Identifying a Remington Rolling Block - Possible Early Model 1 1/2?

[jbalestrieri]

Hello Remington enthusiasts!
I'm hoping to get some help identifying a Remington rolling block that's been in my family for several generations. Based on my research and some helpful discussions, I believe it might be an early Model 1 1/2, possibly a transitional model with some unique features.
Here's what I've gathered so far:
.38 rimfire
Barrel Markings: "E. REMINGTON & SONS. ILION. N.Y."
Patent Dates: Sept. 14, 1869; May 3, 1870; July 11, 1871; April 9, 1872; Sept. 9, 1873
Serial Number: 5766
Forend Tip: Pointy
Grip: Straight with no pistol grip
Extractor: Square, not blade-shaped
Muzzle Diameter: 9.5mm
73CM Octagonal Barrel
Based on these features, it seems to be a Model 1 1/2, likely manufactured between 1873 and early 1875. The presence of the 1873 patent and the absence of the 1875 patent helped narrow down the timeframe. (Maybe - You never know for sure)
I'm particularly interested in learning more about:
Transitional Models: How common were Model 1 1/2s with features like the pointy forend tip and square extractor in this early production period?
Production Dates: Are there more precise records available for the Model 1 1/2's production timeline, especially for those manufactured in the early 1870s?
Thank you for your time and expertise.
John B.

[marlinman93]

If this rifle has smooth sides with no step near the top octagon on each side, then it's probably a #1 1/2. The E. Remington & Sons marking tells me it's prior to bankruptcy, and all those rifles had the steel forearm cap, so that's very common for those era rifles. The earliest advertisement for the #1 1/2 was July of 1884, and by the late 1880's the company was bankrupt and sold to Marcellus Hartley, and Winchester. A couple years later Winchester was bought out by Hartley. So your rifle is likely from around that era with the steel tip and rollstamp.
Later in the early 1890's the steel tip was gone, and a hard black tip was used. There are no records for this period showing serial numbers, or how many were made, or when things changed. We can deduce from looking at examples that your gun falls into a certain era, but not much more.
The .38RF was a very common chambering back then, followed by .32RF, and .22RF. Other centerfire cartridges up to .44-40 were offered and any #1 1/2 in a centerfire is highly desirable, as are any in .22 Long since all of these were smaller numbers made.
Here's a #1 1/2 action:


And a #1 action:


Only real difference is the #1 1/2 is thinner action.

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

I don't have any experience with the No: 1-1/2 action but
E. Remington & Sons filed for bankruptcy in 1886 and the
court ordered the sale of the Company and its assets to
recompense the creditors. An executor was appointed by the
court to handle the sale on behalf of the creditors.

Marcellus Hartley partnered with Thomas Bennett to purchase
Remington in 1888 and the Company was re-named The Remington
Arms Company. New dies were procured and used. It was my under-
standing that all rifles in stock were re-marked with the new Com-
any name.

The Remington Typewriter Division was sold off including the patents
and machinery as well as the name "Remington" and the good will
(so far as the typewriter is concerned). This generated enough
revenue to substantially cover the costs of buying the Company. Also,
both partners owned cartridge companies and eliminating Remington
as a competitor was a plus for both. I believe Hartley received the
cartridge making machinery and incorporated it into his Union Metallic
Cartridge Company.

After Remington was effectively eliminated as any serious
competition to Winchester's lever-action rifles, Winchester
wanted to rid themselves of their half of the Company. In
the mid 1890's, Winchester was soliciting offers for their half
and Hartley made a deal and became sole owner of Remington.
He did Not buy Winchester.

Cheers!
Webb

[marlinman93]

I would think that any barrels already rollstamped would have been used up first, and not draw filed to remove the earlier stamp? Then any unstamped barrels would have gotten the new rollstamp. I doubt either way that it would amount to very many barrels if they used up existing stamped barrels first, and would only be a cost savings idea.
My understanding was that Bennett immediately wanted to simply close down Remington, take his share of equipment and employees, and make the competition go away as he'd done with other companies. He did this with Adirondack Arms Co. of New York, Whitney Arms, and Bullard, plus some others. Simply buying them so nobody else would step in and try to revive those companies. Were it not for Marcellus Hartley and his vision to keep Remington going, and thriving, we'd just be talking about what Remington once was, or could have been.

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

Cost of labor was a lot less back then. Plus, I don't think
Winchester or Hartley wanted to promote the previous
owners. The point is, they did it to the tang markings
on the military rifles left in stock.

As to civilian rifles, I am not sure but if they went to this
much trouble on the military rifles, I would believe they
would do this to civilian hunting/target rifles too. These
rifles were made in much smaller quantities but these were
the rifles that were shown-off and the new owners would
want the new Company name to be displayed.

Cheers!
Webb

[marlinman93]

Hi There,

Cost of labor was a lot less back then. Plus, I don't think
Winchester or Hartley wanted to promote the previous
owners. The point is, they did it to the tang markings
on the military rifles left in stock.

