View Full Version : Looking for help identifying an old rifle
7590975910759117591275913
Only external stamping I could find looks to be a serial number.
Yup, that's an old rifle!
I think it's likely a Trapdoor...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_model_1873
If so, possibly 1887...
https://gun-data.com/springfield_trapdoors.html
Wow, that was quick. Thank you
Wow, that was quick. Thank you
I've actually bid on a couple in hopes of getting a nice wall hanger, but they are very collectable if in good condition.
Here's a few ("good") ones from recent auctions...
https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/1031/210/springfield-armory-us-1873-rifle-4570-govt
https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/2017/247/us-springfield-model-1873-trapdoor-rifle-with-bayonet
https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/2017/246/us-springfield-model-1873-trapdoor-rifle
Cool history. The carbine version was used by Custer's battalion at Little Big Horn. Also the pictures of Geronimo and his apache warriors holding them.
If you are in Cody Wyoming the Museum up there has almost all the variations of the trapdoor on display.
If you are in Cody Wyoming the Museum up there has almost all the variations of the trapdoor on display.
Highly recommended. That is one of my favorite places in the world.
If you are in Cody Wyoming the Museum up there has almost all the variations of the trapdoor on display.
I'm gonna add that to my list. I looked at their website. Way cool. And modern.
Cool history. The carbine version was used by Custer's battalion at Little Big Horn. Also the pictures of Geronimo and his apache warriors holding them.
Neat rifle. As an aside... one of the decisive factors in LBH was the order was given to leave sabers at camp, as they expected a "long range" battle using only rifles. It turned into a CQB melee, and they had no weapons for such an engagement type. They also didn't wait for their Indian Scouts to get back and report on their recon patrols' findings, and those who were able to report back did not have their findings disseminated throughout all the present units, and if I recall my buddy's mother-in-law's book on the subject (wish I could find it!) I think it was B Company/Troop attacked before they were supposed to in part due to this failure of communication.
She did her Master's Thesis on the battle and turned it into a book, but decided to do it primarily based on the battle scenes painted by warriors there. She only used army sources/accounts where they filled in gaps in the info. Her reasoning was it was unlikely to have a warrior paint/tell lies about events since others were there. Dishonor amongst the warriors was a big thing to avoid. The narrative she was able to bring out of the Indian sources was basically that the 7th royally screwed up and the warriors were able to turn it to their advantage. Had the 7th followed simple things like: wait for your Scouts to return, don't assume the battle won't turn into close quarters, and coordinate communication amongst combat elements, the LBH might have been a complete massacre on the other side.
Really wish I could find that book to clarify my memory on what all she said. It was a fascinating read.
Neat rifle. As an aside... one of the decisive factors in LBH was the order was given to leave sabers at camp, as they expected a "long range" battle using only rifles. It turned into a CQB melee, and they had no weapons for such an engagement type. They also didn't wait for their Indian Scouts to get back and report on their recon patrols' findings, and those who were able to report back did not have their findings disseminated throughout all the present units, and if I recall my buddy's mother-in-law's book on the subject (wish I could find it!) I think it was B Company/Troop attacked before they were supposed to in part due to this failure of communication.
She did her Master's Thesis on the battle and turned it into a book, but decided to do it primarily based on the battle scenes painted by warriors there. She only used army sources/accounts where they filled in gaps in the info. Her reasoning was it was unlikely to have a warrior paint/tell lies about events since others were there. Dishonor amongst the warriors was a big thing to avoid. The narrative she was able to bring out of the Indian sources was basically that the 7th royally screwed up and the warriors were able to turn it to their advantage. Had the 7th followed simple things like: wait for your Scouts to return, don't assume the battle won't turn into close quarters, and coordinate communication amongst combat elements, the LBH might have been a complete massacre on the other side.
Really wish I could find that book to clarify my memory on what all she said. It was a fascinating read.
That kind of reminds me of a book I was reading called What If. Each chapter is a breakdown of pivotal moments in history that could have gone the other way if not for some small detail or screwup. The book starts all the way back in 701BCE with Nebuchadnezzar (sp?) sacking Juda all the way up to Vietnam and everything in between. I never finished it all, thing was like 5000 pages long. Basically the main reason Nebuchadnezzar didn't burn Israel after Juda was because all his soldiers got dysentery from drinking poop water and they had to go back to babylon. Had that not happened we likely wouldn't have any of the abrahamic faiths as we know them today because all the tribes of Israel would have been pretty much wiped out.
anyway, I love stories like that
eta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If%3F_(essays)
Martinjmpr
08-30-2018, 09:58
Neat rifle. As an aside... one of the decisive factors in LBH was the order was given to leave sabers at camp, as they expected a "long range" battle using only rifles. It turned into a CQB melee, and they had no weapons for such an engagement type.
