New trapdoor, what do I have?

[daveboy]

Hello

Have been collecting milsurps for several years, but have only been studying Trapdoors for a couple of weeks. Ignorance has never kept me from parting with my cash before and so why stop now?

Just purchased this rifle and am not really sure what I have. It is probably a put-together because it has some features that to my limited knowledge do not go together. S/N is 5561XX.

Can anyone shed any light on exactly what I have? I haven't put my hands on it yet but when i do I can post more photos if needed.

Thanks a lot. I hope to learn quite a bit more about Trapdoors by reading this forum.

daveboy

34043405340634073408

[musketshooter]

It looks like a nice rod bayonet rifle. It should have a dated cartouche on the left. 1891 or 1892.
The sling looks like a post 1900 O3 sling. The tools for the butt stock are fairly easy to find. Load it up and have at it. Great fun gun.

[JimF]

Model 1888 RRB (Round-Rod Bayonet). . . . mfg.'d in the last quarter (Oct.-Dec.) of 1892, one of 4,580 rifles made during that quarter.

It's the last and "best" of the trapdoors, (also about the heaviest . . . thanks to the one-piece forged trigger guard, bayonet and clasp aperatus) and many were made then put in immediate storage. This is one reason they can be found in excellent condition. --Jim

[JimF]

I should have said also, that the "1884" dated breech block is CORRECT for the Model '88 RRB.

So far, Daveboy, I see no reason to suspect a "put-together" . . . .more pictures please! (how about a close-up of the rear sight?) --Jim

[daveboy]

Thanks for the replies. I suspected a "put together" because: (1) the breech date of 1884 [which JimF informs me is okay], (2) it appears in some other photos that the cartouches are gone, and (3) the later model sling.

But, if it is anywhere near original I will be pleased. Will definitely post more photos when I get it in my hands.

daveboy

[daveboy]

Told you I would provide photos when I could. Pretty pleased with my purchase. Stock has been refinished at some point and the inspector's cartouche was sanded off, but I knew that going in. Appears to have the 1879 rear sight which I understand is not "correct". Also, upon disassembly I discovered that the firing pin is broken, which I understand is quite common with these. Other than that everything seems good. The bore looks like a rifled mirror, breechblock locks up real tight. Metal finish is good with no rust and the wood looks nicely figured. The wood should look real good once I get the glossy varnish off and get some BLO back in it.

One question I have is that I will have to remove the bayonet locking device because the barrel bands are installed backwards (U toward the shooter). Is this a difficult procedure? I know it is spring-loaded so I wanted to check before I drove the pin out.

Enjoy the pics.

daveboy

[Dan Shapiro]

Nice looking rifle. No, the RB is not difficult to remove. The springs are located under the tabs. It will come off as one complete unit.

[JimF]

Yes, it has the incorrect M'79 sight . . . . you need the Buffington sight WITH the attendant notched, lower band.
As Dan stated, it's easy to remove the bayonet latch apperatus. --Jim

[Dan Shapiro]

If you do decide to pick up a Buffington sight, note that some were "pinned" at the armory (per the request of the CO of the receiving unit). This means that the windage adjustment is VERY hard to move, if not impossible. Check the underside and you'll find a polished area were the pin was inserted and then buffed smooth. Some CO's didn't want the troops messing with that 'newfangled windage thing".

[daveboy]

Got the bayonet latch off, not as bad as I assumed. Thanks for giving me the courage. Once I shoot it and determine if it is accurate, I will probably get the proper rear sight. But, will have to shoot it first and see if it is worth it. Got bubba's varnish off today and the wood looks really good. BTW, it does have the proper, notched rear band.

Thanks for the education.

daveboy

[Mark Daiute]

You'll forgive me if you were aware of this but the the "U" on the barrel bands stands for "up" and should be up (open) towards the muzzle and on the right hand side of the barrel. Am I reading the photo incorrectly?

I don't know if anyone mentioned this but if they did not- with a service load the rifle will (unless of course the front sight was altered) shoot about 12 inches high at 100 yards.

With a barrel like you describe this rifle should shoot like a champ. Keep us informed.

