Model 1872 Springfield rolling block ???????

[Brad]

I know it's not a trapdoor, but I didnt see any other catagory close and I thought someone on here might have some answers.??
There is an auction tomorrow that advertises a Model 1872 Springfield rollingblock, 50 caliber.
With a photo that confirms it is a rollingblock, but no real details are viable.
They say only 10,000 were made?
I am going to attend, as I really do try and accumulate Springfield made firearms.
So first, I was nor rally sure that Springfield actually made these. I thought they were Remington made of a Springfield design.
I guess I'm asking if there is anything I should look for, and a rough idea of value???
Wish I had more time, but dont want to lose out on this if it is rare???
Thanks for any help you might give.
Thanks

[11mm]

Dick Hosmer is this forum's authority on these. He has written a very good book on them. It may be an 1871 Springfield Army rifle dated 1872. According to Dick's book, they did make 10,000 of them which were really only distributed to national guard units and other non-regular formations. He claims that they are the most "frequently encountered " of the Springfield Rolling Blocks. Look for information on the internet and elsewhere before bidding.

[Dick Hosmer]

If the right side of the receiver is marked US/Springfield/1872 it is the Army model, of which 10,000 were made.

Actually, Brad, you have it just backwards - it is a Remington design, which was made at SA.

I wouldn't consider it "rare" by any means - a lot of them have survived, some in nearly new condition. I'd try to get it for as much under $1500 as possible, unless it is really "minty". SA made 22,000 of the Navy model, in two versions, plus the 1867 Navy Cadet and the two 1870s trials arms (rifle, 1000, damn scarce - carbine, 300, virtually un-heard of). SA also did a few musket conversions on the RB action. One could build a nice little sub-collection with all the variants.

[Brad]

Thanks everyone for jumping on board with this. I went to the auction and I thought the rifle was pretty nice. There was certainly no rust or pitting and actually some of the metal was still bright to some extent. The bore was perfect.
Now maybe I am wrong but my book and everything else I read told me the barrel should have been blued? It was not.
And there was no bayonet lug, which I did read were sometimes removed and a different socket bayonet was to be used.
I would have liked to have it, but its just not a good time for me to be spending allot of gum money, taxes, etc. It went for $1,350.00, which was probably a pretty good price. Who knows how high the other guy would have went?
Thanks again to all.
Brad

[Dick Hosmer]

Sounds like you have confused the Army with the Navy. It is the latter which is sometimes found with the lug (which was for a sword bayonet) ground off. The Army never had anything but the normal socket bayonet, which clamped over the sight lug. Army barrels were bright, at least some Navies have been seen blued. Hate to ask, but which "book" were you reading? Mine would have answered ALL of your questions. Cheap plug: $25 to POB1367 Colusa CA 95932 will get you a signed copy postpaid, and, the next time you will know what you are looking at! [grin]

[ebeeby]

+1 on Dick's book. I have a good example of the Army model. Excellent bore but it does not shoot Buffalo Arms 50-70 very well. I'll have to slug the barrel to see what's going on. So my experience has been that it is a disappointing rifle. I paid $1000 for it as it is indeed rare. The trapdoor just beat it out on every count and was firstest with the mostest.
The receiver should have case color with a bright barrel - did the auction example have any color left on the receiver?

[wsfbernie]

Another thought, and, once again using Dick's book as a reference. The Navy type I had a bright barrel (no finish). If the bayo lug
had been ground off and the sight was close to the receiver the rifle may have been a type I, somewhat more scarce.

[Dick Hosmer]

Just to chime in here, I'd say the Type 1 Navy, especially with full Navy proofs and bayonet lug intact, is considerably less common than "somewhat more scarce". Not all of the 10,000 made were accepted and stamped, and they hit the secondary market much sooner, during a period of high demand. Many reportedly found their way to France, via Poultney & Trimble and Remington. The government made enough to order 12,000 replacements with relocated sight.

I have seen exactly one (1) for sale at a show, about 20 years ago, which I bought - the price was very reasonable as condition is not the greatest - and no more than one or perhaps two on the internet, over nearly 45 years of collecting, though I certainly could have missed some in the early years when I was exclusively seeking trapdoors. I'm actually aware of more 1870 trials rifles, which had 1/10 the production!

Moral - if you find a complete Type 1 Navy, you probably shouldn't pass it up - you may not get a second chance.

In a similar vein, I just acquired, for a very modest price on Gunbroker, a decent 1st Model Hotchkiss Navy, which was the last piece on my realistic SA shopping list. Wasn't actually looking - had really pretty much decided to skip that variation, since I had a 2nd Model, but you know how that goes. :-)

[wsfbernie]

Dick, you now say P&T did not buy those Type I Navies, but that they got dispersed. Going by what you wrote in your book,
the Navy then had enough money to buy 12,000 of the Type II. You must have gotten some new info. So what did happen to
those 10,000 Type I's if they did not make it to France? I have one and you have one, but most are now unaccounted for.
Thanks for the input as the US versions of the rolling blocks are something unto themselves.

[Dick Hosmer]

Nothing has changed since the book that I am aware of.

However, I did mis-speak above, which I will edit. Sometimes I trust working off the top of my head a bit too much!