Trapdoor Collector Discussion Board
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ Previous | Previous in Thread | Next in Thread | Next ]
Re: Another One For Pete
Posted by Dick Hosmer on Thursday, 13 May 2010, at 9:34 a.m., in response to Re: Another One For Pete, posted by Bob on Thursday, 13 May 2010, at 8:50 a.m.
As a forty-plus year collector, I KNOW how badly people want to know the history of their own particular rifle or carbine, but it's apparently time for sour old Dick to throw his semi-annual bucket of cold water, again.
A number which does not match, EXACTLY, a reference in one of the four SRS serial number books - or other reference - may NOT, repeat NOT, be presumed to have had the same service as those listed nearby! In fact, there is some validity to the contrarian theory that it therefore did NOT see such usage - else it would have been listed with the others! SA did NOT assemble, pack, ship, or issue arms in consecutive order - this has been proven by a number of arms chest labels.
Through the hard work of certain individuals, mostly the late Frank Mallory, we have available SOME data for about 5% (1 in 20) of production. Sadly, that means that 95% of the arms will likely never be identified as to usage, since the records - most of which were tossed a hundred years ago - have been THOROUGHLY searched!
A couple of generalities may be made - (1) ANY serial number over 50000 (actually less - I'm being generous) was NOT at the LBH with Custer. (2) An 1888 rod-bayonet with regimental markings on the stock, almost certainly was used by State (the regulars did not mark their weapons) troops during the SAW period. Beyond those two examples, not much else can be said.
I'm (still) re-writing the FAQs, and will TRY to make this issue clear enough so that enquirers may simply be referred there, thus saving some effort on the part of the group.
Post a New Response
Return to the Trapdoor Collector home page via this link.