Help ID’ing an old rolling block

[ehull]

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.

[DeLisle45]

Ok, the barrel is 32 5/8” long.
The forend is 26 1/2” from the receiver to the end of the nose cap.
The forend is 8 5/16” from the end of the receiver to the back of the first band.
The forend is 14 3/16” from the front of the back band to the back of the front band.
From the front of the front band to the end forend nosecap is 2 3/8”
The Bose cap is 1”.

I will have to get the muzzle and front sight measurements later.

[ehull]

Is this rifle really 50-90 as stated in the original posting?

[DeLisle45]

To the best of my knowledge. The original owner passed (estate sale). His son stated he (his Dad) shot and reloaded 50-70. I have also got, in the deal, loaded ammo, brass, and dies. All 50-70. Rounds chamber, and the bore looks .5”. Haven’t miked it, shot it, or cast the chamber yet.

What is the reason for the question, what other caliber could it be?

Also, based on the witness marks, it looks original. Not sure if a replacement “ Navy” barrel was put on after being taken off another gun the witness marks would line up as well as they do.

[DeLisle45]

Ok, here are barrel dimensions:
From muzzle to front sight is 1.219”
Diameter at the muzzle is 0.771”
Length of front sight is 0.352”
Width of front sight is 0.244”

That appears to match the dimensions posted earlier.

The bore is 0.490”
The groove is 0.501”

I have a 50-90 cartridge. It won’t chamber. It sticks out about 0.45”.

The ram rod has been cut down, badly. It is 29” long.

Does the Navy have similar dimensions for the muzzle, front sight, etc...?

Goes back to my original post, is this a Navy “oops” that had the sight in the right place? Or, is it an Army with a Navy barrel put on?

[Dick Hosmer]

It's fun trying to unravel these little mysteries! I will not be able to measure my own guns for awhile, though I do own specimens of both Navies and the Trials arm. Without getting into specifics it would appear that you have a Trials receiver fitted with a Navy barrel - and then some sort of "incorrect" mixup involving the rod and forend. As to the lack of the anchor, I know I have seen comments to the effect that the mark is occasionally missing.

As far as witness mark alignment is concerned, it has always been my understanding that the parts were marked individually and then brought to match during installation, so that extractor cut and sight prep would be to spec. I got the impression, maybe in error, that you might be thinking that an arm was (somehow) assembled correctly, and THEN marked so as to be able to duplicate the alignment if ever taken apart?

Am still a trifle confused by the .50-90 cartridge aspect. In consecutive posts today you have stated both that it does AND does not fit - which is correct? Of course, since the rifle does not seem to be "properly" assembled, rechambering from the expected .50-70, could certainly have been possible, perhaps even providing a rationale for the mismatch.

[DeLisle45]

Also, found this:

“A trial board met in St. Louis in March 1870 to investigate the latest rifle designs, eventually reporting that only six among many seemed acceptable - in declining order of preference, Remington, Springfield-Allin, Sharps, Morgenstern, Martini-Henry and Ward-Burton. As 504 rolling-block rifles had been made at Springfield in 1868, their characteristics were well known.
By March of 1871, Springfield had made 1008 infantry-pattern Remingtons, with 32.5in barrels, to compete against 1870-pattern Springfield and Sharps conversions. Trials began in midsummer 1871; the Remington performed best, though ejection was poor and misgivings were expressed about dust jamming the mechanism.

...At the Springfield Armory Museum website:

Http://ww2.rediscov.com/spring/VFPCGI.e ... SE=objects,

It clearly calls out 32.5” barrels.

So which barrel length is correct?

[DeLisle45]

Also, better shot of index marks on barrel and receiver.

DA288209-6F11-410A-8577-29BE51F14BC8.jpeg

[DeLisle45]

I’ll try that picture again...

(dang 40 char min...)

[Dick Hosmer]

I believe you will find that the correct barrel length for the Trials rifle is 36", and that the statement made about the 1008 rifles completed makes an error in that regard. The Trials rifle was sort of a "missing link" between the Navies and the later M1871, which had an entirely different action. At the time I wrote my book (which was vetted by Remington expert Roy Marcot, along with others) I did not own a Trials specimen, but now do - will have to dig it out. What about the .50-90, yea or nay?

[oldremguy]

The Springfield 1870 Navy Rifle, 1870 Trials rifle and the 1871 Army rifle we're all chambered in 50-70. The case length for the 50-70 is 1.75", the overall length is 2.25". The 50-90 case length is 2.50" and the overall length is 3.20". A agree with Dick Hosmer that the 32.5" barrel length was made in error on the Springfield write up. I think that the original 36" barrel and the forearm on your Rifle were cut down. I will take measurements of the front sight placement on the Navy Rifle late on and post the results.

Have a Good Day,
Matt

[ehull]

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?

[ehull]

Look here to see a description and good photos of the M1870 Army rolling block:

http://ww2.rediscov.com/spring/VFPCGI.e ... E=47165541,

[Dick Hosmer]

Agrees with mine - note relationship of barrel, rod, and forend - this is not what presents on the 'mystery' piece. Also, not the same arm as described in the SA link (which is the common M1871) provided by OP. So, I think we now what it isn't - though whether we'll ever know exactly how it came to be is still unclear.

[DeLisle45]

Real quick, my age is catching up with me. I mistakenly typed .50-90 when I meant .50-70.

The rifle is very clearly a .50-70.

Forget the .50-90. I ONLY used it to show that it would NOT chamber in the .50-70 chambered rifle.

I also edited previous posts were I mistakenly wrote 50-90 when I meant 50-70.