View Full Version : A comparison of two early trapdoors
Here as something of interest are two early 1868?s to compare with each other. One has a blued trigger, plate & guard, both barrel bands and retaining springs, nose cap and rear sight. Its barrel was polished bright as was the rod.
The other 1868 has its furniture polished. It’s configuration became the final design of the Model 1868.
Their rear sights are different as well.
The rifle with the blued furniture is an early one that also has a different breech block and firing pin that were a design that was proposed for the final model, but along with the rear sight and blued furniture weren?t accepted for final production.
The end of the blued rifle?s cleaning rod is cupped like the 1866 rods were. That rifle also has the inspector?s cartouche behind the trigger plate who also inspected 1866?s.
Anyway, I thought it was of some interest and wanted to share it!
49552
- - - Updated - - -
49552
49554
49553
The different rod ends
49557
Different rear sights
- - - Updated - - -
- - - Updated - - -
The earliest rifle has its firing pin retaining screw coming in from the side of the breech block. That’s old color case hardening on the earliest breech block
49562
49563In
Rear sights
49566
49567
- - - Updated - - -
Lock plates
49568
49569
49572
- - - Updated - - -
49573
Another comparison.
49574
- - - Updated - - -
low serial numbers on each
49575
- - - Updated - - -
49577
Always enjoy your pictures! You have an amazing collection!
Hey Thanks!
I’m having trouble with the pictures, but I’ll get it ironed out.
Thanks for the feed back!
49580
- - - Updated - - -
49581
- - - Updated - - -
49585
Thanks Ray!
For some reason, the early 1868’s that I’ve been able to observe are in really nice condition.
My 1868 Trapdoor #6, being a proposed design of the new 1868 rifle, has a different relief cut in the stock behind the receiver than what was used on all production trapdoor rifles made afterwards.
A simple cut was made.
49639
The shaft of the cleaning rod on #6 is noticeably thicker and stiffer than later made rods.
49640
Dick Hosmer
09-14-2021, 11:43
Different gas-escape cuts too. I'd guess the rod indicated they were going to try to use 66 rods, but it was probably easier to make them new than to weld a lump on an old rod. Welding was in its' infancy.
Does 6 have a single-shoulder and keeper at upper band, or something else?
These TD threads are a never ceasing source of pleasure to read and enjoy. Thank you. Sincerely. bruce.
Dick Hosmer
09-15-2021, 07:46
These TD threads are a never ceasing source of pleasure to read and enjoy. Thank you. Sincerely. bruce.
Thanks, it is fun!
With regard to the comment about gas escape cuts, after I'd posted I realized that Fred had compared 6 to a .45-70, NOT another 68. That would explain the major difference (location) but they still look to be much sharper and deeper than most early cuts, some of which are almost invisible.
The rod of #6 has one shoulder Dick
- - - Updated - - -
49642
A unique rod
- - - Updated - - -
I did see a rod on a late made 1868 being sold on Gunbroker that also had a cupped end like on this rod.
How’d it get there? Qien Sabe.
Yeah, you’re right Dick.
49644
Kragrifle
09-19-2021, 07:57
Didn?t see the inspector marks behind trigger plates?
Here ya go.
This is on number 6.
http://www.jouster2.com/forums/blob:http://www.jouster2.com/6d686549-1e88-4249-9d45-1626c89e187549649
This is where the receiver of number 6 was inletted to allow it?s rear sight to be mounted in that location.
49650
As you can see, the firing pin on rifle number 6 is retained by a screw that comes in from the side instead of from underneath.
49651
Dick Hosmer
09-19-2021, 04:39
By almost destroying the picture, I was able to see into the cavern. When the time comes, it will have to be lit differently. Lotta interesting features to be documented! MAYBE this winter. Problem is I have so DAMN many copies of the original book.
I believe that when this rifle was assembled, Springfield Armory was only putting them together one at a time until the basic features of the Model 1868 were finalized for production.
That was possibly till serial number 10.
