Yet another 1873 Trapdoor Carbine (maybe)

I have recently acquired and Trapdoor Springfield. It appears to be a carbine with a 22" barrel, side ring bar, and rear sight marked with a "C". Ser # 16789. Stock stamped left side near butt plate A..over SRS...over 33. The barrel appears to have been reblued at some point, and the butt plate does not have the hinged opening (the stock is not drilled either).
If someone can help me out on this it would be great. What else can I provide? Photos, of course, but exactly of what parts?
Probaby a lot to ask!

Photos: Overall, top of block, lockplate, serial number, tip of stock, swivelbar/ring, front sight. Yours should look VERY close to this one.

Attachment 89073

Hope these help...

I've sure seen worse...I'd take that one. Couple things not right but I'd be shootin' it anyway...

So probably not any collector interest? Sure wish I could figgure out the marking at the stock butt.

Collector interest would low, as it has been refinished and there are several replaced parts. Too bad it is not in original form and finish, because it is right in the midst of one of the "better" 7th Cav serial ranges. What, if anything, is stamped on the barrel, just above the wood, on the left side, between rear sight and receiver? The butt stamp appears to be S R P, not S R S. My guess would be something like "Troop A, Santa Rosa Police, rack #33 - note that it does not have to be a military unit, as many of those guns led multiple lives.

A good candidate for bringing back to original specifications. Look's like a correct early scarce long comb stock, has a early rough cross hatched hammer from what can be seen, correct no trap butt plate. Is the hammer the early high arch and if so that's a plus. The negative which I can see could be easy corrected like the front sight, rear sight, and the front swivel removed. The blued finish removed or toned down and browned or a more natural finish applied. Never will be a original one but a correct representative. Ray

That should say early high arch breach block, not hammer, Ray

Understand the slip about hammer vs. block - but why make the comment in the first place, since that block inscription NEVER occurs on anything BUT a high-arched block? Definitely "restorable" to a more representative condition, so long as the work is documented. Hope he answers the question about the barrel markings - that would speak volumes. I'd also like to see a shot of the trigger plate mortise. That is NOT an early stock - whether it is one of the rare long comb no trap "pre-1877 transitions" is yet to be determined. Unfortunately, the photography is somewhat reminiscent of the style of Trapdoors Galore, where the feature that you really wanted to see was JUST off the edge. While I'm fairly certain that the receiver was from a carbine, I'm not yet totally convinced that it isn't a made-up piece.

Sure would be nice if the original poster would update this, with a couple of very simple answers - perhaps shortly after the holidays? Thanks!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick Hosmer

Sure would be nice if the original poster would update this

---

Last on...12-08-2017 @ 08:27

I wouldn't hold my breath though Dick...he found out what he wanted...

Jim, I suspect you are correct. Merry Christmas!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick Hosmer

Merry Christmas!

---

You too Dick, and to yours.