to post on Al's TD forum? I have sent him two emails but nothing back yet - he might be traveling.
Honestly, I hadn't thought anyone but you and I would be interested in these types of trapdoors. OK then.
Dick,
I had an email from him several days ago. He said he would be getting in touch with you.
Dick Hosmer
12-09-2016, 09:31
Dick,
I had an email from him several days ago. He said he would be getting in touch with you.
Thanks - Al, in addition to knowing way more than anyone else on this subject, is very cautious in his approach to offbeat stuff. Too often I wear my heart on my sleeve, and get overly excited too quickly. That said - I really think THIS one is 100% "right", even if a bit puzzling as to some of its' component parts.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38670&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38671&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38672&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38674&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38675&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38676&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38677&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38679&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38680&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38681&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38682&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38683&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38686&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38685&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38687&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38688&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38689&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38690&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38691&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38692&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38694&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38695&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38696&stc=1
So apparently, this early 1868 cleaning rod is a cut down 1866 rod.
here is the rod on my 1866 for comparison. They're identical.
Dick Hosmer
12-09-2016, 05:11
I thought it had the rod shoulder? An earlier pic shows 6 and 127, right? Both have shoulders - the 66 does not.
What did you use to clean the barrel? Certainly got rid of the crap, but did not harm the finish.
Yep, you're right Dick. I didn't think that through. Thanks!
i used oil and Bronze wool and bronze wire wheel to erase the crud. Carefully done near the receiver too!
I removed the rear sight first of course and then replaced it.
I've not removed the lock yet or the trigger guard.
So Dick, it appears that Springfield Armory really went full out to produce different versions, fits and finishes of rifles being examined and tested. I wonder why the bluing was never adopted.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38713&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38715&stc=1
Dick Hosmer
12-10-2016, 09:36
I would think that, as Al said yesterday on his site, that test guns were cobbled up from available parts. What was mainly being tested on the 1868 was the receiver and block, and of lesser importance a new mode of rod retention. I think your stock is a modified 1866 - the filler was probably intended to flush off the horsehoe spring cut. Is there a filled band-spring mortise in the old mid-band posititon? If not, the wood may have ORIGINALLY been from an 1863 Type 1 musket which used clamping bands (which now that I think about it were blued!)
Next to to an 1866 Springfield, it appears that there's no filled in spring channel.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38717&stc=1
By golly Dick, you're right! The bands Were blued.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38720&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38721&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38722&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38723&stc=1
Dick Hosmer
12-10-2016, 12:44
It might be an optical illusion, but does the end of thumblatch pin stick out further than normal, compared to 127?
No, it is just rounded off more and so contoured differently. The cam and latch is different on No. 6
The lever is set at a different angle.
Kragrifle
12-11-2016, 08:16
If the rod has a shoulder it can't be a modified 1866. It must be originally made with the shoulder.
Kragrifle
12-11-2016, 08:18
Is the rod cupped like the 1866 or flat like the 1868?
Yea, Dick Hosmer had Reminded me of that on an earlier post.
Post Number 17 has a photo that shows the rod tips. It's cupped.
Dick Hosmer
12-11-2016, 10:51
If the rod has a shoulder it can't be a modified 1866. It must be originally made with the shoulder.
True, of course, though I suppose they could have built-up metal by welding - but - in those days before arc-welding - it was probably simpler to make a new rod, and, lacking any other instruction, "Joe" probably shaped the head just like the earlier model. One other thing, the shafts of '66 and '68 rods are not the same. Fred, measurements!
An interesting side-bar - early 1873 rods, blued, double-shoulder, have 7 rings, like the .50's. At some point this was changed to 6, eliminating the rearmost one.
Great information Dick!
Actualy, the countour of the shoulder of each rod is different from the other. Rifle number 127 has a slightly more curved shoulder whose edge is a bit rounder.
On rifle number 6, the shoulder is a bit straighter and the edge of the shoulder is noticebly sharper.
Great information Dick!
