Trapdoor carbine trigger bow

[durt eagle]

Gentlemen, I have a question about the trigger bow on a trapdoor carbine. I noticed that the trigger bow on mine is not symmetrical, that is on one end the stem, or the part that is threaded for the nut which holds it to the plate, is longer and thinner than the other end. I hope I make myself clear enough to follow. What is the proper orientation for it as mounted on the plate. I have seen them both ways, with the thin end to the rear, and with the thin end to the front. I was also wondering why they did them this way instead of making them symmetrical so it will fit either way. If you can follow this and have an answer, I appreciate your help.
Bob

[5MadFarmers]

Gentlemen, I have a question about the trigger bow on a trapdoor carbine. I noticed that the trigger bow on mine is not symmetrical, that is on one end the stem, or the part that is threaded for the nut which holds it to the plate, is longer and thinner than the other end. I hope I make myself clear enough to follow. What is the proper orientation for it as mounted on the plate. I have seen them both ways, with the thin end to the rear, and with the thin end to the front. I was also wondering why they did them this way instead of making them symmetrical so it will fit either way. If you can follow this and have an answer, I appreciate your help.
Bob

Yes, I remember puzzling that. They made rifles and carbines at the same time. That part is a carry-over from the musket design in so many ways. See if you can spot the reason for the asymmetrical bow from the following fine photo.



Then, leveraging that knowledge, look at this fine specimen.

Top flight product.

Reminds me of the "Genuine imitation leather" marking on goods from the 1970s.

[Stephan]

My newest Trapdoor is a carbine and I pondered the trigger-guard orientation deal myself.

My carbine has the skinny milled-off loop end to the back...about 50% of the carbine pics I see have the bow installed the same. The rest of course installed the other way....surely somebody has a crate of factory new Trapdoor carbines and could look to see if Springfield cared which way they installed the trigger-bow?

[5MadFarmers]

Presumably nobody can answer definitively as nobody knows.

The more vertical bit is due to the sling swivel on rifles. The carbine doesn't need that but there'd be no advantage, and many disadvantages, to having separate jigs. Then it'd be peculiar if they installed them backwards from the rifle. Ergo the sloping bit is on the back.

Consider that definitive unless somebody can come up with something from manufacture to rebut it.

[Dick Hosmer]

Nearly all carbine bows were fashioned from left-over CW musket parts, which utilized sling swivels (both samples presented by 5MF for illustration are bogus in one way or another - the "carbine" BADLY so, it is a cut-down - or shade-tree assembled - POS, with serial number outside of carbine range).

For .50-70 and .45-70 rifles (which used slings) the bows were used as-is; for carbines (which did not use that type of sling) the swivel mounting pad was ground off and the part was polished. SA parts are mostly very well done, but those carbinized by Bannerman (et al) and Bubba can be a little rougher. I suspect that there was a protocol for orientation, but I'm fairly certain that same was not rigidly followed as it really makes zero difference, if function is the consideredation.

[5MadFarmers]

Nearly all carbine bows were fashioned from left-over CW musket parts, which utilized sling swivels

Seems more likely that under half of the carbines had recovered CW guard parts. Call it about 22,000 of the carbines.

[Dick Hosmer]

Since you rarely post without the research to back it up, please enlighten us. FWIW "under half" is nowhere near 22,000, so something is amiss from the git-go.

[5MadFarmers]

Since you rarely post without the research to back it up, please enlighten us. FWIW "under half" is nowhere near 22,000, so something is amiss from the git-go.

They made 61932 carbines, more or less, up to 1893 so 22,000 is under half right? More like 1/3 but I'm rounding. Heavily. As I often do. At least that's what a tally table I had laying around tells me. Mind past me did it and it's kind of sloppy overall but I'll trust past me wasn't completely out the window on it. Created in 2009. As I recall he was tracking serials. Frasca didn't include the spare parts receivers in his tally - that bit I remember. Anyway it's unaudited data from some years ago but the numbers probably aren't bad.

In the latter half of the 1870s they needed to start making the guns, complete, again. Thus Ordnance Memoranda 22 as maybe they were hazy by then. Which, on pages 37 and 57, helpfully tells how to make guard parts. That thing was printed in 1878. Which is about the time I'd say they ran out of musket parts.

Why do I claim that? Manufacturing reports. From the early 1870s to about 1877 they list all kinds of parts but the guards are absent. Then in 1877 they appear and are present after that.

Now one could wonder if the guard parts listed in the 1877 and later reports are just altering them but that creates a problem:

In 1874, thereabouts, they made 10,002 carbines. Which would need altered guards. Yet the report doesn't list those in the parts area.

