Help with; identify, date, examine my new #1 RB??

[tomovich]

I acquired this rifle in trade with my friend Mike Venturino. He bought it from Hank Williams Jr. All he could tell me about it was that it shoots great. These are the details and I'll try to upload a bunch of pics.........any help is appreciated.

Barrel; no “Remington markings”. Cartridge mark is 50 CTG’E.....serial number stamp is the same on bbl, wood forend and schnabble; #1672
Receiver; no stamps
Stock and buttplate serial; #2783....There is a stamp on the front most part of the buttstock that butts against the receiver; “B. N. Bacon.” It's on both sides, serial number stamped over the name on the one side.
Upper tang; two line patent address, serial stamped on left of tang; #13417
Lower (longer) tang; main serial number #3226....serial stamped on left side of tang; #27653
Barrel is 28” long and 1.045” across the flats
Rifle weighs 9 lbs 6 ozs (apx) and it has a single set trigger
You can see the Remington rear sight and the front sight were the "upgrades".

[tomovich]

Some more glaring sunshine pics. The bore is actually mint and shiny w/ no rust or pitting.

[tomovich]

The last of them............so what do y'all think? Originality, date manufactured, etc.??

[marlinman93]

Not enough info to say for sure. It appears to have the earlier style buttplate, and steel forearm tip. But that doesn't narrow it down much. Need to know the exact barrel rollstamp.

[tomovich]

There is no barrel rollstamp. Just the markings like I posted in my notes. The serial number and the caliber. The only place it says Remington is on the upper tang.

[marlinman93]

There is no barrel rollstamp. Just the markings like I posted in my notes. The serial number and the caliber. The only place it says Remington is on the upper tang.

That's a very unusual thing to not have a Remington address on the top flat, forward of the sight! I've got 16 Remington Sporting Rifles, and all have an E. Remington & Sons .Ilion, NY stamp on them, or some sort of similar rollstamp.

[tomovich]

Thanks for your input. I took two more pics of the top flat of the barrel in front of the rear sight. Also, any ideas on the 'B.N. Bacon' stamping? Was that a supplier of stocks to Remington??

[marlinman93]

Without a barrel rollstamp I'd have to guess at the date. I do know that Remington Creedmoor rifles used in the 1874 match were around serial number s in the very low 3000 range. So it's likely yours being in the 3200 range is late that year, or 1875.
The B.N. Bacon is new to me, and not stamped where Remington's master gun stock makers stamped their name. There were two master stock makers who normally only stamped their names on high grade stocks, and they were stamped in the inletting below the top tang. As far as I know Remington would not have bought stocks from any outside vendor, as they had a whole department of workers doing stocks. So your theory that it is maybe a retailer is more likely. I haven't heard this name before, so can't tell you anything about it.

[tomovich]

Thank you sir. That's some narrowing down.

[ndnchf]

I can't add anything to what Vall said. But just wanted to say that is a beautiful rifle, you are very fortunate. Is the chamber length for .50-70? What is the rate of twist? Does it appear to be Remington style rifling?

[tomovich]

Thanks. It is 50-70. Mike Venturino shot quite few groups with it. 4" ~ 5" at 100 yards with the open sights. We were going to shoot it together after we made the trade but winter happened. I have no idea about the style of the rifling. I only have two RB's. This and a Springfield Armory 1871. I suppose when my deck is not covered in snow I could try to get a clear picture of the bore to post. That might be in days or another five months. I'll see what I can do.

[tomovich]

I received this email from one of the head honchos of the "society" giving me some interesting tidbits.........FYI.........

Tom


I found a few answers for your questions. What appears to RemShots is you have a very nice example of an early Remington Rolling Block #1. The 1672 serial number is very early and puts it around 1870/1871. The 5 digit numbers you see are assembly numbers. We also find that you have mixed/matched serial numbers on stock, tang and other items. In the 1970's there were two gunsmiths in Oregon that would take parts from original rolling blocks and build one from old stock. We can not tell for sure if your rifle was put together from existing parts in the 1870's or 1970's unfortunately. To me personally it does not take away from the value at all! Your rifle is still made with original early parts.


I hope this helps

[marlinman93]

Not positive who the "two Oregon gunsmiths" were, but I do know who one of them was for sure! The late, great Al Perry had a huge volume of gun parts, and was one of the finest gunsmiths I knew who could assemble various old single shots from his parts inventory and make them look unmessed with!
Very sad day when Al passed, as he was a great guy, and I bought numerous old guns from Al. I never cared or questioned if they were reworked by Al as they looked proper regardless.

[Dick Hosmer]

Didn't know Al for too long, and only bought one rifle from him - which I still have - but he was really a great guy and I sure miss chatting with him at shows. He brought this rifle down to Vallejo, specifically for me, but without letting me know in advance. So happened I didn't have much money that weekend, but he insisted that I keep the gun and send him the money when I could. That was back not too long after we'd become acquainted, but he was that kinda guy.

[marlinman93]

Didn't know Al for too long, and only bought one rifle from him - which I still have - but he was really a great guy and I sure miss chatting with him at shows. He brought this rifle down to Vallejo, specifically for me, but without letting me know in advance. So happened I didn't have much money that weekend, but he insisted that I keep the gun and send him the money when I could. That was back not too long after we'd become acquainted, but he was that kinda guy.

That was Al for sure. He was a good guy, and if he got to know you even a little he trusted you, and knew he'd likely see you at another gun show anyway. Nobody would have considered not doing right by Al, and mess up a chance to deal with him again in the future!