Actualy, the countour of the shoulder of each rod is different from the other. Rifle number 127 has a slightly more curved shoulder whose edge is a bit rounder.
On rifle number 6, the shoulder is a bit straighter and the edge of the shoulder is noticebly sharper.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38728&stc=1
Dick Hosmer
12-11-2016, 04:04
I'll have to check OM77 to see if they describe how the shoulder prep is made. The front part of the rod was probably stamped in some sort of die while red-hot, then turned and polished as required. Surely there could be some difference in the shoulder shape, so long as the proper diameters were observed, and the end-distance was to gauge.
I agree Dick.
You're going to enjoy studying these two rifles when you swing through here in a couple of years or so.
Anyway, I'm left wondering what any of the other single digit rifles look like. I'll bet that there must be variations in every one of them.
Kragrifle
12-11-2016, 08:43
One last bit of trivia. 1866 rods are of two different thicknesses and there are three different configurations of trap doors and forward straps that I have found so far on Second Allins.
Dick Hosmer
12-12-2016, 08:50
One last bit of trivia. 1866 rods are of two different thicknesses and there are three different configurations of trap doors and forward straps that I have found so far on Second Allins.
I'm assuming that the thick rods were made from musket 'blanks' and that the thinner ones were new from scratch.
Plus two blocks! The early ones retain the thumblatch with a screw from the left (like the 1865) and have no "cap" on the right side. Always kinda wanted one, but never found it, and am not buying any more guns. Well, a .30 cal at a garage sale for $100, yeah, I would . . . .
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38731&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38732&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38733&stc=1
Really crispy looking front sight.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38734&stc=1
Kragrifle
12-13-2016, 06:05
OMG, Fred you're killing me! You could cut meat with that front sight it is so sharp!
Dick Hosmer
12-13-2016, 09:24
Aside from its' rarity, that is a really pretty 1868! A few (expected) dings of course, but virtually no wear.
I'll have to be honest and say that - looking at the first "after" picture - I was appalled by the seemingly rush (as opposed to rushed, an entirely different concept) cleaning job, until I saw the rest of the results. Normally, you don't clean a bright gun because it will look phony. But, that gun was nice enough, under the crud, to pull it off, and now looks really nice. I'm sorely tempted to follow his methods on #62, which is in similar condition. Good job, Fred!
THANKS Dick!
I only Very Lightly brushed the blued and case hardened surfaces with lots of oil and #000 BRONZE Wool.
No original finishes where scratched or removed this way.
The barrel and butt plate were without corrosion and cleaning 148 years of crud off was easy with a Fine BRONZE wire wheel that I put on my bench grinder. First, I oiled them down and let them sit for a spell.
All that aside, ain't that a nice trapdoor that was hiding under all that dirt!
I still have not removed the trigger guard or see a reason to by me. I have not touched the wood either with anything.
I see this rifle as one that can be studied and measured to obtain what the original Armory measurements were because there seems to be no wear to the original surfaces. That's a pretty neat thing!
Dick Hosmer
12-13-2016, 09:19
I still have not removed the trigger guard or see a reason to by me. I have not touched the wood either with anything.
Agreed, I surely wouldn't risk taking the guard out if it were mine.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38753&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38754&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38756&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38757&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38758&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38759&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38760&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38761&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38762&stc=1
Here are two 1868/1868's side by side to show the different rear sights on each rifle.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38841&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38842&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38843&stc=1
The Cleaning Rod on the Number 6 rifle is Much stiffer than is the Rod on the Number 127 rifle.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38861&stc=1
Although the cam on each rifle appears to be identical, the cam levers on each rifle are positioned at a different angle. The arrangement on the number 6 rifle was discarded for the arrangement on the number 127 rifle, which was adopted for all later production 1868 rifles.
The locations and design for the Firing Pin retention screws on each rifle were also different. The arrangement on rifle number 6 is unknown to me and was a design that wasn't adopted for the final model rifle, whenever that was.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38862&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38863&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38864&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38865&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38866&stc=1
Kragrifle
12-24-2016, 06:40
Great photos Fred. What camara are you using and how do you get such great photos?
