Springfield Armory Made a Trapdoor Shotgun?!?

UPDATE 7/2023: I’ve added a new table to better illustrate the new production quantity calculations.

Everything is known because not much is known.

Here’s an obscure gun. Between 1881 and 1885, 1376 20-gauge shotguns were produced by Springfield Armory. These are known colloquially as the “Foragers”, but properly they are known as the Model 1881. They were assembled from discarded spare parts – old musket stocks cut back to just less than a typical carbine stock, surplus locks were pulled from the parts bin (primarily ’73s), old musket barrels reamed out to a smoothbore 20ga diameter. A new receiver was made, though anyone familiar with trapdoor rifles will have a hard time distinguishing its outward profile from any other trapdoor receiver and breechblock made after 1873. One of the biggest tells of this rifle in profile is that it’s the only trapdoor you’re going to see without any barrel bands. That and there are no sling swivels.

So, make note: a trapdoor with no barrel bands and no sling swivels means you should do a double take. It’s an extraordinarily interesting gun and we’ll get into that now.

But First, The Books!

I really like to acknowledge the books that I’ve been reading, and for this article, the following books provided a lot of insight.

For thorough technical detail and a bit of historical context, I would refer you principally to Richard Hosmer‘s book, More .45-70 Springfields, 1873-1893: The Uncommon, the Scarce, & the Rare. You can get his books on your Kindle app/device, which is really convenient for reference.

You can also find a brief summary of this gun in Norm Flayderman‘s canonical reference, Flayderman’s Guide to Antique Firearms & Their Values, 9th ed., where they are catalogued as 9A-376.

Al Frasca‘s books, The 45-70 Springfield, co-authored by Robert Hill, and The .45-70 Springfield, Book II, 1865-1893 have extensive and valuable information. These books are increasingly harder to come by, but a must-have for any Springfield collector – get ’em while you can! Al Frasca also continued to publish a newsletter, which included updates and addenda to his books, with new information about the Forager shotguns.

M. D. “Bud” Waite & B. D. Ernst wrote a book in 1980 entitled Trapdoor Springfield, and it’s a beut! It’s the earliest book I have with substantial Forager information, I presume it also served as a primary source for many subsequent books.

Robert W.D. Ball‘s book, Springfield Armory, Shoulder Weapons 1795-1968, gives very brief treatment to the gun, but adds nothing new that I can tell. Same with The “Trapdoor” Springfield by John Langeller.

Finally, the National Archives data is a constant resource and some of it has been digitized. I have been able to track down some relevant information here from the infamous Record Group 156, and the above books lean on this historical information heavily.

For a 10-minute video treatment by Ian McCollum at Forgotten Weapons, look no further than the embed below:

But.. Why??

But why, you may ask. Prior to these guns, foraging shotguns were not unknown. Rather than being manufactured by Springfield Armory, the armory purchased shotguns made by third parties at a high cost, inspected them, and sent ’em out into the field. As the name implies, foraging shotguns were used to supplement the chuck wagon with small game. These were not issued in the same numbers or with the same regularity as the Model 1881 would eventually be. It was also an expensive outlay for the cash-strapped Army.

I don’t think it’s fair to explain the Model 1881’s emergence with a single sweeping statement such as “it saved money,” or “it was cheap entertainment,” or “it helped put food on the table”. It was all of these reasons and more. All of these rationalizations to put the shotguns into the field can be seen in the correspondence leading to the development and eventual issuance of these guns. What follows is the first suggestion to convert condemned rifles and carbines into shotguns, via Colonel J. C. Kelton of San Francisco.

“It has been suggested that the Ordnance Department make from the Springfield rifles and carbines condemned – enough smooth bore shotguns to furnish each company a few to practice killing birds on the wing. . . .”

Col. J.C. Kelton, AAG, Miitary Division of the Pacific and Department of California, 1880

This can sound like a pretty casual request supporting what I think Ian McCollum terms “cheap entertainment” However, I’m going to take issue with that characterization as we go because it’s clear that, despite the almost frivolous tone of this letter, Kelton believes killing birds on the wing leads to better marksmanship generally, which is better for the Army generally.

