View Full Version : 1885 Remington Lee Navy
I know this is a trap door thread but I think this rifle might be allowed as where the TD was the Army rifle, the Rem Lee was the Navy rifle during the same period.
Anyway I just purchased this rifle at a gun show because I have had a rare magazine cartridge belt for the Rem Navy Lee for many years and I knew I would eventually have to get the rifle and this one came along as a walk in at the show at a reasonable $1,050 price. It's not perfect but liveable and has good rifling and I intend to shoot it.
The rear sight uses, I believe the standard 1879 TD Springfield rear sight, with the exception that the sight base is stamped R-L. The sight on this rifle needs a complete ladder w/sliding sight, (1200 yd range), as the one on the rifle is broken. Also it's missing the cleaning rod. Anyone have any of these items I can buy?
The belt is Khaki color and not blue, so it is Navy, not Army or militia. So I had to get a Navy Lee, The belt has a patent date of 1889 which would be correct for the rifle's early 1890's date. I believe these belts were in existence earlier and used with the earlier rifles also as there is early referrence to the belt. The belt probably didn't receive a patent stamp until later. About an hour before I bought the rifle I found the early TD sling I posted on here earlier, and it will work for the Rem Lee also. Ray
Dick Hosmer
06-26-2013, 09:03
Nice find. Lucky you have the sight base, as the screws are longer. If the leaf IS different (I'd have to look) it would not be very different, and a TD one should certainly suffice - I might be able to help you there, if not, they are readily available. The rod is the typical Remington rod of the period, plain cylindrical shaft with separate applied head. Don't have a spare, but can provide the correct length for you.
I just looked through my TD book and see all I need for the sight is the sliding buck horn sight. That part is missing, the 1200 ladder is intact. Ray
Dick Hosmer
06-26-2013, 11:15
I'll see what I have. Forgot to mention the rod threads in.
Dan Shapiro
06-26-2013, 11:23
I envy you Ray. Been looking for a Lee-Navy for several years. One's I've come across so far have all had major problems.
I'll see what I have. Forgot to mention the rod threads in.
Thanks Dick, appreciate it. Would like to take it shooting, Ray
Dick you mentioned that the cleaning rod is the same as the other Rem rifles. I assuming that includes the Rem 45/70 rolling block rifles. What is the length of the rod? Would a 50/70 RB rifle rod be the same or too large a dia. I ask, only as I will be looking for an original rod and one of those may turn up, Ray
Dick Hosmer
06-28-2013, 06:29
I envy you Ray. Been looking for a Lee-Navy for several years. One's I've come across so far have all had major problems.
Dan, stay in contact. The R-L is one of my more peripheral items, and might be an early release from the collection, when that time comes. It's probably in a bit lesser condition then Ray's, but no "problems". It is also one of the 280 rifles from the California Naval Battalion, as mentioned in Gene Myszkowski's book.
Dick Hosmer
06-28-2013, 06:36
Sorry, Ray, meant to answer you first, and forgot to hit "post" before getting side-tracked.
Here are the dimensions for the rod in my M1885 R-L:
OAL: 31-3/8"
Shaft (uniform): 3/16"
Head length: 1-3/8"
Thread length: 3/8"
Setback when threaded-in: 1/4"
Have no info on Remington commercial rods. The R-L rod MIGHT be similar to the .50-70 New York contract rolling blocks, but the Springfield RB rods are completely different.
Dan Shapiro
06-28-2013, 07:55
Thanks Dick. Keep me in mind when the time comes.
jon_norstog
06-28-2013, 08:00
Good score, Ray. The Remington-Lees were a pretty decent rifle, and the detachable magazine was a real breakthrough in military rifle design.
James Paris Lee was a genius who never had John Browning's luck. Perhaps Mr. Hosmer will post some pictures of Lee's redesign of the trapdoor, one of the finest military single shot rifles I've ever seen.
jn
Dick Hosmer
06-28-2013, 08:53
This is what Jon is talking about:
Dan Shapiro
06-28-2013, 11:10
Dick, please elaborate. How did the action function? Extraction? Tks.
