1871 new york militia rolling block????

[savagebrother]

hey guys just saying hello to everyone and i picked up a rolling block from gun broker.
it was advertised as an 1871 new york state militia rifle in 50/70 govt.
well it it home and yes it has all the features of a new york state militia rifle....but.
there are no numbers on it as far as unit and so forth it only has the usual remington on the back tang.
now for the gitcha goomy, its in 45/70???????? so whats up with this?????
best part is this barrel looks unfired, hell it looks better than my marlin 1895 guide gun i boght 3 years ago.
SB

[ehull]

Remington made “New York State” model locking system rifles for commercial sale in the 1880s, in both.50-70 and .45-70. Some even had a buttplate with a rubber pad insert. Either was approved for use at military match shooting competitions.

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

A very nice RB indeed! A great find.

It has been reported that NY did purchase a small number
of rifles in 45-70. I cannot see the stock well in the pictures
but I don't see any acceptance cartouches. Therefore, I
question whether this was part of the New York State Militia
contract. This could be from some other state militia or
foreign contract.

Post some more pictures and close-ups of the tang showing
patent dates and any markings you can find.

Good Luck!
-Blue Chips-
Webb

[savagebrother]

here are the only numbers on this rifle' but there is a name empressed in the stock. i can reads the top one but not the bottom??? thomas is the top name. there is nothing else on this rifle.
it is an 1871 because it has all the atributes, long hammer spur, goes into safe when you open the block. so i dont know. could this be a test gun for 45/70???
SB

[ehull]

Not a “test gun,” but standard commercial rifle - though made in limited quantities. Read above.

[savagebrother]

herrs the stack and the but plate and it has no markings on it.

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

The tang markings are typical for the New York State
Militia second contract. This puts the manufacture in
the post 1873 period (of course the 1874 patent dates
make this obvious).

I think you mean that the hammer drops to "half-cock"
on closing the breech (it would be impossible
for it to drop when the breech is opened unless severe
modifications were done).

I doubt it is a "test" rifle. The tin finish implies some kind
of marine use (but not conclusive). The lack of acceptance
markings and a personal name applied infer that it was purchase
by a private individual (though the name may have been applied
later after being sold as surplus). The finish of the stock appears
to be varnish instead of oil but the varnish could have been
applied at any time in the past.

Do the spurs on the breach block and hammer have the three
pointed shield impression?

Good Luck!
-Blue Chips-
Webb

[savagebrother]

yes it does, i don't remember which message board i was on but one of the statement that some of the soldiers bought their rifles and had them re-barreled to 45/70. i wasnt sure exactly what he meant.
SB

[Dick Hosmer]

Very nice rifle!

I hate to keep bringing this up, but the locking-action hammer does NOT "drop to half-cock". It IS released so as to bear against, and drag on, the block, requiring the hammer to be re-cocked before shooting, but it does not fall into the half-cock notch. The EFFECT is basically the same, but the written description is wrong, and has been for years.

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

"...the locking-action hammer does NOT "drop to half-cock". It IS released so as to bear against, and drag on, the block, requiring the hammer to be re-cocked before shooting, but it does not fall into the half-cock notch."

Well then, educate me. You say that it doesn't drop to the
half-cock. Then, what keeps the hammer from making contact
with the firing pin when the breech is rolled up and closed?

Good Luck!
-Blue Chips-
Webb

[Dick Hosmer]

Yes, my comment WAS about angels dancing on pinheads - no argument there - but, the hammer doesn't go to half-cock on the instant of moving the block; it only goes to half-cock when the block has cleared the front of the hammer. Yes, that is an exercise in semantics, and yes, I AM being VERY VERY literal (one of my faults) but, technical statements can hinge on VERY small points. Anyone who implies that the hammer directly DROPS INTO the half-cock notch upon moving the block to close it (as some, perhaps not you, HAVE done) is - technically - incorrect. Yes, the end result IS the same. Some people don't care. I, in my own peculiar way, do.

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

No need to be esoteric. It is definitely a exercise
in semantics but I think I understand your meaning.

So, if I understand you, opening the breach trips the
sear and releases the hammer but the hammer is
held in check by the arched surface on the rear of
the breach block. When the breach is closed, the
imposition to the hammer's fall is removed and the
hammer rapidly descends to the half-cock position.

Good Luck!
-Blue Chips-
Webb

[Dick Hosmer]

Yes, the action you just described is exactly correct.

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

Well, now I know better. I haven't had the
opportunity to examine a New York Militia
model and was relying on the descriptions
I've read. Thank you for the correction.

Good Luck!
-Blue Chips-
Webb

[Dick Hosmer]

Actually (as a dedicated Springfield collector) I've never operated an NYS roller either! But, the identical action IS used on the 1871 Springfield/Remington "Army" rifle, also in .50-70. SA made, or assembled, or modified a number of different versions of the rolling block during the 1867-1872 period when there was some thought (hope?) of replacing the Allin "trapdoor". Glad I could help.