Proof of Concept

Springfield Armory took Kelton’s suggestion seriously. Writing in August of 1880, Charles C. Morrison, Lieutenant of Ordnance at Springfield Armory, submitted a report on the shotgun. In this report Lt. Morrison states that he has completed his test of two prototype shotguns constructed at the armory and differentiated by barrel length. The long-barreled version had a barrel of 32.5” with a weight of 7lbs. The short-barreled version also weighed 7lbs. and had a barrel of 26”.

“Sir: I have the honor to report that I have had fired, the two shotguns made at the armory, by boring out .58 caliber rifle to .20 bore, in comparison with an English double barreled Greener 20 bore shotgun…”

Lt. Charles C. Morrison, August 10th, 1880. Report on Weapons, March 1878 – October 1881, RG 156.10.25 Records of Springfield Armory, MA

A table was provided of these results at 45 yards. I have done my best to reproduce it cleanly. I’m also posting an image of the original report below, as I think it’s really cool to see and I’ve not seen it produced in any other published work.

Morrison concludes,

“From the foregoing it will be seen, that either of these guns compare favorably with a good English standard gun of the same caliber. It is estimated that these can be made from the .58 caliber rifles on hand at a cost of $8.45. The long barrel does a little better shooting though the short one would be more convenient to carry.”

Lt. Charles C. Morrison, August 10th, 1880. Report on Weapons, March 1878 – October 1881, RG 156.10.25 Records of Springfield Armory, MA

For the record, the W.W. Greener double-barreled shotgun was listed as having a barrel length of 29 7/8” and a weight of 6lbs.

I think its notable that the armory’s evaluation of their shotgun conversion doesn’t go far beyond the question of whether it “quacks like a duck”. We made a shotgun, it throws shot, and about as accurately as you’d want. For further evaluation, it would need field trials to test how it performed for its intended purpose. The two experimental shotguns were now sent to Col. Kelton to do just this.

Field Trials

Here is the beginning of Kelton’s report on the performance, sent in January of 1881, almost a year after his first proposal. It’s hard not to read between the lines here. I’m taking advantage of you, dear reader, by not reproducing the letter in full, but with the benefit of having read it all, it seems Kelton is saying that the shotgun patterns well, but it wasn’t a pleasant shooter. You don’t really see fowling pieces today without pistol grips, for instance, do you?

“…They have been tried by a good shot in the field, and have been tested at all ranges, and with varying charges of powder and shot and different numbered shot, at paper targets 20 by 36 inches.

The results in the field were not as satisfactory to the sportsman as his skill with the double-barreled gun led him to expect; but this, I am sure, from the excellent targets made by these guns, was due to the fact that the sportsman has not used them sufficiently, and to the fact that the handle and butt in their present shape will hardly permit, without some practice, the rifle shotgun to be manipulated with great skill in shooting birds on the wing. But this will not materially diminish the general advantage and benefit these guns may be expected to have in the service.”

Col. J.C. Kelton, Jan. 24, 1881.

Both the Armory and Kelton compare the Springfield gun to the performance of a double-barrel shotgun. The reason, I surmise, is because a double barrel shotgun was the ultimate duck gun of the day. Today, we often use semi-automatic shotguns for that all-important follow-up shot. Back then, having a second shot ready to go was addressed by having a second barrel. Being used to this luxury, we can tell the “sportsman” that Kelton relied upon tested for practical function and utility beyond the shot patterns that Springfield Armory conducted.

What Was Col. Kelton After?

I will take the liberty of paraphrasing Kelton as saying, “the gun is a beast – no shotgunner will appreciate having to use this gun, but it does hit what you aim at. With practice and continued use, it would be effective for our goals.”

What were those goals? He closes the report with the following appeal to marksmanship:

“It may fairly be expected that the effect of having a few such shotguns with each company will be felt in many ways to the advantage of the service, principally, however, in inducing men to hunt and thereby become more skilled shots with the rifle. All the best shots among the officers on the Creedmore teams of the past two years were previously enthusiastic sportsmen with the fowling piece.

“Hunting is the best kind of instruction for the duties of a scout and guide. The man who is a good hunter will necessarily render the best possible service on the skirmish line.“

Col. J.C. Kelton, Feb., 1881.