Dick Hosmer
12-24-2016, 09:41
Fred, I love your photos, and greatly appreciate the time you have taken to present them to us - I would only suggest one change, but it is a major one - you might wish to consider losing the often very cluttered multi-colored backgrounds. Not so much on some of the beautiful overalls taken out in the yard - but on the detail shots taken inside. Just a thought - keep 'em coming.
OK, I'll get a towel or something to put behind the thing I'm photographing. Good idea.
Great photos Fred. What camara are you using and how do you get such great photos?
I'm glad that you enjoy the photos! I use the camera in my iPhone.
Kragrifle
12-25-2016, 07:23
Blue backgrounds are said to be the best. I'll work on my IPhone photos as it may be the operator that makes the difference . Merry Christmas!
And a Merry Christmas to you!
I'll try the Blue background. I've found that I have to hold absolutely still with the camera to keep them sharp. Focusing can be difficult too.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38992&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38993&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38994&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38998&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38999&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39001&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39003&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39004&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39005&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39006&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39007&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39008&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39009&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39010&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39011&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39012&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39013&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39014&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39015&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39016&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39017&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39018&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39013&stc=1
[QUOTE=Fred;482710]
This is The Money Shot as Dick Culver has called it. I like that term.
In this photo, both the date of maufacture and the serial number can be seen.
Both key features in identifying these early 1868's.
Dick Hosmer
12-29-2016, 01:27
Interesting that there is virtually NO extractor impact wear on the block. Ditto with my 62 - evidently they led a sheltered life before being put away after testing. Not really surprising at all with yours, being "not standard", but mine should have been fully ready for issue, yet for some reason it apparently was not.
I wonder if the whole batch of surviving rifles (After the trial tests) were just put into storage until the early Bannerman days when Springfield just auctioned them off.
So Dick, have you cleaned that barrel yet as you'd been considering?
You might even consider using Acetone and Bronze Wool.
The only stamps or marks on the barrel or receiver are the two 6's and a number 1 on the breech plug.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39101&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39102&stc=1
The Cleaning Rod Stop is finished in the white. I'll have to remove the band spring and then the stop to see if there is any patent date on it.
This stop probably predates a Patent number though.
I couldn't get the stop to come out because it's in there pretty tight. I'll try again later.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39108&stc=1
Well gosh! I've just noticed that the Cleaning Rod on rifle number 6 is significantly Thicker then the Cleaning Rod on rifle number 127.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39920&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39922&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39923&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39927&stc=1
The thicker Rod is of course very stiff and is harder to flex and remove.
The firing pin spring is also Very strong.
This number 6 seems to be a very robust rifle.
Dick Hosmer
02-10-2017, 05:15
The thicker rod would have been made of stock intended for the 1866, since those rods are notably heavier.
Wonder how they got the shoulder in the days before arc-welding? Don't think the whole thing was turned from 1/2" stock - probably stamped to rough form while red-hot, then turned and machined. Of course, for such an experimental item they might just added it by hammer-welding a lump and then turning it. Does the shoulder on the thick rod look "added" or part of the shaft?
Dick, it looks like part of the shaft to me. I'm not any kind of an expert though. I'm not sure on just what to look for. I wish you and Al could hold it and take it apart. If either one of you two guys should ever one day decide you'd like to buy or trade me for rifle number 6, I'd be very interested in what you learn and have to share about it!
I want to hang onto my 1868 number 127, but not being any kind of a scholarly collector, I don't need rifle number 6 too.
Its many and varied unique features should be documented. I'd like to see either you or Al get it Dick. In the mean time, it isn't going anywhere. Come by for a visit Dick if you're out driving around this way looking for a good place to watch the big Solar Eclipse from that's moving through here sometime this year.
My wife and I are going to thankfully not have to drive far at all to reach a spot that'll experience Total whatever they call it. Probably no more than 2 hours away or less.
