View Full Version : Remington 50-70 US Navy Type 1 Rolling Block
This is one you seldom see not cut down by Honduras after many were sold to them. The rifle was involved in a scandal during its day. The US Navy ordered 10,000 but were rejected due to the rear sight being placed over the chamber. They were sold to France for the Franco Prussian War. Got there in time for the armistice so France sold them off mostly to South America countries. Honduras bought many and cut them down. This ones destination is unknown. It was not cut down nor does it have the Honduran acceptance marks. It was reimported and bought in the 50s before my time. It's been in the family since then. The bore is exceptional. The main difference between the type 1 and 2 USN is the location of the rear sight and the type 1s have a US stock cartouche but no final acceptance mark. The Type 2 was ordered from money made from the sale of the Type 1 to France. Dick correct me if any of this is wrong. Enjoy the pics
butlersrangers
10-13-2016, 09:33
Nice rifle & Thanks for sharing. I use to have one of the U.S. Navy carbines. It was rough and I sold it for something stupid.
IMHO - The Navy Models are a lot more interesting than the Army 1871 model that E. S. Allin 'made complicated'. (The hammer dropping to 1/2 cock 'creeps me out' on the Army and NYS models).
Dick Hosmer
10-14-2016, 12:28
Nice rifle - probably a bit cleaner than mine - which is a tough find in any condition. I was overjoyed to be able to add one to my collection about 15 years ago. There are plenty of Type 2s, and carbines (which, unlike the rifles, are 100% Remington-made), but a Type 1 with USN proofs and intact bayonet lug is not often encountered. Don't be too fussy on that model, guys. The one you see may be the only one you ever will see, ditto the 1870 Trials RB, of which only 1000 were made. While we are talking about SA RBs, there are also a lot of 1871 Armies around, some still "mint".
Nice rifle - probably a bit cleaner than mine - which is a tough find in any condition. I was overjoyed to be able to add one to my collection about 15 years ago. There are plenty of Type 2s, and carbines (which, unlike the rifles, are 100% Remington-made), but a Type 1 with USN proofs and intact bayonet lug is not often encountered. Don't be too fussy on that model, guys. The one you see may be the only one you ever will see, ditto the 1870 Trials RB, of which only 1000 were made. While we are talking about SA RBs, there are also a lot of 1871 Armies around, some still "mint".
Yes the same gentleman that I got this from had a 1871 Army. He knew what he had in the Navy but his Army was mint and he sold it cheap before I knew he was going to sell them...He also had an Argentine proofed Rolling Block. It was in great condition to, when I ask him about it he said no one wants em sold it for $150.00....dang it.
jon_norstog
10-20-2016, 11:24
p, that is a really nice rifle there. It illustrates 2 of the 3 things that made the rolling block a great military rifle in its day: the action tang reinforces the buttstock wrist, so you can reaLLY wail with it in close quarters fighting; bayonet lug, a much more secure mount for a blade bayonet than the old-style socket. What you don't see: you can clean the rifle from the breech with the muzzle set in a pail of warm water; and the action is dirt simple to field strip, with no small parts to lose. Add to that more than ample strength for any black powder load.
jn
p, that is a really nice rifle there. It illustrates 2 of the 3 things that made the rolling block a great military rifle in its day: the action tang reinforces the buttstock wrist, so you can reaLLY wail with it in close quarters fighting; bayonet lug, a much more secure mount for a blade bayonet than the old-style socket. What you don't see: you can clean the rifle from the breech with the muzzle set in a pail of warm water; and the action is dirt simple to field strip, with no small parts to lose. Add to that more than ample strength for any black powder load.
jn
Agreed on all points. Having both I like the Rolling Block design better. Remington had a good design and sold a ton of them just mostly to civilians and other country's military.
jon_norstog
10-22-2016, 09:31
Too bad Remington didn't put an effort into developing a military bolt gun with a magazine. They had one, just didn't know how to market it. Plus they were selling all the rollers they could make, why bother with new product? Paul Mauser? Who he?
jn
Dick Hosmer
10-22-2016, 01:21
The self-contained, mostly enclosed, spring-loaded, snap-in magazine of 1879 is still the world standard today - how many millions (billions?) later?
The self-contained, mostly enclosed, spring-loaded, snap-in magazine of 1879 is still the world standard today - how many millions (billions?) later?
Might be Trillions Dick but most people don't understand what a trillion is.
jon_norstog
10-22-2016, 07:55
The self-contained, mostly enclosed, spring-loaded, snap-in magazine of 1879 is still the world standard today - how many millions (billions?) later?