Whether this was carefully thought-out rationalization to get his idea implemented despite the less than impressive experiential report or an earnestly held belief about the virtue of marksmanship is anyone’s guess. It’s true that the Army had a problem with general marksmanship. It’s true that the skills required for hunting would be beneficial on the battlefield and in scouting. J.C. Kelton was a fount of ideas, and he’s worth his own focused post some day, but I think in context of his other earnest contributions to refining grips, introducing front sight protectors and more, it’s safe to say that he was keenly interested in improving marksmanship.

If I take his argument in good faith, it sure sounds as if he’s proposing that these guns be available to be “checked out” by the self-selected rank and file. He speaks of the shotguns “inducing men to hunt”, thereby making them better at riflery and scouting.

In his cover letter to the report, Kelton previews the theme:

“[The shotguns] will be the means I am sure of educating at least a few men in every company in a way that will make them invaluable on the scout and in war.“

Col. J.C. Kelton, Feb. 1881.

General Sherman Gives His Approval

Ordnance confirmed the costs to the General of the Army, W. T. Sherman. General Sherman decided their fate:

“I recommend . . . that they be sent to the posts of the West, where hunting is practicable and usual, at the rate of two per company; not to be issued to men in ranks, but for the use of hunters and scouts to kill deer and large birds. They can be accounted for in the same way as other Ordnance on hand at the post, but not in the hands of troops.”

General W. T. Sherman, Feb. 1881.

Al Frasca observed in his book that Sherman’s distrust of these guns in the hands of the rank and file is notable. Is this admonition to keep them out of the troops’ hands a concern for their wasted potential, or does he feel that these guns have no appropriate role in combat out West? This question would be really fascinating to discuss over a beer, but to avoid me going down a rabbit hole, I’ll just point you to this Wiki article on the history of the combat shotgun. Its employment was not without controversy. Also, Stephen Dorsey’s excellent book, Guns of the Western Indian War, gives some thought to the use of shotguns in combat at the time. So again, it’s a bunny trail that with great restraint I must avoid for now.

Production and Distribution History

With General Sherman’s approval, the shotguns were produced and distributed. In addition to the two unnumbered trial guns produced in 1880, the following table does the serial number math for us based on reported quantities produced by year – I reproduce this table from Waite & Ernst’s book.

I’ll just say it: this table bothers me in the sense that I don’t know how to source its data. And let me reiterate if you haven’t read the About page of this website that I don’t claim any authority to be questioning these authors for whom I hold the utmost respect. I’m always amazed at how little I understand even when I think I’m understanding. It would be very consistent with my experience that I just haven’t seen the source material these guys had access to. However, Waite & Ernst’s book does emphasize that these numbers are only estimates.

Frasca’s production numbers are as follows:

There are a couple difficulties I have staring at these tables side-by-side:

1. Frasca’s and Waite & Ernst’s books disagree on which year to attribute this last batch of 500. Their respective tables agree with the exception that Frasca listed 1884 as having produced zero guns and attributing the lot of 500 to 1885.
   
2. While the two books agree exactly on the production numbers for 1881-1883, from where are the numbers sourced? Not the annual reports from the Ordnance board, that’s for sure. I presume that Frasca is just reproducing the W&E numbers. If Frasca had real data behind these numbers, the odds that they’d line up perfectly with the estimate from W&E are about nil.

Analysis of the Production Numbers

We’re about to go deep-nerd here, and it makes my brain hurt to try and reconcile these numbers, so fair warning. If you’ve made it this far, just put your helmet on and bear with me.

The bottom line is that I think I can add greater resolution to the production schedule. You can skip to the colored table lower down if you want to see the results I developed, but if you want to know how I arrived at these numbers, including the analysis of actual numbers from Ordnance Dept. Annual Reports and supplemental manufacturing reports from the Armory that Al Frasca reproduced in his newsletter, you’ll want to keep reading for the gory details. Let’s get started.

For context, prior to 1974, the US federal government’s fiscal year ran from July 1 to June 30. All the reports from Ordnance were submitted at the end of the fiscal year, such as the “Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1884”. The fiscal year 1884 would have started on July 1, 1883, and ended on June 30, 1884. So, the fiscal year is named for the year in which it ends, not the year it began.

Let’s look at an example.

