The Creedmoor's

[Steve L]

In an effort to possibly narrow down a rifle I have, I recently joined the Remington Society, in hopes of going straight to the source on the information or opinion that I need. A while back, I sent Mike Alsop and email regarding said rifle, hoping the powers that be here may help, particularly Roy Marcot himself. While I wait for a response (hopefully), I decided to take the advice of the board and also post my question here in the forum. I am going to keep this simple, and post the main body of the email, and some pictures for those care to opine. It's my first post here, and thanks in advance for any help others may offer:

"Not sure if this is where I should direct this, but I’ll start here. I’m not looking for a value on a rifle, just trying to determine whether or not it might be a Creedmoor.
Back in 2020, my father Robert Lag*** (former member of Remington Society maybe?), passed away at the age of 85. He was a lifelong gun enthusiast, former gunsmith and jewelry smith, and accomplished craftsman. In the latter part of his life, his firearm collection remained mostly hidden away, however he had begun restoring some antique firearms in his mid to late 70’s, that none of us knew about.
Upon his passing, he left the family a house of treasures to clean up and sort through. Out of the ten decedents in his will, I managed to end up with about a fourth of his firearm collection, all of his reloading equipment and tools, and all but one of the ‘project’ guns he was working on. Shortly after his death, my sisters and I went to his home to assess the project ahead of us. In the basement on his workbench, with only an overhead light still left on, was a Remington No.1 that he had (or was) about 95% finished.
I ended up with the rifle, and of course wanted to finish it, shoot it, and tuck it away for my son. I’m a modern firearms guy for the most part (or was until now), and had no idea what I was in for with his collection. I’ve had to get very educated, very quickly on a lot of things I didn’t know. Keeping this to the point, I finished the rolling block in question, learned how to form 40-70 Sharps bottleneck brass, learned how to cast bullets, etc. I have shot the rifle twice, and it’s a pure pleasure.
A week or two ago, I had the rifle out looking over a particular detail. I also had Roy Marcot’s book he had, laid out to compare what I don’t remember now. As I was thumbing through Roy’s book, I started to notice some similarities between this rifle, and the Creedmoor’s. I started down the rabbit hole as I found various details that matched. Then, after spending several evenings trying to find more information out on various forums, and trying to weed through the 472,000 ‘experts’ on the internet, I decided to try to find Roy Marcot himself. I decided that would be the ideal situation to assess the rifle and determine if it may indeed be a Creedmoor.
That lead me HERE. I am painfully interested in if this is just a really nice old rifle Dad was restoring, or if it may be a little more collectable I guess. Here are the points in common I found on my own, primarily from Roy’s book regarding this rifle and the Creedmoor’s:

Per Dad’s one note on his inventory, this originally was a .46 rimfire. Apparently he relined it, and it is now a 40-70 SBN. The original caliber is no longer marked on the flats of the barrel anywhere, but when the barrel was re-blued (rust blued I’m pretty sure) the original Remington and Son’s roll mark was left in tact on the top flat.

The barrel is 32” in length, which was an option to 34” on the Creedmoor’s.

The barrel has NO rear dovetail for a rear sight, or ever did.

The receiver has the proper patent dates according to Roy’s book, and the period correct deep rebate per the serial number, which is #3276.

The front sight appears to possibly be an original possibly, the rear sight was missing. (I installed the one in the pictures from his parts stash)

The butt plate also appears to possibly be an original, it just doesn’t look like a plastic re-pop, but I don’t know for sure.

It has the pistol grip stock with the ebony inlay. The forend has the case hardened tip, but I couldn’t find a serial number on the other end stamped in the wood. It doesn’t look ‘new’ (the wood), but I have no way of telling if it was correct to this gun. (I have Hepburn #202, in original condition, and it has the serial number marked on the back of the forend…which is where I came up with the idea to look there.)

The wood (both forend and stock) aren’t perfect, but look nicely refinished. Maybe both are period correct?

The pictures included aren’t great, the lighting in my gun room doesn’t provide studio conditions, however I think they will be of some help. I’m joining the Remington Society as well, due to other questions I’m sure will be arising at some time on other guns that now reside in my basement. (That includes Hepburns, derringers, other rolling blocks including a factory engraved one, etc.) But first things first…smiles.
Any help on this rifle would be greatly appreciated!"

