Trapdoor Rifles

Forgive me if this has been discussed previously but I could find no mention of it.

We all know that in the Ordnance Department's attempt at developing a rifle that contained a combination ramrod bayonet and cleaning rod, they initially field trialed the Model 1880 Ramrod Bayonet model. The model's field trials revealed that it was well received by the field troops, but had technical issues that kept it from being fully adopted. These issues included the fact that the ramrod bayonet would jump out of it's retention detents during firing and "vibrate" to an extended position, sometimes fouling the bullet as it travelled down range. It was also discovered that the ramrod/bayonet retention housing itself caused an inherent inaccuracy at all ranges when on the target range. After these conclusions were reached all across the trial units, the rifles were withdrawn from service and placed into storage. The book, "TRAPDOOR SPRINGFIELD", by Bud Waite and B. D. Ernst, mention this accuracy issue and quotes from various officers' field reports during their units' trials with the M1880 Rifle, citing this accuracy problem.

Although this first attempt at a proper ramrod bayonet rifle did not meet quality standards to the point of adoption, it was recognized that the idea itself was worthy of pursuit. The research into correcting the issues started anew, and work on correcting the latching system started in earnest. The first redesign (1884) failed to keep the ramrod bayonet in place while firing, not unlike the M1880. A few years later, the latching design was tweaked, and the Model 1888 Rifle was adopted. Due to the latch redesign, the Model 1888 did not have the problems of the ramrod bayonet coming loose while firing. It also held its accuracy when on the rifle range!

The detail correction is easily seen as to the ramrod bayonet retention problem. Not so with the problem with the M1880 being inaccurate vs. the M1888 and its decent accuracy. Although there was a design change between the M1880 and the M1888 latching systems, the attachment of the ramrod bayonet housing to the barrel of both rifle models are virtually the same. They are in the same location on the barrel, and both are soldered on in the same manner. Both of Al Frasca's books, "THE .45-70 SPRINGFIELD", and "THE .45-70 SPRINGFIELD, BOOK II, 1865-1893", contain detailed descriptions and photographs of all three models of ramrod bayonet rifles. Richard Hosmer also provides excellent detail on the three models in his book, "MORE .45-70 SPRINGFIELDS, 1873-1893, THE UNCOMMON, THE SCARCE, AND THE RARE". ( I highly recommend all four of these mentioned reference volumes if you are a serious student of the E. S. Allin breechloaders.)

My question is why would one model be consistently inaccurate while the other model is quite accurate?

Is the only variable the rod bayonet itself and method of attachment?

The M1884 sights were considered to be much better than the earlier types, which may account for better performance by the 1888.

Is there any indication that long range firing was done with the rod bayonet removed, so as to eliminate the "tuning fork" effect, or dis the different latch mechanism reduce/eliminate that problem?

Was all firing done with the 500 grain bullets (.45-70-500), or were the 1880 firings done with 45-70-405 cartridges?

(The .45-80-500 cartridges and the "long range" rifles made for them are excluded from this discussion.)

John,
Those are all great questions and are why I am asking the original question. The quotes from the trial reports indicate that the inaccuracies were from the bullet strikes on the targets were "stringing" vertically. And yes, it is mentioned that some of the trial companies wound up removing the rod bayonet during their target shooting sessions.

The change to the 500 grain bullet over 70 grains of black powder cartridge didn't occur until January, 1882, so the cartridges used would have had to have been the then standard 405 grain bullet over 70 grains of black powder, Benet primed cartridges for infantry rifles or the Berdan primed M1877 rifle cartridge with the same loading.

Unfortunately my references don't show remarks regarding the target shooting of the M1888 rifles, so I have no idea as to whether they fired those target qualifications with or without the rod bayonets installed. It was intended that the rod bayonets were integral to the rifle by design, so I am assuming any firing qualifications were shot with the rod bayonets intact and stowed.

Of course there is a difference in the mechanism of the M1880 and M1888 rod bayonet housings and the type and amount of milling of the housing and construction of the two different types of rod bayonet housings, but the manner of attaching those housings to the barrels still appears to be the same. Is there something I am not seeing that would cause the earlier housing to cause those accuracy problems as opposed to the later version?

I'd like to hear Tom Trevor's take on this - he may well be our "shootingest" member. I know that a lot of people shoot M1888s, some have said that they even shoot better than plain 1884s. I could be wrong but my recollection is that they removed the rod. While the rib attachment is the same, the lockup of the rod in the 1888 is MUCH tighter than the M1880 - and the M1882 with its' rounded lugs is the worst of all.

Dick, I have to admit the last time I fired my 1880 RRB was back in the 90s after looking in its target file. Now I will get it out and fire it again we also now have targets out to 500 yard that we did not have then. I do not see any more vertical stringing on saved targets at 200 yards than a standard service rifle. This was with the 500 grain bullet. I will now use the 405 and 500.
I do recall shooting it a couple of time with out the rod to amuse a couple of the guys as with out the rod the long flat spring does become a tuning fork and the rifle vibrated for some time after firing unless you reach up and pinch the spring.
A couple of notes one that the service rifle was also noted for some vertical stringing and the army did adopt the Buffington target that had an oval set of rings on it as did the marksmans later collar pins.
The rifle I have came from the Paul Parsons collection and is marked on the buttplate 56 so may have been out for trial but condition shows very little if any use.
The front sight blade is interesting in at first glance its a standard M-73 blade but it is taller M-73 .260, M-84 .275, 1880 RRB .283 this is off top of barrel.
The early issue RRB were noted to not fire to the setting marked on the sight base I do not know if it was issued this way or taller blades were issued later? If anyone has an 1880 RRB check the height off the barrel and report it here.

Mine seems to be .284, roughly.
Don't know if mine came from a collection but is listed in Dick's book More 45-70 Springfield 1873-1893 serial#156755.
Would be nice to know it's history but not in SRS either.

I have not shot it.

The top of the front sight on my rifle measures .305" off the barrel. Upon close examination, this sight blade is not that of a home gunsmith, but is definitely arsenal work. It is also in very nice condition and has one of the keyhole type butt plates installed. It is serial number 156538. Also not listed in SRS or Dick's book. I have not shot it.

throck3 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2024 7:34 pm The top of the front sight on my rifle measures .305" off the barrel. Upon close examination, this sight blade is not that of a home gunsmith, but is definitely arsenal work. It is also in very nice condition and has one of the keyhole type butt plates installed. It is serial number 156538. Also not listed in SRS or Dick's book. I have not shot it.

I have added it to the electronic copy - which I need to clean up and get to the printer so they have it on hand - not worth anyone buying a second copy, but I like to keep things tidy.

After two range sessions I can confirm that the sight rang markings are off. I used 62 grains of 1.5 Swiss powder with a card wad bullet was Buffalo arms copy of the 1873 bullet, The best I have seen only small difference is the pour meplat at the nose.
100 yards elevation 125 just clear of the centering pin
200 yards elevation 325
500 yards elevation 440
This was off bench resting elbows on bench no other support.