The Annual Reports (AR) from Ordnance list the following production numbers:

You can see our two trial shotguns are listed as 1881, but this is fiscal year 1881, which began in July of 1880. The trial guns were produced in the summer of 1880, and we can lean on this with some confidence based on both correspondence between the Armory and Col. Kelton, and internal Armory reports. Specifically, in the letter shown above, we know the two trial guns existed as of August 10th, 1880. So in the case of these first two trial guns, we can see how they report the year of production as fiscal year 1881, but we also know they were produced in calendar year 1880.

First, let’s address the discrepancy between Waite & Ernst and Frasca about the production numbers in the year 1884. I think Frasca had the correct data, probably owing to the benefit of having seen a sampling of manufacturing reports from Springfield Armory covering the calendar years 1883-1886. It does seem that the data shows zero produced in 1884, which I corroborate later in this article.

As to the second question about the numbers from 1881-1883, did W&E simply move the fiscal year back by one to present the data as a calendar year? The numbers still don’t line up very well. For instance, 251 guns reported by our authors in 1881 vs 276 from the Ordnance reports in the 1881/2 timeframe. From where are the authors getting their data?

In Frasca’s newsletter, where he published updates to his books and a host of added material, he reproduced records from the “National Armory Report of Manufacture, Repair, & Maintenance”, starting only with the year 1883. The National Archives have not digitized these records as near as I can tell, and while I will continue to search for them like Gandalf in the subterranean libraries of Minas Tirith, I can for now only relay what I have read from his newsletters. These reports show the total quantity produced to date, not for the given year. Ideally, you can do the math between two consecutive reports to see how many guns were produced in the intervening time. Frasca gives us five of these reports, from the first quarter (1Q) of calendar year 1883, 3Q of ’83, 1Q of ’84, 1Q of ’85, and 3Q85.

Let us focus on the year 1883, for which we have the benefit of both the Annual Report (AR) from Ordnance and the Armory manufacturing reports (MR), and compare the numbers to the Authors’ counts.

I’m going to use the following conventions and abbreviations as I refer back to data or dates:

Here we go:

1. First, everyone agrees that the Armory produced only two shotguns in the calendar year 1880. We have a high degree of confidence in this date because correspondence and Armory notes document it. Were these guns counted in the MR numbers? I’m not sure, so let’s assume that all my calculations may be +- 2; it’s not material but I’m going to assume they ARE included.
   
2. The assertion that no guns were produced up until the start of fiscal year 1882 (July 1881) is a little squishier, but a good case can be made. Gen. Sherman’s approval for the manufacture of the guns only came in February of 1881. In any case, the AR for FY 1881 reports that only two shotguns had been produced in the prior 12 months ending June 1881 (these being the trial guns). Perhaps the new shotguns needed to wait for an appropriation? It would be interesting to dig through period appropriation requests (something I never thought I’d say as a child).
   
3. The AR for FY 1882 reports that SA produced 276 shotguns between July 1881 and June 1882. This would be a production rate of less than 1 shotgun per day for fiscal year 1882 (for all these calculations, I am consistently assuming 52 work weeks, a six-day work week, ignoring holidays as immaterial for purposes of year-over-year comparison). This seems very low, but perhaps it’s explainable by being the initial production run.
   
4. The MR from Jan. 6th, 1883 says that 620 shotguns had been produced in total by the end of CY 1882. This means that 342 shotguns were produced between July 1882 and December 1882 (620 minus the 276 accredited to between July 1881 and June 1882 and the two trial guns). Such a result implies a production rate increasing to two shotguns per day in the second half of calendar year 1882.
   
5. The AR for FY 1883 reports that the armory churned out 600 new shotguns in the single fiscal year (July 1882 – June 1883). Subtracting the 342 produced in the first half of the 1883 fiscal year (July – December 1882), this implies that 258 were produced in the first six months of calendar year 1883. Is that plausible? It comes out to only 1.65 guns per day, easily within the 1-2 shotgun per day rate we’ve calculated so far. We can also see how this lines up to overall small-arms production. In FY 1882, the small-arm production rate of the Armory was about 75 guns a day. For FY 1883, this had increased to about 107. Production of shotguns accounted for about 2% of total small-arms production at Springfield Armory in 1883. 2% of the daily rate of 107 is about 2, so we’re doing good.
   