Then a block of them (150 ?) were completed for testing and trials.
I’d sure like to take a look at rifle number 7, 1 and 8 (in the SA museum), 9 and 10 to see what was was being considered for production
.49666
- - - Updated - - -
49667
49668
The 1866 rear sight...
49669
- - - Updated - - -
Blued furniture...
49670
- - - Updated - - -
49671
- - - Updated - - -
49672
butlersrangers
09-23-2021, 08:31
Dick - Maybe you could publish a 'companion' booklet, that would supplement your first book.
It could include new information, pictures, correct or clarify, and enhance the earlier work.
I'd certainly buy one!
Dick Hosmer
09-23-2021, 03:19
Chuck, thanks but NO! The price of the new one will be so modest that anyone can (and should if they have interest) buy one. Their first copy should be dog-eared by now anyway.
Thanks largely to the input promised from Fred, plus info gained elsewhere, the 1868 chapter is going to be amazing - probably worth the buy on its' own.
I've been gradually working on the ms, and it looks SO much better in the slightly (12%) larger format.
49676
I think I have to download my photo’s through Photobucket so that they’ll be sharp.
These are fuzzy and look horrible compared to the sharp photos.
Dick Hosmer
09-23-2021, 06:59
Try sending me a couple of regular jpegs right out of your camera via email. The main thing you need is more light (better directed in some cases) and a PLAIN, light-colored, preferably white back drop. The backdrop should be some distance behind the rifle and independently lit - the idea is ZERO shadows on the backer. I have a certain degree of editing capability, if you can get them close to being right. The one thing I cannot do is deal with background shadows, or any sort of distraction (like a mesh patio table or a fence). Some of your "arty" color shots are visually stunning masterpieces, but, no good for illustrations. We'll make it happen!:1948:
Edatbeach
09-23-2021, 09:07
My “expert” photo setup: take outdoors in bright shadow or a cloudy days, to give diffuse light and minimize glare, bright spots and shadows. Place gun on a white window shade (roll up type), supporting it on two or three clear shot glasses so it’s off the background enough to eliminate shadows. Take photo upside down, I.e. standing on the top side of the gun, and looking straight down (this avoids a shot that looks up at the lower side of the gun if you are not looking perfectly vertical).
Close ups work similarly, balancing the gun on the clear glasses. Any visual remnant of the glasses is easily erased.
Works for my books and articles, and I just use my iPhone.
Dick Hosmer
09-23-2021, 09:24
Ed, as you know, I was most gratified to discover that you used your iPhone! I have no idea what made Stuart so negative - maybe he was having a bad week. I DO know that I worked myself into a corner and had to rush the photography - that will NOT happen again. I have a few more pieces to consider for MAA. Next try will probably be my LH-rifled carbine, then possibly the "pre-Officer's Model".
Do you stand on a ladder to minimize so-called "barrel distortion"?
Kragrifle
09-24-2021, 07:33
So let me get this straight -I have been trying to figure out how to produce great photos with an expensive (to me) Nikon camera and macro lens , and what I should have was just buy the latest IPhone???
Try sending me a couple of regular jpegs right out of your camera via email. The main thing you need is more light (better directed in some cases) and a PLAIN, light-colored, preferably white back drop. The backdrop should be some distance behind the rifle and independently lit - the idea is ZERO shadows on the backer. I have a certain degree of editing capability, if you can get them close to being right. The one thing I cannot do is deal with background shadows, or any sort of distraction (like a mesh patio table or a fence). Some of your "arty" color shots are visually stunning masterpieces, but, no good for illustrations. We'll make it happen!:1948:
OK Dick, I’ve no light table to use, but I’ve a white sheet that I’ll use on the kitchen table with overhead light and will see what happens. I’ll email them to you. Let me know if any of them are usable.
This rifle, serial number 6, is the only known 1868 with a single digit serial number in a private collection and so is available to us to study and photograph. I need to make the best photos that I can.
