1873 Trapdoor Carbine

[Dick Hosmer]

Dick what does your book say about the serial number if anything as it is a real early number?

Jim O

Refer post #16. Data VERY scarce in that range. That stock is NOT right - SOMEONE, be it SA or Bubba, did not - for some reason, finish what they started. The OP has been quite clear, the holes are just not deep enough, has nothing to do with rod thickness or type.

If it were mine, I'd deepen the holes to the proper depth and get a trap buttplate (early keyhole type) a set of rods , 1875 HSE, and call it good. It would then be completely believable, and a nice-looking representation of a restocked early carbine.

I still don't like the front sight/muzzle - the crown doesn't look bad (and clearly isn't just a whacked rifle) but a little voice is calling me. The sight base has issues (to my eyes) and that brass blade was NOT put there by SA, so, what's the (real) story? If I wanted to get REALLY picky, I'd note that the block and receiver patina do not match, and the rear sight screws look like they MAY be reused and cleaned up as edges are marred - just a bit. The band should have the small "U" at that s/n. The hammer screw is from a .50-70. But, where do you stop? After 150 years DAMN few guns (if ANY) are pure virgins!

[Shrapnel]

Refer post #16. Data VERY scarce in that range. That stock is NOT right - SOMEONE, be it SA or Bubba, did not - for some reason, finish what they started. The OP has been quite clear, the holes are just not deep enough, has nothing to do with rod thickness or type.

If it were mine, I'd deepen the holes to the proper depth and get a trap buttplate (early keyhole type) a set of rods , 1875 HSE, and call it good. It would then be completely believable, and a nice-looking representation of a restocked early carbine.

I still don't like the front sight/muzzle - the crown doesn't look bad (and clearly isn't just a whacked rifle) but a little voice is calling me. The sight base has issues (to my eyes) and that brass blade was NOT put there by SA, so, what's the (real) story? If I wanted to get REALLY picky, I'd note that the block and receiver patina do not match, and the rear sight screws look like they MAY be reused and cleaned up as edges are marred - just a bit. The band should have the small "U" at that s/n. The hammer screw is from a .50-70. But, where do you stop? After 150 years DAMN few guns (if ANY) are pure virgins!

Thanks for the assistance, but what do you make of the JC stamp? It was noted earlier that the JC stamp was on other carbine stocks.

[Dick Hosmer]

Small letters in that area are usually from a sub-inspector or a foreman in the stocking shop. "RDR" is more frequently seen than "JC". It's a carbine stock as far as I can see, but one that apparently wasn't finished for some reason. Maybe it slipped in the jig, or they hit a knot. You'd have to compare the inletting VERY carefully with a genuine stock to see if you can spot some reason as to why they stopped. Or, are we missing something at the front end? Pull the trigger guard - CAREFULLY - and see if there is a cleanout hole immediately **AHEAD of the front screw. This would only apply to a post-1879 stock, but if it is there, we are looking at a WHOLE different can of worms. You said you got a really good deal? Would you care to share how much it was? Maybe you are still OK no matter what. It's a handsome piece - would hate to find out it isn't real.

I've gotta say that is a really funky finish on the wood at post #27; almost looks like it was applied with a brush - there's little "depth" to it. Hate to keep picking nits, but there is a story there and I'm not sure that we are yet at the final chapter.

[Shrapnel]

Pull the trigger guard - CAREFULLY - and see if there is a cleanout hole immediately **AHEAD of the front screw. This would only apply to a post-1879 stock, but if it is there, we are looking at a WHOLE different can of worms. You said you got a really good deal? Would you care to share how much it was? Maybe you are still OK no matter what. It's a handsome piece - would hate to find out it isn't real.

No cleanout hole. I got it for $2500.00, I am confident that is a safe price for this gun...

[Dick Hosmer]

Wohh! - I was hoping, for your sake, that it was less. I think that's about borderline for an 'updated' gun with obvious questions. Now, if it had the original long-wrist stock and no proofs on the barrel, it WOULD have been a steal. Hope things work out for you.

[mr.j]

In regards to post #28 You are exactly correct, But we have to go by what the owner of rifle says since it is in his hands and he could be correct about not being fully drilled for the rods. He seems very sure of it regardless of what everyone else says here. Hope he has fun with new rifle looks really nice.

[John Knight]

The picture posted on 5/22/21 of Y P Eagle head then final proof p appears on the barrel. Upon careful examination it appears to be an inverted c. SA for condemned. If so, the work was not done at SA.

[Dick Hosmer]

Hey, the gun's NOT RIGHT for the serial number, for several reasons, but WHY it isn't, or at least why the stock isn't, has not yet been discovered/disclosed. The rod hole PATTERN looks OK, it is the depth that is at issue. Why did they stop? DID they stop? Maybe the holes are just packed full of crud? I'd get a long-shank drill, put it in an old-fashioned hand-cranked brace (NOT a high-speed cordless drill) and have a go at them. Should soon be able to tell if you are in solid walnut or crud. Just for grins, since I don't think it's been mentioned - what IS the muzzle diameter? The more I look the more I think the barrel does look a trifle fat - but it could just be my eyes.

[rayg]

Hope this helps, if you put a dime over the muzzle it should be about the same dia for as a carbine barrel, if the muzzle dia is larger then the dime, it's a cut down rifle bbl, Ray