6. In the manufacturing report from July 7th of calendar year 1883, we see that 870 shotguns have been produced to date. Just using the math from these two 1883 MRs, we see that 250 guns were produced between January and EOM June 1883. This is at least within the ballpark of the 258 we calculated above for the same period. Why the difference of 8? Unfortunately, everything flows out of the earlier numbers for which we don’t have the manufacturing reports. The MR data is published on the first Saturday of the new quarter, so an extra week of 1.6-2 shotguns per day would account for the extra eight if the tally was turned in sometime that week. I’m only guessing though.
   
7. The manufacturing report submitted in January of calendar year 1884 shows zero shotguns produced in the final six months of 1883. The annual report for the fiscal year ending in July of 1884 backs this up with a report of zero shotguns produced. The manufacturing report submitted in January of calendar year 1885 shows zero shotguns produced in the final six months of 1884. So, from these reports, it seems safe to assert that no shotguns were produced in the calendar year of 1884.
   
8. The AR for FY 1885 reports 500 shotguns produced during the period between July 1884 and EOM June 1885. Since we know that there were no shotguns produced in the last half of 1884, this means that 500 shotguns were produced in the first half of 1885. This would be a production rate of 1.6 shotguns per day. This rate lines up cleanly with the rate of production in 1883. They knew what they were about.

What does all this tell us? First, the disagreement between Frasca’s and Ernst and Waite’s books falls in Frasca’s favor – zero shotguns produced in 1884. Second, my calculations seem to imply a production timeline as follows with the associated serial number ranges:

Here’s a comparison broken out by yearly quarter, including my numbers, and the sources.

This provides greater resolution for the production numbers of the Model 1881 “Forager”. The quantitative differences with Al Frasca’s numbers by year are perhaps not material; the offset of 8 at the end of 1882 disappears by EOY 1883. What we really see is that we can describe when production was taking place with more precision. For example, we can see that production didn’t ramp up quite as quickly as I think is implied by the earlier published numbers. We also see that the cessation of production in 1884 actually began six months earlier in 1883. Additionally, we can see that production was completely at an end by the first half of 1885. Presumably the value of this greater resolution would also be realized when trying to match guns to dates or events.

Annoyingly, there’s no finer resolution to be had for the years 1881 and 1882, and probably can’t be until further records are uncovered.

The production years should roughly correspond to the SWP (Samuel W. Porter) cartouche on the left of the stock. The table of serial numbers above is presumed broadly accurate, but not gospel – the serial numbered receivers were not strictly used in sequence, there was a delay between production and inspection, some discards would certainly be in there, so there’s some fuzz to these annual assignments. Have you seen a Forager with a cartouche dated to 1884? Do you have a forager in a range that doesn’t agree with the production years listed above? That would be very interesting to see. What would be awesome to find is a pair of shotguns with sequential serial numbers and different SWP cartouche dates. For those maintaining “known serial number” lists, it would be of special interest to record the corresponding cartouche date.

Why No Shotguns in 1884?

What explains the vacation from shotgun manufacturing starting in the second half of 1883 and continuing through 1884? Glad you asked – this is explained by an analysis of the quantity of personnel in the field to determine how many would be needed to fulfill the General Order, and some primary source attestations. Let’s look at some more numbers.

In the 1881 Annual Report to the Secretary of War, it’s noted that there are 430 companies in the nation. I quote the report directly because this number is buried in a complaint about conditions out West that you may find interesting in its own right:

“All these annual reports, with justice, dwell on the fact that our companies are too small for efficient discipline and for economical service. There are in the Army 430 companies, which are necessarily widely scattered over our vast domain, to guard property and to prevent, as far as foresight can, complications and troubles of every variety and kind – at one time protecting the settlers against Indians, and again Indians against the settlers.”

Annual Report of the Secretary of War for the year 1881 (November 10th, 1881). War Department.

From this report, we know the total enlisted force of the Army in 1881 was 23,596. Of this number, 10,530 were spread across 250 infantry companies, 6,882 were in 120 cavalry companies, and 2,403 were in 60 artillery companies. The report goes on to list the average strength of the companies as follows: 58 enlisted men for cavalry, 40 enlisted men for artillery, and 41 enlisted men for infantry. These numbers included the NCOs and musicians, meaning the actual fighting force was less, compelling officers to “group two or even four companies together to perform the work of one”. (AR, 1881).

