Ran across one a couple days back that appears to be in very good condition IMO. Full function with a smooth patina and maybe a smallish bit of pitting between two of the lands about mid length in the bore. It is missing the cleaning rod. It is part of an estate that is being disposed of in a methodical manner with the value considered by the administrator in the the $800-1200 range. One pic below, if anyone has interest send me a PM.

Dan it looks like either the firing pin is froze in the fired position, or its broken, or possibly the spring is gone. Might want to check that out.

Thanks, will pass that info on.

On later guns the pin is free floating...

Interesting, didn't know that. The gun was fired as recently as about 3 months ago for whatever that might be worth. My knowledge about Springfields is very limited. I heard that Custer didn't like them.

I have an 1873 Springfield with the Buffington rear sight. I load 300 grain bullets over 50 grains of Goex 2f. Fun to shoot!

Custer's men, of course, had the carbine version. There were reports about them becoming jammed in the field. Custer himself IIRC, carried a Remington Rolling Block. Custer's regiment was considered elite and was armed with the very latest technology the Army offered, as opposed to the best. Maybe things would have went better for them had the Spencer carbines not been replaced with the Springfields? I dunno. Injuns 1, Custer 0.



IMO about all of them are missing the original cleaning rod and the bayonet.

From the view in that picture the firing pin is sunk deep enough, there's no way the hammer nose will contact it.

Mine (I have 2) look the same with the breechblock closed on an empty chamber. Different picture with a chambered live round. Both function/fire just fine. Both rifles have free floating firing pins.

The original Loaded Chamber Indicator...Maybe? I read somewhere the '66s had a spring to keep the pin off the primer. The spring fowled and soldiers threw them away.
The 1873s were made standard with floating pins.
Pretty good performance standards, by 1884 the guns had a ladder rear sight that was regulated for the 500 grain load. The sight took into account drift due to rifling twist and was tested to penetrate 17' of sand at 1700 yards! (Supposed to equal a hit on a horse and or rider at that range.)
Custer had good guns, but the cartridges were copper coil and would split in the chamber or tear out the rim.
Old paintings show soldiers with the ramrods under their belts so when a round failed or fowled the could draw the rod and clear the jam. Many ( maybe most men) lost their ramrods!
The guns are said to have "loose bores" but in fact could be fired 25 times or so without cleaning. So yes a cold clean bore measures undersize (in smokeless jacketed terms) but works just fine in soft lead and black powder guns.

I stick with my 1884 model and its Buffington sight, thank you.