I just got the receiver in the picture. I’m trying to figure out what it is. No 1, 1 1/2, or 5? Military or sporting? I’m not certain that the lower tang/trigger guard, hammer, and breech block are original to the receiver. The only markings I can find are three lines on the upper tang:
REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY ILION, NY
PAT MAY ?? 1864 MAY 7th JUNE 11th NOV 12th DEC 187?
DEC 31st 1872 SEPT 9th 1873 JAN 12 MARCH 18th 1874
Another RB identification post
Another RB identification post
- Attachments
-
- IMG_1681.jpeg (4.24 MiB) Viewed 320 times
-
- IMG_1671.jpeg (4.7 MiB) Viewed 320 times
-
- IMG_1672.jpeg (4.56 MiB) Viewed 320 times
Re: Another RB identification post
My guess is:
A #1 Military . . . .with the earlier “long” lower tang.
Looks like it was cleaned up a mite.
A #1 Military . . . .with the earlier “long” lower tang.
Looks like it was cleaned up a mite.
-
marlinman93
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:47 pm
Re: Another RB identification post
I've never seen a military Rolling Block #1 with the longer Sporting Rifle tang? And the military Rolling Blocks had thicker and wider tangs than Sporting had, and those tangs appear to be the thinner Sporting style.
I think this action is the early Sporting round top #1. There should be a serial number on the lower tang near the furthest rear screw hole.
I think this action is the early Sporting round top #1. There should be a serial number on the lower tang near the furthest rear screw hole.
Re: Another RB identification post
I didn’t realize the military versions ever had a “long“ lower tang. The lower tangs are interchangeable, correct? I was thinking it was likely that the tang came from a different gun, and was not original to this action.JimF wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2026 10:05 am My guess is:
A #1 Military . . . .with the earlier “long” lower tang.
Looks like it was cleaned up a mite.
Re: Another RB identification post
When I bought it I also was thinking it was an early sporting action. Once I received it and saw the markings on it I realized that it was late 80s at the earliest, based on the “Remington Arms Company” stamp.marlinman93 wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2026 10:24 am I've never seen a military Rolling Block #1 with the longer Sporting Rifle tang? And the military Rolling Blocks had thicker and wider tangs than Sporting had, and those tangs appear to be the thinner Sporting style.
I think this action is the early Sporting round top #1. There should be a serial number on the lower tang near the furthest rear screw hole.
-
marlinman93
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:47 pm
Re: Another RB identification post
Yes, you're correct. That rollstamp would make it a late 1880's action, so likely someone swapped in an early Sporting tang. I have three of those, but mine are early military actions with pistol grip Sporting tangs added.Cwc wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2026 7:39 amWhen I bought it I also was thinking it was an early sporting action. Once I received it and saw the markings on it I realized that it was late 80s at the earliest, based on the “Remington Arms Company” stamp.marlinman93 wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2026 10:24 am I've never seen a military Rolling Block #1 with the longer Sporting Rifle tang? And the military Rolling Blocks had thicker and wider tangs than Sporting had, and those tangs appear to be the thinner Sporting style.
I think this action is the early Sporting round top #1. There should be a serial number on the lower tang near the furthest rear screw hole.