Custer period carbine question?

[rayg]

Would an original off the line 13,000 serial number 1873 carbine have a 2 or 3 cock hammer? If a 2 cock hammer, about what date did they start to update the carbines having 2 cock hammers to 3 cock hammers? Ray

[Sunray]

TD's always had a half and a full cock hammer. However, the major "improvements" happened in 1877. There's no mention of a 2 or 3 cock "hammer" anywhere. There are some references to a 3 notch tumbler on some other forums talking about much later production(late 1880's) though. That tumbler what you're talking about?
Your's was made in 1874 according to the Old Guns S/N look up. Crazy George was in the Black Hills bothering the Lakota in 1874. So it was made towards the end of "The Custer Era". That ended kind of promptly in 1876. The 7th Cavalry would likely have had early production carbines. Mind you, any military firearm would have had any and all 'upgrades' done to it if it survived long enough. There doesn't seem to be a lot of info about what was done and when.

[rayg]

Sorry I meant the tumbler not the hammer. When was the carbine updated from the 2 notch tumbler to the 3 notch one? Would the troopers at LBH have had carbines with 2 notch tumblers or were their carbines updated to the 3 notch tumblers? Ray

[Tom Trevor]

Rayg, The change to three notch tumbler was around serial number 20000. So not likely that one would have been done by the battle date. This change was not something that was done as a retrofit at the post to all existing carbines. Also the sear due to the angle needed for the new tumbler would have also been changed. Do not know if you have this carbine or not BUT the SRS records are in all the books totally void of any carbines in the entire 13000 serial number range only rifles shown. If you are looking at it as a potential purchase be careful. Hope this helps

[rayg]

For Petes sake! I typed in the wrong serial number sorry, the one I have is serial number 35616 and it is a 2 notch one. It's been reviewed on several sites and has been determined to be a pre Custer period carbine. I was just wondering about the 3 notch tumbler and when it came to be and wondered if the carbines at LBH would of had gotten the 3 notch one.
Just saw an article were a #35868 shown was within the serial range issued to companies D, I., and K of the 7th cav. in 1875. Per Arms Gazette june 74. So the 35000 range carbines were there.

I need to learn to read what I type better, sorry, Ray

[Tom Trevor]

No SRS listing for 35616. Closest is 35624 second cavalry issued. yes it should have had the three notch tumbler. But a screw driver can change that in a minute.

[rayg]

Thanks everyone, I've been collecting before Santa Clause shaved and had amassed a large research book collection which I had recently sold because of my advancing age. Also selling off my large collection. So now I'm winging it without the books and for some reason, probably because of the absence of brain cells, as I had had that carbine for probably 30 years, I thought that because of the early serial number the carbine should have a 2 notch tumbler. So I just recently changed out the 3 notch one for the 2 notch one on the carbine. Not smart eh! Anyway I still have the original 3 notch one and will put it back in. Sorry for the initial confusion and thanks everyone for the replies, Ray437724377343774

[rayg]

437754377643777

- - - Updated - - -

4377843779

- - - Updated - - -

This is my inventory description of it, Ray
POSSIBLE CUSTER 1873 SPRINGFIELD CARBINE A totally un-modified, pre-Custer issued 1873 carbine having every desirable early 1873 model feature, serial number #35616. Long wrist stock with a lightly visible oval “ESA” cartouche and a “P” on the wrist, no butt trap door, correct rear sight, no proof marks on barrel as correct. Barrel band with swivel, hammer w/course cross line hatching, 3 cock hammer. The metal and the stock had been cleaned many years ago and the metal has turned mostly gray with some patina and no pitting visible except some slight roughness under the trap door which is only visible when the door is raised. All stampings in the metal are still clearly visible.
The gun falls within the broad, accepted range of U.S. Model 1873 carbines issued to 7th U.S. Cavalry Companies C, D, I and K(33,000-43,000). One of the most researched and highly sought after of American arms. It is estimated that the 7th Cavalry were armed with 650 of these Carbines when they left Ft. Lincoln. Of these, 275 were captured, lost, or damaged during the Battle of Little Big Horn. Only a few of these carbines used in the battle have been identified through cartridge cases found at the scene. As this carbine has not been upgraded by ordinance recall in 1879 when all early models were recalled for modifications, it would make it a strong a candidate for one likely to have been at Little Big Horn. VG bore. Overall in VG condition. A nice and possibly a very historic carbine.

[Sunray]

Old Guns says the year of manufacture for serial number 35616 is 1875.
"...determined to be a pre Custer period carbine..." Crazy George was in the Black Hills bothering the Lakota in 1875 too. He had been sent West in 1867. Little Big Horn was 1876.
"...likely to have been at Little Big Horn..." Highly unlikely. Especially in that condition.
The list of assorted upgrades/modifications is supposedly in The .45-70 Springfield by Joe Poyer and Craig Riesch. One should never sell his books.
"...ordinance recall..." Ordnance.

