Custer period carbine question?

[rayg]

It just dawned on me, why I stated in my first post that the serial number was in the 13,000 range. I had just typed out that number automatically with out thinking about it. Well, now that I thought about it, I know where that number came from. It was because years ago I also had an early and all correct 1873 carbine that had that 13,000 serial number range. How about that, a short circuit of my memory cells with a flash back unconsciously bringing up the old number. Stranger then fiction, the window to my little mind Lol, Ray.

[rayg]

Again my books are gone but I do recall the early 1873 rifle load was the heavy 500 gr bullet w/ 70 grs black powder and the carbine w/a reduced 55gr powder load. If so and if I remember when I shot it, the little light weight early carbine with that heavy bullet really was punishing to the shoulder. Can't recall but when did the switch come about to the 405 gn bullet? I started to use that weight bullet later on but it still kicked a lot and I had reduced the load even further from 55 to to 50 grs when shooting it. As the troopers in those days were probably not super big, 120-30 lbs or so. I imagine they were not too happy to shoot the gun a lot. Especially when a 70 grain bullet one was slipped in by a "buddy" at the range. Ray

[Dick Hosmer]

Ray, you have it backwards.

The early loadings were .45-70-405 for the rifle and .45-55-405 for the carbine. Rifle ammo could be used in the latter but recoil was severe.

The rifle, only, went to .45-70-500 in 1881, based on the results of the long-range rifle trials which experimented with a .45-80-500 round for use in the open areas of the West. It was a total failure, but the testing did show that the .45-70-405 was not burning all of its' powder, and that a heavier bullet would solve that problem.

[rayg]

Ah thanks Dick. Yes, did get it backwards and I do recall now, it's been awhile. I had bought a 500 grain mold and used it in my rifle and also for a while with the reduced 50 gr load in the carbine. Still a bit too much kick for me with the heavy bullet and so went back to the 405 gr, bullet with the reduced 50 grain load for easy comfort shooting. I always felt, no sense beating yourself up shooting full power loads. Kind of takes the fun out of a day at the range. I've had a large number of different military rifles and reloaded for all of them but with light cast bullet loads. Ray

[rayg]

Sorry to keep this thread going but I was just curious about the carbine that was just sold on gunbrooker https://www.gunbroker.com/item/774493535 were the last number of the serial number was damaged to where you couldn't read it. The ad says damaged by the hammer but to me it looks like it was intentionally damaged as the hammer is not in line with the damage and there are what appear to be grind marks in an attempt to hide the last number. Check out my photos of the hammer position. Maybe a stolen carbine at one time and because of that, and the high bid, maybe some folks might feel there was a connection to the battle, What do you think? Also absent my books, is a type 2 hammer correct for that serial number? Ray

[Dick Hosmer]

Overall, a very nice specimen, and my faith in the market is somewhat restored by the healthy price (Trump economics?). I'm bothered by a couple of other things: The gun has seen a lot of use - why the minimal (almost non-existant) extractor divot on the block? Why the slotted screws on the sight? How did the matching chips on BOTH sides of the forend occur - almost seem to have happened when barrel was not in place? The stock comb profile appears to be just a hair off, but that may be the result of wear. I believe the hammer is, or could be, correct though.

[rayg]

Approx. when did they start using the type 2 hammer and was it used through out the rest of the TD production? Ray

[Dick Hosmer]

If I recall correctly, around 30,000 - but that was one of those changes that would have been blurry. They used whatever came out of the barrel, and the "criss-cross" type finally ran out. No, the second-style hammer was made obsolete by the one having the lip, in early 1880. THAT one then went the rest of the way.

[rayg]

Thanks Dick, really appreciate your responses and answers to my questions. Ray

[rayg]

Here's an old post I had made about my carbine some years ago. There's a lot of info on it regarding the Custer carbines, Ray
https://forums.gunboards.com/showthr...00#post3039900