I just purchased this beautiful rifle and am trying to figure out exactly what it is. It came through an Auction House and was put up for sale by the owners widow. She new nothing about it other that her past husband adored this rifle it was the gem of his collection or so Im told .
Can anyone venture a guess as to what it was originally I am guessing Remington rolling block No1 sporting rifle?? Here are the pics
[img]
https://photos.app.goo.gl/W2V1coxjutX5zw6N6[/img]
Thanks
Bill
What it is, is lovely. Beautiful gun. I have never heard of Haugh as either a shooter or a gunmaker but obviously, he could make a fine rifle.
That looks like an interpretation of a Gemmer Roller with underlever and wiping rod. The rear sight is hard to place, but I'll guess it is a Parts Unknown/Red River sight. I think the action may be a #5 roller based on the lack of the piece that runs between the two pins on the action that a #1 would have (I think) on the right side. That peice is on the left however, so my memory may be off. But a good smith could modify a #1 to look like that, I'm sure. The extractor may be a good tell-tale for you. Unfortunately the book I would want to look at is in a box somewhere in my basement, probably lost for few millenia.
Very sweet gun. I hope it came with brass and maybe dies.
Edit: the gunsmith undoubtedly added the double set triggers as well. There are a few other places where you could ask about this rifle on line with a more appropriate audience.
Just swapping emails with a friend about that rifle. He reminds me that Carlos Gove (in Denver I believe) made underlevers and side lever conversions of the Remington for buffalo hunters back in the day. I once lusted after an original Gove back in the late 90s but didn't have the dollars for it at the time. It was basically as your rifle.
My friend also said that Haugh had a very good reputation for gunmaking but he is now passed, sadly.
The #5s should have a rotary extractor and if so, there would probably be a visible screw on the outside of the action, so he thinks it is probably a #1. Most #1s had round tops however, but and #5s had more meat from which to mill the octagon so smiths prefered that, and I think #5s were forged while #1s were cast.
There was a pretty famous TX smith by the name of Higgenbottom or Higginsbotham that made rollers from scratch. It's possible he made that action, but it's at least as likely that it was milled from a #5 or #1.
Yes I suppose I could find a more single shot rifle blog I just always liked the posts Ive read here few nasty grams and mostly helpful folk
I also had a box of ,40-90 Sharps so that's what started the ball rolling plus you can still buy .40-90 online at Buffalo Bore I think its called
Jack Haugh was an acknowledged master and also was renown for his bespoke double set triggers.
Currently on Gunsinternational.com one of Haugh's masterwork rifles is for sale: If you want to view it is no. 101243183 on their website.
Yes I suppose I could find a more single shot rifle blog I just always liked the posts Ive read here few nasty grams and mostly helpful folk
The Shiloh forum will be helpful and 99% nice. The Facebook group for BPCR will be 100% nice - probalby the best place to look these days.
ASSRA forum will probably be okay but they can go either way.
The number of really diehard roller fans has declined a lot in the last 10 yrs. Aging out of the population, unfortunately. If you need a good smith, the guy that worked for and then took over from Crosno, in OK, is still in business. Basset, Mike Basset, I believe. He knows rollers.
An authoritative source says it is an early #1.
But really doesn't matter. It's a very sweet rifle. And again, I hope you have what it takes to load for it. Anything come with the rifle?
Carlos Gove indeed did make underlever Rolling Blocks, and also did wiping rods with thimbles as this rifle has. So my guess is that Haugh built this rifle as a clone of the Gove style Rolling Block.
It is indeed a #1, but it is not a #1 Sporting Rifle action. It is a military action, and quite likely a later smokeless military action as it has the heavier round top receiver used on later actions, and the rotary extractor that the Sporting models didn't have. All early actions used a sliding extractor, so this can't be an early action.
The previous owner has every right to have been extremely proud of the craftsmanship of this build! It's as good as any Rolling block build I've ever seen!
I've got a couple dozen Rolling Blocks in my collection, and they're a close second to my Ballards as a favorite!
Just swapping emails with a friend about that rifle. He reminds me that Carlos Gove (in Denver I believe) made underlevers and side lever conversions of the Remington for buffalo hunters back in the day. I once lusted after an original Gove back in the late 90s but didn't have the dollars for it at the time. It was basically as your rifle.
My friend also said that Haugh had a very good reputation for gunmaking but he is now passed, sadly.
The #5s should have a rotary extractor and if so, there would probably be a visible screw on the outside of the action, so he thinks it is probably a #1. Most #1s had round tops however, but and #5s had more meat from which to mill the octagon so smiths prefered that, and I think #5s were forged while #1s were cast.