Dick Hosmer
06-28-2013, 12:34
Nutshell: If empty, slide a round in at top, just like loading a Winchester on the side, block springs back up, cock hammer, fire. If fired, strike hammer from rear, shell pops out, block stays down, loading a round releases it, cock and fire. Full rifle ballistics in the length of a Cadet (action is 3" shorter). Slicker than ice on teflon. Massively strong. Victim of OD politics. Will be covered in much greater detail in forthcoming book.
Dick or someone, could you take the measurements of the m1879 rear sight ladder. I want to make sure the ladder of the M79 is the same as the Rem Lee so if I find a M79 slider sight it will fit. The R Lee is different as the base is stamped R-L and the ladder has no "R" on it and I'm hoping that is the only difference. Here are the dimensions of the Rem Lee ladder. Ray
.545 wide
.260 inside opening
.125 width each side bar
.100 thickness.
Disregard the above, I received comfirmation the TD M79 sight sider is the same as the RL slider, Ray
Kragrifle
07-02-2013, 05:16
Rayg
Ed Knisely would be your best bet for the sight and rod
Rayg
Ed Knisely would be your best bet for the sight and rod
That was who confirmed the TD sight slider is the same as the RL and that he has one. Emailed him back that I would take one and am waiting to hear back from him. Ray
That was who confirmed the TD sight slider is the same as the RL and that he has one. Emailed him back that I would take one and am waiting to hear back from him. Ray
It's been over a week since I emailed him and still haven't heard back from him. Hope he's alright, of course I'm just assuming he's an old guy like me. I will try again.
Dick did you look through your parts for one? Ray
Dick Hosmer
07-08-2013, 07:10
No, I stepped back when it seemed your issue was resolved, and now I won't be able to for about a week, myself. :-(
S&S Firearms has a repro rod for the Rem-Lee. I cannot vouch for it's "correctness", but it fits, threads in and "looks" correct to my uneducated eyes on my 1885. Just on a whim, I decided to try it in a Swiss Vetterli, and it fit, threaded in and "looked" correct there, too. The Swiss rifles are always missing the rods, and folks are charging big bucks for rods of questionable origin that fit, so I called S&S to let them know of my serendipitous "find". In their latest catalog, it is advertised as Vette rod, too!
I have a 6mm Lee Navy inbound, pics as soon as I can.
Resp'y,
Bob S.
Thank's Bob, if I don't find an original rod, I will order a repro from them.
Looking forward to seeing the pics of the Win Navy Lee, Ray
Kragrifle
07-09-2013, 08:55
Original rods should not be that hard to find. The rod is the same as used in the Peabodies, though the length may be different. The threads, however, are unique so if the rod needs to be shortenen, save the threaded end to splice back on the shortened rod.
Dick Hosmer
07-10-2013, 07:07
S&S Firearms has a repro rod for the Rem-Lee. I cannot vouch for it's "correctness", but it fits, threads in and "looks" correct to my uneducated eyes on my 1885. Just on a whim, I decided to try it in a Swiss Vetterli, and it fit, threaded in and "looked" correct there, too. The Swiss rifles are always missing the rods, and folks are charging big bucks for rods of questionable origin that fit, so I called S&S to let them know of my serendipitous "find". In their latest catalog, it is advertised as Vette rod, too!
Resp'y,
Bob S.
I was once sold a Swiss rod as an 1867 TD Cadet rod, by someone (a one-time big-name TD collector) who HAD to have known better. It ultimately broke a friendship as he refused, after assuring me it was correct (and charging a commensurate price) to take it back. My policy has always been a full refund at any time for any reason, so long as the item has not been altered in any way.
No, I stepped back when it seemed your issue was resolved, and now I won't be able to for about a week, myself. :-(
Thanks Dick, would appreciate it as I understand Ed Knisely is recovering from a heart attack which explains why I haven't received a reply.
