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.Originally Posted by alfajim
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!
Reply With Quote