From these numbers we can get a sense of how the shotguns were distributed, and it reveals that every company had their shotguns by 1883. I’m saying this because we have 430 companies, and even outfitting every company in the nation with two shotguns per company we’d need 860 guns. By 1883 we exceed 860 guns produced and issued.

Why 430 companies? That’s more than infantry. Yes, and from General Orders in 1904 we have good reason to believe the shotguns would have been in the possession of not only the infantry companies, but likewise the cavalry and artillery companies (GO No. 37, Feb. 20, 1904, per Waite & Ernst). I reproduce this GO later in the article, but we might also note that Gen. Sherman and the Annual Report from 1883 refer to all companies West of the River.

“Ah! But wait!” you say, “These were only issued to companies West of the Mississippi!” And I think you’d be right, even though issuance records drastically exceed such this smaller quantity (demonstrated later). Sherman’s order was to issue them to the “posts of the West”. In 1881, the Army posts were divided up into the following “departments”: Missouri, Texas, The Platte, Dakota, California, The Columbia, Arizona, The East, and The South. You can see at this point it’s easier to tally the people East of the Mississippi than the other way. The numbers in 1881 for the Department of the East amount to 1,802 enlisted men. For the Department of the South, we stand at 2,325. All in, East of the Mississippi it seems we have 4,127 enlisted men, divided by average company size of 46 men, giving us roughly 89 companies East of the river. The total company count of 430 less 89 gives us roughly 341 companies West of the river. At two shotguns per company West of the Mississippi, we need only 682 scatterguns to outfit everyone.

I realize these are rough numbers, but it still seems like 1883 before we hit a quantity manufactured to supply the deserving companies. Let’s not forget that we’ll also have repairs and spares in this two-year period. And high-ranking officers jumping the queue to buy their own, apparently.

Officer Purchases

We have records of ten shotguns being sold directly to officers before initial production is completed in 1883. These were sold for $8.45 each (or about $300 in today’s terms). We see this practice continue all the way until at least 1897 while these guns are still in service – they are not surplus, and the officers are reimbursing the Armory for exactly the manufacturing quote provided by Lt. Morrison in the Springfield Armory internal report shown earlier in this article. Furthermore, the officers who buy them are very high-ranking. General Sherman himself is on record as having bought one in October of 1882. I have never seen serial numbers associated with these purchases, but I guess it’s fair to say that, based on the greater resolution of production numbers shown above, Sherman’s 1881 shotgun is lower than SN 276. He bought a second one in May of 1883, and this one would be lower than 876.

The final confirmation comes from the Annual Report of 1883. Of the “Springfield Shot-Guns” it is reported with a gusto fit for the newspaper audience that:

“A sufficient number of these arms have been completed, and the troops west of the Mississippi have been supplied with them – two to a company, with a supply of ammunition. These guns have been most acceptable to the soldier in the field. It is not known that any other army in the world on frontier service is so well supplied with special means of acquiring skill in the handling of arms while providing a variety of food by hunting.”

Annual Reports of the Chief of Ordnance, 1883. Gov’t Printing Office.

So, all signs point to enough guns having been manufactured by 1883, with nearly a couple hundred to spare for replacement. Our Annual Report data tells us that be the end of fiscal year 1883, 856 shotguns had been issued. This seems like an excessive number, and I have no explanation for why so many would be issued if the scope was constrained to just the forts out West. There is no record of the shotguns being issued to colleges or militias in this timeframe, only ever to the Army in the field and direct purchases from officers. If the shotguns were issued to companies East of the Mississippi, 856 isn’t enough to account for that. Yet this number represents 25% more guns than would strictly be necessary to outfit all the companies West of the Mississippi. Was the combined failure rate and loss that high? Had the army grown by that much in two years or were companies being shuffled West to such a degree as to explain this quantity of guns issued?

The Distribution and Sunset of the Model 1881

Flayderman’s book tells us that the “Last known issue was in 1906 in Alaska” (Flayderman, p. 585). I was really struck by this, not only in terms of how long these single-shot 20-gauge shotguns remained in service (some 26 years?), but where they may have journeyed in that time. Conceivably, everywhere from the forts out West, to the Philippines, to Alaska! 3rd US Infantry Division alone bounced all over the place in this timeframe.