Dick Hosmer
09-25-2021, 08:48
You don't need a light table. Al Frasca does have one - saw it when I visited him 30 years ago.
You should see some of the Rube Goldberg setups I have used! I made a "third hand" that works GREAT for everything but overalls (which are the trickiest, but which I do not need from you).
Individual, disassembled parts are quite easy too.
Dick Hosmer
09-25-2021, 08:57
So let me get this straight -I have been trying to figure out how to produce great photos with an expensive (to me) Nikon camera and macro lens , and what I should have was just buy the latest IPhone???
Sad but true! My trusty old Nikon FM2 sits idle these days. While the results are probably superior at the upper range of professional photography, who wants to mess with film these days. I used a small pocket Olympus 5MP digital for both my TD books, but my iPhone8 for my latest, on prewar American Flyer trains. I will use it for all future work as well - it's "good enough". Take a good look at Ed Hull's stuff in MAA, bearing in mind that Stuart Mowbray is VERY particular.
Kragrifle
09-25-2021, 02:46
Ed used an IPhone? Guess he used an iPhone in his recent book?
Dick Hosmer
09-25-2021, 11:56
Ed used an IPhone? Guess he used an iPhone in his recent book?
As far as I know (we spent a most pleasant collector's 'show-and-tell' weekend with a mutual friend a couple of months ago) he has been using it for everything for some time now. I was surprised/impressed - he does beautiful work. The get-together was great, but bittersweet as I sold my Hotchkiss Army Rifle #101, which has quite a history, to the third gentleman.
This is a Test photo to improve photo sharpness. Can anyone see the photo?
is the image sharp?
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/185BDDB2-DDF7-4CFF-ABAB-E3F0BE4AB07C.jpeg
Another test photo below.
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/6B26C875-3FCF-46A2-8F82-19C2991FC988.jpeg
I see it just fine, Fred . . . .sharp and clear too!
Sharper photo 1
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/93A00838-0EAB-4537-BD61-6E87CCEE1886.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
- - - Updated - - -
Sharper photo 2
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/88825227-5C54-4927-BABE-B668B9F3BE19.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
- - - Updated - - -
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/1C111678-A0A6-4715-ADC9-07AF5997B075.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
- - - Updated - - -
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/02255D3C-D2F7-4A59-877E-CE6CF0F9FBC3.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
- - - Updated - - -
The firing pin spring was still inside of the breech block when I took this photo and can be seen through the retaining screw hole.
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/E58924D0-F800-42BB-99C2-61113783D01E.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
- - - Updated - - -
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/3D1E6D14-376C-4EA0-8CAE-7FB6301AF19B.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
Dick Hosmer
09-27-2021, 01:19
Wonderful pics for trading info back and forth, and not BAD pictures (the muzzle shot is probably the sharpest) but how about some without a background to distract the eye? That rifle is not only very rare, but damn near mint/new to boot!
I’ll set up the White background on the table and see what happens Dick.
I’ll take both black and white and color photos and see what happens.
Do you have to click on the links to see the photos?
Dick Hosmer
09-27-2021, 02:20
OK, and yes, clicking on the link here on Jouster opens the pic directly with any intermediate steps.
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/F670E693-F421-4BBA-BDD0-834D58F806D8.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/0088C050-9A22-4965-910B-FC2A03D900D4.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/113707E5-B00A-4AD7-9109-0EE3DB9C7A7A.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/136DBF56-0FE6-4DBD-9241-B1C4E298E86B.jpeg
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/DD907892-3DA5-4852-9508-D59A6ACC62E8.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/BAF27FD0-B54B-43C4-87FB-517472A18482.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/08C7D475-DCDD-49EE-9A0C-78CAB3EE4094.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/3323E11C-8BE3-4E86-985C-96B37BF73272.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/3CCA390C-F668-4E7E-91E6-DA5817869D66.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/3CC70D3D-BEBC-4990-B9E9-928D93D47FEF.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/589759DD-43ED-42BE-8C13-42FF16155D02.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/F7141B0B-DC05-4C23-B417-CBD9D0B3433E.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/FBE6D73F-0642-4B91-96DE-59997F8E4459.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/963E317F-0A88-4E7E-B273-F92EDF8DD49B.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
An 1866 inspectors stamp, “N”
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/FD1F59EF-641D-4DA7-BA88-14C9C4065898.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
On this rifle, the latch has a Domed shape and is not ground down flat like on later rifles.