As to civilian rifles, I am not sure but if they went to this
much trouble on the military rifles, I would believe they
would do this to civilian hunting/target rifles too. These
rifles were made in much smaller quantities but these were
the rifles that were shown-off and the new owners would
want the new Company name to be displayed.

Cheers!
Webb

I would agree that reworking tangs would be easy to do, and take very little time. But Sporting rifles had barrels marked and whether they were octagon or round, removing a rollstamp and blending the area that needs draw filing to eliminate the old rollstamp takes far more effort to do and not show as a low spot. I've done this on donor barrels and the draw filing has to blend far past the rollstamp to not show as a difference on round or octagon flats. It's possible in the factory doing dozens of barrels it might take less time, but still not an easy or quick task like a short top tang would be.

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

I would agree that reworking tangs would be easy to do, and take very little time. But Sporting rifles had barrels marked and whether they were octagon or round, removing a rollstamp and blending the area that needs draw filing to eliminate the old rollstamp takes far more effort to do and not show as a low spot. I've done this on donor barrels and the draw filing has to blend far past the rollstamp to not show as a difference on round or octagon flats. It's possible in the factory doing dozens of barrels it might take less time, but still not an easy or quick task like a short top tang would be.

I will agree that draw filing the original markings would
be more labor intensive but Remington had metal planers
and milling machines. It wouldn't be the trouble you envision
for the Company to machine off these marking and re-stamp
them.

What I think you don't understand is the relative labor
costs of the time and the Victorian mind set. As an exam-
ple of relative labor costs, B. Kitteridge a very large dis-
tributor of firearms, wanted to have a quantity of Remington
New Model 1858 revolvers converted to a breach loading
cartridge of .46 caliber. After protracted negotiations,
S&W (holders of the Rolling White Patent) allowed Remington
to convert a little over 4500 revolvers. The .46 was too large
to be used in the original cylinders so new 5-shot cylinders
were were fabricated along with breech plates and ejector
rods needed to be fitted and installed.

Remington did this work and received $2.36 for each conversion.
S&W received $1.25 for reach revolver ($1.00 for them and $.25
for Rollin White). Now, considering the amount they received for
each revolver balanced against the labor expended, removing
the old marking and replacing it with a new one would not have
had a significant cost.

Cheers!
Webb

[marlinman93]

If you milled off a barrel rollstamp you'd have to mill the entire length of the barrel or end up seeing where you stopped. And if you mill one flat that flat will be wider than the other seven flats. It takes blending it out to make it disappear and not show. And round barrels would take turning in a lathe and blending the whole diameter out until it doesn't show.
Yes, labor costs per day or hour were much cheaper, but so was everything else, so it's relative. Whatever time it took back then is the same as today, or maybe even a bit more than today considering we do far less hand work today than they did back then. When you look at the cost of a firearm then, and look at what Remington charged to modify guns in large lots like they did with the 1865 Rolling Block pistols when they converted them to the 1867, it was about $5 per gun! Considering what those guns cost the Army and Navy that was about 25% of the price. So if you compared that to what firearms cost today that's a substantial amount of money.
I just don't see why there would be that many barrels made up and rollstamped that the new company would bother removing rollstamps off barrels to re-stamp them? Considering Remington's financial difficulties then I don't believe they would spend much money to build up inventory like they would when times were great. I doubt if they simply used those barrels up and sold them to dealers or customers that anyone would even notice or care how they were stamped.

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

You are letting this discussion get under your skin. Calm down and take a breath.
The price the Navy paid for their conversion included the replacement of all
broken and damaged parts and complete refinishing. That is a LOT of labor.

Now we are way off topic here. You say they would not scrub and remark barrels
and I say they did. But the underlying question is "how many barrels did Remington
have finished (or at least far enough along to have the old Remington stamp) in
stock when the Company was sold. If it was a small number, they probably did
not replace the markings and simply used them up. But if the number was large,
then they would have replaced the markings.

Cheers!
Webb

[marlinman93]

Not sure why you think I'm not calm Webb? I thought we were simply having a discussion here, not an argument? The mods done to Rolling Block 1865's were a new trigger guard, breech block, and I doubt any repairs were done on handguns that new. I'd expect some refinishing as the new parts needed to match existing, or existing needed to be refinished. My point was really that the cost was a fair amount compared to the gun's price.
I guess we'll have to disagree on the barrel stamping as I just don't see a way they could re-stamp them without milling or draw filing all the flats, or turning the entire area on round barrels. I can't see them just suddenly halting use of marked barrels and recontouring to stamp them new.
I sure hope we can discuss differences of opinion and not make you think I'm not calm in the future.

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

Sorry if I misinterpreted the tone of your previous post.
I should have been more forthcoming about the prices
The Army and Navy paid for converting their revolvers
from percussion to breach loading cartridge revolvers.
This is what I thought you were referring to. My mistake.

