Trapdoor Rifles

OUCH!!!! Where does one even begin? That's as full of crap (in present form) as a Christmas goose...

Nicollo Machiavelli wrote about 500 years ago ""One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived."

Are there any newer collectors who would be interested in a list of the flaws - some of which are admittedly minor, but others that are downright forgeries and lies?

lol. I wouldn’t touch that with a Ten Foot Pole.

1. First, the “good” - the serial number itself IS believable, as in it cannot be PROVEN that it was NOT on a carbine. The breechblock appears correct. Lock plate is correct. Sorry, but that’s about the last of the good.

2. Now the bad: The stock poses real issues. First off it is the late long comb/thick wrist. Then a puzzle - it may not have a rod fill, but there are other ways of diddling the tip. At first, being charitable, I thought that it MIGHT be one of the rare “transition” (hate that word) ones that lack the trap though it is likely a reproduction, as the comb just doesn't quite look "right". Any sort of original is negated by the “worn’’ but still fake [SWP/18??] under the FAKE “5”, because those transition stocks were (ESA) or POSSIBLY (ESA/1877). The circle-P is also fake. Don’t know what to say about the “X”, other than that Bubba figured it added to the story…

3. Trigger guards were never color-cased on service carbines, only after-market sporters (or H&Rs, though the colors and pattern are wrong for the latter)

4. Steel pistol grips had nothing to do with officers.

5. Even though block appears good, thumb latch is wrong.

6. Hammer is either from a M1868 or a M1870.

7. Swivel bar is late/thick, though ring MIGHT be correct.

8. Barrel has large proofs. Were they the small, they MIGHT be given a pass, though “none” is probably still correct at that number.

9. Sight screws are slotted and buggered. Butt-plate tang screw and pistol grip screw have the smell of Ace Hardware,

10. The swivel band had been discontinued by that number. No pic is provided to show the little dings in the wood from that part, but I’d be very surprised if they were there…

11. In summary, the arm generally presents as a way-too-clean, badly mixed finish piece, with not even a HINT of having been together for more than a couple of weeks. The whole thing is BAD news, and to have to pay 20% premium for stupidly on top of cupidity, would mean that any bidder would really have to be pretty deep into self-abuse…

https://p1.liveauctioneers.com/9560/362 ... 1739731130

IMO the stock is new made, not original SA product, ans shows zero wear, age or patina expected of a zero finish gun.

Here are a few more oddities that I see.

Buttplate tang doesn’t fit the stock.

Samuel Porter wasn’t the master armorer until well after 1875. The Circle P doesn't look exactly right either

Trigger guard bow is on backwards

Stock contour around the lock plate and front of the comb is wrong, more like a repro. Stock tip is too round, profiled like a Smith carbine

Finish on tang doesn’t match finish on receiver

Barrel is bright, but band is like new blue. Dixie has lots of original almost new stacking swivel bands

Hinge pin leg is broken from being driven out with the action in the stock, with no commensurate stock damage.

Pistol grip screw slot is too wide and the bottom of the slot is flat, not radiused from being plunge cut with a keyway cutter. Screw head should be identical to a trigger plate screw head.

Tony Beck wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 2:32 am . . . .Finish on tang doesn’t match finish on receiver . . . . .

Please educate me here. . . .
I thought the tang finish and the receiver finish WERE different.
The tang and breechblock are case-hardened in color, while the receivers were blued.

Am I wrong?

Yes, for that period you are wrong.

Early guns had the tang, receiver, and block all hardened in oil. Later on (but still under 100,000) the tang and block - but not the receiver were color cased, in water. Look at the minty 1889-dated arms that were stored away. The receiver is STILL blacked, as opposed to the bright blue of the barrels. However, worn guns were reblued and as such are always subject to the arsenal vs. Bubba comparison.

On a badly faked POS like the "carbine" under discussion, it is to be expected that parts which should look at least close to matching, do not. The bright barrel and minty band are just further examples of this. Fifty years ago, that carbine would have sold quickly but (largely since Al Frasca's books) we have become MUCH more sophisticated - so much so that I find it hard to believe that such a piece could even be offered - with a straight face - in 2025.