Issue, Refurbishment, and Reissue of Trapdoors to the frontier military

[throck3]

Does anybody have any reference citings regarding the system and ordnance policies involving the turning in of well used small arms during the 1870's through the 1890's? Soldiers, of course, were expected to maintain their issued weapons and instructed on the use, cleaning, and preservation of their rifles and carbines during the period, but they did incur wear. They were handled daily while in garrison during drill, ceremonies, guard duty, etc. While in the field, they were handled constantly and saw all sorts of unavoidable abuse because of circumstance. Between the two, it was unavoidable that the trapdoors saw rapid wear and occasional breakage. At what point were the arms turned in for repair or refurbishment, and what was the procedure? Armory production records show the notations for "arms repaired and refurbished", so we know that refurbishment occurred. Were these refurbished arms immediately reissued to regular troops, or were brand new arms issued out? The turnover of these arms must have been tremendous. As I have previously pointed out, wear on these arms was inevitable simply from handling during regular duty, let alone field usage.
All comments or reference citings are welcome!

[Tom Trevor]

Covered in the two books By Frasca and Hill. Arms under serial number 50000 were ordered turned in in 1879. many parts were refinished and used to produce the stared serial numbered arms. These were store and not issued to the regular army but to national guard and militia units.

[throck3]

I was aware of that, but there is more to the story. Those were arms that were out of date because of the improvements that had been made. I'm asking about the well used arms that saw expected wear in service. At what point were they exchanged for newer arms, and sent in for refurbishment. What happened to them then? I have found hints to this subject. I have been paying attention to the early Indian War Period manner of placing unit marks on the weapons. Apparently, this became an issue to the Ordnance Department because the unit stamps, in both the wood stocks and in the metal, complicated weapon refurbishment because it would cause the arsenals (wherever the arms were sent for this work) more expense in sanding out the markings in the wood stocks, or the replacement of barrel or receiver parts if unit marks were found in the metal. Although I can't find the actual published order, apparently the Ordnance Department put out a directive forbidding placing unit marks on weapons because of this. Not to be confused with the later Spanish American War period unit markings on militia and state issued weapons. That's a whole different set of rules regarding those.

Tom, your citing the turn in order of pre-50,000 serial number arms brings up another question.... I wonder why they chose that specific serial number as the cut-off point for the recall. And I ask that because they were still manufacturing arms that had the narrow receiver and narrow block, and that continued into the mid-90,000 range serial numbers. I just received Model 1873 rifle, serial number 94424, with the round cartouche, dated 1878. It has the narrow receiver with a narrow type 2 block (with low arch) and second type firing pin. The stock is inletted for a narrow receiver, and the front sight is the first type milled, one piece sight along with a type two hammer. The rear sight is a second pattern M1877 sight (with the slotless screws that don't appear to have been tampered with.) Obviously a good candidate to illustrate the frustration of serial number sequences due to the batch assembly system, but why the ca. 50,000 cut-off point when they were still manufacturing basically the same rifle (except for rear sights)?

[johngross]

Does anybody have any reference citings regarding the system and ordnance policies involving the turning in of well used small arms during the 1870's through the 1890's?

On page 203 of BOOK II Al writes the following.

"As a general rule, post repairs were made by substitution of serviceable for unserviceable parts. The parts were either obtained from a parts stock at the post or, for more extensive repair, the parts were obtained from the Armory. Springfield strongly recommended that all arms in need of major repair be sent back for refurbishing. Spare barrels were always issued from the National Armory with the breech block attached. Sight bases and bayonet studs (front sight bases) were allowed to be brazed on or at posts or depots."

Looking at Colonel Brophy's ARSENAL OF FREEDOM for fiscal year 1890 (where the book begins) it shows 35,444 parts for the Springfield carbine and rifle were "Issued to Military Establishment." This is in addition to 38,659 parts for the caliber .45 rifle and 5,550 parts for the caliber .50 Springfield rifle "Distributed to the Militia." A similar large number of parts are also shown issued and distributed for fiscal years 1891 and 1892.

I also believe it's reasonable to say the regional field depots/posts did not send arms for repair to Springfield by the ones or twos, but probably waited until they had a large batch.

Were these refurbished arms immediately reissued to regular troops, or were brand new arms issued out?

On page 187 of Waite and Ernst, a letter is reproduced about what they refer to as "The Great Turn-In" for arms <50000. The letter states in part that the old arms are not to be turned in until after the receipt of new ones.

[johngross]

Here's an added tidbit from FIREARMS OF THE AMERICAN WEST, by Garavaglia and Worman (Volume II, page 41).

"Instead of shipping entirely new guns to frontier units, the Ordnance Department sometimes sent out new components, which the company armorer installed on existing arms. In mid-1878, for example, San Antonio Arsenal sent a quantity of M1877 carbine stocks to Captain John See of the Fourth Cavalry, then stationed at Fort Clark, to replace the stocks on carbines already in the hands of his men."

[throck3]

Thanks Tom and John! There's quite a bit of information in those pages of Al's Book II. Though focusing on the explanation of the starred weapons the the turn in of below 50,000 numbered arms, it does provide a significant amount of information the repair and refurbishment of used arms. I do wish there was more information on the instructions the exchange for worn weapons for new ones at the unit level.
Thanks again. It was very helpful.

Rick T.