NOTE, I have a few more pics but couldn't get them load, if someone needs to see them.

download/file.php?mode=view&id=8425

[marlinman93]

It does have some features of a Creedmoor model, except for the original .46RF chambering. That would never have been a cartridge ever used by any Creedmoor shooter as it's too anemic to reach 800-1000 yds. accurately.
It is indeed around the same serial number range, but so were a lot of other non Creedmoor models. It is also a special order rifle with the pistol grip stock, and features found on some Creedmoor models. But the full octagon barrel would likely put it over the maximum weight for a Creedmoor rifle. The very few full octagon Creedmoor rifles made had much lighter profiled barrels to stay under the 10 lb. total weight limit.
The rear tang sight appears to be a later replacement, and front globe sight looks original, but not a windage globe as Creedmoor rifles used.
I think your gun will fall into the Sporting Rifle category, or Special Sporting Rifle with the options it features.

[Steve L]

Marlinman93, I greatly appreciate your response and taking the time. (especially since I see you didn't join yesterday like I did...smiles) I was going to update this a few days ago, but I wanted to clarify a few things about the rifle I discovered before I did. Mike Alsop reached out to me by phone the day before this posted for public view. He asked some more questions, answered several questions, and we had a very enlightening conversation to go along with about 20 pics I had sent him. First off, we both came to the conclusion it is not a Creedmoor, despite some common traits it has with the information in Roy Marcot's book. One of the points I wasn't 100 percent sure about was the .46 rimfire as being notated on my Dad's inventory. ( I suppose it could have been an option, as it was on regular no.1's, but Mike explained why that would probably not have happened.) I believe two No1's listed, one above the other on my Dad's inventory, have the serial numbers reversed. I am tracking down who in the family has the other, to verify if is the .46 rimfire. The notes on the other rifle, state IT has a new relined barrel in 40-70 sbn and is restored...which describes THIS rifle. If that turns out to be the case, this rifle started life as a 40-50 Sharps. You are correct on the tang sight, it had nothing on it when I found it, but there were a box of spares to choose from so I picked one of the nicer ones to put on it. The front sight, I too think is an original to a No1, but not a Creedmoor for lack of the level. Mike was kind enough to take the time to cover a lot of ground on the checkering, the barrel flats, lack of crown on the reline, etc. And the winner is, I have a nice No1 Sporting Rolling Block that my Dad had 95% done when he met his untimely passing.

[marlinman93]

The Creedmoor globe sights were windage adjustable, and usually had a spirit level also. Rear long-range tang sights had no windage and the front sights did the windage adjustment.
Your dad's rifle is still a wonderful guns, and if originally a .40-50 would be classified as a Short-Range rifle. The .40-50 SS or SBN are both neat cartridges. I have two in .40-50SS and one looks much like the one you have. Mine has long range tang sight, and windage front sight for some odd reason? I can't imagine anyone ever shooting the .40-50SS at long range distances? I've shot mine out to 600 yds., but I hit on a 24" steel plate about 60% of my shots. Just a bit far for my 315 gr. bullet and this short case.
The restoration done on your dad's gun is very nicely done. Well enough done to match original finishes used by Remington, and a very nice looking firearm.

[Steve L]

I appreciate the compliment on my Dad's work, he was quite a craftsman on a number of levels, and was completely self taught. He transitioned to jewelry smithing in the mid 70's, and took quite a long break from guns, then started back on the guns in his late 60's to a degree none of us even knew about. P.S...I intentionally put a rear sight with the windage adjustment on it since I didn't have an original anyway On the other note, I have an original Hepburn in 40-50 SS, I think it's a blast to shoot. Nebraska used to allow target shooting at any state lake, and I had a few places where I could shoot long distances. That changed about 7 years ago unfortunately. I now have a friends farm that he bought FOR shooting, but I'm limited to 200 yards. After some re-arranging that will stretch to 350 or so. But if I can eat up a 3" bullseye at 100 yards, and kill 5-6" party balloons at 200 yards with these old rifles, I'm pretty stoked!