Paint, dirt, and stuck screws - Removal thereof.

[Dick Hosmer]

A puzzle to be sure.

The barrel, though "wrong", looks to have been there a LONG time. The sight appears to be quite a bit more recent, and the screws, especially the rear one, do not look to be TD screws? Who knows how it came to be, over the last 144 years?

It will look great on the wall, though. If it were mine, I'd look long and hard for a bar & ring, and a rear sight (probably an 1879) of JUST the correct patina - NOT to try and pass it off as a 1st model, at all, just to make it a bit more complete.

[olderthansome]

Dick, I don't understand why you think the sight is much more recent than the rifle. On page 16-17 of Al's "Trade Edition", re shows this same sight in both the carbine and rifle versions. It is described as the Model 1873. The "V P and the Eagle" proof marks on the barrel, began at about 40000 per the book and the sight remained until the Model 1877 came along. The range numbers on the M1873 were on the right side of the base (1 to 4 for the rifle and 1 to 5 for the carbine) and with the M1877 and later, the numbers were on the left side. The slide on the rifle was graduated to 1100 yards (#11) and the carbine to 1200 yards (#12). This sight retains those features without the correct screws as you point out.

I have another carbine with the same M1873 carbine sight base, and slotless screws, but with a broken spring and leaf. It is numbered to 5 on the right and except for the number of steps, is the same as this rifle sight. (photo). That carbine is from a later period - probably arsenal altered - and has the low arch, more recent marks on the door, and the butt door. It does still have the oval cartouche and early band.
I agree with you that I could replace the sight, but with I will use a M73 Carbine - they're not super hard to find, right now although harder than the rifle version. I also agree that these screws are wrong and I will correct those. I'm guessing that this barrel was changed after the piece left the military and whoever changed it, probably was as unconcerned about slotted or slotless screws as they were about the proof marks on the later barrel. He probably used whatever he could find that "looked" right, and found a rifle version. In any case, I'd prefer not to settle for a later sight. I will certainly keep the rifle sight even if I replace it with a carbine.
Finding an early bar and ring will be tougher. I may have to settle for the a later version for this part, but for the time being, I'd rather leave it as the owner left it.

[Local Boy]

Not sure if it's the correct one?... but there's a saddle bar ring on EBay:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Springfield-1873-Trapdoor-45-70-Carbine-saddle-bar-ring-LAST-ONE-I-GOT/323825853383?hash=item4b658663c7:g:hhUAAOSwtxNc0M0b

[olderthansome]

That's a good eye. It's the right style, but I think it is a reproduction. That's not totally out of the question, but it appears to be a reproduction of the later version. Quick check for this one is the visible seam in the ring. You won't see one on an original. This could turn out to be the classic example of finding one too soon after you decide to look. You find one right away and then don't see another for a long time.

I will probably pass on this, but I really appreciate you mentioning one for sale. Thank you!!

[olderthansome]

Pictures will beget feedback.

A cleaning with mineral spirits or turpentine is usually benign.

A 50/50 mix of Linseed Oil and Turpentine is an old and established wood treatment.

I started using some turpentine and am hopeful for the results. They certainly got rid of the paint quicker than the mineral spirits. I also picked up some Linseed Oil as well. Thanks for the information. Your stock work is legendary for me!

[olderthansome]

From a slight distance, I see 6980 pretty clearly. Just my observation, though. Lots of honest wear. What a history that Springfield could tell!

Thank you for confirmation! I was getting dizzy trying to look at the forest in so many pictures that I couldn't see the trees anymore.

[Whig]

I've got one really nice condition Springfield Trapdoor rifle that I bought to compliment my interest in and collection of Krags. I learned about it and bought nice black powder ammo to shoot in it and it was fun.

But, I am mostly fascinated in how closely they are to the subsequent Krag design because of such similarity of features.

Your carbine shows off many of those features that Springfield Armory continued in the Krag design.

Thanks for sharing!

[Dick Hosmer]

The eBay bar & ring are not a compatible set anyhow - bar is late while ring (highly suspect) is early. Al Frasca has the best parts.

When I said the sight was "later" than the barrel and receiver, I was referring to apparent date of application, based on wear and color - not design/model. However such decisions are better made in the flesh, as the camera/lighting can play tricks. The barrel appears to be a plausible/possible in or immediately-post-service replacement, whereas that sight could have been added in, say 1920. My suggestion that a later (but heavily worn and brown) sight be applied was based on the later barrel, but, you absolutely are correct that the 1873 stepped sight DID continue past the period of proof application. The fact that it is the rifle version precludes it being done at SA.

I think that someone who was not aware of all of the little nuances was trying to mock-up an early carbine and, for some reason, never finished the project, which presents you with a fun opportunity to pick up the torch. Enjoy!