Trapdoor ?'s pics..

This one seemed different than other examples I have seen. Swivel bands are small U. Unit markings are stamped on trigger assembly tang. Serial number 1696 stamped on left side receiver..the squared off chamber area seems longer. There is 1869 eagle head u.s. stamped on top of trap door. The stock has no cartouches and is long wristed. Side plate is only stamped SPRINGFIELD and there are no case colors anywhere on the rifle. The bore is excellent and the black finish is consistent. Butt plate is stamped U.S. with a 13 above. Feed back is welcome.
[IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/coneten/TD-1.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/coneten/TD-2.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/coneten/TD-3.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/coneten/TD-5.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/coneten/TD-6.jpg[/IMG]

No Eagle or U.S. or date on side plate...was it scrubbed? The barrel has no SN#. Is the rear sight correct? I am wondering if this is 50-70?

No, it's put together I think. The .50/70s are in musket stocks which have "plateaus" upon which the lock is set. That has the .45-70 stock. The hammer is from a musket. Action is early .45-70. Stock is early - don't mess with it as it's kind of rare.

On second reflection it appears to be an early .45-70 with a musket hammer. Outside of the hammer it looks fine.

Would need detailed pictures to tell more.

Before attempting to disassemble it, if you intend to, just don't. It's a slow process to not damage that stock.

Interesting rifle.

1869 breech-block?

So early 1873 with wrong hammer and breechblock perhaps. Maybe breech itself is wrong?

Strange. I'd have to think about that one.

Thanks for your valued feedback. I think the rear sight is Model 1873 rifle sight. The SPRINGFIELD stamped on the side plate seems lower than most. The breech block is 1869. I will not attempt to remove the wood.

here are a couple more pics. The unit marking is 3 Co. C 57.
[IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/coneten/TD-8.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/coneten/TD-7.jpg[/IMG]

Probably a "Bannerman" or Stokes-Kirk

I have seen a few of the cut down Bannerman carbines and cadet rifles.

From your pictures here's what parts it appears to have. Condemned (or non-Springfield) 45-70 lock plate. If these failed an inspection they would be scrapped out partially finished, which yours appears to be. 50-70 hammer, M-1868 50-70 receiver. The barrel is a replacement, since it doesn't appear to be numbered to the receiver, as an M-1868 barrel would be. It could be a 45-70 or a 50-70. M-1868 cam latch assembly. M-1873 carbine rear sight (rifles are stepped to 400 yards), M-1868 cleaning rod. Either an early 45-70 stock, or a 50-70 stock with the flats rounded off around the lock. It looks slim, like a 45-70 stock, but it's hard to tell from pictures. The bands may be early 45-70, but this needs more investigation. 45 cal bands would not fit a 50-70 contour barrel without being relieved in the arch, and 50-70 bands would be loose with a 45-70 contour barrel. Some cadet bands will fit a 50-70 barrel in a slimmed down stock (Remingtons if I recall, but it's been a while).

It's interesting that the hammer lines up perfectly on the breechblock. It shouldn't when using a thin 45-70 lock plate and short shaft tumbler.

It's a "Bitsa" rifle, but it has a lot of interesting bits.

Stocks. People tend to take them apart too rapidly. It results in chips around the guard and lock-plate.

Other people can cover the method they use but mine involves liberal use of lemon oil and toothpicks. Also with a lot of patience. I soak the lemon oil into the gun around the lockplate and trigger guard. Over a period of days I worry at the edges with a toothpick. Giving it lemon oil to keep it moist. Only when it doesn't seem to be stuck together any longer to I put any pressure on it. Patience is a virtue on that.

I'm too brain fried right now to cover bits. tbeck has already done some of that.

I'll just note that if that stock is .45/70, and it appears to be, it's an early "long wrist" one. Those are getting pretty scarce. The stock would be in demand. In taking the gun apart use great patience to not chip it.

Some of the "non-Springfield" put togethers used shaved CW musket lock-plates. They're marked in various fashions. Removing that lock-plate would tell what it is. Assuming that matters as no matter how it comes out it's not a lock-plate your mother would love.

