Remington RB Carbine need help bore .514

[Jim C]

I have a Remington rolling block carbine would like to know your thoughts on
1. .514 bore at the end of the barrel
2. It measures 18 1/2 from tip of barrel to beganing of receiver
3. Only marking on barrel is a P under forearm
4. Barrel band has a B stamped on it
5. Left side receiver has a B stamped on it
6. Right side receiver has U.S. stamped on it
7. Upper and Lower Tang are stamped D81525
8. It is Rimfire
9. 5 groove rifling

[ehull]

Really nice carbine. It dates from pre August 1870 because of the concave shape of the lower surface of the breech block. It could be .50 Spencer rimfire or a larger cartridge - Remington used both in that era. It appears pretty standard in its configuration.
An enigma is the "US" mark on the frame. Please upload a photo of that.

[Jim C]

Really nice carbine. It dates from pre August 1870 because of the concave shape of the lower surface of the breech block. It could be .50 Spencer rimfire or a larger cartridge - Remington used both in that era. It appears pretty standard in its configuration.
An enigma is the "US" mark on the frame. Please upload a photo of that.

I can't seem to add anymore photo's? but I would be glad to email you all the photo's you would like. thanks for your help

[Jim C]

I think I got it, couldn't get a real close up to show it has the same wear as the rest of the receiver try to get better photo later

[stanforth]

Thanks for putting that on. It really is a nice piece.

[ehull]

Jim, thanks for the good photos. I believe the "U.S." is a spurious addition. The U.S. Army did not use this type rolling block carbine, and those it did use were marked differently. Those used by the various state militias would not have had a "US" marking, but rather state marks. Also, the marking is irregularly stamped, with the periods separated from the letters. However, it is a fine condition example.

[Jim C]

Jim, thanks for the good photos. I believe the "U.S." is a spurious addition. The U.S. Army did not use this type rolling block carbine, and those it did use were marked differently. Those used by the various state militias would not have had a "US" marking, but rather state marks. Also, the marking is irregularly stamped, with the periods separated from the letters. However, it is a fine condition example.

Thanks yes I know that it was never a military rifle just wanted to show when ever or why it was stamped on there it was done long ago

[rudybolla]

That is really a shame about the US stamp. Someone took a high condition and relatively scarce carbine and mucked it up in an attempt to "martialmotize" it. Very sad.

[Dick Hosmer]

Ed, I'm sure we can all agree that it is certainly not any adopted US model, but could it not perhaps be something that was tested, or experimented with, and was simply marked U.S. to indicate ownership? I'm thinking here of the varied, and sometimes quite crude, P/HBR stampings on the Navy rifles. There is little uniformity there at all.

[ehull]

Dick- Always a possibility but lacking any documentation that that US bought the gun - as compared to a merchant's submitting a sample - it is speculation. The US purchased test samples that I have seen had uniform stampings from a die, not individually applied letters. But anything is POSSIBLE.

[Jim C]

Ed, I'm sure we can all agree that it is certainly not any adopted US model, but could it not perhaps be something that was tested, or experimented with, and was simply marked U.S. to indicate ownership? I'm thinking here of the varied, and sometimes quite crude, P/HBR stampings on the Navy rifles. There is little uniformity there at all.

Mr. Hosmer,

you got me thinking about what you said here is a photo of the butt plate of a Springfield 1847 Artillery Musketoon

[Dick Hosmer]

It also occurs to me that if any one were trying to hump the value, and knew enough to believe that such a mark would enhance the piece, that they would have done a better job. To me, it seems more like a "hey, maybe we should mark this" kind of thing, rather than an attempt at fakery. Sometimes the simplest answer turns out to be the right one - but, we'll probably never know.

Jim, when you acquired the gun, which truly is a very nice little carbine, was any special point made about the U.S. marking?

[Jim C]

It also occurs to me that if any one were trying to hump the value, and knew enough to believe that such a mark would enhance the piece, that they would have done a better job. To me, it seems more like a "hey, maybe we should mark this" kind of thing, rather than an attempt at fakery. Sometimes the simplest answer turns out to be the right one - but, we'll probably never know.

Jim, when you acquired the gun, which truly is a very nice little carbine, was any special point made about the U.S. marking?

the only thing that was mentioned was the US on the butt plate

[Dick Hosmer]

Didn't know it had a U.S. on the buttplate - and that might alter thoughts about the receiver marking, almost making it superfluous (to either hypothesis).

I was going to wonder if it could be some relatively close ancestor of the common 1867 .50-45 CF Navy carbine? It certainly could be a "back shop" piece - doesn't appear to have been issued.

[Jim C]

Didn't know it had a U.S. on the buttplate - and that might alter thoughts about the receiver marking, almost making it superfluous (to either hypothesis).

I was going to wonder if it could be some relatively close ancestor of the common 1867 .50-45 CF Navy carbine? It certainly could be a "back shop" piece - doesn't appear to have been issued.

the US on butt plate doesn't have periods I will put a picture up later today the person I got it from had it since the 60's