Interesting! Thanks.
Dick, I guess if the rifles were indeed issued after the tests were over, the company Armorers would've changed them out as the issue of the different graduations came up. Otherwise, as I witnessed while an Armored Cavalry officer, nothing was fixed or changed unless there was a complaint.
One could speculate endlessly on that, I guess. #6 is an odd duck and I'd think issue was highly unlikely, but the others could have been. We are dealing with such a small sample of a very small population that simple breakage could have accounted for the mixture found today. Numbers 36, 62 and 86 have the odd leaf, others are either "standard" or unknown. I don't have #127's type listed - which is it?
Last edited by Dick Hosmer; 06-07-2017 at 07:43.
Oh! I thought you knew. Here's a photo of both #127 and #86...
1868 2.jpg
#127 is on the left and #86 is on the right.
Last edited by Fred; 06-07-2017 at 11:00.
Sorry, my fault, I'd seen that photo but had not added the sight data to my spreadsheet. Done.
Last edited by Fred; 06-09-2017 at 12:38.
Last edited by Edatbeach; 06-10-2017 at 01:56.
Thank you Edatbeach.
Last edited by Fred; 06-11-2017 at 06:12.
I'd think that one of the reasons we see more 1863 parts on TDs may have to do with the inertia of certain fuddy-duddies within the OD. Not everyone was on board with the breechloader, and the "latest" arms - the 1864s - were held back in reserve. Case in point - the M1865s were built on "obsolete" 1861s. I doubt they were 100% rigid about which trigger guard was (re)used, especially on experimental pieces. Of course the lack of a middle band cutout made the M1863 wood attractive, but it's funny that no one EVER mentions the fact that not having band-springs meant that one had to be ADDED for the lower - but, cutting is cheaper than filling, when you figure costs to the mill, as they usually did. Upper doesn't count because that work was inevitable whatever wood you chose.
Last edited by Dick Hosmer; 06-11-2017 at 09:40.