Ray
Dick don't forget to check to see if you have a 79 slider for me, Ray
Well an up date. I never heard back from Ed Knisely after he had the heart attack about the slider sight he said he had nor did Dick get back to me if he had one so I contacted Al Frasca and he had the slider but it was on the ladder which I bought but told him to only send me the slider part. Al's a class act as he deducted a few bucks because of that which he didn't have to do. He said ladders are common and not as scarce as loose slider sights.
Anyway, the slider came Sat and when I took the screws out to separate the front and back of the slider to put it on the ladder, and a spring and a small rectangle piece of metal fell out. Well it took me over half an hour to figure how that spring and the piece of metal fit back together again in the slider. You would think after years of taking rifles apart and always having trouble trying to figure on how they go back together again that I would study the position of the parts before I just let them drop out. Some people never learn do they. LoL. By the way I had to reorder the front screw from Al as I forgot about the missing screw when I ordered the slider.
Here's the difference between the stampings on the Remington Lee sight and the 1897 Trapdoor sight base and ladder. The ladder of the Remington Lee has no "R" stamped on the upper left of the ladder like the Springfield and it has an R-L, not just an "R" stamped on the base. Ray
Dan Shapiro
08-11-2013, 03:05
To aid to rayg's comment, another helpful hint:
Make sure your work bench is CLEAN before disassembling a newly purchased rifle. I put an M1922 all back together except for one tiny spring. Looked all over the schematic and could not locate it anywhere. Posted a pic of it on the relevant forum. No one could help. It was driving me NUTS!
Two days later, wife happens to mention: "Did you find the little spring I left on your workbench?"
:eusa_wall:
Dick Hosmer
08-11-2013, 08:41
Well an up date. I never heard back from Ed Knisely after he had the heart attack about the slider sight he said he had nor did Dick get back to me if he had one so I contacted Al Frasca and he had the slider but it was on the ladder which I bought but told him to only send me the slider part. Al's a class act as he deducted a few bucks because of that which he didn't have to do. He said ladders are common and not as scarce as loose slider sights.
Anyway, the slider came Sat and when I took the screws out to separate the front and back of the slider to put it on the ladder, and a spring and a small rectangle piece of metal fell out. Well it took me over half an hour to figure how that spring and the piece of metal fit back together again in the slider. You would think after years of taking rifles apart and always having trouble trying to figure on they go back together again that I would study the position of the parts before I just let them drop out. Some people never learn do they. LoL. By the way I had to reorder the front screw from Al as I forgot about the missing screw when I ordered the slider.
Here's the difference between the stampings on the Remington Lee sight and the 1897 Trapdoor sight base and ladder. The ladder of the Remington Lee has no "R" stamped on the upper left of the ladder like the Springfield and it has an R-L, not just an "R" stamped on the base. Ray
Ray, I'm truly sorry I did not get back to you - We were on different schedules; I would have GIVEN you the slide, if I'd made looking for it a higher priority (talk's cheap, but I actually had planned to do it tomorrow - my weekend) but, clearly you wanted it sooner. At some later date you may want to get the later one that is more correct for the RL. The type shown - with the ears hanging down and with the fine graduations is the very first type, used only on TDs, and the SA-Hotchkiss Army rifle. Also, I hope you specified the right screw, they are significantly longer than those for the TD, as the base is much thicker (another "difference"). I will try and learn a lesson from this, and not volunteer to do something when I am uncertain of when I will get to it - it's not fair to the other party.
