1866 Short Rifle before and after

[Carlsr]

Thank you Tkacook. I can definitely see the difference in your short rifle as the band spacing is different. Makes me wonder if Springfield did produce short rifles with stocks that had the band spring slot filled in.

[Dick Hosmer]

There are all sorts of takes on the short '66s (and '65s). Many of the guns with middle band left as is have severely/grotesquely thinned wrists. Some, clearly, do not. There are unanswered questions - why did guns like Cook's have the tip moved back so far leaving the rod unsupported? Why are there so many different barrel lengths on the short guns? Why, even on the the ones that look right, do some have the front-end parts geometry screwed up? Who REALLY made the "nice" short '65s? Whitney? Why, since they used new stocks, didn't SA use the '68 rod and keeper on the correct short '66s? BTW Carl, your clean-up job came out looking VERY nice.

[Carlsr]

Too many why’s there Dick LOL and thank you.
The only thing on this rifle that doesn’t match exactly to the information in your book is the date on the lock.
Just a thought but on the short 66 manufactured by others does a bayonet fit on them?

[Carlsr]

Thank you Bruce!!

[Dick Hosmer]

I really do not worry about lock dates on any '65-'70 arm, especially between 1863 and 1864 on the later arms. The plates are absolutely interchangeable, except for the shallow relief milling at top edge of First Allins, only, for the extractor slide.