Remington Model 8 Serial Number 59

[jack1653]

Please note the issues about the barrel stamping and give me your thoughts and opinions.

I want to acknowledge Mr. Jeff Pajtas of the "S and S HuntClub" and his brother Bob for their assistance in getting me the rifle.

The previous owner took great care to take down the rifle and took more than 100 photographs. The serial number is (59) has a letter "J" with a circle around it, above and below the serial number on the bottom of the receiver. The barrel code is stamped with the(X PP 3). There is also, 35 REM. stamped on the top of the barrel jacket head, where it meets the receiver. It is "Factory Stamped" on the barrel extension with (35 REM) and a "Diamond Shaped" mark as well. There is also the (R E P) stamped on the barrel.

The Butt-Stock is "Factory Stamped" with the serial number (59); serial number (59) on the inner side of the trigger plate/receiver assembly of the rifle. The rifle is fitted with a rear sight blank, a Redfield rear-tang peep sight and factory front sight as well. The stock and forearm are original to the rifle and they sport the normal wear, dings, bumps, chips and scratches for a rifle of this era. This rifle has some finish wear, minor freckling and wood wear. The bore is bright and shiny.

81police commented about the barrel being a replacement. "I will point out that the barrel being a replacement is fact, not speculation. Remington did not roll stamp the caliber on barrel extensions until sometime in 1907, prior to that they were all hand engraved on the top of the barrel jacket head only. You can easily retain the original barrel jacket with sights and swap out the barrel inside. Seeing as this rifle has a repair code, there's a very good chance that the barrel was a replacement done by Remington with a .35Rem barrel of later manufacture. That would explain the original barrel jacket, sights, and the missing serial number on the barrel".

Hardrada55 had this comment: "Compare your #59 rifle's stripper clip guides to the stripper clip guides on your other rifles. I was shown by Eric Hutchins years ago that some very early rifles were not made with stripper clip guides milled into the receiver. #59 looks like it may have them, but the pictures don't look the same as other rifles I have".

*******************************************************************************
The comments in this section were submitted by Jeff after I raised the question about the barrel replacement.

1.) It appears to have the original high post front sight.

2.) The barrel was not marked with a 059 or 59, on the underside of the barrel jacket, where it meets the receiver, like the later models. The 1913 Model 8 in 35 Rem. is also not marked in that location. The 1926 and 1928, both have the serial numbers on the barrel underside.

3.) The top of the barrel has a unique style 35 Rem. stamping on the top of the barrel, where it meets the receiver. That marking is one that we have only seen on the very early models and the higher grade model 8's and it does not appear on my 1913 model 8 or any of the others.

4.) The barrel is period correct is that the patent numbers on the barrel jacket are only stamped / noted through July 3, 1902. It is stamped as follows: MANUFACTURED BY REMINGTON ARMS CO. ILION, N.Y. U.S.A BROWNING'S PATENTS OCT. 9, 1900, OCT. 16, 1900 , JULY 3,1902.

There is another very unique stamping on the 1906, #59.

5.) I took a look at some of our other model 8's: (1913 / 35 Rem. , 1926 / 32 Rem. and 1928 / 35 Rem.) They have the following patent numbers listed on the barrel jacket; The 1913, 1926 & 1928 are all stamped as follows: OCT. 9, 1900, OCT. 16, 1900, JUNE 3, 1902, MAY 14, 1907, FEB.14, 1911

6.) Here's the unique stamping that I noticed.

The 1913, 1926 and 1928 ... all have the same Browning patent numbers, as listed above. Notice JUNE 3, 1902. On the 1906 #59, the JUNE 3, 1902 stamping is missing and the 1906 #59 is marked with JULY 3, 1902

WHY ???? ..... I do not know the answer to that. Is it, or was it mistakenly miss-marked at the factory? I haven't seen that on another model 8, nor did I notice that until tonight on the 1906 #59

7.) Is that indeed a " miss-marked patent number " on the barrel jacket?

8.) Another thing that I take into consideration on this rifle is that its the 59th rifle that they produced, and it could have some markings that were unique to this rifle. The rifle was just starting to evolve at that time.

These indicators would lead me in the direction that the barrel is correct for the rifle.

1.) The patent numbers are only listed through 1902 on the 1906 #59.

2.) The barrel is not stamped with a serial number 059 or 59 anywhere, which would be correct.

3.)The high post front sight appears to be period correct.

4.) It has a JULY 3, 1902 patent number that I have yet to see on a model 8 and it does not have the JUNE 3, 1902 patent number.

Why it does not have the JUNE 3, 1902 patent number and why its marked with JULY 3, 1902 and not the JUNE 3, 1902 ... like the other rifles ???

*******************************************************************************************************

To view the pictures please use the link that has been provided.

http://picasaweb.google.com/jack16530/Model859#

Thanks for the opportunity to share.

jack1653

[ChuckD]

Jack1653,

There are two things we know for sure. Remington didn't start code marking until
1922. The date code of X PP is 12/1945, and the 3 indicates a return to the factory for repair. It's possible the barrel was replaced at this time.
I don't know about the patent marking, but since this is a first month (probably first day) production, they might have made a mistake with the roll die, which was promptly corrected.
I would be interesting to know how other low number M-8's are marked.
Posting on the Model 8 site might get you more information.
Check here:
http://thegreatmodel8.remingtonsociety.com/

This is my personal opinion, I hope it helps.

ChuckD

[jack1653]

Hey Chuck,

Thanks for the replay and the information you have supplied. I hope you enjoyed the story and pictures. Maybe we will get something from somebody who has one of these early models to get additional confirmation. I know Cam had told me that the barrel had been replaced and now I know when it may have happened.

The patent markings are beyond my understanding. Your observation that it may have been first day production is exciting. I never even gave that a thought that it could have been an error. Maybe somebody else will jump in on this issue.

I have already made the same posting on The Great Model 8 site and on the Vintage Semi-Automatic Sporting Rifle site. Cam and Walt have made some observations and I have supplied additional pictures per their request.

Thanks again, Chuck.

Jack