Frasca’s book details 21 serial numbers assigned to Infantry companies. It’s the best we’ve got at this point. This data he pulled from Frank Mallory’s serial number books, known to most of us as the SRS (Springfield Research Service) data. This information only goes through 1895.

I don’t know if further records exist that would tell us which shotguns went where, but it’s safe to say that based on other Springfield Armory serial number research that you cannot infer anything not explicitly stated in documents. For instance, it would be incorrect to say that because SN 900 went to, say, Montana, then SN 1300 went somewhere much further West. Or because SN 900 went to Wyoming, that SN 901 must have been in Wyoming, too. The receiver is the only part numbered, and its trip from manufacture to treatment to the stocking shop was circuitous and nothing like the assembly line floor you may be picturing from the car factory. Even a shotgun sent in for repair may not have been returned to the same company that submitted it.

In the hearsay column, there are people still alive who claim to have received one from a relative who used it while posted at such-and-such fort, or to have bought one from such a person. If you’re in the position to hear such a story, I wouldn’t take it as gospel, but I’d certainly document it, ideally by a firsthand accounting (e.g. signed letter). Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Don’t think Forager forgers won’t go to extraordinary lengths.

However, if you found one in a remote village in Alaska or the Phillipines, next to where a fort once stood, that would be some powerful circumstantial evidence. Good luck with that.

Speaking of Alaska — what was the source for this link to Alaska? The book by Waite & Ernst may have been a source for this statement by Flayderman. From their book, on page 101:

“The only shotgun of Springfield Armory manufacture to be made and issued to troops, the Springfield Model 1881 shotgun, remained a standard ‘post’ item of issue until February 20, 1904.”

Trapdoor Springfield, Waite & Ernst. 1980.

W&E source this date to “Army General Order No. 37” and note that in subsequent “general order No. 46”, “troops serving in the Territory of Alaska were authorized to requisition shotguns.” They speculate that this added several years of service beyond 1904.

General Order No. 37 has this to say, specifically:

“All shotguns now in the possession of companies, troops, batteries, or bands will be turned in to Springfield Armory, Massachusetts, or Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois.”

General Orders, No. 37. February 20, 1904. War Department.

In fact, W&E had a typo in their book, discovered if one tries to track down “order no. 46”. Through some digging, I found that it’s actually General Order 146, a very lengthy order. Buried down in section 24, it says:

“Shotguns will be issued only to troops stationed in Alaska, for hunting purposes. The annual allowance of ammunition will be 1,000 loaded cartridges per company or troop.”

General Orders, No. 146. Septermber 7, 1904. War Department.

Neither of these GO’s specifically mention the Springfield Model 1881, but this is assumed by W&E.

But Flayderman.. he sounds very specific in saying that the last recorded issuance was in Alaska in 1906. What was he looking at to determine this? I’d dearly love to know.

Timeline Visualized

Here’s a diagram of the timeline that I put together to visualize the evolution of the Model 1881 from service to collectible status. You can click on it to expand.

How Many of These Guns Survive?

Everyone who has written about these guns notes that they were rode hard and put away wet. If you’ve been duck hunting, or have read anything by Patrick F. McManus, you can let your imagination run wild thinking about the abuse they would have suffered hunting in the Western frontier. We have exceptional trapdoor rifles because thousands upon thousands were made, and a fair number led gentle lives. Here we have less than 1400 originally made, all of them issued into the frontier (to my knowledge) and used hard.

A well-known and authoritative source that keeps a list of serial numbers for the Model 1881 and will be including it in a new book edition soon estimates the survival rate at just North of 10% (that’s about 140 for those keeping score). I will certainly be buying at least a couple copies when that comes out, hopefully soon. It’s notable that in 1997, the book by Al Frasca contained a list of just 23 known Model 1881 Shotguns. In some 25 years, our visibility into the extant population has improved greatly. This is in thanks to diligent research, but we must also acknowledge the visibility gained from the coinciding generational turnover of gun collections, online collaboration, and successful online marketplaces, three factors which have combined to give us an unprecedented public view into what’s been in collector’s closets for many decades.

