58 Caliber Rolling Block

[RAR45110]

Gentlemen,

I would appreciate some help identifying a Remington Rolling Block barreled action that I purchased some time ago at a gun show. The seller was an elderly gentleman who said when I purchased it, "That's all original." Unfortunately, at the time I failed to ask what it was. I only knew that it was a Remington RB and that is what I have collected. This gun is a 58 caliber with a 39" barrel. The witness marks on the barrel and action line up, so I don't think that the barrel has been replaced. The block has "ears" on either side of it to accommodate the larger cartridge rim, and the action has cutouts on the sides for these "ears" to pass by. I have many Remington RB's and none have this type of block. The extractor is of the sliding type along side the barrel. The block has a screw, from the left to the right, that retains the firing pin. The barrel has the conventional Remington front sight and has the half dovetail slot in the rear with one screw hole. An 1868 Springfield rear sight I have fits perfectly and the stain on the barrel fits that sight shape exactly. The sight screw has the same threads as this barrel. The rear of the dovetail is about 1/4" from the action. The stains on the barrel indicate it had 3 barrel bands. The centerline of the first mark is about 7 1/4 " from the face of the action. The second one is about 19 inches from the action and the third is about 31 5/8 " from the action. These measurements are based on stains on the barrel. The block thumb pieced and the hammer thumb piece are hatched all the way across. The upper tang is about 3 3/8 " from the square of the action and the lower tang (part of the trigger guard) is about 4 1/2" from the square of the action. This is the only RB that I have that has a longer lower tang than the upper tang. The upper tang has the first line imprint (as best as I can read it), Remington Ilion N Y U.S.A. The second line is, PAT. May 3D Nov 15 1864 April 17th 1868. The "D" after the 3 is smaller and superscript to the 3. There is a sling swivel on the front of the trigger guard.

I cannot find any information on this rifle and would like to restore it to shootable condition, as I have done with several other RB's I own.

Thank you in advance for any help you can give me.

Robert Read

[Dick Hosmer]

Rimfire, or centerfire?

Sounds like one of the early breechloading conversions using some CW musket parts. Refer to Flayderman #5E-082. Known with 36" and 39" barrels, the latter being somewhat less common than the former.

It is not the Springfield Armory-Remington "joint venture" known as the "transformed rifle" (5E-080) because they were in .50-70, and had 39-3/8" barrels.

Also, I believe the last patent date is "1866" rather than "1868"; they are very hard to read sometimes.

[RAR45110]

Thanks for the information. The one thing I did not list is that it is centerfire. It is not a 50-70. I have a couple of these and the brass falls into the breech. The barrel is 39" on the nose, not 39 3/8". I will get a copy of Flaydermans or would I be better suited to get a copy of George Laymans new RB book?

Thanks,

Robert Read

[Dick Hosmer]

Well, you probably ought to get both! Hard to believe that someone as interested as you appear to be, over what has to be more than a few years, would not have an old Flaydermans kicking around somewhere! I've nearly worn some of mine out from leafing through them.

You MIGHT even want my book on the .58 and .50 rifles and carbines of SA, including all of the US rolling blocks assembled there. $25 to POB1367 Colusa CA 95932 for an autographed copy. Shameless plug.

[oldremguy]

Hello Robert,

Here is a photo of (3) Springfield 1861 and 1863 Muskets that were converted to the Remington Rolling Block system. The rear sight would of been the ones that were used from the musket and not the Model 1868 sight.

Converted Musket to Rolling Block.jpg (55.5 KiB) Viewed 4758 times

Hope the photo helps show you what they would of look like.
Remington would of cut the musket in front and in back of the lock plate of the musket and then used all of the rest of the parts on convert the rifle.

Have a Good Day,
Matt

[RAR45110]

You are correct, I should have gotten a Flaydermans years ago, and I do have one on order now. I have looked up specific rifles in the library in Flaydermans at times. Richard, I do have your 58 and 50 caliber rifles book, and I love it! It has helped me greatly in my quest to restore an 1871 Springfield RB. I also have the RB book by Konrad Schreier on RB's. I do find it hard some times to spend money on books when I can spend it on guns. I am a collector of rolling blocks, but not an expert by any means. My collection was started by having the desire to buy old black powder cartridge guns at, back then, low prices, repair them as necessary and shoot them. I regularly shoot my 7mm's, 43 Spanish, and my 22 caliber. I have purchased guns and then looked up information on them rather than learning about all the Rolling Blocks and looking for specific ones to collect. As I said, I was at a gun show where a gun smith, who was apparently retiring, had piled a bunch of gun parts, actions, etc. on tables. He had these guns of all kinds, and most without wood, piled on tables on top of each other, 4 and 5 guns deep. I sorted through and picked up the 58 I am speaking of, two 1870 Springfield Navy RB actions and one 1871 Springfield RB action. All for a couple hundred dollars. I researched the 1871 Springfield and am now restoring it. I have had to become familiar with all the action parts so I can recognize them when they are listed on ebay or gunbroker as unknown parts. Wescomb, who is now owned by Ken Womack, didn't have the parts, and Numrich hasn't had much of anything for years. I now have all the action parts, an 1871 Springfield RB barrel with wood, and barrel bands. It is on its way to Dave Higgenbotham of Lonestar to have the barrel installed correctly in the action. When he is done, I will have everything correct except for the buttstock. It has been difficult finding a buttstock for the 1871. I will use an incorrect one until I find one. With this project of several years approaching a close, I was looking at attacking the 58, which is why I wrote the request. I will purchase Laymans book to see exactly what I will be looking for. I think it will be much harder to find wood for this gun. However, things do turn up from time to time. I thought I might never find all the action parts for the 1871 and I did. I want to thank all of you for your help, especially the pictures of the 58.

Thanks again,

Robert Read