Rolling Block Creedmoor target rifle

Topics related to Pre - 1898 Remington Rifles
Post Reply
jjsully53
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 12:09 pm

Rolling Block Creedmoor target rifle

Post by jjsully53 »

Hello,

I am new to the group and am looking for any help in understanding the history of this particular rifle. It was gun my grandfather ended up with many years ago and I have an old letter written by a gentleman who said his father was an employee of Remington who was presented with it after building a number of them.

It has a pistol grip stock, 1/3 octagonal, 2/3 round barrel approx 33" long with a globe front sight and spirit level. It also has a folding tang mounted rear peep sight, overall length is 50".

There is no marking that would indicate the caliber and the last patent date is 1873. The serial number is 38XX.

Any helping understanding where I can find out more about this rifle would be appreciated.

Thanks

Jim
marlinman93
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:47 pm

Re: Rolling Block Creedmoor target rifle

Post by marlinman93 »

The Rolling Block Creedmoor rifles were originally in .44-77 Remington-Sharps bottleneck, but with rifling lead designed to allow the bullet to be seated out further to allow 90 grains of black powder. But soon they were chambered for a slightly longer case .44-90 Remington cartridge.
Originally they were almost all 34" barrels as the rules allowed that as the maximum barrel length. The rules also allowed for a 10 lb. weight limit, so the half octagon barrel was specifically designed to meet that weight with a 34" barrel. In reality they are as you described as 1/3rd octagon, but still referred to as half octagon.
They also all had single non set triggers, as set triggers were not allowed in Creedmoor matches. Sights were a Remington Long Range tang sight at the rear, and a windage globe in the front. Additionally a good number had a 2nd heel base mounted on the buttstock, near the buttplate to allow for shooters who preferred shooting in the prone back position.
There were military stocked versions with a straight grip military 2 band stock, but sporting versions all had straight grip stocks that were nicely checkered on the grip, but not the forearm usually. I have seen them with checkered forearms, but it would have been a special order.
Your gun's shorter barrel may have been a special order, or the result of someone re-crowning a worn muzzle. There are a number of later built Creedmoor rifles that don't quite fit the specifics of the early guns. As Creedmoor shooting died off, Remington did make changes to sell the inventory, so some later guns are found in different variations.
These were first built for the 1874 Creedmoor match, and by 1880 the demand was already dwindling when the governor of NY State closed down the range. Soon after there was little demand for this type of shooting anywhere in the US, so sales dropped significantly. So most Remington Creedmoor rifles were made between 1874 and 1880.
oldremguy
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 8:53 am
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: Rolling Block Creedmoor target rifle

Post by oldremguy »

marlinman93 wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:41 am The Rolling Block Creedmoor rifles were originally in .44-77 Remington-Sharps bottleneck, but with rifling lead designed to allow the bullet to be seated out further to allow 90 grains of black powder. But soon they were chambered for a slightly longer case .44-90 Remington cartridge.
Originally they were almost all 34" barrels as the rules allowed that as the maximum barrel length. The rules also allowed for a 10 lb. weight limit, so the half octagon barrel was specifically designed to meet that weight with a 34" barrel. In reality they are as you described as 1/3rd octagon, but still referred to as half octagon.
They also all had single non set triggers, as set triggers were not allowed in Creedmoor matches. Sights were a Remington Long Range tang sight at the rear, and a windage globe in the front. Additionally a good number had a 2nd heel base mounted on the buttstock, near the buttplate to allow for shooters who preferred shooting in the prone back position.
There were military stocked versions with a straight grip military 2 band stock, but sporting versions all had straight grip stocks that were nicely checkered on the grip, but not the forearm usually. I have seen them with checkered forearms, but it would have been a special order.
Your gun's shorter barrel may have been a special order, or the result of someone re-crowning a worn muzzle. There are a number of later built Creedmoor rifles that don't quite fit the specifics of the early guns. As Creedmoor shooting died off, Remington did make changes to sell the inventory, so some later guns are found in different variations.
These were first built for the 1874 Creedmoor match, and by 1880 the demand was already dwindling when the governor of NY State closed down the range. Soon after there was little demand for this type of shooting anywhere in the US, so sales dropped significantly. So most Remington Creedmoor rifles were made between 1874 and 1880.
Here are some photos of two Special Military sporting rifles that I have in my collection. Instead of being chambered in 44-90 Remington they are chambered in Sharp's .44-90 (2-5/8") cartridge.

photo 1.jpg
photo 1.jpg (650.79 KiB) Viewed 3434 times


photo 2.jpg
photo 2.jpg (713.79 KiB) Viewed 3434 times

photo 3.jpg
photo 3.jpg (288.82 KiB) Viewed 3434 times

photo 4.jpg
photo 4.jpg (673.52 KiB) Viewed 3434 times

photo 5.jpg
photo 5.jpg (912.13 KiB) Viewed 3434 times

photo 6a.jpg
photo 6a.jpg (156.19 KiB) Viewed 3434 times


5bbc.jpg
5bbc.jpg (163.78 KiB) Viewed 3434 times
Bottom cartridge is the Sharp’s .44-90


Have a Good Day,
Matt
Last edited by oldremguy on Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
marlinman93
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:47 pm

Re: Rolling Block Creedmoor target rifle

Post by marlinman93 »

Those are wonderful pieces Matt! The military Creedmoor rifles have some unique features that the run of the mill military Rolling Blocks never had.
Post Reply