"I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it. It was you, (Charley) BOOF"
jn
butlersrangers
10-22-2016, 10:49
The model 1899 Remington-Lee was equipped and used with a few spare magazines. The British turned the Lee into a very good 'battle rifle', but, never exploited the quick magazine change capability. The Lee-Enfield evolved into a 'Charger-Loading' magazine rifle. Perhaps, the Lee magazine system was hampered by generally being utilized with rimmed cartridges (.45-70, .30-40, and .303 British).
The Swiss were quick to see the merits of a rimless cartridge and removable sheet metal box magazine in their straight-pull bolt designs. However, they also left the magazine attached to the rifle and utilized 'Chargers'.
It was probably John Moses Browning and his BAR, (coupled with the rimless .30-06 cartridge), that made quick-changing, high capacity, sheet-metal magazines a true success and the eventual direction of military rifle design.
The French, with the Chauchat (and other semi-auto rifles), probably deserve some credit in advancing 'snap-in' detachable magazines, but, the marriage to the 8X50R cartridge caused limitations and problems with strength and function.
The original committee on the Lee Enfield actually advocated giving three magazines per soldier followed by reloading singles after that. Was given up as too pricey and was before charger bridges. I think bean counters got in the way for a few decades. The Remington Lee was in the mix but the US Army wasn't convinced yet. I think Remington continued pushing Rolling blocks because that's what the market wanted during that time.
Dick Hosmer
10-23-2016, 07:20
I do understand that it has become popular to not curse the Chauchat as much as was once popular, but the magazine was hardly the strong point! In fact, it was, outside of the strength problems when the conversion to .30-'06 was botched early on, THE most griped about part. Of course, the open sides (the French always seem to have to have their own flair) were an unmitigated disaster. Offhand, I cannot think of another case where the box was not closed.
5MadFarmers
10-23-2016, 11:20
it was, outside of the strength problems when the conversion to .30-'06 was botched early on
What "strength problems?"
The way to determine if the Chauchat with a box magazine seen in that war is to, ignoring the Belgian guns for a moment, look at the location of the pistol grip. If it's in front of the magazine it's the .30-06. If it's behind the grip you're looking at a Chauchat captured by the Germans and rechambered in 7.92mm. They functioned flawlessly. The Polish received over 11,000 surplus guns from the French and about half were converted to 7.92mm and those all worked just fine.
Seems a bit strange that the gun had no strength problems with the German 7.92mm but had them with the U.S. .30-06.
Myself, having just done some pretty extensive research on them, I'm not a believer in those "strength problems." In the middle of "pass two" on the books. The story of the Chauchats receives a lot of coverage. Dug up the bodies, opened the closets, shook the containers dry - it's going to be an interesting read.
Dick Hosmer
10-25-2016, 08:50
Perhaps "strength problems" was a bad choice of words - maybe the less-specific "issues" would have been better, since the gun's design was not on the table. Sometimes one only means to ask the time, not how to build a watch. Yes, the Chauchat did have a (detachable - don't want to start an argument over "snap" vs. "slide", to say nothing of snapandslide or even slideandsnap) box magazine - the general subject of this thread - but it was probably the very worst example of such to see wide service. The obvious dirt-catching issues were only compounded by the shape necessitated by the absurd form of the 8mm Lebel cartridge. Then too, early single-stack box mags (even our side-fed Johnson) were not very space-efficient, either. All I really wanted to point out was that the 1879 concept has held up remarkably well.
butlersrangers
10-25-2016, 10:09
The original subject of this thread was Naval Rolling-Blocks.
Detachable Box Magazines were an interesting tangent, that came up.
I was just puzzling, off the top of my head, as to when the Detachable Box Magazine began to show promise (for Rifle Cartridges) and pull away from Fixed Magazines. (The BAR and Chauchat came to mind).
The 'weakness' I was envisioning with the Chauchat was its 1/2 Moon Shaped Magazine, (a difficult task for a Spring), and the exposed/open sides. (A lot of the problem was inherent with the geometry of the 8X50R cartridge).
Dick Hosmer
10-25-2016, 12:47
You are absolutely correct as to the original point of the thread, Chuck. Sorry for the detour!
butlersrangers
10-25-2016, 03:31
I enjoyed it! I think 'p246', the OP, did too.
Yep thread jacking as long as I'm learning is always welcome. The chauchat I know very little about other than the horror stories. I' ve also read there was a reluctance to deploy the BAR and continue to use the chauchat so the Germans did not get the design. Not sure if that's internet lore or truth. Back to the Rolling Block in 1870 I think it was a great design, eventually taken over by magazine rifles
starfirestar
10-31-2016, 03:16
Dick, I am trying to buy a copy of your book, can you please PM me? Your messages are full.
Dick Hosmer
10-31-2016, 03:38
Sorry - I don't use the message system!
$25.00 for an autographed copy - postpaid within the US - to POBox 1367 Colusa CA 95932.
Thanks for your interest!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.