Dick Hosmer
02-11-2017, 04:06
I'd like #6, but - kinda like you - I'm very happy with my #62.
And, even if you made me a fantastic offer, I'd have to pass ($$$ times have changed). I don't THINK Al would be interested - I'm sure he has a few nice guns squirreled away, but I've always looked upon him as a scholar rather than a collector - that was Bob Hill's function. He had the guns, but no yen to write - Al was just the opposite; made for a winning combination
I think that I'll get the two trapdoor books from Al. Long overdue for that.
The position of each lever on the cam shaft of each rifle's breech block is positioned differently from the other. The difference is immediately noticeable upon opening each breech block.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39965&stc=1Here's the difference in wear and condition of the butt plates of each rifle.
The butt plate of rifle number 6 suggests that it hasn't had a lot of exposure to the elements since the rifle's assembly.
I wonder where the rifle has been squirreled away all of this time.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39966&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39968&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39969&stc=1
Well it was so warm outside this morning that I took some photos of 1868 rifle number 6. A cloudy sky keeps the glare down and improves focus, I think.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40167&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40168&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40169&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40171&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40172&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40173&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40174&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40175&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40176&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40177&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40178&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40179&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40180&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40181&stc=1
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40182&stc=1
rickhill
03-05-2017, 04:04
Dick, it looks like part of the shaft to me. I'm not any kind of an expert though. I'm not sure on just what to look for. I wish you and Al could hold it and take it apart. If either one of you two guys should ever one day decide you'd like to buy or trade me for rifle number 6, I'd be very interested in what you learn and have to share about it!
I want to hang onto my 1868 number 127, but not being any kind of a scholarly collector, I don't need rifle number 6 too.
Its many and varied unique features should be documented. I'd like to see either you or Al get it Dick. In the mean time, it isn't going anywhere. Come by for a visit Dick if you're out driving around this way looking for a good place to watch the big Solar Eclipse from that's moving through here sometime this year.
My wife and I are going to thankfully not have to drive far at all to reach a spot that'll experience Total whatever they call it. Probably no more than 2 hours away or less.
Fred:
Don't know if you still have #6 but I am in need of a nice Model 1868 so would like to hear from you either way............
Thanks: Rick
rlhill@bendbroadband.com
Oh you don't want this rifle Rick. There are a lot of nice Model 1868's out there and at good prices too. You shouldn't have trouble locating them in the usual places like Gunbroker and Guns International.
This particular rifle would cost you pleanty of wampum, above and beyond what any sane man would want to shell out. I think only a crazed guy with an obsession to own a single digit 1868 (like myself) and who had been wanting one for at least half of his life would be willing to pay me what I would want for this rifle. There couldn't be many such collectors around. LOL
I've seen many 1868's in far better condition than mine. Good hunting!
Fred,
That's a beautiful rifle. thanks for documenting it so well. I also like the yellow H3 Hummer in the background! I drive a H3 myself!
I'm glad that you've enjoyed the photos Tkacook!
Yep, the 5 Chylinder H3 is a good one around here for the winter. We liked it so much that we bought a copper colored one of the same year, 2007.
Both were on Sale at a good price and they only had 5,000 miles on each of them. We depend on them not getting stuck in the mud and snow and they've not disappointed us. Out here they're Licensed as Farm Trucks.
What color is your H3?
My 2007 is white.We had a bad ice/snow storm here a couple of years ago and it proved itself over and over!
Aren't they great?! Good mileage too, about 20 mpg on the highway.
Roads with 2 feet of snow on them don't stop it either if one has the good tires
Here are some photos of the breech blocks of two different 1868 Springfields. Serial numbers 6 and 127.
Rifle number 6 has a breech block and firing pin and thumb latch that are different from those same parts on rifle number 127. Having dismantled and assembled both breech blocks, I think the later design was more practical in that it allowed for easier disassembly and assembly.
40246
40247
Here is the design finaly adopted.
40248
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.