Trapdoor Collector Discussion Board
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ Previous | Previous in Thread | Next in Thread | Next ]
Re: Bannerman (?) Trapdoor question
Posted by John on Sunday, 21 July 2019, at 11:07 a.m., in response to Re: Bannerman (?) Trapdoor question, posted by W. L. Wyman on Saturday, 20 July 2019, at 10:44 p.m.
Thanks for posting. You and I may think these are neat and legitimate history, and that history does not end the day a rifle is stuck in a crate at Springfield Armory.
However, some purists are aghast that anyone would be interested in one of these, or even a gun which was altered in military service. They look askance at one which has "mixed parts" as a result of arsenal overhaul, or group cleaning at the unit level. They abhor flintlock muskets converted to percussion, even though it was an authorized modification. Similarly, updates of M1892 Krags to M1896, or rod bayonet M1903s to knife bayonets, or gas trap to gas port Garand conversions are sometimes unloved. Some wise person termed these "evolved" guns which legitimately went through several configurations and should be appreciated in any of them. (Collectors, surely will want one of each!)
My "Frankenfield" term encompasses those which evolved, some would say mutated, far beyond any military evolution. But, I think they are fun, and Frankenfield is a fun name for them and clearly recognizes their dubious heritage.
Now, about that M1863 Springfield musket that Bannerman blued, I need to figure out if that fits the Frankenfield category, or if it provides an excuse to form a separate Bannerman niche in the cave.
Then there are the hybrid Rem-Field rolling blocks and Spring-Chester Hotchkiss rifles which need distinction from their cousins made exclusively by one or the other.
This sort of stuff keeps the collecting game interesting, and provides new excuses to convince the spouse that another gun is needed.
Post a New Response
Return to the Trapdoor Collector home page via this link.