“No Name” 45-70 Schuetzen Rolling Block Acquired

[Old No7]

The backstory on this goes like this… My late father introduced my 3 brothers and I to single shot rifles when we were kids and we all still enjoy them to this day. He had 3 rifles setup with Swiss (hooked) buttplates, and after he passed, due to me being the youngest and 4th to choose, I didn’t get one… But I did get a nice High Wall and Martini 22, so no complaints there. Since then, I’ve added a Low Wall and Trapdoor to my collection, and I figured that a Rolling Block would be the next one added. Then again, I’ve always wanted a Schuetzen-style single shot too.

Well, I just bought someone’s “project gun” that is a Schuetzen and a Rolling Block, so that's two-for-one. Is it a beauty or a beast? A diamond in the rough? Will it even shoot half decent? I’m not sure yet…

I didn’t include a photo of the full rifle, but I’ll do that sometime after I get it all cleaned up to my liking and finally put it on paper. For now, I can tell you that it is 50" OAL, with a 31.5" barrel that is 1" across the flats with a gold "wedding ring" transition from round to octagon at the breech end and another gold ring up near the muzzle. It weighs in at a svelte 12.4 pounds.

I am 99% certain the receiver is from a Remington No 1 blackpowder rifle from the late 1800s, but it has been heavily polished and the only markings on it are the number “26116” stamped on both the top and bottom tangs, which were bent from their original straight configuration. Sadly there are NO maker’s marks anywhere on the front/rear sights, the barrel, buttplate or action, so its provenance is unknown.

Things I like about it are… It’s a rolling block, chambered for 45-70 (which I already reload for), the bore looks to be in very good condition, it has a Swiss buttplate, is fitted with a Schuetzen stock (with some nice figure in it), it has a tang sight and a globe front sight with level. Both the forearm and buttstock have been glass bedded, which makes me think whoever made this wanted it to shoot straight. Pictures of these good points will follow, and then my next post to follow will mention some of the concerns and questions I have…

Rem RB 01 (Small).JPG

Rem RB 02 (Small).JPG

Rem RB 03 (Small).JPG

Rem RB 05 (Small).JPG

Rem RB 08 (Small).JPG

More to follow…

Old No7

[Old No7]

“No Name” 45-70 Schuetzen Rolling Block, Part 2

This isn’t really a problem, but oddly, there is a QD swivel mounted on the bottom of the forearm (not visible in the photo) which I think is only there to give your fingers something to wrap around when carrying it, so it doesn't slip out of your hands... At least that's what I used it for when lugging it out of the shop!

The unknown maker added a brass spacer to the mainspring to put that back in the correct position after the bottom tang was bent; but I do have a concern that the mainspring is slightly hitting the bottom of a transverse pin in the back of the receiver. As a result, there is a little “slack” in the hammer and its fit or tightness to the block after it’s been dropped on a snapcap. I checked the firing pin, and that looks OK, and a small piece of tape on the primer of a snapcap is being hit by the pin. I just don’t know if there should be any slack or slop in a rolling block's hammer once it has fallen.

Rem RB 06 (Small).JPG

These hex screws on the left side were a surprise for me and totally not period correct... But I have to wonder if those were added to make repeatedly removal of the breech block and hammer easier when cleaning up after shooting blackpowder loads?

Rem RB 04 (Small).JPG

Rem RB 07 (Small).JPG

I also need to check the end of the barrel/chamber, as it looks to me like a 45-70 liner was threaded into the original barrel (you can see the inside threads in this picture). I only plan to shoot light BP loads in this, but I'm thinking before I even try to shoot it I'd better get the headspace and barrel threads checked -- just to be safe.

Rem RB 09 (Small).JPG

The trigger pull is a heavy 7.5# but I’ve already read online about an easy fix for that with a new music wire spring, so I’ll do that sometime soon. And I also just won an ebay auction for a wood palm rest (made by Freeland) for only $21, so that will help steady this huge beast when shooting offhand.

Questions I’d ask the forum are these:

* Should I have run (or rolled?) away from this one?

* How tight should the hammer be to the breechblock once it falls? Should there be any slop?

* Should the hex screws be replaced, and am I right on why those were added?

* Should I consider reblueing the receiver, or leave it as is? As you can see, now it has a silvery gold/rusty patina on it.

* Does the finish on the barrel, hammer and breechblock look like Cerakote, a paint or some other coating to you? I don’t think it is blueing…

Well, good or bad, like it or not, it’s now mine; and I finally have my long-awaited Schuetzen rifle and Rolling Block.

I’m very curious what you all think of this one. Thanks in advance.

Old No7

[M. M. Wright]

I can't wait 'til you've shot it and we get the range report. I have a roller that I was given at age 12 and I'm 77 now. it's Danish 11.7 x 72R??? Anyway I ran a 45-70 reamer into the chamber when I was about 16. It fires them but the bullets are too small so no accuracy. It takes a .461 dia bullet to fill the grooves.

I think you are really going to like it when you get it ironed out. By all means change out the hex socket head screws and maybe have the action case colored? Would really look good .

[Rusty]

I wouldn't do anything to it till I shot it, but that's me. If it's a tack driver as it is it would be a shame to mess anything up. Sometimes ugly ducklings can be very interesting.

[Pete44ru]

Questions I’d ask the forum are these:

* Should I have run (or rolled?) away from this one ? - Not IMHO - it's a classic.

* How tight should the hammer be to the breechblock once it falls ? Should there be any slop ? - No.

