Indian Scout Trap

[Discus420]

I just found out the archives are presently closed to the CoViD pandemic to all outside researchers

what a bummer

[Discus420]

Can anyone tell me what the cartouche should be on this rifle 118328 I believe it should have been made in 1879 ???

[Dick Hosmer]

That would be my guess as well. 1879 cartouches (of either type) are not often found. I've never owned one, nor seen one - though I didn't pick up EVERY TD I saw over the last 50 years.

[Discus420]

That would be my guess as well. 1879 cartouches (of either type) are not often found. I've never owned one, nor seen one - though I didn't pick up EVERY TD I saw over the last 50 years.

Dick
Im confused so if it was made in 1879 it might not have a cartouche? The rifle is being shipped so I haven't laid hands on it ,just paid for it and anxiously waiting.

[Dick Hosmer]

No, that isn't what I meant - for some reason, guns from that particular period just don't show up that often. There are two types, the first (ESA/1879) being the scarcest, and [SWP/1879]. Allin passed away and the mark had to be changed. (ESA/1877) is scarce, (ESA/1878) is uncommon, but [SWP/1880], and up, is rather common.

[Discus420]

Thanks Dick, that says alot I was using this chart I found online to date the serial number 118328 to year of manufacturetrap serial chart .jpg which would be 1879 Does anyone know if this is accurate ?

[Tom Trevor]

No its not. I have rifles 108027 ESA 1879 also 121595 SWP 1879. Check the sale section at Dr. Frascas site he has two 1879 dated rifles shown for sale. Do let us know what your rifle shows best estimate is if not worn off from use would be SWP 1879.

[Carlsr]

Al's chart is much better than that one.

[Discus420]

Al's chart is much better than that one.

Thanks all I found Dr. Frascas charts and they seem to agree on 1879 for this rifle (i think)

[Dick Hosmer]

One way that I value a chart by where they put the 52 Infantry/Cavalry 28" barrel rifles, which are KNOWN to occur in the 197000 to 197450 range, and were made in 1882. That is one of the few pinpoints where we can tie a number to a date. That other chart (whose author I respect a great deal) got that wrong. Simple mistake, or massive number shift? I don't know.