Is this a genuine 1861 NMA ??

[357]

Hi from sunny England, yes it is really sunny! At the moment..
This is my first time on here,what a great website. I hope my post is done ok.

I have a very important question, i have a Remington NMA which i bought some time ago, have recently sold it on to a gentleman who is claiming that it is not a genuine Remington.
The question is, Do you think its a genuine 1861 era NMA ??

The revolver has at some time been polished up and reblued, there is no barrel address and no visible serial numbers,even under the grip.
There are several inspectors marks, a G to the barrel and frame on the right side, an H on the right of trigger guard, and both G and H on the rear face of the cylinder.
There is a fouled anchor impression on the right grip.
I have e mailed some photos to your remington address. Also put a few on here, hopefully !
Your opinion would be gratefully recieved and hopefully solve this problem.

Thank you very much.

Richard.

017.JPG (119.76 KiB) Viewed 6705 times

020.JPG (128.68 KiB) Viewed 6705 times

014.JPG (116.72 KiB) Viewed 6705 times

[ChuckD]

From what I can see from the photos, is that it's a Remington.
However, I have a refinished New Model Army and there are some traces of the original markings visible. The fact that it doesn't have a serial number under the grips is very strange. This area is not usually heavily buffed, and the S. N. is usually stamped quite deep.
I don't think it's possible to say, for sure, that it's a Remington based on the photos and information given.
This is my humble opinion.
ChuckD

[357]

Hi Chuck,

Thank you for your opinion, its a bit 50/50. And doesnt solve the problem.
Im pretty sure it is a genuine NMA, but like you not 100%, thats why i was looking for an expert opinion either way.
Hopefully some one else will have a look,and we will see what they think.

Thanks very much, at least you replied !!

If anyone would like some more photos, leave your e mail, and i will send some.

Cheers,

Richard.

[Jay Huber]

In my opinion it is a refinished original New Model (not 1861 ) The Refinisher added the inspector marks to the frame,barrel and cylinder. I have never seen such marks on the rear of the cylinder. One final serial number check is to remove the trigger guard screw and the trigger guard and see if the tab at the end of the guard has a serial number or partial serial number present. All originals were marked under barrel,under left grip and on tab on trigger guard. I don't know why the refinisher erased the numbers since it makes it look like a fake. It destroyed the value of the gun and if there is no number on the trigger guard he was trying to disguise it for some reason and I would consider it a fake. Something is wrong. Jay Huber

[357]

Hello,

Thank you Mr. Huber, for your reply.

It was very useful, and i will check the trigger guard tab.

Thanks again,

Richard.

[Oldfalguy]

Greetings Fellas,
I am new here and only been around the 1858's for around 6 months- there's the caveat
I am looking at one of my 1858's which has proof marks (W) on the right side frame and barrel aligned vertical ( so M or W) Mine has D,R,& W on the left side and they are half the depth of the S/N under the left grip. Those of this pistol appear not aligned with the barrel & no proofs on the left side and lack of S/N makes this one sound a little off.
Even if this pistol was refinished I gotta agree with Jay there is no reason for the S/N to be missing from the grip area and having done a tiny bit of it myself there is really no reason for the proofs to be missing with the exception of those arms which are nickeled.

[stanforth]

Hi folks.
The question is more important to Richard than you may think. Here in the UK it is difficult to own a modern (post 1939) replica of an old muzzle loader whereas ownership of an original is unrestricted.
The good news is that I recently sold a rimfire conversion (.46 five shot) with exactly the same 'H' stamp.
Richard. I look forward to seeing you on the 'Gun Deal's' auction site. Will we be seeing your Remington on there?..

[Oldfalguy]

Is that an anchor cartouche on the right hand grip???????
May just be my eyes??
Why not ask the new owner why he thinks its not an original and go from there-
As far as the British gov't is concerned just because an over zealous refinisher went wild buffing does not in and of itself make it a replica does it?
I realize that is the base opinion here and mine but sometimes its hard to prove a negative.............hahahaha
Regardless its a dang nice looking pistol
Mark

[stanforth]

Two points here.

If I owned a 'section 58/2' Antique weapon and had it entered on my firearm certificate here in the UK so that I could leagaly shoot it and then decided not to shoot it I could get it removed from my certificate and posess it as an antique. This is a fact as I have done this in the past and am in the process of adding one of my Remington Rolling Blocks on to my 'Ticket' for a while.

Second point. If I was in the same position as '357' I would treat his gun as an 'Antique'. It is up to the authorities to prove otherwise. I have been dealing in 'Antique & Classic' guns for over 40 years and ocaisionally something like this comes up. Based on probability the gun is old. It shows no signs of Italian or Belgian proof marks and the inspectors stamp looks OK to me.

A few years ago I came across a Colt Dragoon it looked very old and a bit sad. It had some pitting on it but most of the pitting was where you would expect proof marks. I left that one alone.

[Oldfalguy]

Stanford-
"had some pitting on it but most of the pitting was where you would expect proof marks. I left that one alone."

Very smart thinking!!

[stanforth]

The gun does define the level of control.
Take for instance Colt revolver ( my field of experience) When the latest regulation came into force I 'Lost' two .45 Long Colt Bisley models and an 1880 Single Action Army but was able to keep,on a special licence, a Bisley Target model in .455 Eley. The line of offical thinking is that .45 LC was a commercially available round but .455 wasn't. Taking this further, if any of them had been in .44 S&W they would not have been liable to ANY control.

I have in my collection a .476 Colt model 1878 but had my S&W No1 (.22 short) conficated as a potential threat to the community.

In the case of muzzle loaders the thinking is that replica's are cheap and the cost of originals makes them less atractive to low lifes.

Just to show how stupid Government can be.... These laws do not extend to Northern Ireland 'as there is no significant history of armed crime there'.
For political reasons our Government has declasified thousands of murders as 'Political' and therefore not crime.

I think I need to go and lay down in a dark room.

Stanforth