Dick,
I think you're remembering the M1867 Navy carbine forends with cartouche -- and Dixie used to have lots of them as well. They were surplus after Whitney altered the Navy carbines to .43 Spanish rifles for Hartley & Graham.
Search found 243 matches
- Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:11 pm
- Forum: RR / Pre -1899
- Topic: Trying to reconstruct a 1870 Springfield Trials Carbine
- Replies: 9
- Views: 4622
- Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:41 pm
- Forum: RR / Pre -1899
- Topic: Trying to reconstruct a 1870 Springfield Trials Carbine
- Replies: 9
- Views: 4622
Re: Trying to reconstruct a 1870 Springfield Trials Carbine
Matt, I, too, have such a project carbine: I have a mint condition frame, a few parts, wrong TG plate, no wood. From what I can tell, the Sharps bar is correct, and mine almost fits but the cylindrical end is too long to fit completely into the shallower hole in the frame. But that is easy to remedy...
- Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:35 pm
- Forum: RR / Pre -1899
- Topic: KM Receivers
- Replies: 6
- Views: 3192
Re: KM Receivers
George Layman's analysis is based on the records of receipts that were published in Pierre Lorain's old book: 9202 rifles. The actual shipping records, from Remington, show that all 15,000 rifles on the Greek contract were sent to France.
So, we need a different answer on the KM rifles.
So, we need a different answer on the KM rifles.
- Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:44 pm
- Forum: RR / Pre -1899
- Topic: KM Receivers
- Replies: 6
- Views: 3192
Re: KM Receivers
Your barrel and forestock are from a Navy M1867 Remington carbine. We would need to see some photos to comment on the frame/breech, to include a photo looking into the open breech. What are the markings on the top tang?
- Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:43 pm
- Forum: RR / Pre -1899
- Topic: Another Rolling Block Question
- Replies: 3
- Views: 2489
Re: Another Rolling Block Question
By the shape of the frame and the rotary extractor it is a late manufacture, post 1879, rifle.
- Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:03 am
- Forum: RR / Pre -1899
- Topic: IDìng A Remington Light Baby Carbine .44 RF
- Replies: 12
- Views: 7799
Re: IDìng A Remington Light Baby Carbine .44 RF
One key measurement is the thickness of the frame. Matt shows 1.140 inches. The standard military frame, called the No. 1 for sporting arms, is thicker.
- Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:14 pm
- Forum: RR / Pre -1899
- Topic: IDìng A Remington Light Baby Carbine .44 RF
- Replies: 12
- Views: 7799
Re: IDìng A Remington Light Baby Carbine .44 RF
For clarity, did you measure the complete barrel length, from muzzle to the face of the breechblock? Otherwise known as "in the bore" length.
- Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:31 pm
- Forum: RR / Pre -1899
- Topic: IDìng A Remington Light Baby Carbine .44 RF
- Replies: 12
- Views: 7799
Re: IDìng A Remington Light Baby Carbine .44 RF
By your photos, this does not appear to be a Light Baby Carbine. It has the wrong buttplate shape, and the hammer and breechblock spurs are too thick - those on the Baby Carbine were much more delicate. The Baby Carbine has an 18 inch barrel; what is the barrel length on this carbine?
- Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:13 pm
- Forum: RR / Pre -1899
- Topic: IDìng A Remington Light Baby Carbine .44 RF
- Replies: 12
- Views: 7799
Re: IDìng A Remington Light Baby Carbine .44 RF
The Light Baby Carbine was manufactured by E. Remington & Sons from 1885-1886, and by the Remington Arms Co. from 1890-1910. The top tang will be marked accordingly. The early batch of carbines was made in .44 RF and .44-40 calibers. The later batch was made in .44 CF only. No data on assembly n...
- Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:14 pm
- Forum: RR / Pre -1899
- Topic: Help ID’ing an old rolling block
- Replies: 30
- Views: 11978
Re: Help ID’ing an old rolling block
Look here to see a description and good photos of the M1870 Army rolling block:
http://ww2.rediscov.com/spring/VFPCGI.e ... E=47165541,
http://ww2.rediscov.com/spring/VFPCGI.e ... E=47165541,
- Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:52 am
- Forum: RR / Pre -1899
- Topic: Help ID’ing an old rolling block
- Replies: 30
- Views: 11978
Re: Help ID’ing an old rolling block
A true Navy rifle barrel would have a sword bayonet lug under the muzzle. The barrel on this rifle is highly polished, and I see no evidence of the lug in the photo. Does close inspection with a magnifying glass show where such a lug might have been?
- Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:29 pm
- Forum: RR / Pre -1899
- Topic: Help ID’ing an old rolling block
- Replies: 30
- Views: 11978
Re: Help ID’ing an old rolling block
Is this rifle really 50-90 as stated in the original posting?
- Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:51 pm
- Forum: RR / Pre -1899
- Topic: Help ID’ing an old rolling block
- Replies: 30
- Views: 11978
Re: Help ID’ing an old rolling block
Dick, I have correspondence that says the Army wanted a change to the hammer, but I never had an 1870 Army at the same time as a Navy to be able to compare them.
- Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:26 am
- Forum: RR / Pre -1899
- Topic: Help ID’ing an old rolling block
- Replies: 30
- Views: 11978
Re: Help ID’ing an old rolling block
What is the length of this rifle’s forestock? Maybe the stock was replaced by a Navy Model stock?
- Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:42 pm
- Forum: RR / Pre -1899
- Topic: Help ID’ing an old rolling block
- Replies: 30
- Views: 11978
Re: Help ID’ing an old rolling block
Matt,
Nice analysis!
Unfortunately, it was my error in suggesting that it was the breech block that was different (senior moment). It was the hammer shape that was supposed to be different.
Apologies.
Ed
Nice analysis!
Unfortunately, it was my error in suggesting that it was the breech block that was different (senior moment). It was the hammer shape that was supposed to be different.
Apologies.
Ed