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/696F99FB-FD6B-4AF8-90D2-A425FFCBE567.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
The receiver was cut to make room for the 1866 rear sight, which was left whole. Here a bit of the barrel thread was left exposed. Strong squared off threads.
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/B4FB6034-C9F2-43DE-B71F-A584D33116E1.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/971641AC-28D8-4412-8641-15BA8A8F9774.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/1B0FF364-898C-4426-948B-E93D65C6FBDD.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
I’ll bet that this stock was selected for it’s beauty by the fellows in the tool room at Springfield Armory.
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/141D1459-8D11-4CFE-8376-EF5A53076DB3.jpeg?width=285&height=175&crop=fill
Dick Hosmer
09-27-2021, 06:30
You're making real progress! But there are shadows, and your cloth has a pattern. The gun CANNOT just be laid on the backer!
Either color or B&W works, as I can remove all color - I know you are trying to emphasize the blued band and I think that will come through in B&W (obviously it will be noted in text as well).
That is a converted musket stock as it only has two cartouches. Most 1868s have four - all interesting points to be noted.
Thanks for working with me on the project!
Did you get a response on 107? I would not be surprised if you don't.
Great pictures, Fred!
Hey, thanks! ��
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/223B53BF-A911-40BD-BA0D-1005E196481D.jpeg?width=450&height=278&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/3B60414C-05BA-457E-A0B7-2D054031F349.jpeg?width=450&height=278&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/BDB5BC95-3ABC-4053-8C8A-98E8E1F83387.jpeg?width=450&height=278&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/06AC9756-648A-4A9B-9ADF-7A096057556E.jpeg?width=450&height=278&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/AD20EFA5-52E7-4B18-BD64-2BE5DDF0EA13.jpeg?width=450&height=278&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/73759410-894D-4DC7-BCF5-62370067CCF1.jpeg?width=450&height=278&crop=fill
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/636783A6-C783-412C-9D2D-DDF8B8DDDCEB.jpeg?width=450&height=278&crop=fill
This differently shaped band retaining spring is different from the other one and so suggests to me that this type was being considered for adoption.
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/CE674849-5E1B-4F01-B431-6B46D94C6F13.jpeg?width=450&height=278&crop=fill
[QUOTE=Did you get a response on 107? I would not be surprised if you don't.[/QUOTE]
No word as of yet.
Dick Hosmer
09-27-2021, 10:43
At last - the witness-mark pic is the first and only so far to depict what I mean about no pattern or shadows. It would be perfectly usable. I do not think there is anything special to the band spring - the smooth outside curve was likely not a gauged shape since in doesn't mesh with anything else. Having seen too many variations to count, I think that was free-form ground and polished. What is the fill? Spoon? '66 spring?
Dick I still think the front band spring was a different shape that was being considered.
I’ve Never ever seen one like it on a SA long arm before but I have on something, possibly it was on Remington made Rolling Blocks...?
I think it’s a better spring. But I think that it wasn’t adopted because there were still so many Civil War springs still left to use
There is no spoon in the stock and no provision for one.
The wood inlay or fill is where the 66 extractor spring would be.
The number 2 in pencil marking is interesting. Did it indicate that there were a few more stocks like this? I think probably among the very first 10 rifles assembled.
Dick Hosmer
09-28-2021, 09:07
What am I missing on the spring? Are we talking about the profile of the swoopy-doopy curve, or something else?
Yes. The contour is, in my humble opinion, intentional and actually is a better design.
I think it was placed on the upper band so that it could be studied easier to assess for adoption.