Custer's 5 companies were outnumbered at least 10:1. Sabers only would have prolonged the inevitable (and likely not by much.) In reality, cavalrymen in the post-civil war Indian wars almost always left their sabers behind when they went out on a campaign as they were pretty much useless in the kind of fighting they were likely to do in the West.
There have also been those who suggest that Custer should have brought Gatling guns with him (he had been offered a battery of Gatling guns at Fort Abraham Lincoln when his regiment set out to pursue the Indians as part of the Summer 1876 campaign.) Custer declined the guns because he believed (quite rightly) that they would hamper his mobility. Gatling guns were transported on heavy carriages and could not keep up with Custer's horse cavalry, so if he'd had the guns, it's possible the large gathering of Indians would have dispersed by the time he got there.
LBH was an anomaly among Indian war battles. No other battle was like LBH and there was never another battle like that afterwards.
And of course, it was a Pyrrhic victory for the Indians anyway. The destruction of Custer's command created a backlash that resulted in a huge increase in military spending and the Army was given orders to crush the Sioux and Cheyenne, and they did. By the end if 1876 all of the Sioux had been confined to reservations and they completely lost access to most of the "unceded" hunting grounds that had been promised to them in the Fort Laramie treaty of 1868.
If you haven't been up there, it's well worth it to go and see the battlefield for yourself. It's much easier to understand what happened when you can see the terrain. The National Park Service does a great job of showing how the battle unfolded and doing a kind of "terrain walk" through the significant parts of the battlefield.
I should add that I'm something of an Indian War buff, have read a lot on the subject and visited quite a few interesting historical sites. There's actually a major anniversary event coming up next month - the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Beecher Island in Eastern CO. There's going to be a big commemoration with a color guard and a lot of other special events. Our camping group is going to be camping there for the weekend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beecher_Island
Izzy, i just ordered What If from the library.
Izzy, i just ordered What If from the library.
lol I just got it on audio book, it's abridged but it'll do
Custer's 5 companies were outnumbered at least 10:1. Sabers only would have prolonged the inevitable (and likely not by much.) In reality, cavalrymen in the post-civil war Indian wars almost always left their sabers behind when they went out on a campaign as they were pretty much useless in the kind of fighting they were likely to do in the West.
There have also been those who suggest that Custer should have brought Gatling guns with him (he had been offered a battery of Gatling guns at Fort Abraham Lincoln when his regiment set out to pursue the Indians as part of the Summer 1876 campaign.) Custer declined the guns because he believed (quite rightly) that they would hamper his mobility. Gatling guns were transported on heavy carriages and could not keep up with Custer's horse cavalry, so if he'd had the guns, it's possible the large gathering of Indians would have dispersed by the time he got there.
LBH was an anomaly among Indian war battles. No other battle was like LBH and there was never another battle like that afterwards.
And of course, it was a Pyrrhic victory for the Indians anyway. The destruction of Custer's command created a backlash that resulted in a huge increase in military spending and the Army was given orders to crush the Sioux and Cheyenne, and they did. By the end if 1876 all of the Sioux had been confined to reservations and they completely lost access to most of the "unceded" hunting grounds that had been promised to them in the Fort Laramie treaty of 1868.
If you haven't been up there, it's well worth it to go and see the battlefield for yourself. It's much easier to understand what happened when you can see the terrain. The National Park Service does a great job of showing how the battle unfolded and doing a kind of "terrain walk" through the significant parts of the battlefield.
I should add that I'm something of an Indian War buff, have read a lot on the subject and visited quite a few interesting historical sites. There's actually a major anniversary event coming up next month - the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Beecher Island in Eastern CO. There's going to be a big commemoration with a color guard and a lot of other special events. Our camping group is going to be camping there for the weekend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beecher_Island
It's been so long since I read the book and talked with the author, that I certainly won't make LBH a hill on which to die a rhetorical death.
I wasn't aware that the Cav often left sabers behind in the plains wars, and the author presented it as if an anomaly. Makes sense, in that it makes no sense. The Cav of those days were essentially what tankers are today -- overconfident in equipment and associated tactics, screwed when they lose the advantage and have to revert to more infantry-like tactics. However, I never liked the heavy Cavalry as an entity and have long believed they should have rolled 19D's back into the 11D's like they were prior to the late 70's/early 80's. I despise the Armor corps and the antiquated mindset its officers bring. Good to know they're just continuing an historical trend :/
re: 10:1 out of the Cav's favor seems like an ill advised suicide mission for attack scenarios; it seems that such info would have been good to know (or did they?) and I would assume waiting for their scouts to return and give proper info would have clued them in. I thought the standard rule was 3:1 with superiority in favor of the attacking element.
Have you done any research into the Indian accounts of the battle per their drawings of it?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.