Model 1870 type???

[carlsr]

Here is a model 1870 50/70 manufactured between October - December 1873.
I acquired this rifle from the former owner John Knight threw Al Frasca. John informed me that this rifle was made in the last quarter of 1873 as shown in the graf on page 92 in book 2 which shows 400 rifles and 100 Metcalf's.
Made from a new stock with one ESA cartouche along with a circle P proof.
John told me that this is believed to be the first usage of the circle P proof.
Breech block is marked Model 1870.
M 70 rear sight.
1st type M73 cleaning rod.
One ESA cartouche.
Circle P proof.
All metal except cleaning rod is in the white.
Apparently only 400 of these were made, this is the only one I have seen in my short time collecting TD's so just wondering if anyone else here has seen another?

IMG_20230813_114814.jpg (206.53 KiB) Viewed 2082 times

IMG_20230813_114754.jpg (96.05 KiB) Viewed 2082 times

IMG_20230813_115114.jpg (95.35 KiB) Viewed 2082 times

[carlsr]

More pictures

IMG_20230813_115020.jpg (220.58 KiB) Viewed 2081 times

IMG_20230813_114920.jpg (156.34 KiB) Viewed 2081 times

IMG_20230813_114852.jpg (129.42 KiB) Viewed 2081 times

[carlsr]

Cleaning rod.

IMG_20230813_114828.jpg (105.6 KiB) Viewed 2081 times

[Dick Hosmer]

Very nice rifle, interesting stock - likely extremely scarce, but if it were mine, I'd change the rod. The 1870 and 1873 were basically the same except for head diameter and finish. Even if they were experimenting with finishes, I'd think it very unlikely that that rifle came with the small head.

[carlsr]

Very nice rifle, interesting stock - likely extremely scarce, but if it were mine, I'd change the rod. The 1870 and 1873 were basically the same except for head diameter and finish. Even if they were experimenting with finishes, I'd think it very unlikely that that rifle came with the small head.

Thanks Dick. According to Al that is the correct cleaning rod.
The head diameter is .429 or there about which is larger.
I should have not used 1st type as they are
.394.

[Dick Hosmer]

So (now) you are clarifiying that it is not an 1873 rod as originally noted, but rather a blued .50 caliber rod?

If that is the case then I certainly yield to Al's evaluation, BUT I still feel a white rod would at least look better, and I suspect that about 99.9% of the population would agree.

[carlsr]

So (now) you are clarifiying that it is not an 1873 rod as originally noted, but rather a blued .50 caliber rod?

If that is the case then I certainly yield to Al's evaluation, BUT I still feel a white rod would at least look better, and I suspect that about 99.9% of the population would agree.

I'm sure 99.99% of the population would agree but I would rather it be correct than pleasing
I can not find Al's email pertaining to the cleaning rod so I can't repeat exactly what he stated.
I do recall him saying that it was the correct rod with the large head, not sure if he said 1st type?? That being said do all 50 caliber rods not have the cannelures?? I believe that the 1868, 69 cadet and all 1870 models do not, correct?
If correct the rod on this 1870 has cannelures along with being blued would make it a 1st type rod with the large head as I believe Al stated???

IMG_20230814_125356.jpg (59.38 KiB) Viewed 2031 times

These 400 rifles made between October and December were produced to fulfill production of the M73 from what John Knight told me. Could be that 50 caliber rods were used on the earlier M73's.
Maybe Al could add more information.

[Dick Hosmer]

AFAIK, ALL .50 rods lacked the cannelures, had large heads and were in the white.

You, and Al, were apparently discussing a rather obscure 'transitional' variant of which I was not aware.

I DO agree that "right" trumps "pretty", but I am ALWAYS suspicious of a LOOSE part - one which could have been put there by ANYONE from Samuel Porter down to little Billy Bob Bumf**k - especially when it is the "wrong" color AND configuration. IF they used '73 rods to finish the last of the '70s, I'd sure like to see some documentation. If the rod has a .50 head, WHY didn't they just use it as is, instead of going to the extra work of cutting cannelures and bluing? Two points to consider: They were VERY frugal in those days, and, the simplest answer is often the correct one. That rod seems (to me) to require too many leaps of faith. However, on the other hand, THE simplest choice would be to go to the .45-70 rod barrel and grab a couple of handfuls!

I'm working on reformatting my .58/.50 book, and would love to see such use substantiated for inclusion therein.

[Fred Gaarde]

That is a Very interesting rifle!
This is all wonderful information too.

[carlsr]

Another question would be, why did they go to the trouble of making a completely new stock without the spoon?
I don’t believe the cannelures were added by billy bob bubba as when laid by a 73 rod the cannelures match perfectly.
Hopefully Al will see this post and comment on the originality of the rod. Sure wish I could find his e mail on it