Trapdoor Rifles

Kragrifle wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 3:26 am Fred
Will you be at the Kansas City show this coming WE?

I wasn’t planning to since I’ve no money to spend there.

I’ve decided to sell each rifle separately instead of all of them together.
It makes sense.
Contact me for photos of them.

I am retaining rifle number 6 until Richard Hosmer doesn’t need any more photos of it for his book.

Thanks, Fred. I don't want to hold you up, and, be assured, YOU will be credited with all such pics whether you still own the gun at the time the revised edition is published, or not. You and I go back too far on this matter for it to be any other way . . .

I THINK the only features I cannot get from #62 are the musket rear sight and receiver relief, and the block hole/FP oddity, Please email me your latest efforts on those, and I'll make sure they're good to go.

I wish you good luck in your efforts. I am in the same boat - more is going to have to go.

Rifle number 25 is spoken for.

It seems to me that rifle number 6 was a prototype 1868, like all of the single digit rifles.
Only Three single digit 1868’s are currently known to collectors.
The other two are in the Springfield Armory museum.

Y’all don’t be shy about heckling over my prices.
Rifle # 25’s new owner really wanted it so I made him a Great deal.

Fred Gaarde wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 10:12 pm

Kragrifle wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 3:26 am Fred
Will you be at the Kansas City show this coming WE?

I wasn’t planning to since I’ve no money to spend there.

Well..., maybe I will .

Fred Gaarde wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 3:10 pm 45F980D8-8439-41B2-B6CB-36AEA7EA2BE3.jpeg

It seems to me that rifle number 6 was a prototype 1868, like all of the single digit rifles.
Only Three single digit 1868’s are currently known to collectors.
The other two are in the Springfield Armory museum.

The fact that the receiver had to be notched for the rear sight speaks VOLUMES to me! WHY?? IF they were going to use relined musket barrels for the new rifle, WHY did they make the receiver a teensy bit too long? They were starting with a clean slate there. AFAIK - it could have been ANY length they wanted - why pick a length that interfered with the sight, causing extra machining? For that matter, WHY reverse the orientation of the sight dovetail mortise? The leaf could have folded the other way, just as well. There seems to be a lot of (apparently) unanswered questions.

I always thought that by reversing the old Civil War sight like that the leaf wouldn’t fall toward under recoil, which was probably known to happen.