Remington Rolling Block, I think Number 1

[Doc Hoy]

This is my first post in about four years. Was very active but then lost my shooting place (Perhaps you recall that I hate ranges). Have moved to FL and know own a piece of land in Punta Gorda. For those familiar it is just northeast of the Babcock Ranch.

I'll send photos when I can

Anyway, I came up with a Remington Rolling block. I think it is a Number 1 Sporting rifle. It is marked "32" on the bottom barrel flat. So I think it started life as a .32 RF. Photos soon.


The block has been modified for center fire but I think the rifle has not yet been rechambered. I took a look at Potterfield's video on rechambering for .32-20.

If I find that the chamber is not yet modified, I will make that change.

Any thoughts? Anyone want to sell a .32-20 reamer?

Tnx,

Doc

[Jim Watson]

.32 rimfire converted to centerfire is pretty much .32 Colt.
I don't know how .32 RF and .32-20 bore/groove diameters match, but you should.

[Doc Hoy]

... the difference in bullet diameter is only about .0005. I know I still owe you guys some photos.

But I will look into .32 Colt too. I want to reload in black powder as I do for everything but .45 ACP, 9MM and .380.

Breach block closes and firing pin rests on the primer.

The name on the barrel is "E. Remington & Sons, Ilion N.Y.". Does the presence of the "& Sons" aids in dating.

The most recent patent was 1873.

Can anyone tell me if this is a No 1 or No 1 1/2?

The stock has been repaired but not by a professional. It is more my quality than a true craftsman. The forearm has some minor cracks but nothing that compromises integrity of the piece.

More photos later.

The lower tang is as long as the upper tang. The butt plate, barrel and tang serial numbers match. Still looking for a serial number on the receiver.

Front sight is worn almost flat. You can see the repair on the comb of the stock and that more repairs could be done. The rear sight seems to be original.

Pretty nasty nick in the receiver where it meets the buttstock. In addition, note the round contour of the rear of the receiver where is meets the stock. Number 1?

[Jim Watson]

It is a No 2.
The slanted-curved rear face of the receiver is different from No 1 or 1 1/2.
Here is a place that has a few parts.
http://www.rollingblockparts.com/no-2.html

[Doc Hoy]

Close-up of the nick in the receiver. You can also see the repair on the forearm just forward of the receiver. It was done with putty. Lot of discoloration in the wood from oil.

Receiver has three flats, which I like

The forearm is a poor match for the receiver. But at least the rifle is complete.

In the third photo, you can see that the screws are not is great condition.

In photo number 1, the breech is closed and the back of the firing pin is not visible in the breech block. No case is in the chamber. The firing pin itself protrudes a good bit past the face of the breech block. Probly too much.

Photo's two and three show the rough condition of the screws and finish. Rifle has a nice patina, which I will probly not mess with. But I think collector value is about zero.

On the first photo notice the finish on the breech block face. Notice also the evidence that the rifle start life as a RF rifle.

The bottom flat on the barrel is marked with the caliber "32". I think that means .32 S & W rim fire.

That is the serial number on the bottom flat of the barrel under the fore arm.

I know I am taking a chance revealing the entire serial number but this thread along with it's date should document that I own the rifle.

Been looking for a serial number listing to date the rifle unsuccessfully.

Serial number on the lower tang. A shot of the rear sight and a partial of the manufacturer's inscription. Finally a shot of the chamber breech.

The bore of this rifle is not great. Rifling is still there but some pitting.

[Jim Watson]

I think I am seeing a weld repair between the top tang and receiver.
There is a copper shim between the barrel and receiver.

I don't know about control of firing pin protrusion, although I have read warnings about firing pins stuck forward, firing when the breechblock is closed.

[Doc Hoy]

I agree with the weldment at the upper tang. That welding appears to be for cosmetic reasons. When I pulled the buttstock off of the rifle I could see that the tang was not broken, just metal build up to repair faults in the surface.

I have examined as closely as I can and see no brass or copper shims for the barrel. But the rifle has definitely been taken apart. the serial number on the receiver is difference from the barrel (4262). In one of the photos a copper colored area on the receiver at the mating surface with the barrel, is (I think) a function of bad lighting on my photograph.

Any information of serial numbers for this rifle?

[Doc Hoy]

"Guuuuh, this is embaraskin."

Since my access has been restored I was going over previous posts and found that I had already discussed this rifle around two years ago. I already knew the caliber and ammunition to be .32-20.

I completely forgot that thread.

At 72, I have come to one stark conclusion. Growing old is not for sissies.

Sorry guys.

[Jim Watson]

Picture RRB11 shows the band of copper. Is that just a reflection?

The problem with Rolling Block serial numbers is that besides being a "mixmaster", Remington is known for "batch numbering." Unlike Colt and Winchester, they did not run consecutive serial numbers for the whole production life of a model, they started over whenever they had a new contract or a break in manufacture.

[Doc Hoy]

Jim,

Thanks for the wink back. That is a reflection. I read with interest your comment on serial numbers. I looked on the Remington site unsuccessfully for the 4xxx and 9xxx dates. At this point it is just a curiosity.

I was disappointed when I realized that the receiver does not match the rest of the rifle.

As I said in my previous post, without remembering it, I already had the answers to two of the questions (model number and ammunition). It troubles me that I did not remember that thread and I don't like peppering people with questions that have already been answered.

[Jim Watson]

I often see a long running thread that I want to reply to, but I need to look back, I may have already said all I knew.

[Doc Hoy]

You presented a lot of info back then and a lot in this most recent thread. I am thankful.