The rear band spring was one of the standard type to compare it to.
As I mentioned earlier, I believe that the decision was made to Not adopt it though because there was already a ready supply of the standard band springs.
SA was of course at that time constrained by the need to save money.
Here is a similar humped band spring on a Remington made Rolling Block rifle.
49686
Here is a conventional band spring on a Springfield Armory made Rolling Block rifle.
49687
Dick Hosmer
09-28-2021, 10:45
Well, I've seen similar bands on TDs as well. And, perhaps most of all, WHY, would SA (who had to have had barrels of springs at hand) source one from a Remington? Sorry, just not convinced so far. Maybe they used a 'reject' by accident? We'll never know. Will keep thinking about it though.
Oh that spring wasn’t made by Remington Dick. Remington springs had rounded ends instead of squared.
The spring on my rifle was I believe made by Springfield, replicating the basic design on the Remington made rifles.
Dick Hosmer
09-29-2021, 09:40
Oh that spring wasn’t made by Remington Dick. Remington springs had rounded ends instead of squared.
The spring on my rifle was I believe made by Springfield, replicating the basic design on the Remington made rifles.
How then, other than pattern of curvature, does the spring differ? Over the years, I've seen springs with pronounced humps, shallow humps, and even some that seemed almost concave. I still maintain that was a non-gauged surface, on a part not not subject to control beyond fitting into the stock mortise (including pin location) and allowing a band to snap tight and stay in place. I just do not think it is a design matter.
First time I’ve had them out of the stock.
49688
Here is a sharper photo...
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/127114A0-1F64-41E2-8DE9-C700D6F669FA.jpeg?width=450&height=278&crop=fill (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/127114A0-1F64-41E2-8DE9-C700D6F669FA.jpeg?width=450&height=278&crop=fill)
I think that design of band spring was used by Springfield Armory on their Model 1861 rifle Musket’s and 1865 breech loaders. That would make it an 1855 design.
Maybe it was thought to be easier to use the 1864 type springs on the 1868’s and when necessary grind down the high hump 1855 springs to conform to the later 1864 design than to use and eventually exhaust the supply of the 1855 type and then have to begin producing them?
Maybe the change in 1855 to 1864 band spring design was not thought to be of enough significance to’ve been listed as an important change., but the decision was made in 1868 to adhere strictly to one type of spring and that one to be the type of spring that had been used on the 1864 and 1866 long arms and to alter, if needed, the shape of existing 1855 band springs still in inventory to the 1864 shape.
Kragrifle
09-29-2021, 04:02
Guys, I love this discussion. I have seen and used both types of band springs and did not think twice. If younger collectors out there miss this discussion, shame on them!
It appears to me that this 1868 rifle, serial number 6, along with probably the other nine or ten first 1868’s made, were each assembled one at a time and then submitted with variations of proposed features that were to be studied and tested preparatory to adopting a final design for production.
I would like to see rifles number 5 and 7.
Kragrifle
09-30-2021, 04:12
Just remembered where I have come across the high hump band spring. I have seen these on a number of 1842 muskets. Of course I am not certain these muskets were all ?as produced ?.
Interesting!
I’ll bet that the humped springs helped to retain the more loose fitting flat barrel bands on those muskets.
Receiver inletting to make room for the rear sight base.
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/C67B290C-BBD9-431C-AAAF-E41D8B81D873.jpeg (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/c72/Whitedog333/C67B290C-BBD9-431C-AAAF-E41D8B81D873.jpeg)
Dick Hosmer
10-02-2021, 03:14
Better background treatment , but still not white - I could not make it go away. Light needs to come from the muzzle so as to illuminate the recess - speaking of which - I wonder why is it not polished? Was the barrel 'shoe-shined' after assembly? Interesting.
I’’ll remove the rear sight again and have a look. Take a photo.
None of these photo’s are meant to be good enough for you to use Dick.
I’m just posting them here for entertainment and learning.
I’ll take some Good photos for you to look at and email them to you.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.