1873 Trapdoor Carbine

[Shrapnel]

Here is a picture of the stock with the buttplate removed. I'm not sure you could get a rod in that hole...

[JimF]

Here is a picture of the stock with the buttplate removed. I'm not sure you could get a rod in that hole...

Three piece rod plus a headless shell extractor will slip right in.

[Shrapnel]

Three piece rod plus a headless shell extractor will slip right in.

Slip right in to what?

[Dick Hosmer]

WONDERFUL pictures - far superior to what we are usually asked to work from. Not a well-populated range for carbines, but 10398, 10445, and 10840 have been recorded. Stock and barrel have been replaced - the stock, and furniture, date to 1877 or later, and barrel proofs started around 43000. Of great interest would be whether or not there is a trap in the butt. If there is not, you have a very rare stock. If there is, one must SERIOUSLY question why the plain butt-plate, as that might indicate an intent to deceive. I have to say that the front sight base appears to have sharper than normal corners, and at least appears to be a trifle too tall? The blade should be steel, not brass. But, all-in-all, a very nice-looking gun. Enjoy it!

[Shrapnel]

WONDERFUL pictures - far superior to what we are usually asked to work from. Not a well-populated range for carbines, but 10398, 10445, and 10840 have been recorded. Stock and barrel have been replaced - the stock, and furniture, date to 1877 or later, and barrel proofs started around 43000. Of great interest would be whether or not there is a trap in the butt. If there is not, you have a very rare stock. If there is, one must SERIOUSLY question why the plain butt-plate, as that might indicate an intent to deceive. I have to say that the front sight base appears to have sharper than normal corners, and at least appears to be a trifle too tall? The blade should be steel, not brass. But, all-in-all, a very nice-looking gun. Enjoy it!

Thanks for your information. As far as the holes in the butt stock for a cleaning rod goes, I took those pictures showing the cleaning rod bottomed out in the holes. This picture illustrates how that no cleaning rod would fit in this stock, even with the later buttplate that was designed for a cleaning rod...

[mr.j]

That is not the correct cleaning rod for that rifle, even though it may work on getting it clean don't mean it was made for the above rifle.

[Shrapnel]

That is not the correct cleaning rod for that rifle, even though it may work on getting it clean don't mean it was made for the above rifle.

Correct or not, it would take a 20 piece rod to fit in the shallow holes that are in the butt stock and I know that isn?t right.

[mr.j]

The correct cleaning rod when all three rods are attached 22" the same length as the barrel. So each rod is a little over 7". The rod you need was specifically made at the Springfield armory for the Springfield trapdoor carbine. They are all identical. And then there is the one piece rod made specifically for the longer full length trapdoor rifle 32".

[Shrapnel]

The correct cleaning rod when all three rods are attached 22" the same length as the barrel. So each rod is a little over 7". The rod you need was specifically made at the Springfield armory for the Springfield trapdoor carbine. They are all identical. And then there is the one piece rod made specifically for the longer full length trapdoor rifle 32".

Take another look, there is no way a 7 inch rod would fit in those holes!

[Dick Hosmer]

I'm now thinking a stock (even possibly a repro) which was never fully machined. It's a puzzle for sure. Tip-off? The wood milling looks "fresh", not almost 150 years old.

[Shrapnel]

The protection of a butt plate or heel cap as in this case with a shotgun made in 1867, you can see how fresh it can look over 150 years later. It still remains puzzling as to why the holes would be so shallow. Also the JC marks on the trapdoor would indicate it wasn't a late reproduction...

[Dick Hosmer]

Granted (gorgeous wood!) but that carbine stock inletting just doesn't smell right! The holes should be "about" 7" deep, and the center one should be over-bored for "about" 3.5" so as to allow the 1875 Tegethoff 4-finger HSE to sit around the center rod. I just do not believe that SA did what you have.

[alfajim]

Dick what does your book say about the serial number if anything as it is a real early number?

Jim O

[70ish]

IMG_1054.jpgIMG_1056.jpg

Perhaps the rods you have are a wider diameter than the originals.

[Shrapnel]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]49257[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]49258[/ATTACH]

Perhaps the rods you have are a wider diameter than the originals.

I don't know how I can make it more clear:

The holes are not deep enough!