Best,

Mark

[daveboy]

Yeah Mark, I think you are looking at the photo incorrectly. The U is toward the shooter in the photos. One fairly unique thing about the Trapdoor I see is that if the bands are wrong on other rifles (say a Krag) it makes little difference. On a Trapdoor, if they are wrong and you have a sling installed just trying using the stacking swivel! And I figured that it will shoot high. I may work with the load to correct this, or I may install a taller frong sight blade.

I will be in the process of cleaning her up for the next few weeks. Thanks for all the info.

[5MadFarmers]

Yes, it has the incorrect M'79 sight . . . . you need the Buffington sight WITH the attendant notched, lower band.
As Dan stated, it's easy to remove the bayonet latch apperatus. --Jim

Numbers of trapdoors were at Rock Island when the unpleasantness of 1898 started. They needed guns and had trapdoors sans sights. They didn't bother with getting too particular about model. So, while it wasn't made that way, I wouldn't say it's "incorrect."

That said, I agree with you - if I had it I'd likely replace the sight. Naw, on second thought I just wouldn't care enough to bother.

[Dick Hosmer]

I do NOT believe ANY US ordnance facility would have installed M1879 "Buckhorn" sights on an 1888, period. Probably done by the same doofus that got the band(s) backwards. BTW, the bands are tapered, so handle them carefully when swapping if they are hard to move. When disassembling the rod-catch, use care to not lose the little springs under the thumbpieces. The 1888 is not as bad as the 1884XRRB - that latch you do not want to take apart unless you absolutely must.

[5MadFarmers]

I do NOT believe ANY US ordnance facility would have installed M1879 "Buckhorn" sights on an 1888, period.
I do NOT believe that the US ordnance facility which installed the sights discriminated amongst the models unless there was a physical reason to. "Model 1888" isn't in any of these documents. They were "Springfield rifle, caliber .45." No model was generally used except for inventory records (1). When parts were ordered they didn't specify model as the guns, as were most things, were made of interchangeable parts. The orders to SA for parts do not list models. Unless it's mechanically required. The rod bayonet rifles are exactly that - rod bayonet rifles. Do you really believe that SA slowed down Krag production to turn out Buffington sights so they could be above installing Buckhorns? Which they had on hand? (2)

(1) The inventory reports don't segregate the rod bayonet rifles from the normal model 1884 rifles. They're "Springfield rifles, cal. .45, model 1884" on the inventory reports.
(2) The Militia were returning .50 caliber, and older, guns en masse. Blunt had to rearm these "volunteers" with .45 caliber Springfield rifles. He did.

I already posted Blunt's telegram on sights once.

[5MadFarmers]

I already posted Blunt's telegram on sights once.

This makes twice. Notice the big fat OR in that line. Mind you this is after the unpleasantness was over and they weren't rushed to get guns out any longer.

Believe what you will - I stand by what I claimed.

http://www.5madfarmers.com/dick.jpg

[5MadFarmers]

I'll spend a bit of time on that as it might be helpful. First - the history of that record and then a little bit on the records as a group.

On the first pass through that tape I was looking for something specific - those round "SpanAm" meat cans. If the history of those was all I found that week I would have been happy. Yes, I found that. As I was looking I was grabbing both camera and printed shots of interesting documents. Interesting to me anyway. That one caught my eye as it was part of a series on the guns issued during the war. I didn't search the tape in any methodical fashion during that visit. Still haven't. I call it "sampling." I sampled a lot. I was after some specific sword information for another person and the meat cans for me. If I bumped into other stuff - awesome. Trials rifles data was of great interest of course. Peculiar model guns in records also.

So I have a pile of records from that a some subsequent visits. It's not really in any order. In fact it took me a dig to find that record as I've not processed them yet. For a reason.

I'm making more trips. I was just there a couple of weeks ago. I still haven't developed a rhythm for that tape. I tell myself that next time I'll have it. It's harder than you'd think as my wife is actually the one doing the tape while I do other stuff. Mainly paper based. So next time she'll have her own camera and instructions. Grab a tape. Photo the label. Photo and print real interesting stuff. The more pictures the better!. That last is why the recent trip was unsatisfying. She was too parsimonious on the camera shots. No matter, we'll be back. Repeatedly.