What we’re unlikely to uncover more of are records on how these guns were disposed from service. For instance, Frasca’s books detail 21 of these shotguns being sold to military personnel between the years 1882 and 1897. Additionally, Frasca itemizes seven lots of the shotguns sold to private companies between 1891 and 1902. Many of these were considered unserviceable and sold for a pittance. Across these lots, 212 shotguns were sold. It’s conceivable that these guns were parted out and, in some cases, reassembled to make working guns out of a number of unserviceable guns. This means that a shotgun you see today might be a Frankenstein made out of original Frankensteins, if that makes sense.

That said, a Model 1881 is not terribly hard to find in 2022. Collections are, with bittersweet regularity, rolling over from our boomer cohort of caretakers to younger generations. While the surviving guns are relatively few in number, the audience of interested and knowledgeable collectors is also relatively small, making these guns relatively low-priced and overlooked treasures for now.

Beware the Fakes and Forgeries!

Flayderman, Hosmer, and McCollum all caution against fakes. In addition to the Hosmer pull quote that opened this article, McCollum remarks that these are “easily” faked because of their Frankenstein nature, being an assemblage of other rifle parts and therefore not too hard to mimic the outward appearance at least. Norm Flayderman simply admonished us thusly: “Caution should be exercised when acquiring this model.”

Several commercial interests, such as E.C. Meechum, marketed their own bastardized shotguns made from surplus trapdoors that at first glance may look similar. But in terms of getting the genuine article made by Springfield Armory and issued into military service, there can be only one! The books by Hosmer and Fasca provide good detail on how to identify the real deal.

What Distinguishes the Better Examples?

There are none that would match a book definition of “exceptional” or “NIB” condition, so for an authentic Forager, “exceptional” condition typically means that it retains more color than not, is intact, is fully functional, is part complete, and has visible cartouches and marks. These guns are numbered, so there will always be a premium for single-digit examples. Ditto for bomb-proof provenance of a gun’s employment.

As this gun was assembled from spare parts, there are plenty of variations within the Model 1881 family. My own gun has a three-position tumbler, but I believe most are two-position. The hammers have different patterns, there are different markings on the lock plates. The comb lengths on the stock can vary. In theory, one could make quite a collection just of Foragers themselves, trying to find each authentic variation still represented by the surviving specimens. It is really neat to put two or more side by side for a stare-and-compare session. I would refer you to Richard Hosmer’s books for the most thorough examination of these characteristics that I have seen.

My Own Anecdote

I am now the happy caretaker of a Forager that I picked up at the Tulsa gun show. While walking the floor with it in arm, it received a fair bit of attention. As I was milling about, two knowledgeable gentlemen called out from behind their table across the aisle asking if it was a Forager. That’s a good eye that can spot this gun in profile at 5 yards (remember: no barrel band, no sling rings). When I replied in the affirmative, their first question was, “how do you know it’s not fake??” Not being one to turn down an opportunity to jibber-jabber with fellow collectors, I went into some detail about the characteristics that made me comfortable with its authenticity. Satisfied, one remarked that he knew about them but had never actually seen one in person before that. Pretty cool. I was entirely ignorant of these guns until a member of our collectors’ association had shown me an example, knowing my interest in things Springfield. He and I recently had the opportunity to set them down together and go over the differences in detail.

Still Room for New Research

Now, as much as we know about the technical detail, we don’t know a whole lot about the people using them or the stories behind them. In part, this is because there weren’t many of them, they were issued to companies not soldiers, they never had a legendary wagonbox-type fight to distinguish them or even the general appeal of being a combat arm, and perhaps because nobody really cared to know more anyway. Sayeth the incurious gunmonger, “they were shotguns, soldiers used them to hunt squirrels, what more do you need to know?” But as with all things collectible, the minutiae become meaningful.

Here are a few of the open questions still on my mind:

• What were the real production numbers in 1881 and 1882?
• What sources do we have related to 1906 issuances to forts/companies in Alaska?
• Can we trace specific serial numbers to the officers that purchased the guns between 1881 and 1897?

If you know of examples where provenance is known, particularly if it’s defensible with other records, by all means feel free to share your info in the comments below.