No problem, I just figured you were busy but I really wanted to shoot the rifle so I got the one from Al. I'm glad you mentioned about the length of the screw as I just ordered the regular TD one from Al and just sent him an email to cancel it. Do you happen to have a bit longer screw that will work or a much longer one with the same thread that can be cut down? And of course the big question, would you happened to have a proper R-L type slider? Ray
Dick the issue of the R-L sights is very confusing. I just checked Gene Myszkowski's book on the R-L and according to his book, if I'm understanding it right, it says that the "Navy" 1885 models, (mine), used the same rear sight as the 1879 Navy models did which was the Springfield 1879 model base and ladder with the buckhorn sight but with added R-L on the base and no R on the ladder. What am I missing? Ray
Dick Hosmer
08-12-2013, 10:06
Images didn't post. I'll be out for a couple of hours - WILL get back to you later today. A VERY QUICK look at Gene's book shows that the sight is a "Springfield". Were you aware that there are at least five versions of the slider? Even if he says in a paragraph I missed that the sight was an "1879" that still doesn't define the slider itself. I will also check my Lee, as well as settling the parts issue - but I KNOW I do NOT have any screws.
Thanks Dick. I emailed Al Frasca and he has a screw that I think will work, It's only about .015 shorter then the non missing one in my sight.
I also looked up the 79 sights in the book and I see there are variations of the slider. I see what you mean by the differences in the later slider. Mine is not the latest pattern slider as I see there is a slight difference between mine and the latest pattern. I'll have to keep and eye out for the latest version of the slider so to be 100% correct. I fear that I'll have a hard time finding an original cleaning rod and may end up with a repro one until I do, if ever. Ray.
PS, my brain moves in slow motion lately. I forgot that I have a mint 1879 Trap door in my collection with the stock dated 1883 that I just remembered I have. I looked at it and can see the slight difference between the two sliders. Also Dick, as you mentioned, I see the difference in the thickness of the bases between the TD and the R-L, Ray
Dick Hosmer
08-12-2013, 12:36
Reading pages 22/23, and 49 in Gene's book, it seems clear that the sights for the two (1879, 1885) Navy R-L rifles, while both admittedly of "generic Springfield M1879 Buckhorn pattern" are NOT the same. I trust Gene implicitly on this - he is the R-L man.
I have checked my M1879-sighted "non-TD" arms of the period (4* different SA-Hotchkisses, the 1885 R-L Navy, and the Chaffee Reece). Here is what I found (base range, leaf range, base marks, leaf marks, slide lower edge config):
Hotchkiss 1st Army, 500, 1200, R B, R, projecting points, fine lines (slotless screws)
Hotchkiss 1st Navy: 550, 1300, R B, N, angled notch, coarse lines (slotless screws)
Hotchkiss 2nd Navy: 550, 1300, R B, N, semicircular notch, coarse lines (slotless screws)
Hotchkiss 2nd Carbine: 600, 1400, HC B, HC, semicircular notch, coarse lines (slotless screws)
RemLee 1885 Navy: 500, 1200, RL B, R, projecting points, fine lines (slotted screws, wrong?, definitely so on SA arms)
Chaffee-Reece: 600, 1400, C-R B, C-R, semicircular notch, coarse lines (slotless screws)
It is embarrassing to be wrong in public, but, my R-L has the same slider as yours, the early one with projecting points and fine graduations. Whether that is "correct" or not, I do not know, as the screws are slotted, so the sight could have been off at one time, but the base is the special one and matches barrel patina perfectly. Very sorry for the uproar, my memory isn't what it used to be.
I do not have any loose sliders - but, you may not need one after all.
*my 1st Model Hotchkiss carbine has a trapdoor carbine sight (I'd greatly appreciate someone finding an HC sight for me!)
Quote: Whether that is "correct" or not, I do not know, as the screws are slotted, so the sight could have been off at one time, but the base is the special one and matches barrel patina perfectly.
Dick don't know if this applies, but I read somewhere in Gene's book, don't ask me the page as I can't remember, that rectangle files were issued to file slots in the slot less screws to update them. So your the base may not have ever been off just the screws filed. Ray
PS: I've been wrong more times then I care to remember, Ray
Kragrifle
08-19-2013, 05:19
The topic of what a first model Hotchkiss carbine sight should be is one that Jim Curlovic and I have discussed for years. I do not believe the sights on the first model are the same as the second model. I have never seen a "new" first model carbine, but features on the second model sight parallel channges in the TD carbins sights and the ladder should not be the same. Endless trivia.