[rayg]

I do regret selling all the books but being that my train will be arriving at the station in not too many years and from what I was told I couldn't take them with me. So I thought it best to sell them and enjoy the cash while the wife and I can.
Anyway regarding the condition of the carbine, as mentioned, the metal and stock surface had been cleaned years ago. Probably steel wool on the metal and sand paper or boning on the stock. It does not appear that much material had been removed as all stock cartouches are still visible and the metal stamps are still deep.. We'll never know what it looked like before the cleaning except it appears to have had no deep pitting. Not that I believe mine has a chance, condition or not, of being one of the holy grails, A long shot at best. But, it is what it is, and it certainly is not a bad specimen for a early trapdoor carbine.

Here's one that just closed on GunBroker https://www.gunbroker.com/item/774493535 Nicer then mine because it's still in it's natural aged state and wasn't cleaned.

The 3 notch tumbler is back on, All is well again, Ray

[rayg]

It just dawned on me, why I stated in my first post that the serial number was in the 13,000 range. I had just typed out that number automatically with out thinking about it. Well, now that I thought about it, I know where that number came from. It was because years ago I also had an early and all correct 1873 carbine that had that 13,000 serial number range. How about that, a short circuit of my memory cells with a flash back unconsciously bringing up the old number. Stranger then fiction, the window to my little mind Lol, Ray.

[rayg]

Again my books are gone but I do recall the early 1873 rifle load was the heavy 500 gr bullet w/ 70 grs black powder and the carbine w/a reduced 55gr powder load. If so and if I remember when I shot it, the little light weight early carbine with that heavy bullet really was punishing to the shoulder. Can't recall but when did the switch come about to the 405 gn bullet? I started to use that weight bullet later on but it still kicked a lot and I had reduced the load even further from 55 to to 50 grs when shooting it. As the troopers in those days were probably not super big, 120-30 lbs or so. I imagine they were not too happy to shoot the gun a lot. Especially when a 70 grain bullet one was slipped in by a "buddy" at the range. Ray

[Dick Hosmer]

Ray, you have it backwards.

The early loadings were .45-70-405 for the rifle and .45-55-405 for the carbine. Rifle ammo could be used in the latter but recoil was severe.

The rifle, only, went to .45-70-500 in 1881, based on the results of the long-range rifle trials which experimented with a .45-80-500 round for use in the open areas of the West. It was a total failure, but the testing did show that the .45-70-405 was not burning all of its' powder, and that a heavier bullet would solve that problem.

[rayg]

Ah thanks Dick. Yes, did get it backwards and I do recall now, it's been awhile. I had bought a 500 grain mold and used it in my rifle and also for a while with the reduced 50 gr load in the carbine. Still a bit too much kick for me with the heavy bullet and so went back to the 405 gr, bullet with the reduced 50 grain load for easy comfort shooting. I always felt, no sense beating yourself up shooting full power loads. Kind of takes the fun out of a day at the range. I've had a large number of different military rifles and reloaded for all of them but with light cast bullet loads. Ray

[rayg]

Sorry to keep this thread going but I was just curious about the carbine that was just sold on gunbrooker https://www.gunbroker.com/item/774493535 were the last number of the serial number was damaged to where you couldn't read it. The ad says damaged by the hammer but to me it looks like it was intentionally damaged as the hammer is not in line with the damage and there are what appear to be grind marks in an attempt to hide the last number. Check out my photos of the hammer position. Maybe a stolen carbine at one time and because of that, and the high bid, maybe some folks might feel there was a connection to the battle, What do you think? Also absent my books, is a type 2 hammer correct for that serial number? Ray

[Dick Hosmer]

Overall, a very nice specimen, and my faith in the market is somewhat restored by the healthy price (Trump economics?). I'm bothered by a couple of other things: The gun has seen a lot of use - why the minimal (almost non-existant) extractor divot on the block? Why the slotted screws on the sight? How did the matching chips on BOTH sides of the forend occur - almost seem to have happened when barrel was not in place? The stock comb profile appears to be just a hair off, but that may be the result of wear. I believe the hammer is, or could be, correct though.

[rayg]

Approx. when did they start using the type 2 hammer and was it used through out the rest of the TD production? Ray

[Dick Hosmer]

If I recall correctly, around 30,000 - but that was one of those changes that would have been blurry. They used whatever came out of the barrel, and the "criss-cross" type finally ran out. No, the second-style hammer was made obsolete by the one having the lip, in early 1880. THAT one then went the rest of the way.

[rayg]

Thanks Dick, really appreciate your responses and answers to my questions. Ray

[rayg]

Here's an old post I had made about my carbine some years ago. There's a lot of info on it regarding the Custer carbines, Ray
https://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?366705-Possible-7th-Cav-Custer-carbine&p=3039900#post3039900