1865 Springfield Trapdoor

[mpguy80/08]

Here is my 1865 Springfield Trapdoor. I believe it may be in .50/70 caliber. The bore measures slightly over 1/2 inch. Sorry for the multiple posts, but I wanted the pictures to be big enough so the resolution is better. There are no serial numbers on the rifle. All I know for certain is that my great grandfather passed the Rifle down to my grandmother and she passed it to me. Also, Checking the numbers for the 1865 trapdoor, I found out that there were only 5005 made, all in 1866.

 

Any help in running down the history on this piece would be greatly appreciated.

 

Wayne

[mpguy80/08]

right side markings

[mpguy80/08]

Trapdoor open

[mpguy80/08]

Top of rifle

[mpguy80/08]

Bayonet scabbard

[mpguy80/08]

reverse side of scabbard

[mpguy80/08]

Bayonet. The bayonet has a fluted triangular cross section...

[GIl Sanow]

I have a suspicion that you do not have an M1865. The '65 was a .58 cal rimfire. There is a noticible set of teeth or cogs showing when the breechblock is opened. Also, I think all '65's had 2 3 barrel bands. "66's were similar, but with a simpler breechblock and a barrel sleeved down to .50 cal -- centerfire.

 

Yours looks like an M1868 -- 2 bands with a separate receiver and a sleeved barrel. All of these were converted also from earlier muskets. If the 1865 date is on the sideplate, it is a conversion for sure.

 

How about a closeup with the breechblock open so we can be sure.

 

Certainly someone else can chip in here -- I sold my examples nearly 20 years ago and I am a bit fuzzy on all of the details.

 

G

[mpguy80/08]

I have a suspicion that you do not have an M1865. The '65 was a .58 cal rimfire. There is a noticible set of teeth or cogs showing when the breechblock is opened. Also, I think all '65's had 2 3 barrel bands. "66's were similar, but with a simpler breechblock and a barrel sleeved down to .50 cal -- centerfire.

 

Yours looks like an M1868 -- 2 bands with a separate receiver and a sleeved barrel. All of these were converted also from earlier muskets. If the 1865 date is on the sideplate, it is a conversion for sure.

 

How about a closeup with the breechblock open so we can be sure.

 

Certainly someone else can chip in here -- I sold my examples nearly 20 years ago and I am a bit fuzzy on all of the details.

 

G

 

Curiouser and Curiouser... A close up pic of the date stamp shows it is definitely an 1865. As I said, the bore is slightly larger than .50 in. Upon measuring it, the bore is exactly 9/16ths of an inch in diameter (.58 cal?) Inspection of the chamber reveals there is a definite raised step going into the chamber however you would need this lip for a cartridge round to keep it from sliding up into the bore. I hope the pictures are clear enough. I have not cleaned the rifle yet... so it shows the grit of years. I also noticed the firing pin is missing, as is the breech block locking lever.

 

Wayne

[mpguy80/08]

Chamber area

[mpguy80/08]

another shot of the chamber

[mpguy80/08]

This is the Description of the Model 1865 given at www.trapdoorcollector.com

 

Model 1865 Rifle

 

The Civil War was drawing to a close, but far from over, when the War Department requested that the Ordnance Department develop a breech loading rifle for the military. To fulfill this request, the Ordnance Department sent requests for prototype arms to all the major arms manufacturers in the world and to anyone who would like to submit a test gun for trial. A number of private and commercial arms were received along with several submitted by Springfield armorers.

 

After a considerable amount of prototype testing, the breechloader submitted by Erskine S. Allin, Master Armorer at Springfield, was selected for its simplicity. Also, it could be inexpensively assembled using many parts from CW muskets. At this time, and for many years after the War, getting funds for new ordnance projects was a major problem.

