1868 #6

[Fred Gaarde]

Yeah Carl, they just used an 1866 stock that hadn’t had the band spring cuts inletted yet.
The cleaning rod on the rifle is of the same thickness as the rod on an 1866. It’s noticeably stiffer. The rear sight is an 1864/1866. Unlike on the final production design of the rifles produced in 1869 and 1870, there is no cleaning rod retaining spoon or inletting for one. The tip of the single shoulder cleaning rod is cupped like on an 1866 rod.
The rifle is a Prototype with specific features on it that was being submitted for testing and analyses.
1 thru 10 were most certainly all prototype rifles as each was different than the rifle before it in Serial Number order. Rifles number 1 and 8 are on display at the Springfield Armory Museum.
I’d sure like to see what the other Nine rifles each look like.
This rifle is the only one of its type.

[John S.]

Very interesting.

Thanks for posting the photos of the firing pin and retaining screw, the unique notched nose on the receiver for the old style rear sight, and the filled inletting in the M1866 stock for the extractor spring.

I was surprised to learn that number 1-10 had minor differences, rather than everything decided upon before they began numbering guns.

IIRC, the first 80 M1 Garand rifles, known to collectors as "model shop guns" were made in the "model shop" pretty much as proof of concept for the production tooling, but with minor hand fitting and minor differences as production process was finalized. But, no such major changes as seen here.
I do not recall hearing of similar variations with Krags or M1903s once they started numbering rifles.

[Fred Gaarde]

John, you should read chapter 6 of this book.

IMG_8320.jpeg (87.42 KiB) Viewed 3029 times

[Fred Gaarde]

One of the interesting things in Chapter 6 is where you can see the rear sight base on serial number 10 is also sitting within a cut on the receiver.
I wonder when that feature was changed.
Serial number 10 was the first rifle with the flip up long range sight installed on it.
It seems that the prototypes went further than just the first ten rifles.

IMG_8323.jpeg (97.75 KiB) Viewed 3023 times

[Dick Hosmer]

Uhhh, not so fast. We know about 6 and 10. What about 7, 8, and 9? Maybe 7 had the first long-range sight?

Also of note is the font for the numbering. 10 is different, while 6 uses the same italic stamp as final production? Interesting.

[Fred Gaarde]

I was just going by Al’s book.

IMG_8324.jpeg (115.18 KiB) Viewed 3012 times

[Dick Hosmer]

Oh Oh . . . . Would someone please help lift my rock so I can get back under it?

Or, it's not nice to set your friend up like that . . . .

Or, It's been a long time since I looked at that page . . . .

Or, the logic is still true, but the bar of proof just got a LOT higher . . .

Or, maybe it's just the heat . . .

[Fred Gaarde]

I wonder when the graduation marks on the rear sight leafs were updated.

[MattN]

Yeah Carl, they just used an 1866 stock that hadn’t had the band spring cuts inletted yet.
The cleaning rod on the rifle is of the same thickness as the rod on an 1866. It’s noticeably stiffer. The rear sight is an 1864/1866. Unlike on the final production design of the rifles produced in 1869 and 1870, there is no cleaning rod retaining spoon or inletting for one. The tip of the single shoulder cleaning rod is cupped like on an 1866 rod.
The rifle is a Prototype with specific features on it that was being submitted for testing and analyses.
1 thru 10 were most certainly all prototype rifles as each was different than the rifle before it in Serial Number order. Rifles number 1 and 8 are on display at the Springfield Armory Museum.
I’d sure like to see what the other Nine rifles each look like.
This rifle is the only one of its type.

I was at Springfield Armory Museum last weekend, and to my disappointment, unless I was missing something, there was only one 1868 trapdoor on display and it wasent even dated 1868, it was an 1869. No #1 or #8 to be seen. I wanted to talk to the gentleman working there who appeared to be the guy to talk to but he was busy with some other visitors and they were closing for the day. 2 or 3 cases of trapdoors, but no dated 1868's! I would post pictures if I could figure it out...

[Dick Hosmer]

Alex MacKenzie is THE guy you need to see, but - as curator - he IS busy, and having an appointment is probably the best way to go. I've never been there, but he has been VERY helpful at long distance.