Dick Hosmer
08-19-2013, 07:22
The TD sight, which is held by slotted screws (an SA no-no on anything but, for some strange reason the long-range rifles) is not the only anomaly on my 1st model Hotchkiss. It also has a stacking swivel band, which - from the little stock dings - has been on it for a long time. The patina match between barrel and sight is good, but not great. What sight do you think is correct? Jim has always said that there was no consistency to the Hotchkiss line.
Kragrifle
08-19-2013, 11:25
The ladder on the Hotchkiss carbines should follow the trapdoor (one would think). If so, the ladder on the second model fits the time period, but the first model ladder is different on the TD carbines. Therefore, I think the ladder on the first model Hotchkiss should look like the ladder on the 1878 TD carbine, which is different from the second model Hotchkiss ladder which is marked HC. There were no C markings on the 1878 TD carbine, so would think this may be the same on the Hotchkiss. I, of course, have no data supporting this.
Dick Hosmer
08-19-2013, 02:38
Wohhh! - where to start?
Firstly, I'm not certain I completely follow your descriptions.
Secondly, there is NO "1878 TD carbine", as in there are no "1878" breechblocks. SA changed the nomenclature to "Model 1877" when they came out with the thicker wrist stock. Technically, this lasted until the Model 1884 carbine marking showed up , shortly after adoption of the M1884 Buffington sight. That point really doesn't affect the sight differences during the 1878/1879 period at issue here.
Sight markings basically differ with barrel length - the shorter the barrel, the larger the numbers on rear sight. Hotchkiss carbines are 24", TDs are 22". TD carbine bases, except for the first stepped 1873s, have ALWAYS had a "C" on the base. TD bases were 600 on the short-lived M1877, but 800 on the M1879 Buckhorn series, which is where the Hotchkiss comparison occurs. The second Hotchkiss base is 600, and I would THINK that the 1st Models would be the same, but perhaps they tried TD sights. The 1st H Army rifle used a normal TD sight. The H Navies (28.75" barrels) appear to use a TD base, but I've not checked the location of the "5" to be sure it is the same. Along similar lines, I would point out that TD rifles and cadets - with a 3" barrel difference - used the SAME rear sights interchangeably for 20 years.
It is a VERY complex subject, FULL of paradoxes, some real and some not.
I'd hoped you had some specific knowledge on the early H sights. :-( Jim is a great guy - we've had our discussions! He wants my Army rifle SO badly! Problem is, I'm not ready to part with it. He did get a chance to hold it when they swung through CA a few years ago.
Well I found a rod at a show yesterday for $55. A guy had a bunch of old rods he had bought in a collection but didn't know what they were for. Using the measurements Dick provided I found one that should work but its too long at 35-1/2" so I believe it's for a long Peabody rifle or another long rifle and it will have to be cut down. The head on it matches and looks the same as the Remington one so I think it was made by Remington. However when I got back home and tried the rod in the rifle, it would not thread in the rifle channel so the thread is not the same. or else the thread hole is clogged up. Dick or somebody, could you provide me the thread size for the rifle? Ray
5MadFarmers
09-08-2013, 07:24
I have no idea what you mean by projecting points.
What is this?
http://5madfarmers.com/100/sight_r.jpg
Yes, I have some books. Not going there right now.
