Hello everyone! Greetings from Scandinavia! I am interested in purchasing a Remington New Model Army, civil war era that hasn't had too many parts replaced with newer ones. The one I am interested in was manufactured in February 1864 with the number #54812. The same serial number appears on the barrel, frame, and trigger guard. It also has faint markings on the left side of the stock. What bothers me is that the hammer seems to have been replaced with a newer model? In the picture, you can see #54812 compared with another revolver, and it has a different pattern on the hammer than #54812. The metal on the hammer of #54812 also looks newer. I think it seems like the hammer is of a later manufacture and not from the same time period. Or is it just heavily polished?
The triggerguard is also heavily polished or is it of later manufacturing?
What do you think?
Remington New Model Army
-
Hunter-Swede1963
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2025 10:46 pm
Remington New Model Army
- Attachments
-
- 54812.png (1.7 MiB) Viewed 7061 times
-
- 7 08.20.51.png (1.61 MiB) Viewed 7061 times
-
- 6.png (1.61 MiB) Viewed 7061 times
-
- 94597vs54812.png (2.89 MiB) Viewed 7061 times
Re: Remington New Model Army
Hello Hunter,
Sorry for the late replay, but I just found your post on the RSA sight looking ovet previous posts.
The time difference between the two pistols is only 3 months or less, so they were both made in the same time period.
The Hammer on 54 has finer space checkering than the hammer on 94, and this may have been a slight change, probably to speed production, since the hammers were checkered by hand, not byu machine. The checking difference has no effect on value.
The sides of the hammers may have received slightly different amount of polishing, or the shiny hammer may have lost it's color over the years. Again, this doesn't affect the value and doesn't mean that one of them was replaced. Remington stopped production of the NMA at the end of March, 1865, including spare parts, so even if the original hammer was replaced, the replacement would have been made in the same general time frame as the rest of the pistol.
The trigger guard doesn't look like it has been polished after it left the factory, If there is a difference in the smoothness of the metal between the two trigger guards, it would just be the difference of how two different workers did their jobs in polishing the part. There are just differences in the speed and ability of each worker.
Daniel
Sorry for the late replay, but I just found your post on the RSA sight looking ovet previous posts.
The time difference between the two pistols is only 3 months or less, so they were both made in the same time period.
The Hammer on 54 has finer space checkering than the hammer on 94, and this may have been a slight change, probably to speed production, since the hammers were checkered by hand, not byu machine. The checking difference has no effect on value.
The sides of the hammers may have received slightly different amount of polishing, or the shiny hammer may have lost it's color over the years. Again, this doesn't affect the value and doesn't mean that one of them was replaced. Remington stopped production of the NMA at the end of March, 1865, including spare parts, so even if the original hammer was replaced, the replacement would have been made in the same general time frame as the rest of the pistol.
The trigger guard doesn't look like it has been polished after it left the factory, If there is a difference in the smoothness of the metal between the two trigger guards, it would just be the difference of how two different workers did their jobs in polishing the part. There are just differences in the speed and ability of each worker.
Daniel