These conversions were done in the 1870-72 time period
(after the expiration of the Rolling White patent) and
cost from $2.50 to $6.25 depending on what type and
how much work was involved. The Army/Navy conversions
of their Colts and Remingtons were extensive involving
refinishing and cost less than $5.00 ea.

There is one other idea that comes to mind. Seeing that
Marcellus Hartley own Whitney Arms and Schuyler, Hartley
and Graham, he may have used the barrels on other guns
to fill orders. There is evidence that he used Whitney to
complete Remingtons (and Whitney type 2) rolling blocks
from left over parts to fill foreign contracts.

Cheers!
Webb

[marlinman93]

We have a lot to be thankful to Marcellus Hartley as Remington fans. He really took the company from bankruptcy to successful in a very short period. He had the foresight to realize that military sales alone can't keep a firearms maker afloat, and Sporting arms were as important, and sometimes even more important.
The Remington brothers weren't all invested equally in keeping the company afloat, and had they all been it might not have gone bankrupt.

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

I always wondered why E. Remington & Sons went bankrupt.
They had plenty of sales and should have been a very successful
company. Unfortunately, the records have been lost/destroyed
long ago and we are left to speculate. Hartley was a very success-
ful business man and knew the firearms business inside and out.
When he died, he left his fortune to his grandson in 1902 which
made Marcellus Hartley Dodge one of the richest men in America
at age 21.

On a side note, I wondered if the man named "Dodge" that married
Hartley's daughter was W. C. Dodge, who's patents for firearm im-
provements show up in guns of the late 19th Century (like the S&W
No: 3 American Model).

Cheers!
Webb

[marlinman93]

From what little I've gathered concerning the company's bankruptcy it was bad business decisions made by the brothers. One huge reason was their decision to concentrate on military sales, and then compounding it by not representing themselves in contract agreements with foreign companies. They actually asked Winchester who had overseas reps to negotiate for them! Winchester did successfully negotiate a good deal, and collected a commission for doing do, but once they got their commission they stepped aside. When those countries didn't pay their bills at final delivery Winchester was asked to step in, but declined since they had their money and didn't want to spend anymore time collecting Remington's money.
For whatever reason, Remington often made foreign sales of military rifles starting with money down, and then payment as shipments were filled. But often at some point payments weren't made when shipments were delivered, and they lost what would have been profits on orders. Almost all these orders to foreign governments were for Rolling Block rifles, and until they went bankrupt very few Sporting Models were made in comparison to the millions of military models made. Hartley changed all that by not only ensuring the company got paid for military sales, but expanding their sporting models and sales a huge amount.
I knew Hartley left everything to his grandson, and that he was one of the wealthiest men in America at his death. But I've never heard much about the grandson after he inherited all that wealth at such a young age? I love firearms history, and this fascinates me as much as the guns do.

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

From what little I've gathered concerning the company's bankruptcy it was bad business decisions made by the brothers. One huge reason was their decision to concentrate on military sales, and then compounding it by not representing themselves in contract agreements with foreign companies. They actually asked Winchester who had overseas reps to negotiate for them! Winchester did successfully negotiate a good deal, and collected a commission for doing do, but once they got their commission they stepped aside. When those countries didn't pay their bills at final delivery Winchester was asked to step in, but declined since they had their money and didn't want to spend anymore time collecting Remington's money.
For whatever reason, Remington often made foreign sales of military rifles starting with money down, and then payment as shipments were filled. But often at some point payments weren't made when shipments were delivered, and they lost what would have been profits on orders. Almost all these orders to foreign governments were for Rolling Block rifles, and until they went bankrupt very few Sporting Models were made in comparison to the millions of military models made. Hartley changed all that by not only ensuring the company got paid for military sales, but expanding their sporting models and sales a huge amount.
I knew Hartley left everything to his grandson, and that he was one of the wealthiest men in America at his death. But I've never heard much about the grandson after he inherited all that wealth at such a young age? I love firearms history, and this fascinates me as much as the guns do.

I have not read anything that states that Remington used
Winchester's sales personnel to make or close foreign con-
tracts sales. Which contract was this?

Now, most of the major firearm manufacturers, when dealing
with foreign orders and such, sales representative of one
manufacturer would accept orders for another companies
firearms to maintain friendly relations with their customers.

Remington had a very aggressive and successful sales force
around the world. Contracts required payment to be received
before rifles were allowed to be released. Remington did have
trouble with payments from Egypt but they did eventually re-
ceived payment in the early 1880's. This information came to
light in the Sam Morris papers. (Sam Morris was the one that
negotiated the Egyptian contract).

So, it is my personal belief that the sons of Eliphalet Remington
did not run their father's company very well. When the bankruptcy
came 1886, they could have sold off the typewriter division and
have covered most (if not all) of their debts. At lease they could
have re-structure their debt if they sold the typewriter division
and stayed in business.

Cheers!
Webb