Three 1868's

[Edatbeach]

As Al Frasca pointed out on his forum, care must be taken to make sure that a low numbered orphan receiver is actually an early 1868, and not a low numbered M1869 cadet receiver. He said that this #65 receiver looks hand stamped and OK, but that a cadet receiver would be machine stamped and thus the digits would all line up.

[Dick Hosmer]

Just to let you guys know I have the receiver for #65 it is at Al's for pictures and posting. It is in great condition except a broken ear on the right side.
If the original barrel is around somewhere it could be made whole again with the parts out there.

Jim

The 1868 block won't be easy!

[Fred]

Wasn't there one for sale a year ago?
Also, it Might be that the original rear site leaf used to be one of the earlier experimental sight leafs that Dick has identified and that might've been mounted on rifles # 10 thru at least # 127.

Dick, I'll bet you've got some insight on that. What do you think?

[alfajim]

FYI there is a seller on EBay selling all the parts for a 1869 50-70 stock, barrel w/receiver & tang, breech block complete, lock plate assy. plus all the hardware and furniture to assemble it it's ser #1528.

Plus he a 1866 rare short version, stock with hardware and trigger, barrel bands, plus the barrel complete, lock plate assy, breech block.

at bluesky.

Jim

[alfajim]

Additional info on the 1866 rifle it is a short varient two band version. Barrel is complete with rear sight, tang, breech block hinge plate, extractor and ejector, no front sight.
Breech block is dated 1866 and complete with hinge screw, latch and firing pin.
Stock is complete with ram rod, ram rod spoon, barrel bands and springs, but plate and trigger plate with trigger.
Two lock plate assy's complete one dated 1863 and one dated 1864 both look to be in good condition with screw's.
Bore is nice and shiny with good 6 groove barrel still .50 cal. not sleeved.
I believe there is enough stuff to assemble a complete 1866 rifle in nice condition if any one is interested?

Jim

[Dick Hosmer]

Wasn't there one for sale a year ago?
Also, it Might be that the original rear site leaf used to be one of the earlier experimental sight leafs that Dick has identified and that might've been mounted on rifles # 10 thru at least # 127.

Dick, I'll bet you've got some insight on that. What do you think?

To which post are you referring?

The strange leaf was either not installed uniformly, or, has been replaced on some specimens, because they do not all still have it.

[Fred]

Interesting! Thanks.

[Fred]

Dick, I guess if the rifles were indeed issued after the tests were over, the company Armorers would've changed them out as the issue of the different graduations came up. Otherwise, as I witnessed while an Armored Cavalry officer, nothing was fixed or changed unless there was a complaint.

[Dick Hosmer]

One could speculate endlessly on that, I guess. #6 is an odd duck and I'd think issue was highly unlikely, but the others could have been. We are dealing with such a small sample of a very small population that simple breakage could have accounted for the mixture found today. Numbers 36, 62 and 86 have the odd leaf, others are either "standard" or unknown. I don't have #127's type listed - which is it?

[Fred]

Oh! I thought you knew. Here's a photo of both #127 and #86...

1868 2.jpg

#127 is on the left and #86 is on the right.

[Dick Hosmer]

Sorry, my fault, I'd seen that photo but had not added the sight data to my spreadsheet. Done.

[Fred]

Here's another interesting feature on rifle #6...
The trigger guard sling swivel isn't held onto the trigger guard with a Screw. It is held on with a rivet.
Here are photos of both sides of the swivel.
Note how the trigger guard on rifle #6 is Armory Blued and not Armory Bright.

image.jpg

image.jpg

[Edatbeach]

Here's another interesting feature on rifle #6...
The trigger guard sling swivel isn't held onto the trigger guard with a Screw. It is held on with a rivet.
Here are photos of both sides of the swivel.
Note how the trigger guard on rifle #6 is Armory Blued and not Armory Bright.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41058[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41059[/ATTACH]

That's a M1855/61/63 trigger bow and swivel, according the the "Table Showing Changes...Rifle-Musket From 1855 to 1873," (Fuller, p295). A blued one is M1863. A "standard" M1868 would have had a M1864 bow, with screw-held swivel.

[Fred]

Thank you Edatbeach.

[Dick Hosmer]

I'd think that one of the reasons we see more 1863 parts on TDs may have to do with the inertia of certain fuddy-duddies within the OD. Not everyone was on board with the breechloader, and the "latest" arms - the 1864s - were held back in reserve. Case in point - the M1865s were built on "obsolete" 1861s. I doubt they were 100% rigid about which trigger guard was (re)used, especially on experimental pieces. Of course the lack of a middle band cutout made the M1863 wood attractive, but it's funny that no one EVER mentions the fact that not having band-springs meant that one had to be ADDED for the lower - but, cutting is cheaper than filling, when you figure costs to the mill, as they usually did. Upper doesn't count because that work was inevitable whatever wood you chose.