Now, a picture of what I saw in those tapes from those visits. I say "those visits" as the tape precedes that war. We're going to start at the first tape and work forward. It'll be years before I get back to 1898. I don't care as I'd rather be thorough. So I'm working from the photos and prints I took in the first couple of trips.

1) I had no idea what the situation of the war was like at RIA.
2) I had no idea how large RIA was. Much bigger than SA. Massively bigger. I'll give you a scale: RIA made '03 rifles. 1/3 the capacity of SA. That is pretty much all of SA making those rifles. For RIA the guns were made in a building. One building. Which is one of 10 of that style. It's not the only style building. Massively bigger.
3) I was under the impression that SA issued rifles. Not so. RIA issued everything and made most of it. They'd order rifles from SA and then issue a complete equipment set to the troops. So they'd get rifles from SA, make the canteens, meat cans, belts, saddles, etc. Order, and finish, belts from Mills (yes, his Brother in Law's name was used). In inventory at RIA were a lot of guns. In the hundreds of thousands.
4) I didn't realize how much repair of the rifles was done at RIA. The guns were issued from RIA and returned to RIA. They didn't ship them to SA for repair - they did it. Did SA repair some? Certainly. Not the point though - RIA repaired over 100,000 trapdoors for the war.
5) I, like many of you, held a "collector's view" of this stuff. After that trip I lost that. I just think differently now. Because they didn't think like we do. Stuff didn't happen like we think it did. I'll expound on that in just a minor way - having to do with a previous post on bayonet scabbards and the mounting of them (hook versus loop).

The regular army received new gear. The militia received old gear. The militia held on to it for great lengths of time. It wasn't until after the Dick Act that the Militia received new gear. So we think "hook replaced loop" but that's not so. The bulk of the gear was in the hands of the militia. There is no point in sending hook gear to troops not having the correct belts. The bayonet scabbards had to match the belts. So the army received hooks but the Militia received loops for a great time after that. Most of the gear was not worked out of the system for a very long period of time. The "survey" of the arms in the hands of the Militia in 1898 shows clearly that a large number of .50 rifles were still in their hands. Many Spencers and Sharps were still out there. One Georgia unit, black troops, still had muskets. This is in 1898.

So, I received a different view of this stuff. Their view. They were not collectors. They didn't think like we do. In reviewing the pile of documents I grabbed that week the following is the view that I gained:

1) RIA had a lot of guns on hand. Most broken.
2) The Militia had a lot of old guns.
3) They needed to arm those troops.
4) They churned out gear like nobody's business. Much of it contracted and that came as a big surprise to me.
5) The Trapdoors were not popular. The decision was made, during the war, to accelerate the issue of Krags. This could be a book in its own right.
6) When the trapdoors were returned they stored them. This is the key part: without doing the normal level of repair. 94,000 of them were oiled without even being cleaned.

Believe what you will. I achieved a certain view in looking at those documents. Eventually I'll have them all, in order, and will publish something. It'll be years before then - I have other irons in the fire.

====

Last point, and I don't want this missed, I said they didn't use models like we do. Then I posted a picture of an order showing models. Don't confuse their "peace time" work with the rushed program to get guns out the door. That is post rush. They were in fact more careful. My point is that Blunt wasn't particular on model after the rush was over. If you choose to believe that they held up arming the troops to get Buffington sights made I can't help you with that. The documents paint a different picture.

The Militia were breaking the trapdoors in hopes of getting Krags. They, as can be seen, also stripped the guns. Hey, they knew they'd not get the .50 guns back. I'd suspect they were just assuming they'd get .45s in the future....

=======================================

Last note. This board has an automatic log out timing thing that is particularly annoying. Makes posting here a pain. A big pain.

[daveboy]

Well, I'm certainly learning a lot about my Trapdoor just by reading this thread! Thanks for all the help so far. I had no problem getting evertything torn down, cleaned up and reinstalled. As stated, I was a little scared of the bayonet catch, but it was no problem. A few more coats of BLO and I will be through. Rifle looks really good and I have some cowboy ammo on the way.

