Undated 1870 Breech block

[Tkacook]

I have the opportunity to purchase an undated 1870 model breech block. I see these mentioned in Dick's book. I think it warrants further study. I'm curious what other think.

s-l1600.jpg


TKacook

[Dick Hosmer]

Are you working off pictures, or can you handle it? That is not the "normal" no date replacement block with small unique eagle, so I'm wondering if the date has just been removed. Assuming it IS a Model 1870 block, the date should be there - it is the word "MODEL" that is or is not present.

[Tkacook]

Pictures only at this point. Doesn't look like the date was ever there. No word "Model" either. I did notice the Eagle is different from the pictures in your book.

These are the best pictures I have.
s-l1600 (1).jpgs-l1600 (2).jpgs-l1600 (3).jpg

[Dick Hosmer]

I'll look at this again tonight, or tomorrow, when I can use my photo editing software. That might show if the area immediately behind the hinge appears to have been disturbed, but I do not recall ever seeing a block exactly like that before.

[Fred]

Isn't that an 1868 Breech Block? Look how the top of the block runs into the Middle of the Hinge Hole.

[Dick Hosmer]

That's one of the things I was going to look at, as well as the length of the arch. Good catch - it doesn't really alter the story about the date (which should be there no matter what) though. Perhaps it just wasn't struck? Perhaps it is a different form of the 1870 trials block? That is probably my first guess, at this point. Though, if it is identical to an 1868, what was being tested? Maybe it is just a Monday morning block, and Joe forgot to whack the die?

[alfajim]

A bit of info I have a 1868 receiver serial #65 ( with a broken ear) little to no rust that would work with that block?
I am going to send it to Al he will take pictures of it for the registry and send it back to me to do what ever with.
It really is in good condition.

Jim

[Dick Hosmer]

Well, it should "work", as in "fit", but it would not be "correct", no matter what it turns out to be. You need an "1868" dated block, like #62 depicted on "Trapdoor News".

[Dick Hosmer]

Preliminary thoughts: I've played with the photos to the extent that I can (mostly lightening them) and will have to admit that I'm puzzled. It appears to be an undated M1868 (kudos to Fred) block with the longer arch of the 1870, something that should not exist in nature, unless it is a true (Al and I do not agree on the expected features thereof) 1870 Trials block. More discussion to follow, I'm sure. In fact - and I know I shouldn't say this - as the owner of a Trials rifle which had a definitely wrong block that has been replaced with what I think is proper (same block as the 1870 carbine) I might be interested in acquiring the item in question, if it were to be available.

[Tkacook]

I went ahead and purchased it from the eBay seller. I will take better pictures when it arrives. I thought it was interesting and will be willing to work out a deal if you are indeed interested. I just didn't want it to disappear before it can be examined further.

If it had not been for your book, I would never have known about the no date version. I could not find any additional information on it from the web.

[Dick Hosmer]

I looked at the photos again, this time with book in hand - I am guilty of doing way too much by eye, and off the top of my head, and the older I get the more my accuracy level is beginning to suffer.

The arch ends beneath the middle of the 'scallop' on the right side - that makes it a short (1868) arch, so, given the thicker 'deck', it is basically an 1868 all the way, leaving only the mystery of just why it is not dated.

This could play in favor of Al's theory on the Trials rifle blocks, which he feels were thick, but did not (as far as I can recall) ever say they were not dated. My contention has always been that one of the features under trial would have been the greater degree of opening allowed by the thinner deck of the 1870 block. So, since the 1000+ rifles and 300+ carbines were made at basically the same time in the same facility, under the same authorization, I've always thought they should have the same block.

It will be interesting to see what physical examination turns up. It's good to know that the block will be in caring hands.

[Tkacook]

I'll post pictures when it arrives. It should be interesting to see what it looks like in person. I was looking for a closer block for my 1868 carbine project and stumbled upon this one. I missed an 1870 dated block with no MODEL the day before.

No telling what passes through eBay as people decide parts are worth more that completed items. I have managed to save a few items and reassemble the parts. Most of the time it's just too expensive.

[Fred]

Here is one for sale that is the same type. No date on a thick (1868 type) block.
Just click on the link below...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-Orig-M1868-1870-Springfield-50-70-Trapdoor-Breech-Block-Undated-68-22-/191764429515?hash=item2ca60cfacb:g:hKUAAOSwJcZWeCoP

[Dick Hosmer]

Nope, NOT same - that's the "normal" replacement block, shown in my book and elsewhere - totally different eagle head. I believe mine has the long arch and thin deck, in other words an 1870, but I'm not sure exactly where it is just now.

[Fred]

Yes, I stand corrected. The eagle heads are most certainly different.