Trapdoor Collector Discussion Board

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ Previous | Previous in Thread | Next in Thread | Next ]


Re: trial rifles

Posted by Dick Hosmer on Friday, 29 October 2010, at 2:24 p.m., in response to Re: trial rifles, posted by Al Frasca on Friday, 29 October 2010, at 1:04 p.m.

Al, your latest acknowledged and (I believe) understood. I have perused the charts on pages 97 and 99 in some detail. I have no quarrel with 97, and as you know, I have a carbine at hand for comparison, but I feel that 99 is flawed.

I do NOT believe that the trial rifles had thick blocks. Who is more likely to have screwed with that feature - SA who was testing a "new" gun (and who contemporaneously built carbines with thin blocks) or Bannermans, who would do anything and everything, if they could make it fit and sell it? Was not part of the thinking behind the M70 an improved block? If so, WHY continue with the thick when new thins were clearly at hand? Yes, I know they were famously frugal scavengers - but, IMHO, that would NOT apply when it was a new feature under review.

How do you account for the MANY "forward sighted" M70s with thin blocks lacking "Model", and having M68 rods? I do NOT believe for one minute that either the word "Model" OR the double-shouldered rod were applied at the very start of the production guns. I believe there are actually THREE versions of the 1870: (1) trials, with tight sight (2) "early" production with forward sight and some M68 features, such as rod and possibly band (3) "classic" M70, WITH "Model", smooth bands, modified sight leaf, and double-shouldered rod.

Come on, you other guys - Jack Lewis? Bill Rutter? John Spangler? etc.


Responses


Post a New Response

Your Name:

E-Mail Address:

Subject:

Please answer the riddle feature to prevent spam:    10 + 15 + 1 =

Message:



Return to the Trapdoor Collector home page via this link.