Printable View
I think I have come across a Trapdoor Cadet in 50-70. Here is the data:
Length 48 7/8
Barrel 29 1/2
Serial number on breech and barrel do not match.
The ramrod is the in the stock
Bayonet is 19 inches
no swivel on the trigger guard
Lock dated 1863
Breech block date 1870
There is no spoon in the stock for the ramrod.
Are there any defining characteristics to confirm that it is fact a 50-70 cadet.
Barrel should be 29-5/8", you may have been a little loose in reading the tape.
The non-matching numbers are a REAL issue - at best they indicate a rebuild, at worst they could reveal someone's garage exercise. Are both of the numbers below 3500? How much off are they? Any doubling up of cartouches? One of mine is from the 300 which were overhauled in 1881, and bears an extra large .45-70 style cartouche of [SWP/1881]. Barrel numbers still match, however. Over 50 years of collecting, I have only seen two or three mismatched numbers on M1868s and M1869s, so it cannot have been a common practice to change receivers.
Everything else sounds right for a Model 1869 Cadet (production did not start until 1870) Rifle. What is the asking price?
If I remember the barrel was number 546 and the receiver was 750. The finish on the barrel and receiver is the same. I did not see and cartouches.
Hmmm - the barrel was bright and the receiver was black oil-case-hardened. On minty specimens they are like night and day, but with wear they tend to come out a steely grey, though some small difference should still be evident. All depends on price. Though fairly scarce, cadets are - in general - unloved, and the number issue will hamper eventual resale.
the bore is bright. The exterior metal (barrel and receiver) are a uniform patina.
1mark, I don't believe the cleaning rod was in the stock on the 1869 cadet. My 1869 cadet has the cleaning rod under the barrel. The stock should only have one cartouche as they were produced from new manufactured stocks that were narrower in the butt stock and thinner along the barrel. The cleaning rod was the m1868.
Dick Hosmer, I have to disagree with unloved. I'm kinda fond of mine but then again I'm fond of them all LOL!!Attachment 42546
Oh, present company excepted - I meant unloved by "other" people! I've got several. 1867, 1869(2), 1873, 1877, 1879, 1884-I, 1884-II. Need to pare them down, which I will do after a couple more writing projects - not going to sell anything until I get it completely photographed.
1mark some photos would be great;y appreciated.
I am in the camp that greatly appreciates the cadet
Mark
Did not know there was an 1867 cadet. Do you have any photos of it?
Well, some people refer to it as the 1866 Cadet - since it IS built on the 2nd Allin action. Only 424 were made, and they led a rough life after leaving the service - few survive.
I did not own one when I wrote my .58/.50 book which was published in 2006. Now, I do, but have not yet photographed it in detail, beyond the one shot (picture #10 in album #1) on my webpage www.picturetrail.com/sa4570af. Difference in butt-stock length is quite evident, and it is also shorter than the M1866 Short Rifle, with which it is sometines confused. Adding to the difficulty in ID'ing cadets of that period is the fact that several of the surplus dealers cut 3-band rifles down (in a couple of different configurations) and called them cadets. Interesting, but not the rare SA original.
The 1867 is the miniaturized one, where the butt and length of pull are reduced, and there are a number of special parts which do not interchange with full-size TDs. Even the band-springs are slightly shorter than normal. The lockplate is still bevelled, but is thinner, and is ONLY dated "1867". All subsequent cadets were much more interchangeable - just 3" shorter between the bands and with a slimmer stock.
I have an 1867 cadet. Has the original ESA cartouched stock. Also has the script N behind the trigger guard which I thought should be on all original 66 style muskets. Need to find it!
Sadly, mine is one of the rougher ones, with no stock markings remaining at all. When i got it the cleaning rod was missing, and I figured I'd have to come up with some sort of repro, but one of those lucky circumstances arose out of nowhere. In answering someone's question - possibly here - I heard from a guy who had the wrong rod in an 1873, for which I happenned to have a spare. I could not believe my eyes when he sent me a pic of his. We traded, straight across, and two guns were made right.
Mine has certainly seen use. Except for a small chip out of the wood at the front band stock is in reasonable condition and it is the original stock.
Very nice collection!! This is my 1869 Has a small disk with the #4 and what looks like 2 w's on the left of stockAttachment 42574Attachment 42575Attachment 42576Attachment 42577
That's a very nice M1869.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsr
Thank You Dick Hosmer. You have any idea what the 2 W's stamped in the stock may mean??
No, I'm sorry that I do not. The only comment I can make is that few arms of ANY kind are marked in that particular location. The inspection marks are on the left wrist flat and behind the trigger guard plate. Usage/ownership stamps are more often found on the comb just in front of the butt-plate, or on the RIGHT side of the stock, usually larger and at right angles to the bore, so as to be read with arm vertical. I'd suspect some non-military post-service group.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsr
Thank you Dick Hosmer.
Dick Hosmer, I bought both your books off amazon over the holidays, received the 58/50 book the other day which is the one I really wanted just to read up on the 1869 cadet. Great books, awesome job!! From your book I found that my cadet is actually a 50/55 not a 50/70. I reload for my 45/70 and have been gathering components to reload 50/70. Thanks to you and your book I will be reloading the proper load for my cadet and not the full charge, may not have been a good thing shooting a full charge in it???? It seems to be all correct but one thing I have noticed is that the hammer is not centered on the firing pin. All my other TD"s are centered. About a 1/16th hangs over the right side. Everything seems to be correct though. Is this normal for a cadet?
Thanks again for the awesome books!!
Glad you are enjoying the books! Cannot say about your hammer - it should align. You have the correct lockplate and hammer, so it isn't that. Perhaps there is a little side play at the rear of the block, and/or the hammer may be very slightly bent. Is the hammer seated all the way down on the tumbler? Can you manipulate the parts so as to make it line up? There is no harm in loading the full 70 grains, as the actions are identical, but - in the slightly lighter gun - felt recoil will be considerably worse.
There is a little side play but not much. I thought maybe the hammer may be bent but it looks straight to me and if it were I'd just leave it as is and not mess with it. I believe it is also seated all the way down. I try to take some close up pictures and post them. Also the bayonet for these are 16 1/4" Long being the standard M1855 bayonet but shorter and 11/16 wide?
Yes, the bayonets were re-profiled (made shorter and narrower) from the parent musket bayonet. I personally have never owned one, or even seen one for sale that I recall. They definitely are not under every bush, so you'll need to keep your eyes open.
The correct Cadet bayonet is the Model 1867. Besides the shorter, narrower blade, the socket bore is smaller than the M1855. This type fits the Springfield Models 1867, 1869 and Navy 1867 Cadet rolling block rifles. Early versions were recontoured M1855s with a sleeve in the socket. Later ones were made new.
Thank you Edatbeach.
could it be for Wentworth Military Academy in Missouri?Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsr
Two w's may = Went Worth??
Possibly somebody could have thought it a good idea at the time to have used a play on letters to mark it like that. It's only speculation.
True. May never know