A picture of the rear sight, taken from above, would prove instructive.

I have just been given a tutorial. I had no idea that there were trapdoor Bitsa's. It is worth the sum of it's parts. Who knows how competent the person was who created this mongrel was. The rear sight is stepped to 1,000 yards. The barrel bands do not show any thinning in the arch. Thanks for all of the feedback.

A friend of mine took this off my hands. He measured the barrel..29.5 inches. Removed the wood and discovered that it had a long thin wooden shim under the barrel. The barrel had a P proof...it was re-barreled from 50-70.

I always thought MOST 45-70 trapdoors were "bitsas". Been seeing more "correct" ones lately, though.

I had one very similar. The stock was/is a musket stock with the corners of the flats rounded off to make it resemble a 45-70 stock. Remember that these companies were taking obsolete/scrap parts and making rifles to sell to the public. In many cases , they were trying to make the public believe that these "bitsa" rifles were newer models. Mine had 1884 stamped on the lock plate. The barrel channel had several layers of brown paper to take up the difference between the 50-70 and 45-70 barrels. Also , the rear sight was from some other type of rifle as was the cleaning rod.

Thats surely a Bannerman parts gun. The lockplate was NOT made by SA.

Have a look at the 1884 trapdoor I have in the "For Sale" board for a completely correct trapdoor :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m1903rifle

I had one very similar. The stock was/is a musket stock with the corners of the flats rounded off to make it resemble a 45-70 stock. Remember that these companies were taking obsolete/scrap parts and making rifles to sell to the public. In many cases , they were trying to make the public believe that these "bitsa" rifles were newer models. Mine had 1884 stamped on the lock plate. The barrel channel had several layers of brown paper to take up the difference between the 50-70 and 45-70 barrels. Also , the rear sight was from some other type of rifle as was the cleaning rod.

---

I'm perplexed by that claim. More often than not the obvious answer is the correct one. Perhaps they simply turned out the gun in 1884? Thus stamped the year they did it as that was common practice on the muskets and early trapdoors? I don't automatically see an intent to deceive there. Less of a case can be made for stamping "Springfield" on them - let's call that "marketing." There is in fact a company selling stuff with that name today....

The lockplates were, often enough, shaved CW plates. Thus probably "made at Springfield" but not "reworked" there.

Odd trivia fact of the day: barrels on some of the "after-market" guns are more accurate than those made at Springfield.

Frasca/Hill started or contributed to this situation. Calling them "fraudulent" guns. The ones made at Springfield were in fact the "fraudulent" ones. I have the patents and lawsuits which establish that.

While I'm on a roll....

It is not accurate to harsh on Bannerman. Most of the "pristine" trapdoor and Krag rifles out there are in fact "Bannerman" guns. Bannerman bought them in lots from the government and then sold them. Yes, they assembled guns from parts, but they retailed the originals. I have the records for them buying some of the scarcer trials guns (Ward-Burtons, etc).

In fairness to Bannerman, carbines sold better than rifles. If Bannerman was completely retail driven, there would be very few trapdoor or Krag rifles out there. "Profit" would dictate converting them to shorter editions as those sold better. In addition to selling the bulk of this stuff, the Bannerman concern was in fact interested in the history of it. He retained stuff in his catalogs long past the time it was gone just as a historical reference.

We all owe Bannerman. Every time I browse through one of the Fuller books I say thanks.

Feel free to disagree.

My friend is losing his eyesight and described the shim as wood..almost like a veneer. I bet he was handling the brown paper instead. I will certainly keep a closer eye on any trapdoors I encounter in the future. The guy I bought it from thought it was a"transitional" or "proto type". Someone else chimed in with "VMI cadet rifle because they wanted the US markings removed after the Civil War. I did read that here in Kentucky there are supposed to be a number of ex-West Point trapdoors that were refurbished and ended up in Kentucky military schools..KMI for one.

As previously stated by others, you have a TD that was assembled around to the turn of the cnetury for sale as a "near Springfield". The lock was condemned and sold for scrap. Here is a picture of another identical one that shows the C (for condemned) stamped on the back of it.