* Should the hex screws be replaced, and am I right on why those were added ? - You're most likely correct. YMMV about replacing them.

* Should I consider reblueing the receiver, or leave it as is? As you can see, now it has a silvery gold/rusty patina on it. - I wouldn't, but YMMV.


* Does the finish on the barrel, hammer and breechblock look like Cerakote, a paint or some other coating to you? I don’t think it is blueing… -

Sans a hands-on inspection, IDK - but since the metal looks a tad "knocked around" under the finish, I'd leave it alone.


I’m very curious what you all think of this one. Thanks in advance.

Nice grab IMHO - congrats are in order !

Here's one way to ID the RB actions:

A #1 RB (black powder) action should measure a nominal 1.312" thickness.

A #1-1/2 RB should measure a nominal 1.140" thickness.

The #2 & #4 actions are much smaller, and have different proportions, than the larger #1 & #5 actions. The #4 has no lower tang.

The #3 RB was the Remington-Hepburn, a falling block target rifle, not a rolling block.

The #5 RB smokeless action is the same size as the #1, so the easiest was to ID a #5 action without removing and measuring the barrel shank, is to look for the receiver radial relief cuts on either side of front of the breechblock - a BP #1 action will have them, a #5 action will not.

#1 breech blocks are interchangeable with the smokeless #5 actions.


.

[gamekeeper]

Interesting find but those hex screws would bug me.

[marlinman93]

It's a #1 military black powder action. It probably didn't have any markings even when new. The short lower tang with no extra stock bolt hole is the giveaway to a military action.
Check it out for excess clearance, breechblock not squared to the barrel, loose block and hammer pins, and headspace issues. Fire it once you're sure all is within spec.
Needs to be case colored, not blued on the receiver. Lose the allen screws and replace them with a slotted screw as original.
A .45-70 should be interesting with a Swiss buttplate! keep the loads light, as shooting a Swiss buttplate off the upper arm can get sore quickly! I have a Rigby Ballard Schuetzen factory chambered in .40-70 Ballard, and it takes about 20 shots and I start to feel a bit sore. I'm working on some light 300 gr. bullet loads to hopefully make it hit me easier.

[Ysabel Kid]

I wouldn't do anything to it till I shot it, but that's me. If it's a tack driver as it is it would be a shame to mess anything up. Sometimes ugly ducklings can be very interesting.

+1

Baseline it for future reference. Congratulations on the find!

[Old No7]

Thanks for looking all.

The fit of the breechblock to the barrel is very tight, with zero movement on a fired or unfired (but primed) case. I'll still have a gunsmith check it with headspace gauges though.

Here is a cell phone picture of "The Beast" -- which is what I am now calling it:

Rem RB 10 (Small).JPG

Even if she shoots like a "Beauty", she will always be known as the "The Beast" to me.

(I'll bet my upper arm will agree -- after being introduced to the steel Swiss Butt Plate a few dozen times...)

Old No7

[Ray Newman]

"The unknown maker added a brass spacer to the mainspring to put that back in the correct position after the bottom tang was bent.... As a result, there is a little “slack” in the hammer and its fit or tightness to the block after it’s been dropped on a snapcap."

--Ol' No.7

I have 3 original Remington Rolling Blocks (7mm Mauser, NYS militia .50-70 US, Argentine M1879 11.15x58R -- aka .43 Spanish) and a .45-70 made by Lone Star. When the hammer is down on an empty chamber, on snap case, or a fired case, there is no slop/slack/looseness in the hammer fit to the block. The action locks up very tight. Any looses in the hammer on the block would cause me concern as the fit of the hammer to the block is what locks up the action on firing.

[marlinman93]

"The unknown maker added a brass spacer to the mainspring to put that back in the correct position after the bottom tang was bent.... As a result, there is a little “slack” in the hammer and its fit or tightness to the block after it’s been dropped on a snapcap."

--Ol' No.7

I have 3 original Remington Rolling Blocks (7mm Mauser, NYS militia .50-70 US, Argentine M1879 11.15x58R -- aka .43 Spanish) and a .45-70 made by Lone Star. When the hammer is down on an empty chamber, on snap case, or a fired case, there is no slop/slack/looseness in the hammer fit to the block. The action locks up very tight. Any looses in the hammer on the block would cause me concern as the fit of the hammer to the block is what locks up the action on firing.

One needs to not have the hammer down on the block, as it restricts checking the block clearance. It should be down on the safety notch, or "half cock" to check, so the hammer mainspring isn't applying pressure to the block. If it's tight then, that's a good action.

[marlinman93]

Thanks for looking all.

The fit of the breechblock to the barrel is very tight, with zero movement on a fired or unfired (but primed) case. I'll still have a gunsmith check it with headspace gauges though.

Here is a cell phone picture of "The Beast" -- which is what I am now calling it:

Rem RB 10 (Small).JPG

Even if she shoots like a "Beauty", she will always be known as the "The Beast" to me.

(I'll bet my upper arm will agree -- after being introduced to the steel Swiss Butt Plate a few dozen times...)

Old No7

I'm a little curious why someone chose to set the front sight dovetail so far back? They created a shorter sighting radius putting it so far back. Seems to be plenty of room in front of the gold band to have done a dovetail.

[Griff]

I'm a little curious why someone chose to set the front sight dovetail so far back? They created a shorter sighting radius putting it so far back. Seems to be plenty of room in front of the gold band to have done a dovetail.

Makes me think they have been thinking to cut the barrel and planning ahead?