SN/Cartouche Mismatched Model 1888?

[andyinlz]

I came across an interesting Model 1888 today.

Nice boxed 1891 cartouche on the stock.

Struck me as a regular 1891 round rod bayonet Model 1888.

But, the SN on the receiver is 335665.

Seems, to me, to be a mismatch.

Possibly an early Model 1888 with a newer stock?

Some other devilry?

All opinions appreciated!

Thanks in advance

[Kragrifle]

Numbers on 45/70 trapdoors do not follow in numerical order. Both of my 88 models are numbered around 280K.

[andyinlz]

Doesn't that SN put the receiver around 1886?

[Carlsr]

Early model 88's can be found with serial numbers starting around 96,400 which is were Springfield went from a narrow receiver to a wide receiver. Springfield did not assemble in numerical order but rather grabbed parts from a bin. Whatever was on top was used first. I have an 88 in the 100,000 range. These low numbers are, from what I have read, are found on rifles with 1891 cartouche.

[Dick Hosmer]

Yes, there were, but they top out around 322000. A more likely possibility is that the receiver MIGHT have come from a disassembled M1886 XC trials carbine, as that would be a very plausible number for one of them. They are VERY similar at first glance, but every part is slightly different to the point that they are not interchangeable. IF a M1884XRB stock was reworked, it MIGHT have two cartouches. There is more wood in the rare stock, so you can make the common from the rare, but it is impossible to fake the rare from the common. My little guide book covers the differences in excruciating detail - $25 to POB 1367 Colusa CA 95932, autographed & postpaid.

The M1888 numbering IS "untidy" and not always what one would expect, but there is little that can be done about it at this juncture. A purist will prefer that the numbering be more in sync, in other words above 500000, but is a fact that anomalies exist.

The M1888 is by NO means "rare", or even scarce, so there is no point in trying to "fake" one; therefore it is logical to assume that what you find is PROBABLY OK. But of course, there is always the Bannerman factor - which is why the purists prefer a logical number.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Enjoy.

[andyinlz]

Thanks, Dick.

I will send for both.

And, for the rest of you, Dick was responding to my inadvertently-deleted question regarding whether this may be an experimental 1884 bayonet model. I tried to fix a typo and managed to wipe the Q way!

Thanks to all.