1863 Remington rolling block Navy Carbine

Topics related to Pre - 1898 Remington Rifles
Post Reply
douglas1950
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:35 am

1863 Remington rolling block Navy Carbine

Post by douglas1950 »

I am in possession of a genuine Remington rolling block carbine from the 1860's. It has all the key requirements to be genuine. The ejector pin is at the 6:00 position. The caliber is 45-70, not 50-70. The 50-70 cartridges will not fit.. they are about 3/8 ths too long. the firing pin is spring loaded and the base where the firing pin sits is in fact slightly concave. The light needs to hit it just right to see there is an indention. The P / F.C.W. / an anchor is on the right side of the receiver. It took a while to find it because it is half worn off, but there is another anchor dead center on the top of the barrel between the rear site and the end of the barrel. The butt stock is possibly not the original, it has no metal plate on the back at least. The fore stock bracket looks not to be original. It seems to be slightly larger than was originally used on the fore stock. There is a U stamped on it, but no ring or swivel for a sling.
Here's the part I am really interested in... the serial number appears to be 446#... not sure at all the last #. I got the gun from a man in Arizona who said that's where it had been for some time in a family possession; possibly a family that had lived in AZ since the Civil War. Is there any way to know who was issued this carbine and what was the official disposition of the carbine? Did it get re-assigned for use in the Indian Wars? Thanks for any help.
oldremguy
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 8:53 am
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: 1863 Remington rolling block Navy Carbine

Post by oldremguy »

The Model 1867 Navy Carbine was chambered in 50-45 which had the total length of the brass about 1.35", so 50-70 brass would be to long.
douglas1950
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:35 am

Re: 1863 Remington rolling block Navy Carbine

Post by douglas1950 »

Yes, I said that in my post. I tried a 50-70 & it was too big.
ehull
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:04 pm
Location: So. California

Re: 1863 Remington rolling block Navy Carbine

Post by ehull »

The Model 1867 Navy carbine was adopted in that year and used for a decade until declared obsolete. They were assigned to ships, not to individual sailors. Starting in the late 1870s the Navy disposed of them to surplus arms dealers. Many were altered to .43 caliber with new barrels. Yours sounds like it remained in the original .50-45 caliber because it retains the serial number of the original barrel.
Dick Hosmer
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Contact:

Re: 1863 Remington rolling block Navy Carbine

Post by Dick Hosmer »

douglas1950 wrote: Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:57 pm Yes, I said that in my post. I tried a 50-70 & it was too big.
You said in your original post that it was too long, not too big, so, unless you have measured the bore, it would seem that the possibility of it being in .50-45 still exists? In fact - saying that the .50-70 was too long implies that it entered the chamber, but would not seat. A .50-70 round should not even start in a .45-70 chamber. I'm confused.
douglas1950
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:35 am

Re: 1863 Remington rolling block Navy Carbine

Post by douglas1950 »

The 50-70 cartridge that I have.. one made by Reed's research... is too long by... my guess... 3/8th of an inch. It does go in however. All the other aspects on this carbine match the critical aspects of a Navy Carbine. (concave base, ejector @ 6:00, second anchor stamp on top of the barrel...) It has a 'slow' twist to the bore, but if the 50 won't fit properly, why can't it be the 45-70? Were the barrels so precise.. or perhaps a few mm tolerance?
Dick Hosmer
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Contact:

Re: 1863 Remington rolling block Navy Carbine

Post by Dick Hosmer »

I believe you probably have a standard 1867 .50-45 Navy carbine.

The differences between a .50-70 case/chamber and a .45-70 case/chamber are far more significant than your comment about the preciseness of the fitting tolerances would imply. They worked to .001" even then, and a difference of .05" would have been huge. I am rather puzzled as to why why you apparently so 'want' it to be a .45-70, in the face of all reason? The two cartridges are not anywhere even close in size or shape.
douglas1950
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:35 am

Re: 1863 Remington rolling block Navy Carbine

Post by douglas1950 »

I believe you just confirmed what I have been trying to say... I have a surviving member of the 5000 original Remington rolling block Navy carbines.. I am not hung up on the 50-70 or 45-70, I was only trying to meet the 'critical' identification aspects of what oldremguy posted for being one of the 'very scarce' 1866 Navy Carbines.

Thank you all.. I believe I can feel safe in listing the carbine on Gunbroker with a new degree of confidence that it is genuine.
oldremguy
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 8:53 am
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: 1863 Remington rolling block Navy Carbine

Post by oldremguy »

Best of luck to you on Gunbroker.
The photo below shows the difference in size of the 50-70 Cartridge and the 50-45 Cartridge.
50-70  &  50-45.jpg
50-70 & 50-45.jpg (157.87 KiB) Viewed 4412 times
douglas1950
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:35 am

Re: 1863 Remington rolling block Navy Carbine

Post by douglas1950 »

Thanks for the help.. I was getting confused because I have a reasonably new Marlin 45-70.. the 50 -70 cartridges I have originally came with this carbine and aided in the confusion and finally I just kept getting hung up on the '50' being the led number, not the 45. Douglas
Post Reply