Serial Number Check - Trapdoor Please

[Bergerboy]

Hi Folks,

Looking for any and all historical info on serial #71657 I recently picked up at a LGS.
Its an 1873 model full-length Trapdoor in pretty nice overall condition.
I've shot about 10 rounds through her so far, and it operates as if it was new (as if I knew!).
What I have been able to research is that it was made somewhere late in the July to Sept 1876 timeframe.

The only strange thing is that I can not detect any stock cartouche, no matter how hard or close I look.
It doesn't appear to be a recently changed stock, and the typical cartouche area doesn't look like it was sanded or repaired that might have obliterated the cartouche stamping.
So, its a bit of a mystery to me.

Any help would be appreciated.

Pictures available if needed.

[Dick Hosmer]

Please post pictures. I have not found any reference to the number, but perhaps the pictures will suggest something.

[Bergerboy]

Thanks Dick.
Here's some quick photos of the Trapdoor taken today. (Had to wait for the snow to melt off the deck finally!)
Let me know your thoughts.

DSCN0490.jpgDSCN0473.jpgDSCN0474.jpgDSCN0475.jpgDSCN0476.jpg

[Bergerboy]

Batch #2

DSCN0476.jpgDSCN0478.jpgDSCN0479.jpgDSCN0480.jpgDSCN0481.jpg

[Bergerboy]

Batch #3 of 3DSCN0482.jpgDSCN0486.jpgDSCN0487.jpgDSCN0488.jpgDSCN0489.jpg

[Bergerboy]

One More!

OK - 1 more, because I think the Hammer cross-hatching is soooo sexy!DSCN0491.jpg

[raymeketa]

That serial number is right on the border line when a lot of parts were being changed and improved. That could account for the stock having no cartouche if it was a field replacement. Of course, the down side is that it could be a rebuilt or refinished parts gun.

But, Mr Hosmer is the expert and he can give you the straight scoop. Trust him, not me.

Ray

[Bergerboy]

Thanks Ray,
Yeah - my cursory research placed it right toward the end of the July-Sept 1876 build range, which ended with #71673 - less than twenty rifles after mine.
She's a beauty, in my opinion, and fires really well for a 140 year old girl.
I especially like the "active" ejection mechanism of the empty shell.
Reminds me of the lively "ping" of my M1 Garand when I've shot my eighth round.

[ebeeby]

Nice rifle! I think that it would have been issued with a long wrist stock so I agree the stock is a replacement.

But Dick will soon have an expert assessment...

[Bergerboy]

Bumping up to the top, for Mr. Hosmer's consideration.

[Dick Hosmer]

Sorry to say, but - due to what features are present, and the nuances of several non-matching finish colors, I think that is a very nicely-rendered assembly of parts. Glad you are having fun shooting it.

The stock could go either way, but it is crucial that there not be a step in the inletting at the barrel-receiver joint. With no cartouche, that is one of two ways to tell if the stock is an early or late short-wrist. The other is to pull the trigger guard (VERY carefully) to see if there is a ramrod cleanout hole - there should not be.

The two horizontal bars on the hammer are, I believe, not original. The hammer, thumblatch, and block are the very earliest versions of each, and all were long gone by 71xxx. Early hammers and lockplates (but not blocks) were used on the "star" rebuilds of the early 1880s.

The rear sight has been up-dated from the expected 1873 stepped version, but that is almost a given, so really not a big deal.

[Bergerboy]

Thanks for the quick feedback on this rifle.
No need for apologies on what you're seeing - I'm not THAT personally attached to it!
However, I wouldn't mind understanding what you'd classify this as, in general.
"a very nicely-rendered assembly of parts"?
Is your assessment that this was cobbled together recently? Out of authentic or questionable parts?
Or was it typical of (and does this represent) period rebuilds due to military damage, updated parts, etc.?
I can do a little further digging on the parts (like the stock ramrod hole) as you suggest, but what exactly would that tell me? Is the difference between early or late short-wrist stocks really critical to anything, like authenticity, value, hisotorical signficance?
Sorry for what might be newbie questions, but this is my first trapdoor. I'm familiar with these types of nuances in several other weapons I collect, but not-so-much here (but willing to learn!).
I mainly want a little "stroking" to let me know if I still have a worthwhile piece of history that may have seen period updating. Or whether I've got a recently "Frankensteined" monstrosity, that I should just be happy shooting without much of an eye towards its history.
Thanks for your patience!

[Dick Hosmer]

Fair questions, which I'll try to address.

(1) I cannot tell how recently it was assembled - even if I held it in my hands. I do not, however, believe the parts themselves are faked, or not genuine, though the hammer has been, shall we say, 'customized'.

(2) I can tell you that, after 45 years of collecting these guns, I am 99.99% certain that the assembly as presented was not done officially, and so is not a historical artifact in the narrow sense. A very early gun with some later parts may or may not be "right", since there certainly were breakages, overhauls, refinishes, etc. But, an intermediate or late gun with very early parts generally spells trouble, so, no, it is not, IMHO, a "typical" military rebuild. It is, to me, somewhat reminiscent of many of the guns assembled at a certain large establishment in southern Nevada.

(3) The stock could be correct for the serial number. If so, it must have no-step inletting, and it must not have the cleanout hole. In my opinion, if the stock is not correct for the receiver, then yes, authenticity and value do suffer, when one is discussing a collectible gun.

(4) I do not know why you bought that gun, as opposed to another (if you were simply seeking a generic "trapdoor" to enjoy shooting) nor what you paid for it. It is a nice looking piece, and if you are having fun shooting it, that is wonderful. However, if someone blew a lot of smoke at you, and intimated that it was a correct historical piece, they were really not being truthful. I'd love it and shoot it, but not ask it to talk.

I have no problem whatsoever in helping people, nor taking the time to answer even the most basic questions. I was helped by old-timers when I started, and I see this as payback. In some cases, my candor has not made friends, and I'm not big on stroking for the sake of stroking. Sorry.

Hope that helps.

[Bergerboy]

Thanks again Sir, for all the good input and patience.
I did a little disassembly tonight, and took a few more photos to try to share some of the hidden details.
I was not able to find any clean-out hole for the ramrod in the area I would have expected it under the trigger guard.
And I'm not entirely sure about the no-step inletting aspect in the stock area of the receiver/barrel joint, so I took a few pictures in this area. Although there is a bit of a taper from the barrel hollow, wider to the receiver channel. And there is a small "notch" in the left side wall where the breech hinge spring (?) fits in.
I will say that all the "machining" of the stock to make the openings for all the hardware, all appear to be very cleanly done. The surfaces almost look to have more modern looking machining marks, and the edges appear fairly sharp and unworn. I'm not sure what the manufacturing processes were in the 1870s for wood, but these look almost too modern, certainly not hand carved looking.
Any further insight would be appreciated. I've put a bid in on a copy of Frasca's book, to try to educate myself on the basics, but its not close to being in my hands yet.
DSCN0494.jpgDSCN0495.jpgDSCN0496.jpgDSCN0498.jpgDSCN0499.jpg

[Bergerboy]

Here's a few more, mostly of the hardware, since I had the parts off.
DSCN0501.jpgDSCN0503.jpgDSCN0504.jpgDSCN0506.jpgDSCN0508.jpg