Dick Hosmer
09-08-2013, 08:48
Well, I have a camera, but I'm not going there right now. :-)
That is a late version M1879 "Buckhorn" rifle sight, probably on a trapdoor. The screws would have been slotless on an original installation, and, based on head shape and pronounced turning marks, are almost certainly reproductions. That sight does not have the "projecting point" feature. Note the slide centering pin - on the 1st model M79 sight, the extensions partially surrounding the pin are shaped much differently - longer, narrower, having much finer graduations, and are rounded in a "reverse curve" on the inside, so do not firmly grip the pin, as shown above. Those interior curves actually meet the outer (straight) edges of the extensions, creating little "points". The second style had a wide beveled notch, which provided no real grip on the pin at all. Most (if not all) of the last 4 or 5 versions of the slide had the lower edge pictured above.
Dick Hosmer
09-08-2013, 08:57
Well I found a rod at a show yesterday for $55. A guy had a bunch of old rods he had bought in a collection but didn't know what they were for. Using the measurements Dick provided I found one that should work but its too long at 35-1/2" so I believe it's for a long Peabody rifle or another long rifle and it will have to be cut down. The head on it matches and looks the same as the Remington one so I think it was made by Remington. However when I got back home and tried the rod in the rifle, it would not thread in the rifle channel so the thread is not the same. or else the thread hole is clogged up. Dick or somebody, could you provide me the thread size for the rifle? Ray
Ray - with profound apologies, and absolutely zero malice aforethought, it will have to be "someone else" - I'm not going down the road of "promising" to do something, knowing I will probably not get to it on the other person's time schedule, ever again. Besides, the problem quite likely is dirt in the keeper - that should always be the first thing to check.
5MadFarmers
09-08-2013, 11:03
Thanks, didn't want to reload the brain right now as I'm doing Krag sights.
Yes, I know what the slotless screws are. The Hotchkiss carbine still retains them. The base and slide are so marked. I have a bag of slotless screws around here somewhere. A nice lady sent me a big bag of screws once and slotless ones were in there.
The Navy Lee has the correct base. That's the ladder and slide. The mounting screws are clearly aftermarket and don't have wear whereas the slide ones are buggered - no match. So the ladder and slide are wrong.
It has a rod. After the Krag thing is done I'll be heading back and working that era. I'll worry about it then.
Dick Hosmer
09-09-2013, 12:21
Didn't know you had a Hotchkiss carbine. First or Second? If the former, what rear sight does it have, plain TD, or marked HC on base and leaf?
5MadFarmers
09-09-2013, 04:14
Wohhh! - where to start?
You're not going to like this....
SA changed the nomenclature to "Model 1877" when they came out with the thicker wrist stock. Technically, this lasted until the Model 1884 carbine marking showed up , shortly after adoption of the M1884 Buffington sight. That point really doesn't affect the sight differences during the 1878/1879 period at issue here.
Technically the 1877 to the 1884 misses the 1879 which they listed as a model.
I explain why that is true in my soon to be released book. :eusa_shhh:
Dick Hosmer
09-09-2013, 10:32
You are right. . . . .
The moon has occasionally been described in print as being made of green cheese. That does not make it so.
I would not be totally amazed if - somewhere - you have found, in print, in contemporary literature, a reference to "Model 1879". But, are you sure it does not somehow refer to the sight(s) such as an enumeration, differentiated by style of sight, of rifles on hand somewhere? Or, that it actually reads "Model 1873 with the improvements of 1879", or some such?
I would normally think to define "model", in this case, as to being the physical mark on the gun, but that would not cover the Model 1877 Carbine, which is so noted in print, but not on the weapon. So, it's fair game for all sorts of loose or little-used interpretations, which did not stick.
And - in any event you have found such a reference, it would be most useful in a saloon wagering gotcha (kinda like the old one about which football team had made more appearances in the Rose Bowl - the poor putz will agonize over Michigan, or USC, or Ohio State, etc., when any common fool KNOWS the correct answer is Pasadena City College - it's their home field!) than as an indicator of what was widely used and followed.
