Model 1868 I just found at a yard sale...

[Dick Hosmer]

I think Chuck may have come up with the answer - it would probably be possible to measure whether ALL of the impact centers fall within the range of a bounced rod; if they do I'd bet that's it. The block face should be hard, too, though. Also, remember that these were essentially test guns - maybe it was a controlled experiment at the Armory to see what kind of abuse the block would stand? Somewhere I have seen instructions warning that the soldier was NOT to "spring" the rod in the bore, but do not recall the exact time-frame, or specific model. Best part about it is that the "damage" is totally concealed and can be exhibited (or not) at your option.

Of course, after more rumination, you would think that if SA were testing something they would have been using the other end of the rod, so, it may well have been some kid after all! Thanks for sharing.

[Fred]

Yes, these rifles Were experimental weren't they. I forgot that they weren't issued. I wonder if the one that is all Salt and Pepper pitted could be one tested for the Navy with Salt Water?
Possibly This rifle's rod was bounced off the breech block face with the Big end of the rod first and no apprecable wear or damage occuring or noted, then they reversed the rod and bounced it again. Then upon looking at this very breech block, they implemented a directive of "Do not...".

[Fred]

Also, I'll bet that they decided to fire some rounds from this rifle afterwards to take note of any problems occurring with residue build up, problems with the copper balloon head case, problems with the damaged block face preventing the firing pin from operating properly and who knows what else.
It's no wonder that Springfield Armory had to put together 150 or so rifles. They had to put each and every part through rigorous tests. Many recommendations were no doubt made and implemented. The continued regulation of forbidding anyone from "bouncing" the rod off of the breech was emphasized I'll bet. Maybe there was a decision afterwards to harden the breech block faces better.
That's why these rifles are really important. If a person was able to study each and every one of the 150 rifles tested, they would see what the Springfield Armory inspectors and testers saw. That'd be neat.
There must've been some rifles that were destroyed or that were too badly damaged and so they were scrapped. The others might've been sold off.

[Dick Hosmer]

Well, we don't KNOW that they weren't ultimately issued - recall that 1903 #1 was accidentally discovered in service in the trenches of France - but it is tempting to conjecture that at least some were not, never having left SA. Still a GREAT find.

[Fred]

I'm thinking that a rifle with a dimpled breech block face and whose rear sight leaf didn't have the final accepted calibrations on it might not have been acceptable for issue. In that case, this rifle might've been considered to have been used up from testing and was retained at Springfield Armory until somebody decided to get rid of some of the "old guns" that had been accumulating around there.
Anyway, this one ended up here at a rundown Nebraska horse ranch that was, 111 years ago, a run down Hog Farm.
Who knows where it'll end up next.

[Fred]

I think Chuck may have come up with the answer - it would probably be possible to measure whether ALL of the impact centers fall within the range of a bounced rod; if they do I'd bet that's it. The block face should be hard, too, though. Also, remember that these were essentially test guns - maybe it was a controlled experiment at the Armory to see what kind of abuse the block would stand? Somewhere I have seen instructions warning that the soldier was NOT to "spring" the rod in the bore, but do not recall the exact time-frame, or specific model. Best part about it is that the "damage" is totally concealed and can be exhibited (or not) at your option.

I don't know if anyone can tell, but I coated the back end of the rod with oil and then brought it into repeated contact with the breech block face to see how well the dents matchup with where the rod made contact with it. It's a match. So, as we suspected, the damage was indeed caused by the tip of the small end of the cleaning rod. Quite possibly it was indeed a test of some sort on this rifle.

[Dick Hosmer]

Well then, thus it shall be - unless/until someone comes up with a better theory!

[Fred]

I can see where the metal had been forced over into the firing pin hole which would've impeded the firing pin tip from coming through the hole cleanly. This had been opened up again by somebody afterwards to allow the firing pin to function and putting the rifle back into serviceable condition. Yep, probably one of the tests that these rifles went through.

[butlersrangers]

I suspect it was some Kid in the 1950s, playing 'Davey Crockett at the Alamo', bouncing the wrong end of the 'rammer' off the breech-block face of "Old Betsy", cause he like the noise it made!!!

[Fred]

That's OK. I'll just replace this breech block with another in better condition.

[Dick Hosmer]

That's OK. I'll just replace this breech block with another in better condition.

Well, if those old rumors are to be believed you are probably the only person in the world with a spare!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fred]

LOL. I spoke with my cousin via facebook yesterday and sent him photo's of mine to compare with the other rifle. He said he'd follow up on it for me.