 

5,000 of Mr.Allin's rifles were made and given the nickname "First Allin." The gun design was based on using Model 1861 muskets for its construction. Only the stocks and barrels had to be modified. The breech of the barrel was opened and fitted with a breech block which hinged forward, thus the name "trapdoor." The stock had to be cut to accept the ejector and extractor mechanisms. This process left only a very thin portion of wood covering the mechanism on the lockplate side of the stock. If a rifle had been used in service, this piece of wood is usually missing. The rifle was chambered for .58-60-500 rimfire cartridges. CW locks, stocks, barrels, trigger assemblies and bands were used in their production. This made the actual production cost ($5.00) far less than the cost of a new rifle.

 

It soon became apparent that many of the small working parts in the breech system were not going to have a long service life, and the action was too complicated for normal service use. Therefore, before the M65 production order was completed, the less complex M66 rifle,"Second Allin," was already being tested.

 

The Model 1865 rifle quickly became obsolete and most of them were sold in the 1870s to several American arms dealers. At the time, there was a large demand in the US, for shorter cadet style rifles. To satisfy this need, these dealers cut the barrels and stocks to make short rifles with 33" and 36" barrel lengths. Likewise, the stock wrists were often thinned for cadet use. These altered guns have marginal value and have caused the remaining few unaltered rifles to rapidly climb in value.

[mpguy80/08]

I also wanted to rump this rifle is definitely a Rimfire rifle. The notch at the top of the chamber is for the firingpin where it would strike the round. I am looking for a firing pin for this rifle, as well as the locking lever and hammer screw.

 

Wayne

[mpguy80/08]

And a little more information of this piece. I was on the Trapdoor Springfiels collectors forum and got this response when I asked if there was a serial number...

 

Re: 1865-1870 trapdoor springfield

 

Posted By: Dick Hosmer <Send E-Mail>

Date: Mon 4 Aug 2008 6:49 pm

 

In Response To: Re: 1865-1870 trapdoor springfield (Wayne Coulter)

 

Following models do not have serial numbers:

 

1865 Rifle - .58 rimfire

1866 Rifle and Cadet Rifle - .50-70

1870 Rifle and Carbine - .50-70

 

Following do:

 

1868 Rifle - .50-70 (matching numbers on barrel and receiver, left side)

1869 Cadet Rifle - .50-70 (ditto)

1873, and ALL subsequent models/versions - .45-70 (one number, across rear of receiver)

 

It is not possible from your description to determine which model you have. Pictures of all of them may be found at www.picturetrail.com/sa4570af Hope that helps.

 

I wrote a 275-page guide on the subject. Ordering info is on that website.

[mpguy80/08]

I have a suspicion that you do not have an M1865. The '65 was a .58 cal rimfire. There is a noticible set of teeth or cogs showing when the breechblock is opened. Also, I think all '65's had 2 3 barrel bands. "66's were similar, but with a simpler breechblock and a barrel sleeved down to .50 cal -- centerfire.

 

Yours looks like an M1868 -- 2 bands with a separate receiver and a sleeved barrel. All of these were converted also from earlier muskets. If the 1865 date is on the sideplate, it is a conversion for sure.

 

How about a closeup with the breechblock open so we can be sure.

 

Certainly someone else can chip in here -- I sold my examples nearly 20 years ago and I am a bit fuzzy on all of the details.

 

G

 

I was looking here http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/9187668 and found some interesting information. The 1868 arms were all stamped with the date of manufacture. According to this reference, which includes picture references, there IS a two band variant or the model 1865. Also, the 1865 Cadet rifles had two bands but the spacing isnt right. My rifle is too long and the band spacing not right to be a cadet model. For all intents and purposes, it appears to be an 1865, second Allin alteration, two band variant trapdoor rifle in .58-60-500 cal.

 

Anyone have any further information?

 

Wayne

[bayonetman]

The date on the lockplate is not an indicator of the Model, as all of the trap doors arms from the Model of 1865 to the Model 1870 used lockplates from the War for Southern Independence period, as well as many other parts.