Ergo they ran out of parts, guards anyway, about 1877. Thus less than 1/2 of carbines had recovered bows. 22523 carbines by 1877. So about that many.

Assuming that table past me did is right but I suspect it is.

Now why do you think they used musket parts for most of production? What is the source for that?

I ask because I have another pile of data and that might specifically have the answer but it's a lot of data and not easily churned quickly. I don't plan on doing that pile soon.

[Dick Hosmer]

Given the frugality of their operation, and the many thousands of CW muskets (and their supporting parts) left at the close of the war, I would have thought that the common parts, such as bows, would have lasted longer. However, fie on me, as I did not - as I could/should have - go through my RCOs in an attempt to verify parts production, as you apparently did.

I will admit to being misled by the associated fact that they did not "do anything" about the rifle bow until the advent of the RB rifle in 1890.

One would think that the two were connected? Funny they would have "run out" of something (that never existed in the virgin state in the first place) by 1877, yet have enough material to use on rifles for another 13 years. Stranger still, IF they went to making new bows for carbines (but not rifles) in 1877, why did they not make them symmetrical? Makes no sense, at all.

Also strange, that if, in 1877, they were so concerned with differentiating the bows, why they did not make a "no swivel" version of the one-piece guard, after running out of CW material?

I have a feeling there are a few more shoes teetering on the edge of a shelf in Imelda's closet.

[5MadFarmers]

Given the frugality of their operation, and the many thousands of CW muskets (and their supporting parts) left at the close of the war, I would have thought that the common parts, such as bows, would have lasted longer. However, fie on me, as I did not - as I could/should have - go through my RCOs in an attempt to verify parts production, as you apparently did.

If they had had electric lighting at SA during that era in 1872 an appraisal of the place would have shown a strange lack of bulbs. "The Great Franco-Prussian War Fire Sale."

Emptied the place. Hurried those Navy Remingtons to completion just to get peddle them. To the point where the SA workmen were being paid by the new owners while they finished them. I cannot imagine that happening today. Regardless, in 1872 one would have to search long and hard to find anything remotely called a "gun" in the system after that sale. The 1865s were in the sale.

The muskets fetched a fine price indeed. Complete. Whether the guns were accompanied by spares isn't something I recall.

It's more a wonder that they had any musket parts at that point.

I will admit to being misled by the associated fact that they did not "do anything" about the rifle bow until the advent of the RB rifle in 1890.

Just an observation. Don't know if it's related at all to that but it makes a bit of sense. "Springfield made the Chaffee-Reese rifles."

One would think that the two were connected? Funny they would have "run out" of something (that never existed in the virgin state in the first place) by 1877, yet have enough material to use on rifles for another 13 years. Stranger still, IF they went to making new bows for carbines (but not rifles) in 1877, why did they not make them symmetrical? Makes no sense, at all.

Work for government for a bit and then, and only then, will it make sense. Why make M-1903s in 1920 when "the war to end all wars" is over and you're sitting on perhaps 4 million rifles? They wanted to retain the capability. Thus it's a works project to keep the place running. The product doesn't matter as much. A works project. What they turn out isn't wanted or needed but they need to retain the place and work force.

Again, not based on anything but in 1945 the cars Detroit turned out were the 1941 cars basically. Springfield likely had the jigs to make the musket guard parts. Thus when they restarted that'd be the logical thing to make. Then the Chaffee-Reese guards were made. Then the trapdoor one-piece, which looks pretty similar to the CR, makes an appearance.

What I do know is they peddled the guns to the French in bulk.

[John Sukey]

I am a bit curious. That trigger guard appears to be on backward.

[5MadFarmers]

I am a bit curious. That trigger guard appears to be on backward.

That's quality marketing.

It was sold as Confederate capture. Without the gun being akimbo it's less believable. So reverse the guard and maybe the sight too. Make it look like something done carelessly. Emergency arm.

Quality marketing. Could only be improved by notching tally marks on the stock and maybe adding a bayonet gouge or two.

[Dick Hosmer]

I am a bit curious. That trigger guard appears to be on backward.

"Appears" ?? Ya think?? No sh*t, Dick Tracy!!

Not "quality marketing", just plain old garden variety stupidity on the part of the assembler.

[mr.j]

Hello You guys got some insane information on this type of stuff, but anyway my observation is that I notice carbine bows with a shallow groove at the back inside bar and carbine bows without it or its just not as defined. Why would this be and would this be the difference from new made bows to remade bow?

[Dick Hosmer]

I'm not clear on what you mean. How about a couple of pics? Thanks.