trapdoor bayonet on 1873 barrel

[wolfie]

I have a trapdoor 1873 with a cartouched 1886 dated stock. recently obtained a bayonet that does not fit flush with the muzzle of the barrel but, rather extends about 1/4 in' or a bit more past the muzzle. does anybody have an explanation for this?? bayonet fits right over the front sight and locks up as intended. my trapdoor is a Springfield. could this be for a different maker trapdoor?? as you can see in the picture it is a flush fit. my barrel sits below the bayonet opening. thank you.

[Dick Hosmer]

Your picture shows the correct mounting, with nothing apparently wrong. If it is a picture of the bayonet about which you are asking, then I do not understand your question.

Only Springfield made trapdoors, so there is no "other" maker - however, there were numerous other arms of the period with similar dimensions and set-ups, some of which may (almost) interchange.

Would need to know precise dimensions of socket, and all markings on the bayonet, to advise further.

[wolfie]

4201942020 Mr. Hosmer, thank you for your reply. I am not an educated collector in the field of 1800's arms and this is why I ask for info. attached is a picture of the bayonet I have only marked U.S. the other picture is having it mounted to the barrel which can be seen where the barrel muzzle is recessed. what do I have? fit and lock up is great but, this bayonet is probably for another rifle??? thank you.

[Dan Shapiro]

As Dick has mentioned, it may 'fit', but it's not the bayonet intended for this particular weapon. Are there any other markings besides the "U.S."?

Last year I purchased (internet gun vendor) a Charleville musket w/bayonet. When I received same, although the bayonet 'fit', it had British markings on in. Turns out it was for a Brit rifle make in the 1850's.

If no one can come up with an answer, you can try Shawn at bayonetconnection.com. He does charge a fee ($20) for research, and will ask for several dimensions on the blade and socket. However, the fee is refundable if you decide to sell it to him. That's what I did, and got a good reduction on the price of a real Charleville bayonet.

[Dick Hosmer]

FWIW, without measuring other than by eyeball, your socket seems to be longer than normal - therefore, I'm guessing you have a mismatch.

The locking ring always goes behind the sight stud (hard to tell from your new picture, but the bayonet does not appear to be all the way "on"??

If the socket is just too tight to slip on, flush with muzzle, make sure it is not dented or pinched, or has a burr (I can understand your reluctance to force it on - some are quite tight) and you do not want to scratch the barrel. A bit of fine emery cloth on the inside of the socket, followed by a good oiling, should remove any crud that is hampering the operation.

I'm still trying to get a handle on the difference between the pic in post 1 as opposed to post 3, if, as I read it, they are supposed to be of the same bayonet??

[wolfie]

no Mr. Hosmer--- the first picture was taken off a site to use as an example the flush fit to compare to mine in the third picture to show the difference. I really thought it would fit being a U.S. made bayonet of the time. I will look to see if there is a problem with the socket. if not then I will have to find a correct one.

[wolfie]

no Mr. Hosmer--- the first picture was taken off a site to use as an example the flush fit to compare to mine in the third picture to show the difference. I really thought it would fit being a U.S. made bayonet of the time. I will look to see if there is a problem with the socket. if not then I will have to find a correct one.

[butlersrangers]

The socket on 'wolfie's' U.S. marked bayonet appears longer than that of a standard trapdoor bayonet. The additional length seems to be between the 'lock-ring' and the blade shank. Could it be for a Chaffee-Reese or some other Springfield Armory made .45 caliber test arm?

[wolfie]

I have the problem solved thanks to Mr. Hosmer. the problem was inside the socket and the surface of the barrel. a build up of crud made the socket hard to push down where you then were able to swing the locking ring. a little cleaning and drops of hopes oil and its fixed! it now fits flush. thank you all for the advice.

[Dan Shapiro]

I love a happy ending! :1948:

[Dick Hosmer]

The socket on 'wolfie's' U.S. marked bayonet appears longer than that of a standard trapdoor bayonet. The additional length seems to be between the 'lock-ring' and the blade shank. Could it be for a Chaffee-Reese or some other Springfield Armory made .45 caliber test arm?

The non-Allin SA .45-702s (LVB, WH, and CR) all took the service bayonet, with the exception of the Hotchkiss Navies, which had a larger barrel, and took a specially swaged socket - M1873 won't go on, and the M1855/70 is way too loose.

[Edatbeach]

Only Springfield made trapdoors, so there is no "other" maker - however, there were numerous other arms of the period with similar dimensions and set-ups, some of which may (almost) interchange.

Dick,
You'll remember from other discussions elsewhere that New York dealer James Frazier also assembled trapdoors in the 1880s, and that Schuyler, Hartley & Graham had Remington making up trapdoors with new barrels in the 1890s. They looked like standard arms and took standard bayonets. And I have handled a trapdoor carbine marked on the barrel "Whitney Arms Company." Ed

[butlersrangers]

Photos can deceive. I was seeing something (longer socket) that was not there. Measuring is more reliable.

[Dick Hosmer]

Photos can deceive. I was seeing something (longer socket) that was not there. Measuring is more reliable.

Well, it still looks "long" to me (and it may be) but you are right about measuring - of course all that is required to produce a proper muzzle alignment is that the "front" dimensions be congruent - the total socket length, unless it fouled the tip, would not matter.