 

However, your photos show the you do have a Model of 1865 in .58 caliber rimfire, missing a few of the parts as you mention. Parts are hard to find as the total production of the rifle was small, only 5,000.

 

It has been shortened from the original 40 inch barrel length. A few may have been shortened at Springfield Armory for Cadet use, but this has not been verified. However, those used a different spacing of the barrel bands than yours. Yours most likely was shortened by a commercial firm for sale after they were surplused.

[mpguy80/08]

the barrel measures 32-1/4 inches from the muzzle to the rear end of the barrel where the extention for the stock attachment screw begins. I pulled the barrel bands and the stock screw and found that there is no "receiver" to this rifle. it is one complete barrel closed at the rear end, and cut to allow installation of the trapdoor. I re-read all the different references I've found on this and this does appear to be a .58 cal cadet model. SA modified about 300 1st Allin rifles (evidenced by the extractor mechanism along the right side of the barrel, which my rifle has). If it is a cadet rifle, it is one of the 300 that were modified by SA to the cadet rifle. It does not have the crudely narrowed stock which is a usual indicator of what the reference called a "Bannermann" shortened Rifle. The 32-1/4 inch barrel length is very close to the 33" to 36" barrel length given as reference for the Cadet Rifle. If so, it seems that it very well might be one of only 300 "1st Allin" rifles that were so modified by SA.

 

Keep the info coming! I appreciate all the information you guys are finding. Thank you so much.

 

Wayne

 

EDIT: When I made my previous statement I hadnt actually measured the barrel of my rifle. Prior to this post, I thought to measure it and compare it to the references. It does indeed appear that I have an SA modified First Allin Cadet rifle.

[Alonzo]

That is a real 1865 First Allin's Conversion...no doubt about it.

The barrel appears to have been shortened, but that is not a huge issue for the most part.

Check Al Frasca's website...the Trapdoor Collector for more info...I would question validity of the cadet rifle theory.

Given that the barrel bands have not been changed and are still the flat variety would lead me to beleive the rifle had been cut down by someone other then Springfield armory.

As I say though...check Al's website.

I have a full length 1865 in the collection adn will try to post pics in the next few days.

Nice looking gun either way and a real good addition to any Springfield collection.

Cheers

[mpguy80/08]

That is a real 1865 First Allin's Conversion...no doubt about it.

The barrel appears to have been shortened, but that is not a huge issue for the most part.

Check Al Frasca's website...the Trapdoor Collector for more info...I would question validity of the cadet rifle theory.

Given that the barrel bands have not been changed and are still the flat variety would lead me to beleive the rifle had been cut down by someone other then Springfield armory.

As I say though...check Al's website.

I have a full length 1865 in the collection adn will try to post pics in the next few days.

Nice looking gun either way and a real good addition to any Springfield collection.

Cheers

 

I've been doing a lot of tracking on this rifle over the last week. I think I know more about what it isnt at this point than what it is. I know it is definitely a 1st Allin rifle. I seriously doubt from the references I've found that this is a cadet rifle. From what I've seen, Cadet rifles didnt seem to have sling swivels until about 1869. The rifle maintains the parent rifle's band spacing, and is exactly 8" shorter than the parent rifle in most measurements. Cadet rifles were only 4" shorter, and the barrel bands were spaced differently. There is no obvious re-tapering of the barrel to mount the bayonet, and the workmanship is factory standard. This definitely isnt someone's hack job to shorten the rifle. No one I have spoken to and showed this rifle have seen anything like it.

 

I have been conversing with Dick Hosmer on the trapdoor forum, and he is perplexed. I have sent an email to Al Frasca along with photos, and am working up several other requests over several websites to get as many opinions on this as I can. I am also getting together a package to send to the Springfield Research Service to see what they say.

 

Springfield did make a short rifle in 1865, however I have been unable to find any dimensions on the 1865 short, only the cadet rifle. I am crossing my fingers and hoping for the best that I can get an answer to this riddle.