clarification of contract for a model 1 .43 Spanish RB saddle carbine

[karlh]

Hoping for some clarification of contract for a model 1 .43 Spanish RB saddle carbine. I inherited it and the estate description was simply Remington .43 Spanish. I have been going through the online posts and it appears to be a pre 1878 with patent stamp of :
"Remingtons Ilion, NY USA
Pat may 3rd Nov 15th 1864
April 17th 1868"

It has a military style stock and fore stock correct receiver width and straight bar extractor of a model one. It doesn't have the typical contract markings that I have been seeing but does have a proof mark "HP" and odd somewhat oriental stamps on the barrel. Several other simple stamps on barrel and receiver. pictures follow. Tangs are stamped with assembly number 72469 and there is an "E" on the receiver. The barrel is drilled for tapped recoil mount screw and the receiver with what appears to be a tapped set screw hole to fix the barrel, set screw missing. The barrel is 19" and measured barrel bore 1.1cm. It is flatted at the receiver and tapers about 2 1/2 in. It came with two boxes of brass marked .43 SP RB CCC and they fit nicely. It also came with about 140 Lyman Rifle bullet #446110 casts and a set of three RCBS .43 SP reloading dies.

Family rumor is that it was bought in New Mexico. The trigger, breech block, and trigger are heavily blued and except for the rolling part of the breech block look unused. There are some other oddities for another post but I will eventually sell it and would like to be able to give as accurate a description as possible. Any remarks would be appreciated.

[marlinman93]

Your Rolling Block appears to have been cut down from a full length barrel and forearm to a carbine barrel. The threaded hole in the front of the receiver seen inside the square opening is for the original cleaning rod stud that screwed into that threaded hole below the chamber.
The original forearm has also been cut down and shaped again to be more like a carbine length.
Both of these changes affect collector value, and make the gun a shooter vs. a collectible firearm.

[karlh]

Thank you for the observations marlinman93. I measured the od at the bore as 1.99 cm. The od vertically at the receiver as 4.35 mm and horizontally 2.79 mm. The begining of the rear sight mount is 4.35 from the receiver
The estate inventory did not give the rifle much value. It would appear someone went to a great amount of trouble to make the conversion. It has occured to me that this is purely a cinderella. Particularly the difference in condition of different parts. Another problem that I haven't mentioned is the length of the chamber. To get a rough idea I dropped a bullet into the chamber followed by a brass. To my surprise it only extended about 4mm from the receiver. I would guess an approximate jump for the bullet to the rifling of about .5 inch for a normally seated bullet. It would seem the conversion wasn't finished. It may not have much value as a shooter either. Maybe a wall ornament or movie prop. There are too many lever actions in western movies:)

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

I looked at your rifle/carbine and I noticed a couple of
things. First off, the patent date should be April 17 1866
(not 1868). It can be hard to read sometimes.

I agree that the barrel was originally a rifle barrel that was
shortened and a new front sight added. What I find curious
is the breech block is a later type using the flat breech in-
stead of the concave breech and the frame is the earlier
type that should have the concave breech block.

When these modifications were done is the question.
Were these mods made by a frugal government trying
to salvage some rifles that had damaged barrels and
return them to service or were these mods made by
an unscrupulous collector/dealer wanting to make a
more valuable model from a cheaper one.

Cheers!
Webb

[karlh]

Hi Webb,
Thank you for the correction and additional comments. That it has the wrong breech block for the frame brings up an additional issue. There are several inconsistencies not the least the long chamber length.
Were there any rifles made with saddle rings? That would seem very unusual. Seems it would have originally been a saddle carbine that was poorly rebarreled and repaired and the graphic stamps on the barrel added to make it more exotic. Pointing to someone unscrupulous at some time who probably could have made more money doing honest work. You have to wonder.
Is the flat at the start of the barrel any indication of when it would have been made? From the width and features it would appear to be an original type one.

Best Wishes for the New Year
karlh

[marlinman93]

Hi Webb,
Thank you for the correction and additional comments. That it has the wrong breech block for the frame brings up an additional issue. There are several inconsistencies not the least the long chamber length.
Were there any rifles made with saddle rings? That would seem very unusual. Seems it would have originally been a saddle carbine that was poorly rebarreled and repaired and the graphic stamps on the barrel added to make it more exotic. Pointing to someone unscrupulous at some time who probably could have made more money doing honest work. You have to wonder.
Is the flat at the start of the barrel any indication of when it would have been made? From the width and features it would appear to be an original type one.

Best Wishes for the New Year
karlh

I think the action was always a saddlering carbine action, but I think several changes have been made to it to build it to be as close to a saddlering carbine as someone could make it. Who did it really isn't important, unless there was some provenance it was done typically at an arsenal. But since there is no provenance to show when or where it was done it's just a highly modified carbine now.
Considering how many Rolling Blocks were made, and how popular they are to rework, finding them with mixed or customized parts isn't unusual.