TRS M1800 . 54 Rifle Arrives!

[zampilot]

"The 1/2 stock is more reliable than a FS. Its less likely to break."
At that point you have a half-stock rifle.

 

[Dphar]

Dan,

I might have to disagree with you here. There are just too many primary sources documenting the disastrous results of the new guns automatically switching their setting from "stun" to "kill".

I would like to see the citations for systematic old, proven technology late 18th/early 19th century arms failures. I don't think there are any. Other than wear to the locks (typical of the era) and two bursting near the muzzle there were no known problems with the L&C arms. Even the bursting was not due to new technology.
The point is the 1803 was *not* "new and improved" it just LOOKS different there was no difference in operation and no new technology. It was all proven "old" technology. Its not even as "radical" as going from an M-1 to the M-14. The M-14 WAS different and "new and improved".
Thinking a rifle like the 1803 would fail because of some non-existent unproven technology and a 1792 would not is simply not realistic. There was no unproven technology.
If they used 1792s they were likely relocked with 1803 type locks anyway as they virtually all would be in the next few years.

Dan

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Yup, I had already done that.
They sent me an incorrect email address.
Then I got another "odd" email from GW and one from Ernie Cowan himself stating:
"...you will most likely receive a curt response if you direct your inquiries to Great War. I apologize."

He kindly gave me a phone number to reach him at which I intend to do ASAP.

Yes, it is an active and very busy business, the non-WW1 end of the business is a separate entity and will likely get a curt response from some. Ernie will correspond with you and hopefully you will get the information that you want, he is very honest and an exceptional craftsman across several disciplines. In other words, he is an artist. His restoration work a Great War is nothing short of astounding - and carefully marked to show it's provenance as repair or reproduction I might add.

 

[tsmgguy]

The Rifle Shoppe puts out an extensive catalog of the parts that they produce. It's $19 and well worth the cost, as it is as much a reference work as it is a catalog. Photos of the locks of the guns described are pictured full size, for instance.

The Harpers Ferry model of M1803 rifle receives expanded treatment in the catalog. The features and characteristics of rifle #15 are photographed and compared with later production versions, of which there were three. Jess Melot wrote the catalog, and explains in an extensive article why he is convinced of the provenance of #15. The catalog is well worth your time and effort to procure.

While #15 differs significantly in details from M1803 full production rifle versions, anyone with any familiarity with the M1803 at all will have no difficulty in identifying it as an '03. This is because later rifles differ in the details only. #15 has all of the major design characteristics of later serial production M1803s.

Anyway, I'll have photos of the rifle up here on Monday, Aug. 24th.

 

[tmdreb]

I was attempting to use humor to agree with Dan. I don't believe there was any "new" or "unproven" technology in the 1803 rifle.

 

[tsmgguy]

M1800 rifle described, from the TRS catalog:
http://www.therifleshoppe.com/catalog_pages/us_arms/(935).htm