Model 1868 I just found at a yard sale...

[Fred]

[Dick Hosmer]

Fred saved the best shot for last - yes - it's a nice 1868 - BUT - how many have you seen with a 1868-dated block? Or, the "prototype" rear sight with small numbers and no 900-yd line?

There aren't many. Current estimate is "around 150" with less than 20 identified. Also see www.trapdoorcollector.com

I'm really happy for you, my friend.

[Fred]

[Fred]

Fred saved the best shot for last - yes - it's a nice 1868 - BUT - how many have you seen with a 1868-dated block? Or, the "prototype" rear sight with small numbers and no 900-yd line?

There aren't many. Current estimate is "around 150" with less than 20 identified. Also see www.trapdoorcollector.com

I'm really happy for you, my friend.

Thanks Dick. I've noticed that there isn't a P under the wrist. Interesting. Also there are just two inspector cartouches on the left mortise. The lock appears to have been removed before but the trigger plate appears to have never been removed yet. I haven't turned a screw on anything yet. The bore is perfect. The lock could probably use a drop or two of oil on the bearing surfaces so I'll do that soon.

There isn't any extractor dent on the breechblock so just like on your rifle Dick, this one hasn't seen very much opening and closing of the breech block.

[Fred]

So, could anybody please tell me what bayonet this rifle took? 1855? A modified 1855? I can't find my copy of Dick Hosmer's book.

[Tkacook]

That is really nice and with a 1868 breech block! Wow!

Andy

[Fred]

Thanks Andy. Yea, and number 127 too. Dicks rifle is number 62.

Somebody had put an ill fitting screw driver in one butt plate screw and in the lock mounting screws. However the lock seems to have not budged from the mortise since it was put on. Tight. It didn't want to come out and so I've left it alone for now. Oh, and I Did loosen the tang screw a tad too to relieve pinching of the lock plate.

[Fred]

It's important to remember that this rifle having the serial number of 127 stamped into it only means that it was the 127th barreled receiver grabbed out of the rack when the serial numbers were being applied to them all. It's impossible to tell in which order each was actually assembled. Being within the first 150 produced though is a pretty neat thing! This is a well made rifle.

[Dick Hosmer]

It's important to remember that this rifle having the serial number of 127 stamped into it only means that it was the 127th rifle grabbed out of the rack when the serial numbers were being applied to them all. It's impossible to tell in which order each was actually assembled. Being within the first 150 produced though is a pretty neat thing! This is a well made rifle.

I'd respectfully disagree about the "grabbed out of the rack" remark if a fully-assembled rifle was meant. Did you mean to describe pulling from a stack/stand/barrel of assembled (and numbered) barreled actions? I'd think that would be more likely. Of course, the 1868 is unique in the entire trapdoor series by having the matching barrel, and one would assume that the two components were numbered at the same time, almost certainly by hand - at least in the beginning. One has to wonder if the operation was ever completely jigged and mechanized because, while the font is consistent, the spacing is not, even up into the high 5-digit numbers.

While finding the "1868" block is a major thrill, that feature was - even if almost never seen - at least well documented and expected. What I feel is the major feature of those arms recently discovered is the totally un-expected early variety of the rear sight, having higher-placed 5 and 7 lines, smaller-font numbers, and NO 9 line. This feature occurs on 127, 62, and at least one other, however, other 68/68 owners have reported their sights as standard - so there is actually a super-rarity contained within a great rarity!

For those who may not be aware, Fred and I have been chasing this variant for probably 30 years, hence our unbridled enthusiasm!

[Fred]

Wow, are all of the other 16 rifles besides numbers 62 and 127 in pretty much the same nice condition?

Also, could you please tell me if a Civil War 1855 bayonet fits this rifle?