50-70 Trapdoor Unit Markings

Good Afternoon. Just secured a 1863/1870 Trapdoor and would appreciate information on the unit. Thanks, Randy

Attachment 52164

Attachment 52183Attachment 52184Attachment 52185Attachment 52186

It would appear that some units either marked the buttplate tang (not as common) or marked the rear part of the stock

Ed Byrns translated these markings from a early 1903 stock;

Troop H
8th Cavalry
trooper #18
The 8th Cavalry, Troop H fought in the 1916 Mexican Punitive Expedition

Your 50-70 marks should be able to ID the unit

We are not informed if this is a rifle or a carbine, so identification of the unit by branch depends on whether rifle or carbine. The markings on the stock in the first post is assumed to be on a rifle and would represent 15th Infantry Regiment, Company H, soldiers's number (often referred to by collectors as "rack number") 28.

The images in the second post appear to show a rifle with markings indicating 8th Regiment, (which could be 8th U.S. Infantry, 8th U.S. Cavalry, or 8th state militia regiment), Company (or in the case of cavalry "troop") H, soldier's number 18.

These buttstock markings were much more common in militia (National Guard, State Guard etc.) practice, as Army Regulations excepted the marking of arms. For example from "Regulations for the Army of the United States 1904" GPO 1905, p48: 286. Articles of public property issued to a company for its exclusive use will, when parcticable, be marked with the letter or number of the company and number and arm of the regiment. Such articles issued to an enlisted man (arms and clothing excepted) will, as far as practicable, be marked with the number of the man, letter or number of the company, and number of the regiment.

In some AR's the so-called rack number or "number of the man" is referred to as the "soldier's number." Regulations regarding marking of equipment were published during the Civil War, but seem to have been for the most part ignored. Specific regulations regarding marking property didn't appear in the Army Regulations until 1881, so units could mark or not mark equipment as the commander preferred, and often was merely a number which is assumed to be an issue or soldier's number for accountability purposes. Prior to about 1900 the location of the company letter and the regimental number were often applied company letter over branch insignia, over regimental number, over soldier's number in that order. About 1900 the regulations prescribed that the regimental number would appear over the branch of service insignia, over company letter, over soldier's number. However notice the order more-or-less indicated in the 1904 regulations previously quoted.

Starting in 1917 with the organization of many color bearing battalions this practice continued and it's necessary to have knowledge of Army organization of that period. For example there were independent machinegun battalions, and machine gun companies organic to infantry and cavalry regiments. Machinegun battalions marked their equipment as prescribed for a regiment. Machine gun companies organic to a regiment marked their equipment as prescribed for a regiment except the company letter was usually indicated as "MG."

Now having said all that the practice by units often strayed from regulations, which in some cases the mind set was to mark everything without regard to the regulations, and was sometimes directed by higher headquarters in spite of regulations. You would think that in the case of small arms a number, ("rack number" if you prefer) in conjunction with the serial number would be sufficient.

Good Evening and thanks for the information. My 50-70 is a rifle.

And I am guessing it is probably a Model 1868 Rifle, made in 1870, as opposed to a Model 1870 rifle, since there were about 5 times as many 1868s made than 1870s. The 1868 can be distinguished by the very long receiver nose and the presence of a pair of matched serial numbers on the left side above the wood, astride the barrel/receiver joint. The 1863 lockplate, left over from CW-era parts, would be correct for either model of breechloader. You might want to visit PictureTrail - Gallery