End of rant, for now. But, the denouement had better be really good - not some cheap gotcha! :evil6:
Kragrifle
09-10-2013, 06:35
Take a piece of rod stock longer than the cleaning rod. Grind the tip to look like a screwdriver. Now slide this into the stock and slowly turn the rod. Sometimes the problem is the small threaded piece of metal that is the RR stop is plugged with dirt. Sometimes you will need to drive this piece out of the stock to clean it properly. This will require you remove the triggerguard and barrel. You can see the bottom of this stop under the triggerguard. You can carefully drill a hole to let you use a small punch to drive the stop out from the barrel channel. This will let you clean it and check to threads. The threads on a Peabody rod are the same as the Remington Lee. So, if you decide to shorten it, find a machinest who can remove a section of the rod and weld the threaded end back on. These threads are a type that you will not find a tap to match. Cannot remember what they were called, Whitworth??
5MadFarmers
09-10-2013, 01:22
Didn't know you had a Hotchkiss carbine. First or Second? If the former, what rear sight does it have, plain TD, or marked HC on base and leaf?
Second. HC marked on both.
You are right. . . . .
The moon has occasionally been described in print as being made of green cheese. That does not make it so.
No, not a toss away reference. Every gun made from 1879 to 1884 are Model of 1879. Excepting oddities.
Dick, I don't know how to emphasize that strongly enough. They're not altered. They're not M-1873s. They're not M-1877s though those still existed. They're M-1879.
All of them.
Dick Hosmer
09-10-2013, 03:31
Guess I'll have to wait to see your reasoning/backup/proof/rationale/etc. I have, I believe, the full run of RCOs during that period - and, believe it or not, I've actually read a lot of them - not much on small arms in some volumes - but sure don't recall seeing anything like that, whatsoever.
Did not say they were "altered", simply that as new parts were developed (lipped hammer 1880, grooved trigger 1883, etc.) they were installed on new production arms - yielding the "with the improvements of XXXX" statement. There would be a huge reason to have designated a new model in late 1878, given the width and profile changes but they didn't. Before I knew better, I always thought that the "1878" blocks delineated that change - the "Model 1878". Not!
5MadFarmers
09-10-2013, 05:15
I set my sights on next summer but I think I'll have it out before Christmas. Somebody has been working on their second book for a decade. :icon_lol:
What do you expect for something that took me two months start to finish?
The "before Christmas" is the printing delay. Writing it is at a month and a half. I'll be done in two weeks. Two months. Why rush it? Because I want it done. It'd be improved if I took longer but it's already 95% done. Random pictures of field gear and group photos are all that remains. The other books are going to take longer. A lot longer.
Dick Hosmer
09-10-2013, 05:37
Wait until you get to be 76, have a semi-invalid wife (sincerely hope THAT never happens!) with whom you are running a struggling business, on a fixed income, and you may find your energy and enthusiasm levels somewhat dampened! It'll get done when it gets done, or, it won't. :eusa_wall:
5MadFarmers
09-10-2013, 05:42
Dick, that wasn't meant to be rude. It was more of a "when will it be printed as I'm waiting" comment. I've been looking forward to it for a very long time. No, that's not a dig either - picture a kid wanting to open a Christmas present. Not a bad thing.
Whereas I'm going the McDonalds route. Push it out the door quick and then move onto the next order.
Dick Hosmer
09-10-2013, 10:23
No offense taken - I am my own worst enemy by far.
Hope it is worth the wait - anyone who liked the first should like the second (which was SUPPOSED to be the only, until I got the wild hair about the rifles preceding the 1873, and Poyer said go for it) except that the subject matter will be more exotic.
WAY fewer people will be saying "hey, that's just like mine", or buying it as a purchasing guide. Book 2 will be more for the trapdoor nerd.
I've been waiting on both, plus Rick Boreckey's on M1 Garand & 1903 stocks, Wayne's M1 Garand IHC book, & Tuna's M1 Carbine book for some years................... wait'll you have 4 major chest surgeries for lung cancer in one year, with more scheduled............... & I still want to see & read all of them, when I don't know if even 1 of my 4 kids would even care to read any of em....... & I still thirst for the insights you guys give....................
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.