Springfield 1873 Trap-Door Rifle - Information?

[s&wowner]

I just picked up a Springfield 1873 Trap-Door and would appreciate any additional information.

So far - I have found...

1. I paid way toooo much for this puppy but still love it!
2. It looks like it was assembled by Bannerman.
3. Overall length is 52 inches.
4. It appears that the serial number was removed - maybe stolen during its life time?
5. 24 on the Breech Screw may have been a Rack Number?
6. Has the standard VP marks (not in pictures) on barrel.
7. Breech block has number 66 engraved.
8. A picture shows one of the Barrel Bands ("U") on the wrong side - have corrected that.

Any information on this puppy would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Additional images on next post...











Additional images on next post...

[s&wowner]

[SMOKEY]

Contact Mr. Hosmer of this site. He may just know a wee bit about it

[s&wowner]

Contact Mr. Hosmer of this site. He may just know a wee bit about it

Thanks - just sent him a PM.

[s&wowner]

OK - I found a few threads that identified markings near the butt plate of a Springfield as being (top to bottom) Infantry, Company and Rack Number. Assuming that "might" be true - can anyone help me ID the markings on my puppy?

MARK: "I"?
MARK: "C", "D" or "O"?
MARK: "23"

Thanks!

[Dick Hosmer]

Well, not exactly. One of the most common marking formats is regiment/company/rack. There was no need to specify infantry.

The biggest ID problem is that it is nearly impossible to determine which regiment is meant. At the time it was obvious to the user, but absent any other data, one cannot tell if it was supposed to mean 1st Rhode Island or 1st Kansas. Most of these marks were applied to arms used by one of the State militia units - usually around the time of the Spanish-American War. The regular army seldom applied such markings.

I read that as 1 / C / 23 on the stock. But, since the arm is clearly made of mixed parts, I would not try to rationalize same against the 24 on the tang, or even be concerned that it does not "match".

[s&wowner]

As usual - thanks! It has been a fun ride trying to figure out this puppy. I find my self sitting back looking at it and wondering about all its history - if it could only talk. Thank you so very much for jumping in with your vast knowledge. It is appreciated.

[John Sukey]

Once had 30 of them before being bitten by the Enfied bug. That is a 1879 breech block. The 73 block had a much higher arch on the underside

[s&wowner]

Thanks John. FWIW - I just bought a book: .45-70 Springfield by Joe Poyer and Craig Riesch and so far found that my new puppy has...

1. Page 46 Figure 3-9 - 6th Type Breech Block (...stamped "3" that looks like an "8" and the bottom line of the "L" in "Model" is missing...looks like an "I"...February 1883-December 1886...)

2. Page 64 Figure 5-5 - 1st Type Lock Plate

3. Page 72 Figure 5-24 - 3rd Type Hammer with Beveled Lip

4. Page 76 Figure 6-7 - 2nd Type Trigger (...authorized on March 17, 1883...)

5. Page 130 - Figure 8-26 - 3rd Form of the Model 1879 Rear Sight (Buckhorn).

Just read (as other's have noted) that many rifles sent for repair were automatically upgraded to new parts (when available). Back to the book!

[Dick Hosmer]

That book will certainly help you get started - it is a great reference for the person just starting out in trapdoors.

Perhaps the biggest "drawback" is that the "Types" noted, were assigned arbitrarily in the late 20th century, do not always apply in perfect numerical/calendar order, and in many cases bear no relationship whatsoever to what the government may or may not have considered to constitute a different part. When you quote "types" on the various discussion forums, be sure to note that they are Poyer types, otherwise you run the risk of confusing your audience.

Also, be aware that there are certain "types" of parts which do not belong together, and which when so encountered definitely indicate that someone other than SA was involved. For example, your rifle's narrow receiver was once numbered somewhere below 96300, and the wide breechblock now fitted dates from beyond (perhaps as much as 8 years beyond) that point. SA would not have done that.

That is not an "1879 block". IF a model was applied (it was not) it would have been 1878. The rear sight shown is commonly referred to as the M1879, however.

Also, not all 1873 blocks (even the narrow ones) have the high arch - the third version of the narrow block (s/n roughly 80000 to 96300) had the low arch. Arch and width did not change at the same time.

[s&wowner]

Thanks Dick - I think I will now call it a day and hang it proudly up on the wall!

I don't know how you guys do it - so many variations - so little time.

Thanks again.

[Kragrifle]

Dick is being modest. Buy his book(s) and while you are at it, pick up the two book series by Al Frasca.

[s&wowner]

Dick is being modest. Buy his book(s) and while you are at it, pick up the two book series by Al Frasca.

ABSOLUTELY! I just PM'd Dick and will look up Frasca.

Thanks!

[Dick Hosmer]

ABSOLUTELY! I just PM'd Dick and will look up Frasca.

Thanks!

To whom it may concern:

For a couple of reasons (quirks if you will) I do NOT use the internal PM system at this, or any other, forum. Anyone wishing to contact me should do so via email at richardahosmer@comcast.net. Thank you.

Book status:

(1) "The .58 and .50 Caliber Rifles and Carbines of the Springfield Armory, 1865-1872" (2006) signed copies (Priority Mail in the US included) available for $25 @ POB1367 Colusa CA 95932
(2) "More .45-70 Springfields - The Uncommon, the Scarce, and the Rare, 1873-1895" (©R.A.Hosmer, 2012) is due 2015/2016 - but am NOT taking orders yet!
(3) no current plans

[s&wowner]

Understood Dick - and thanks for the information.