Changing contours

[Fred]

Here is a comparison of the rear of three 1868 receivers. The three different contours on the flat of the rear of the receivers show how rapidly the changing design of the Model 1868 Trapdoor Rifle was proceeding in 1868 before full production could begin in 1869.
These receivers, and the rifles they are on, are three of the very first 1868 trapdoor's made. Richard Hosmer tells me that there were approximately 150 such early rifles made in 1868 for testing.
The rifle on the far left is serial number 6. The middle rifle is number 86. The far right rifle is number 127.
I'd really be interested in knowing the contour in this same area on Dick Culver's 1868 rifle too, which is rifle number 62.

Notice the different Thumblatch cut in the wood of the earliest rifle, number 6.
That design was dropped.


- - - Updated - - -

The three rifles
45393

[free1954]

interesting. thanks for posting.

[Dick Hosmer]

Yes, very interesting.

I think a lot of what is "different" represents tolerances in hand finishing as opposed to planned changes.

There are a number of variances, some quite slight, and some of which MAY be caused by camera angle. Could you make a little jig by which each rifle could be held in PRECISELY the same position relative to the camera/phone?

The metal differences all seem to involve the degree to which the sharp edges or the corners were rounded off. The wood cut of #6 seems to be the only thing that was intended to be done differently - since the wood cuts on #86 and #127 seem to vary only in how hard the "early Dremel tool" was pressed into the stock.

[Fred]

Wow, thanks for your excellent observations Dick!
OK, those photo's will be forthcoming right away. There's a table by two West windows upstairs where my wife does her Drawing that ought to work well for that.

[Fred]

Yea, the differing contours are certainly just indications of a gradual change in that particular area, but I think it's pretty neat.
Were the contours all done by the same worker who's method of finishing just changed or were these changes something that was requested?
Beats me. It's all pretty interesting stuff to me though. Lol

[Dick Hosmer]

Have NO idea. MAYBE #6 just wasn't polished as much because it was only a "sample" and they had bigger worries. I still THINK the only purposeful difference was the change in the wood cut - that CLEARLY shows a difference of plan.

[Fred]

Don't forget the different Firing Pin and different firing pin Retaining Screw that secures from the side and the specially designed Breech Block on 6.

45425M

- - - Updated - - -

There was also never a cleaning rod retaining Spoon or a cutout for one. Also no Spoon retaining pin or hole for one.

- - - Updated - - -

And don't forget how the tip of the cleaning Rod is cupped instead of being solid and flat on the end.
45426

[Fred]

One more feature of interest are the two different designs of Band Retaining Springs on this rifle. It appears that there was an alternate design that wasn't chosen.
Neat stuff.

[Fred]

Ooop's, I forgot about the cleaning Rod being thicker than the later rods. Stiffer too because of it.

[Fred]

Anyway, the rifle has some interesting features that I really hope you get a chance to study Dick.
I think the best way to help that happen might be to construct a wooden case that accommodates all three of my rifles securely and send it to you with postage for return shipping.
Ive done it before with other antique rifles.
Then you could take hour time studying them for your records and your book.

[Fred]

Anyway, the rifle has some interesting features that I really hope you get a chance to study Dick.
I think the best way to help that happen might be to construct a wooden case that accommodates all three of my rifles securely and send it to you with postage for return shipping.
Ive done it before with other antique rifles.

[Dick Hosmer]

Fred, I TRULY appreciate your offer, but I do not think that is a good idea. Am still hoping for a trip to your area. I handled #86 when Graham owned it, and I'd suspect that #127 is VERY much like it. If anything gets sent, #6 would be the one I'd like to see. Simpler, cheaper and much less risk exposure for you. My #62 is exactly like my #25755 (except for the slightly different rear sight graduations). Lets give things a little time, a lot can be handled via photos back and forth.

[Fred]

From top to bottom #6, #86, #127
45439


45441

45440

[Fred]

Fred, I TRULY appreciate your offer, but I do not think that is a good idea. Am still hoping for a trip to your area. I handled #86 when Graham owned it, and I'd suspect that #127 is VERY much like it. If anything gets sent, #6 would be the one I'd like to see. Simpler, cheaper and much less risk exposure for you. My #62 is exactly like my #25755 (except for the slightly different rear sight graduations). Lets give things a little time, a lot can be handled via photos back and forth.

Yea, rifle 86 is just like 127, with the only difference being that contour on the receiver.

If you can't make it out this way to see your relative and me this year, I'll send 6 out to you.

[Fred]

I forgot all about the trigger guard swivel being riveted on instead of the standard screw being used.
45462

[Dick Hosmer]

That can pretty much go either way, depends where they scrounged the guard. I believe that most muskets were riveted, in fact.