I have what is probably a dumb question about the use of the bayonet. Is the "blunt" (the knurled end witht the 4 grooves) end the "business" end of the bayonet? It would seem to me that even though it comes to a point, it would be hard to stick into a person. On the other hand, the other end of the bayonet tapers gradually to a narrow end, but the tip is threaded. I am assuming this is the cleaning rod end. Am I correct on this? Was this bayonet effective? I have to assume (doing a lot of that) that the bayonet was not successful as they went away from it with the Krag (but tried it again with the 03). I just can't imagine being able to do much damage with it with no more taper than it has.

daveboy

[Dan Shapiro]

You are correct. The "phillips screwdriver" is supposed to be the business end. IMHO, this was a case of Ordinance dictating to the user what they would get in the way of a 'useful' weapon. There had not been a bayonet charge since the Civil War, so obviously the bayonet was a relic of the past. When the 'magazine' rifle came out, Ordinance thought it necessary to have a 'cut off'. So essentially you have a magazine rifle that you're supposed to 'single load', keeping the magazine in reserve. After all, don't want the troops "wasting" ammunition.

[daveboy]

Thanks Dan

I could not think of a way to describe what I felt was the "business end" of the bayonet, but "phillips screwdriver" is perfect. Having spent twenty years plus in Uncle Sam's military I certainly understand certain things being forced on the troops, whether it works or not.

Speaking of my time in the military (no I won't ramble), when I read your most recent post Dan, I had to laugh. You spelled ordnance incorrectly. You wrote "ordinance", which is the correct way to spell a written law. The correct spelling in this instance is without the "i". I point this out, not to be a jerk, or someone with nothing better to do than critique very helpful forum posts, but you see I spent a career the Air Force in aircraft armament (bombs, missiles, etc...) or as was known to the old timers as "aircraft ordnance". As a young E-6, I once sent a classified message to my higher HQ about some problem or other and referring to ordnance, I spelled the word as the more common "ordinance". I was consequently chewed out by everyone from the jerk at HQ on down the chain to my immediate boss. I was never allowed to forget that, and to this day I chuckle everytime I see it spelled incorrectly, which is quite often.


Again Dan, and everyone else, thanks for the info. Will post more pics and maybe a range report soon.

daveboy

[Dan Shapiro]

Speaking of errors, on one occasion (at the time a lowly E4), I received a rather large packet of material, and according to the cover letter, I was to read and comment as appropriate, then affix my initials to indicate I'd complied before passing the package on to the next addressee.

A few weeks later, I received the same packet again. Only this time the cover letter was addressed only to me. It said essentially, "This packet was sent to you for perusal and comment in error, therefore please erase your initials AND INITIAL YOUR ERASURE (emphasis mine).

I'm sure the statue of limitations has run out, and I can now confess, I only put an eraser mark on the paper, leaving my original initials. :evil6:

[5MadFarmers]

Not all errors are unforced. At my first base I still didn't have much for hair given it was my first permanent duty station. One of the Captains I worked with had a little MG. The starter went out on it and I told him if he'd buy the starter I'd install it. I drove it off base to my place and installed the starter. In returning it, this was Florida, I had the top down. The gate guard saluted me. Clearly I wasn't commissioned and that haircut was pretty clear that I hadn't been in long. I stopped and asked the SSgt why he saluted me. "The car has a blue sticker, we salute the sticker." I told him he could see that, in spite of the sticker, he outranked me greatly. "We salute the sticker. The wife of the General commanding RedCom drove through recently and she wasn't saluted. She made a fuss. We salute the sticker."

The military can be a very strange place. The next time I had that car and they saluted I just waved.

[daveboy]

Well, today I manned up and fired for the first time. What a riot! Shooting Ultramax 405 gr. cowboy load, so recoil not bad at all. Leaves a big hole! Only put a few rounds through it to test for functionality, no real accuracy test. But, based on bore condition it should be good.

Finished getting the stock all refinished and the metal cleaned and polished. Here are the "after" pics.

daveboy

[daveboy]

And a few more photos.

[Dan Shapiro]

Nice! When my 'little' brother comes out, all he wants to do is shoot the Trapdoor.