1879 cartouche.

[Carlsr]

Looking at this rifle but the SWP cartouche letters seem to be a little odd or just may be worn.
Anyone have an opinion if it is correct or forged. The serial # is correct for the year which is in the 120,000 range.
48208

[Dick Hosmer]

Looks alright to me, but a better picture would surely help.

[Carlsr]

Here is the listing Dick,
https://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/rifles/springfield-rifles-trapdoor/springfield-u-s-model-1879-trapdoor-45-70-al5143-.cfm?gun_id=101519551

[Dick Hosmer]

Aside from the nasty gouge that looks pretty good. An artist in wood could make that almost disappear - I couldn't tell where it is, probably bottom of the butt.

[Carlsr]

Yes it was on the bottom just before the lower barrel band. According to the seller it has now been sold but still listed.
There's a nice 1st Allin listed on gun broker. It will most likely sell for top dollar.

[Lead Snowstorm]

There's a nice 1st Allin listed on gun broker. It will most likely sell for top dollar.

Noticed that. Does it seem to anyone else that the breechblock is remarkably smooth and light in color in some of the pictures? Perhaps a trick of the camera...

[70ish]

The Breechblock appears to be the same color as the receiver in some photos and lighter in others. One of the photos from the top looks like the door and the receiver are both darker in color than the tang and that looks okay. Overall, the piece looks interesting and the only question for me, so far, involves the ramrod. The seller indicates that all of the M1865 rifles were made from M1863 muskets. That is not correct for the 3 band rifles as planned and produced. They used the M1861 musket and that seems to be the case with this particular rifle. The wider, M61 bands, would have been costly to try to use with M63 rifles as the '63 was designed for a narrower band. The position of the band spring would have made it impractical to use the wider bands of the '61 used correctly on this example.

The only part of the rifle I have a problem with is (sorry to mention this, Dick) the ramrod. The '61 ramrod, with it's swollen design, would not fit in a '63 channel and would not have been able to be seated deep enough to rest behind the muzzle face. Try as I can, I cannot find any photos to clearly show the ramrod in this piece and I would expect to see the swell be be visible from the edge of the front band. The one front-on view, even when lightened up, does not provide an answer. It only hints at a single dimension shaft which would be wrong. So, without some more photos and some comments from those who know better than I, the ramrod is the only thing I see that is out of place - and that would seem to be a minor concern for a rifle that is so hard to find in correct condition. I think there are even a few reproduction '61 rods available.

[Dick Hosmer]

Sorry, but you lost me - I do not recall EVER saying, anywhere, that the First Allin was built on ANYTHING but a 61, including the rod. If I did, it was in error, as that has always been one of the paradoxes regarding the 1A - why did they go back a model. My guess would be that since they were essentially "experimental", they didn't want to chip into their newer stock. Of course, as breechloading caught on, even though the 1A was a poor design, that changed with the 1866 and forward.

However, a lot of the 1A lock plates are dated 1865, but they all - no matter the date - must have the extra relief milling along the top interior edge.

[Carlsr]

If you look at picture 4 I believe you can see the swell in the ramrod??
Bidding seems to be slow on this one, I thought it would be much higher by now but there are 5 days left to bid.

[Lead Snowstorm]

The rod does have the swell.

https://i.imgur.com/56ASgQ7h.jpg

[Carlsr]

Congrats on your win you lucky dog!!

[Dick Hosmer]

And that's a '61 band - as it should be.

[Lead Snowstorm]

Yep. And to remove all doubt (if it were necessary), the parent gun must have been 1862 vintage, based on the remnant of the date left by the milling:

https://i.imgur.com/s5HZxn3.jpg

In that photo, and this, you can see my worries about the tint of the breech block were unfounded. The lighting made the difference.

https://i.imgur.com/UUIhJe4.jpg

If I could change one thing it'd be the wood rash on the flat of the stock. But at least a bit of the ESA cartouche was still visible.

https://i.imgur.com/tlvKDjH.jpg

Bore is frosty, but there's still rifling. (Not that I could really imagine lighting it up!)

https://i.imgur.com/QuOqlUJ.jpg

[JimF]

. . . . .Bore is frosty, but there's still rifling. (Not that I could really imagine lighting it up!)

https://i.imgur.com/QuOqlUJ.jpg

To me, that bore looks to be BEYOND “frosty”!

However, that very scarce rifle is a great find!

[70ish]

A very nice find for you and I certainly am glad that it turned out to be such a fine piece. The ramrod, the only thing I questioned, is clearly correct and the finish is about as nice as I've seen in recent years. The stock is exceptional as well and the notoriously thin area above the lock plate still looks almost new. I don't think you could have done better! Congratulations to you!

[Lead Snowstorm]

Thanks gentlemen! It is nice to get one of the harder to fill holes taken care of. Still have to find (and pony up the dough for) an unaltered 1892 Krag!

[Dick Hosmer]

That's a very nice 1A - much nicer than mine! You did well. Wish I knew the story of the sighting notch - my three-band is square, but my two-band is like yours. I'm guessing the square came first, but both occur on both lengths so there is no obvious pattern.

[Lead Snowstorm]

that has always been one of the paradoxes regarding the 1A - why did they go back a model. My guess would be that since they were essentially "experimental", they didn't want to chip into their newer stock.

Browsing through Dr. Frasca's book, he hypothesizes that Allin started work on breechloading rifles perhaps as early as late 1863, with the paper trail deliberately obscured for financial reasons during the war.

If the development process began that early, perhaps it was a function of the type and amount of weapons predominantly available for experimentation at that time? Obviously there would be plenty of the M1861s in 1863, but the M1863 production would just be getting started. So experimentation would be most expedient on the weapons at hand, which would most likely be M1861s.

Then by 1865, when the project could come out of the shadows, so to speak, perhaps it simply continued to be expedient to keep working with the M1861, with the added benefit of not ostentatiously 'chopping up' the breeches of newer weapons probably playing a synergistic role, at least until everyone was on board that they were obsolete despite only being a couple of years old.

Just a thought...?

[Dick Hosmer]

We're on the same page.:1948: