what is this?

[trigger643]

no markings, not even a serial number. What is this pistol?

[Jim Keenan]

It is an Italian Model 1889B. The 1889A had a folding trigger and no guard. Caliber is 10.35mm Italian, sometimes called the 10.4mm. They were made by Glisenti, Brescia, and others.

They were not bad guns for the time, but with no ammo and an antiquated design they are not worth much today, even when (rarely) they are in good condition. Interarms made table lamps out of thousands of them.

The lever at the top left rear of the grip that looks like a safety actually unscrews the sideplate on the right side for takedown.

It would have had both a serial number and a maker's name; it appears to have gone through at least one cycle of rust and buffing, and the numbers got lost someplace along the way. It is an antique, so no sweat on the missing markings.

Jim

[Lugerdoc]

Glen,Believe it or not, I do have some parts instock for the 1889A folding trigger model. This and the Jap T26 are the only revolver parts in my inventory. TH

[trigger643]

Tom, I bought the "other" post (1911 Springfield circa 1914 garage sale find), and got them to throw this in as part of the deal. They had $50.00 marked on it. There is a gun show this morning and I'm hauling it down there. BTW, on the C&R board, I was also told this was part of the Spanish contract supplied to Italy during WWI, thus explaining the lack of marks of any kind. FYI, the edges are very sharp and I doubt this piece was heavily buffed or buffed at all. Although anything less than 0000 steel wool should be restricted to non-gun owners

[Jim Keenan]

I'll double check when I get a chance; my sources don't indicate any of those made in Spain, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Tac, IIRC, Glisenti was a private company. Brescia refers to the Italian Arsenal in that city.

I am not sure of the power difference, but I would probably take that revolver over the SA Schofield (a gun I love as a collector and hate as a shooter). I would not want the folding trigger model, though. I would take the Webley only because of the faster reloading.

Here's a question along those lines. Say you are a soldier in combat in 1891. Would you want the current U.S. rifle, the "trapdoor" Springfield, or the Italian Carcano?

Jim

[AGE]

Custer didn't have a choice, the indians did. Trapdoor Springfields aren't too great against Winchesters.

[John -Melb]

Glisenti M89 Double Action. A big bore double action firing a fairly anemic cartridge. A fairly typical European service arm of the period. I understand US troops captured quite a few of them during early landings in Tunisia ("Operation Torch"?)during WW2
AS for what I would carry if in action, same bloody thing everybody else is. For two reasons
A. Where are you going to obtain 5.56 mm amunition in the year 1891?
B. Being clothed or equipped differently to the rest of the mob usually results in unwanted and unfriendly attention from anti-social types like enemy snipers.

[John Sabato]

Definitely the U.S. Rifle Caliber 5.56mm M4... I figure if the rifles were available... the ammo would also have to be...

The Pistol? the Colt M1911A1 in military dress hands down... no match bushings or barrels... just G.I. parts... Keep it clean and lubricated...I NEVER had a jam using issue ammunition... and during my military career, I fired at least 50,000 rounds of .45 ACP ammo in them...

[Edward Tinker]

Okay, I am one of these guys that doesn't like the M16A1 or A2, so for punch the Trapdoor, but for firepower, I'd take an M1 Carbine, Garand or M14 over the M16 any day. It is fine, but I just don't love it....

(and I am a 45 fan also, building a shooter from GI parts right now in fact, hey! I need a pin for the hammer and the do hicky thingy that hangs from it, I think I have all the rest of the other parts)

But I think when he said "current rifle" he meant of these two choices, "Would you want the current U.S. rifle, the "trapdoor" Springfield, or the Italian Carcano?"

I am not familar with the Carcano of that time period, but the Trapdoor I have has a hell of a punch and works well. But I think matched SA's and a Trapdoor for every trooper would have made a big difference, plus enough ammo...

Ed

[AGE]

Jim meant the guns available in 1891 (I think). If he meant today, I would choose my Para P-14 (with 5 magazines) and my Colt AR-15 with red-dot sight and all the magazines I could carry.

In 1891 I would choose my Winchester 30-30 and Colt SAA .45 (or a couple of them). Keep the trapdoor Springfield, or sell it to the indians.

[John -Melb]

Al, the 30/30 come out in 1894, hate to tell you but if action I wouldn't want to be waiting around the Q Store door for three years for the ammo to arrive. Given a choice of any battle rifle available in 1891 I'd probably opt for a Lee Metford, fast bolt action and ten shot magazine.
On my earlier post, the Glisenti M89 was also known as the Bodeo Revolver. The Italians made them up to about 1926 and they were often captured during WW2. I once heard that some were even made with brass (bronze?) frames. I remember reading somewhere on the net that they are still fairly common around North Africa.

[AGE]

John,

You're right of course. But, Winchester '86s were around and they used a BIGGER cartridge anyway. I'm not familiar with all of the rifles available in 1891, but a single shot would be unacceptable to me if I had to fight in an indian war. Funny, John Wayne always had a repeating rifle on the frontier.

[Jim Keenan]

Obviously, I meant the guns of 1891, not the M23 laser rifle which will be issued in 2085. The Carcano (and all Italian guns) seem to be despised by most Americans, for no especially good reason. The rifles were comparable to those adopted by other countries at the time. The Italians did have to keep an old design for a long time, but then so did the British.

The Carcano was a six shot, high velocity, flat shooting rifle in service at the time the US was still using the trapdoor. Custer's "last stand" was in 1876, not 1891, so he could not have had most of those rifles mentioned in any case.

Had the Carcano existed, though, Custer would have been better off with it than with a rifle and ammunition that consistently jammed.

The Winchester and other lever action rifles were turned down by almost every army because they were (and are) complex, hard to take apart for cleaning and very susceptible to dirt and dust.

By the way, the Indians at the Little Big Horn did not all have Winchesters; in fact, only a few had any kind of repeating rifle, and most had bows. It was not a case of the troops being "outgunned"; it was a story of numbers and a complete breakdown of command and control by Custer and his officers.

Jim

[John -Melb]

Fully agree with you Jim, except for stopping power the Carcarno is a much better battle rifle (for the time) than the Trapdoor, its faster, has a much flatter trajectory, and is a repeating bolt action loaded by a clip. For the time, I'd still prefer a Lee Metford, it had all the benefits of the Carcarno, except clip loading, a ten shot magazine and a lot more "downrange" thump.

[Heinz]

The Trapdoor Springfield has two things going for it, accuracy and firepower. It will hit and kill at several hundred yards, even in a wind. The Carcano will fire more than once. Maybe 5 times and then you have to reload it and the reload time may be more than it takes to load the trapdoor 5 times. Provided the Springfield,s ammo has not been corroded solid in a leather cavalryman's belt. The power and accuracy of a Carcano at 200 yards is truly pathetic. I have shot one. The action is no great shakes either.

The Carcano is NOT the contemporary of the trapdoor. The very early Mausers are. And the French needle guns. The Winchester 66 fired a revolver cartridge. Although Custer went down, Benteen's troops, once dug in, kept the same Indians at bay. Perhaps because of the range and wallop of the Springfield. The Springfield Model contemporary with the Carcano is the 03 A3 30-06 and the other WWII battle rifle was the extraordinary M1 Garand. I won't even stoop to compare the M1 to the carcano boat anchor.

[Jim Keenan]

I was, of course, being facetious about a comparison that never happened. I was trying to point out that the much despised "Eyeties" were in some respects ahead of the U.S. in arms technology in that era.

I would agree that the Carcano cartridge is not the most powerful, but I don't feel like volunteering to be shot with one at 200 yards, nor, I suspect, does Heinz. Carcanos I have fired have been quite accurate, certainly within and exceeding U.S. specifications for infantry rifles. WWII production guns are rough, but the early actions are smooth and compare well with other rifles of the era.

The Carcano and the trapdoor were certainly contemporary, though at the end of the lifespan of one and the beginning of the service of the other. Carcanos were issued beginning in 1891. The trapdoor was still in service in 1898 and later, and the first Krags were not even produced until 1894 (the official adoption date was 1892, but it took over a year to retool Springfield Armory). So there was an overlap.

Jim

[John -Melb]

Jim, you're right that the Italians were ahead of the US, in terms of military rifle technology in the 1890's, but I suspect you may have raised some eyebrows saying it. The truth is the Italians were issuing the Carcarno at the same time the US army was issuing Trapdoor Springfields. This was probably due to Italy, being a European power having to "keep up with the Jone's" in relation to small arms technology.
At the time the US army was still issuing it's troops a single shot breech loader firing a black powder cartridge, the Italians were issuing a clip loading bolt action rifle firing a modern, if somewhat underpowered cartridge. Almost every nation of Europe was issuing a rifle of similar specs (bolt action and clip loaded repeater) except France and Britain. The French had the Lebel (bolt action repeater fed from an eight shot tube magazine) and the British were issuing the early Lee Metford or Lee Enfield rifles (bolt action feed from a ten shot magazine)
The US army was probably still using obsolescent arms (by European standards) at this time becase that was all that was needed, the US soldiers weren't facing a modern wel equipped and possibly hostile army just across their borders

[Edward Tinker]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by John -Melb:
<strong>...At the time the US army was still issuing it's troops a single shot breech loader firing a black powder cartridge, the Italians were issuing a clip loading bolt action rifle ...
The US army was probably still using obsolescent arms (by European standards) at this time because that was all that was needed, the US soldiers weren't facing a modern well equipped and possibly hostile army just across their borders</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Well, this might get some feedback John...
The US Army in the American Civil War had developed multi-shot weapons, but with the drawdown of the army, it was decided to go cheap, and refurbish, and thus make the vast quantities of single shot rifles into a breechloader. Then as they used up all the parts, the bean-counters back east kept the Trapdoor for another 20-30 years, even tho they then had to make new models. Meanwhile, civilians were using Winchesters, Spencerâ??s, Colt Revolver Rifles, etc.

Although we had little to worry about the Canadians or Mexicans attacking us, the "hostiles" in their many tribes and affiliations were definitely the best guerrilla fighters the world had ever seen.

Ed

[John -Melb]

The fact that the US Army fought extremely effective guerilla fighters during this time is not in any doubt by me. Fortunately these "hostiles" lacked, in many cases modern (again by European standards) arms. Imagine the combination of Chief Joseph, Geronimo, Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse and a couple of thousand clip loading, bolt action repeating rifles, plus of course a plentiful supply of ammunition!

[G.W. Gill]

Did the Park Service do an archeological survey at the Little Big Horn and forensically match most ballistic evidence? I don't remember the conclusion... moment later I find ( http://www.cr.nps.gov/mwac/libi/firearm.html )