Trapdoor Collector Discussion Board
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ Previous | Previous in Thread | Next ]
Re: Bottem of barrel & receiver makings on M 1868 rifle
Posted by Al Frasca on Thursday, 7 July 2016, at 4:15 a.m., in response to Re: Bottem of barrel & receiver makings on M 1868 rifle, posted by Dick Hosmer on Wednesday, 6 July 2016, at 11:16 a.m.
Setting up a 4-jaw chuck can be a real pain since the bottom of the receiver is curved and the fourth jaw would have to be in the receiver. The tightening or loosening of the receiver might be a problem. If you have a good way of getting the receiver off, then the collet is the way to go.
You are right, there are several fonts used for the numbers. The Springfield font left a nicely stamped number. The other stamps are usually larger and deeply embedded.
I find it easy to justify why Bannerman and others disassembled the guns. For Springfield, I would think the goal was to refinish the barrel or receiver during a restoration process.For the M68 and M70 arms, these restorations could have come long after their production runs since Springfield refurbished these arms up into the 1890s. The Navy or Marine Corps was requesting restoration quotes on 50-70s in the 1890s.
Justifying the matched numbering system as a means of keeping track of barrels and receivers is interesting because the 1907 RIA auction mentioned selling over 5000 new M84 rifles and over 5000 refurbished M84 rifles. Now one has to ask, Just how much restoration was done to these rifles?? Were these rifles disassembled, reblued and re-assembled, requiring a number on the barrel and receiver to be sure they were properly fit?? Restoration services were not as high except for the production runs on starred rifles and carbines in the 1881 and 1882 period.
In Ordnance Memorandum 22 (1878) is where the process of final reaming of the chamber after assembly of the barreled action is explained.
Post a New Response
Return to the Trapdoor Collector home page via this link.