1885 Remington Lee Navy

[rayg]

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

[rayg]

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]

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.

[rayg]

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]

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!)

[rayg]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[rayg]

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]

I have no idea what you mean by projecting points.

What is this?



Yes, I have some books. Not going there right now.

[Dick Hosmer]

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]

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]

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.