Frasca: The .45-70 Springfield

[IditarodJoe]

In anticipation of shopping for a .45-70 Trapdoor, I've been studying Al Frasca's book but I'm having a problem correlating dates and serial numbers. The dates and serial numbers presented in Appendix F-2 (pg. 378) don't seem to match up with the text. For instance, in Section 5.8 (pg 74), the author states that longer, deeper gas ports were initiated in "early 1877" between s/n 77,387 and 77,670 and provides text from a supporting letter from J.G. Benton dated December 1876. The table in Appendix F-2, however, estimates that 1877 production encompassed serial numbers 74,216 through 76,727. So according to the table, the specific serial numbers cited wouldn't have been produced until 1878. I find this problem in other areas as well.

Am I missing something here (highly possible)? Thanks.

[Dick Hosmer]

Answer is somewhat complex around that time period - more tonight.

[IditarodJoe]

Thanks Dick. Complex is OK. Piecing together this type of history is fascinating and I definitely look forward to learning more.

[mr.j]

I think at one time the serial number table was off and was later corrected. I have a book that shows 1877 SN ending at 76,945 and according to the trapdoorcollectors site the 1877 sn ends at 94,000.

[Dick Hosmer]

Sorry, got involved in other stuff last night. There are unique "problems" in the 1877/1878 area because of three things:

(1) The always present situation that arms were assembled from barrels of parts on a last-in first-out basis. There is always some random stagger.
(2) The accounting method changed from fiscal to calendar (or calendar to fiscal - I have it written down somewhere - CRS - but it did change, and at that time)
(3) No arms were produced at SA during a 6-month period in 1877, because the Army appropriations bill did not pass Congress. Only 16 rifles were supposedly produced in 1877, but MANY more than that have been reported/identified.

The gas escape thing is a major help because it is one of the few cases where the a physical change (as related to when it was suggested/authorized) can be tied to a number. This is also true of the width change at 96,300. Nearly every other change is purely subjective with no way to track it.

Not a direct answer, but gives some more food for thought.

[deadin]

FWIW, or to just confuse the issue more, I have a note from Vance Haynes concerning a rough Officers Model Rifle I own. I filled out all of his paperwork and sent him detailed pictures. The following is his entry into his notes on the OMR’s:

58. Dingler’s Group 3 receiver is a Type 2b with the steep step angle at the rear end of the Gas Escape Port (GEP) whereas all other Group 3 receivers of record (Table Y, Column 12) are Type 2a. The steep step angle does not appear in the production record (Table 1) until the quarter Jan-Mar 1878, six months after the batch of 100 Group 3 OMRs were made in 1877.
However, for some unknown reason, a single Group 3 OMR was made in the quarter April-June 1878 corresponding to serial range 81224 to 89726 (Table 1)
Dingler’s Group 3 may be that single OMR made in 1878.

[Dick Hosmer]

I also have a "rather-less-than-pristine" OM from that interesting transitional period. Which tang sight does yours have? Which barrel sight - if the stepped 1873, which side are the graduations on? Now that you mention it, I seem to recall Vance commenting on the fact that not all of the shallow/early gas escapes on narrow receivers are identical. Another way to "date" OMs is by the double-struck V P on the barrel which can be correlated to standard (numbered) arms being assembled at the same time.

[deadin]

Dick,
It has the single screw tang sight (The failure). The barrel sight is the 1873 type stepped sight with 50, 1,2,3,4 on the left side and 6 thru 12 on the ladder. (slotless screws).
Only a single V-P on the top of the barrel, but has 2 P's on the bottom or the barrel.
I think you have seen pictures of this rifle. It's the one that Vance provided me with drawings and measurements of the missing bits so I could fabricate them (somewhat....).

[IditarodJoe]

Thank you Dick. The best sense I can make of it is as follows:

The excerpt from the December 6, 1876 letter from Lt. Col. Benton to the Chief of Ordnance appears in Frasca's book without context, so it is possible that the discussion related to a proposed future change to the gas ports. The change may have been approved sometime in 1876 or 1877 but, if s/n 77640 is a reliable indicator of early use, it would seem it wasn't actually implemented until late 1877 or early 1878. I don't see how the accounting method would have any direct bearing on this, but if the Army was experiencing serious financial constraints (due to lack of appropriation), then implementation could have just been put on the back burner until funding came through.

I read that the armory generally tried to maintain a stock of around four months supply of receivers. Does anyone know at what point the receivers were actually stamped with serial numbers? In other words, would that four month supply of receivers have been serialized while in the warehouse or would they have waited until they were pulled for production before stamping them?

[Dick Hosmer]

Dick,
It has the single screw tang sight (The failure). The barrel sight is the 1873 type stepped sight with 50, 1,2,3,4 on the left side and 6 thru 12 on the ladder. (slotless screws).
Only a single V-P on the top of the barrel, but has 2 P's on the bottom or the barrel.
I think you have seen pictures of this rifle. It's the one that Vance provided me with drawings and measurements of the missing bits so I could fabricate them (somewhat....).

You know, I think we have discussed this before - yours is just like mine.

[Dick Hosmer]

Thank you Dick. The best sense I can make of it is as follows:

The excerpt from the December 6, 1876 letter from Lt. Col. Benton to the Chief of Ordnance appears in Frasca's book without context, so it is possible that the discussion related to a proposed future change to the gas ports. The change may have been approved sometime in 1876 or 1877 but, if s/n 77640 is a reliable indicator of early use, it would seem it wasn't actually implemented until late 1877 or early 1878. I don't see how the accounting method would have any direct bearing on this, but if the Army was experiencing serious financial constraints (due to lack of appropriation), then implementation could have just been put on the back burner until funding came through.

I read that the armory generally tried to maintain a stock of around four months supply of receivers. Does anyone know at what point the receivers were actually stamped with serial numbers? In other words, would that four month supply of receivers have been serialized while in the warehouse or would they have waited until they were pulled for production before stamping them?

According to OM22, numbering occurred just prior to final gauging and before case-hardening - so - they would have been 100% complete, ready for assembly, when stored. I can pin the change a little closer, as I own 77593 (*see www.picturetrail.com/sa4570af) which has the deep cuts. For many years, it was the lowest one known, but Jack Lewis (Cowans Auctions) finally "beat" me by 5 or 6 - don't have his exact number at hand. The marking method may be tied to the accounting method more than you would think. Recall that the stock cartouche also changed at this time, going from the small oval (ESA) to the large oval (ESA/1877). Guns in this area also have the transition stock with thick wrist and narrow inletting.

*sorry - picture posting process on this site SUCKS - worst of any board I frequent.