Trapdoor Rifles

Hi all,

I just picked up a very nice 1873 Springfield trapdoor. Unfortunately, I didn't notice from the pictures that the stock had been duffle cut at the lower barrel band, and the forend had been acraglassed on (no pins or anything). Needless to say, it snapped in half when I was stripping down the rifle.

There isn't much out there for replacement stocks, so I may be hard pressed to find the correct year stock to match the receiver, which dates to around 1883 - 1884. Does anyone out there know if a stock with a later manufacture date will be compatible with my action, specifically around 1889 - 1890ish?

Thanks in advance!

As to fit - due to width of action - there are only two types of stock: One from 1-96300, and one from 96300 to about 500000. I will ignore for this discussion, stocks for rod-bayonet rifles. The first group has two comb lengths, but that won't worry you.

So, you have a wide range to draw from. Obviously, if you cannot find a match, the stock date should be LATER than the serial number would seem to dictate, and you can always use one with a date too worn to read . . .

Sounds to me, you could clean up the glass joint CAREFULLY . . . . .then using small diameter stove bolts, say 1/8”x2”, WITH THE HEADS CUT OFF, as “threaded rods” to reinforce the glued joint, and glue the two pieces together. . . .AGAIN.
Drill the four holes SLIGHTLY oversized to guarantee perfect alignment.
Don’t forget to allow for the saw kerf that bubba used!
The “rebar” in the joint will GREATLY reinforce the hidden joint.

I’ve done this with a couple of Mausers, and the joint is still rock solid!

Thank you for the replies. I do plan on un-bubba'ing the current stock, reinforcing it, and cleaning it up a bit, but I'm not sure that I want it on my rifle. If nothing else, it will be a good practice piece. I was pretty bummed about the stock because that was one of the main reasons I picked up the gun. It has some very nice cartouches on it. Oh well...

IMHO, "repaired duffel cut" is far less an issue than "replaced stock." YMMV
If the cut is under the band, it is an easy and good fix. If in a visible area, then it is a bit less desirable, but still not a real big deal, properly disclosed when selling.

Another question came up. Is every 1873 stock individually fitted for the action, lock, etc., or were they just pumped out and put together more like a 1903? The lock plate and trigger plate of these rifles seems to be a very snug fit in the stock.

Stocks (and all other parts) were 100% interchangeable from Model 1842 onwards (within the same model, of course).

It is amazing that work of that precision was being turned out on a regular basis, without the need for hand fitting. Contrast the accomplishments at Springfield and Harpers Ferry and the dozen or so .58 musket contractors during the Civil War all making to interchangeable standards with the famous Winchester Repeating Arms Company.

Winchester regularly relied on hand fitting parts of their guns. Of course, Winchester was cranking out a dozen models at the same time, each with numerous options for barrels, sights, stocks, etc. And, being profit motivated they looked for ways to cut costs, and adapting left over parts on hand to work on new models was considered good business practice, even if the finished product was not interchangeable with others of the model made before or after.

The whole subject of interchangeable parts is a fascinating study in itself, and driven by the arms making industry. Much of it centered in the Connecticut River Valley (which includes Windsor, VT, Chicopee Falls, Springfield, Hartford and New Haven) home of most the the U.S. arms industry, and no accidentally, also the machine tool industry. Workers freely an frequently moved between different employers, taking best practices with them and bringing their own innovations. Many of the famous names (Christopher Spencer, James P. Lee, Hugo Borchardt, Sylvester Roper to name but a few) worked at various times for several different makers.

A couple of highly recommended books are:
DEYRUP, Felicia Johnson.
Arms Making in the Connecticut Valley: A Regional Study of the Economic Development of the Small Arms Industry 1798-1870. [Don't let the boring title fool you, this is a VERY IMPORTANT book!!]

SMITH, Merritt Roe
Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology: The Challenge of Change [HF hated and resisted change all the way. Backwoods, nepotism, lousy work ethics, etc ruled the musket factory making crappy guns until beaten into submission for the M1842, while John Hall's Hall Rifle factory a few blocks away was cranking out 100% interchangeable guns from the 1820s.]

TATE, Thomas
From Under Iron Eyelids: The Biography of James Henry Burton, Armorer to Three Nations [U.S. Ordnance Dept Harpers Ferry; C.S. Ordnance Dept Richmond, Helped Brits set up for interchangeable, then the Russians.]

FARLEY, James.
Making Arms in the Machine Age: Philadelphia's Frankford Arsenal, 1816-1870.

MARCOT, Roy.
Spencer Repeating Firearms- Mostly about his guns, but also how he fit into the system, and the type of inventive young guy who made a real difference- guns, machine tools, steam powered automobiles, etc, etc.

Thank you, John. That's a lot of great info! Yeah, it is pretty fascinating how consistent the manufacturing processes were back in the 1800's, especially when you consider what technologies they had back then!