|
![]() |
|
|
TheFirearmsForum.com
FOUNDED: February 9, 2001 |
If you prefer to make a donation by check,
send an email to Support for the mailing address. |
|
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Battle Ground, WA
Posts: 3
|
I need help identifying a Remington rolling block pistol. I have searched the net and have yet to see this model.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() What I think is that this was originally a Remington #4 rifle. I can not find anything about Remington doing this conversion. Maybe someone privately commissioned the build, or a Remington prototype? Any help is greatly appreciated.
-->
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
V.I.P. Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 333
|
Hard to tell exactly what you mean. But I typed "Remington Rolling Block Pistol" into Google and gets tons of hits. Here's one.
http://www.nramuseum.com/the-museum/...ck-pistol.aspx |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Battle Ground, WA
Posts: 3
|
If you look at the left side of the 2 pistols you will see they are not the same. I have spent hours looking a pictures and can not find one that matches this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,308
|
Welcome to TFF n7ude, and you are correct; the action is from a No. 4 boy's rifle.
If there was any doubt, the partial address where the tang was cut makes it obvious. http://rollingblockparts.com/no4.html As you may know, this also makes it an illegal gun... |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Battle Ground, WA
Posts: 3
|
Illegal maybe, In the early 1900's Remington collected up these rifles and converted them to pistols. If this is the case It is a legal pistol. If this was a private conversion it would depend on several factors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,308
|
Why would Remington ever have done that? The little No. 4 was one of their best sellers then.
Here's a couple of No. 4s (bottom two) I made up in early 1960s, before I knew better (and before digital cameras) The top ones were from Hopkins & Allen actions. In those days such actions missing stocks, etc. were at most gun shows. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,408
|
While I don't want to appear to be condoning a possible law violation, I find it hard to imagine BATFE dropping everything to track down a possible violation involving a single shot .22 that might have occurred 100 years ago.
An interesting gun. Jim |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,308
|
I certainly agree Jim, and the online auctions sometimes list such examples.
This one was obviously a "labor of love" and not a "bubba" job! |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ardmore, OK
Posts: 530
|
Neat little gun. I like imaginitive reworks & the use of ivory sets it off well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
V.I.P. Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 83
|
I believe that the 1901 22LR target pistols Remington made were made from overrun frames from the 1871 Army pistol contract or one of the Navy pistol contracts. Look in Flayderman's Guide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
*TFF Moderator/Host*
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Indiana
Contributor
Posts: 4,800
|
Not necessarily. The No.4 Rolling Block Rifle went into production in 1890, so this one could be old enough that it's not a "gun" according to US laws.
Don't know without having the serial number, and even then I don't have the info on hand to match the number to a date of manufacture.
__________________
Nothing posted on TheFirearmsForum.com constitutes legal, accounting, gunsmithing, or other professional advice. Readers are encouraged to consult with qualified professionals for real advice. Your life is lived at your own risk. Don't blame me for the dumb things you do. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|