There was a pretty famous TX smith by the name of Higgenbottom or Higginsbotham that made rollers from scratch. It's possible he made that action, but it's at least as likely that it was milled from a #5 or #1.
Your friend has it backwards. A #5 has a rotary extractor, which doesn't have the left side retaining screw. The earlier #1 has a sliding extractor, and the small screw in the left side. But the 1896 #1 Rolling Blocks also had a rotary extractor long before the smokeless #5 came about. So they sometimes get people confused into thinking they're also smokeless. The difference in the two rotary actions is the #5 is thicker in width and more metal in the receiver threads area.
Val, what tells you this has a rotary extractor?
Just swapping emails with a friend about that rifle. He reminds me that Carlos Gove (in Denver I believe) made underlevers and side lever conversions of the Remington for buffalo hunters back in the day. I once lusted after an original Gove back in the late 90s but didn't have the dollars for it at the time. It was basically as your rifle.
My friend also said that Haugh had a very good reputation for gunmaking but he is now passed, sadly.
The #5s should have a rotary extractor and if so, there would probably be a visible screw on the outside of the action, so he thinks it is probably a #1. Most #1s had round tops however, but and #5s had more meat from which to mill the octagon so smiths prefered that, and I think #5s were forged while #1s were cast.
There was a pretty famous TX smith by the name of Higgenbottom or Higginsbotham that made rollers from scratch. It's possible he made that action, but it's at least as likely that it was milled from a #5 or #1.
Your friend has it backwards. A #5 has a rotary extractor, which doesn't have the left side retaining screw. The earlier #1 has a sliding extractor, and the small screw in the left side. But the 1896 #1 Rolling Blocks also had a rotary extractor long before the smokeless #5 came about. So they sometimes get people confused into thinking they're also smokeless. The difference in the two rotary actions is the #5 is thicker in width and more metal in the receiver threads area.
Thanks. I'm not a big roller fan, so I have to rely on others.
Just swapping emails with a friend about that rifle. He reminds me that Carlos Gove (in Denver I believe) made underlevers and side lever conversions of the Remington for buffalo hunters back in the day. I once lusted after an original Gove back in the late 90s but didn't have the dollars for it at the time. It was basically as your rifle.
My friend also said that Haugh had a very good reputation for gunmaking but he is now passed, sadly.
The #5s should have a rotary extractor and if so, there would probably be a visible screw on the outside of the action, so he thinks it is probably a #1. Most #1s had round tops however, but and #5s had more meat from which to mill the octagon so smiths prefered that, and I think #5s were forged while #1s were cast.
There was a pretty famous TX smith by the name of Higgenbottom or Higginsbotham that made rollers from scratch. It's possible he made that action, but it's at least as likely that it was milled from a #5 or #1.
Your friend has it backwards. A #5 has a rotary extractor, which doesn't have the left side retaining screw. The earlier #1 has a sliding extractor, and the small screw in the left side. But the 1896 #1 Rolling Blocks also had a rotary extractor long before the smokeless #5 came about. So they sometimes get people confused into thinking they're also smokeless. The difference in the two rotary actions is the #5 is thicker in width and more metal in the receiver threads area.
In an interesting duel of posts and texts, said friend just sent me very clear photos of his rotary extractor roller with the screw. Back to no screw = sliding extrator = early #1. But don't shoot me. I'm just the postman in this.
Now that I'm in this deep it gets a bit more interesting. Seems like there were left-side screws for both sliding and rotary extractors, but not all of them and the screw is in a different position for each.
Bill, it seems that Frank Sellers once wrote an article for an unknown magazine entitled "The Feuding Gunsmiths of Denver". It that article there is the model for your rifle. Gove made a rifle exactly like yours. Same caliber, same nose piece on the keyed forearm. Same straight grip stock, with grip and forearm panels, curved butt, double triggers, and octagon top, with the underlever that looks just like yours. Unfortunately, the article is detached from the magazine, so I can't tell you where it came from, but the photos are unmistakable. Haugh was using that as his blueprint.
Only time I've ever seen the left side screw and a rotary extractor is on a reworked gun where the Roller was upgraded to a rotary extractor. No rotary extractor original guns had the screw as the rotary extractor has nothing to do with that area of the receiver to retain it. The breech blocks are simply machined for the rotary extractor to fit into the side of the block, and they operate off the block, not the receiver. So if your friend's has a screw in the left side it's an early action that someone put a later breech block and rotary extractor into.
I'll happily takedown all my rotary and sliding extractor Rollers if it helps to show how they work here.
I'd suggest your friend has such a gun, and he could remove that screw and store it away and the gun will work perfectly without it in place.
I could probably get the pics to post here, but then we go down a new rabbit hole, not the OP's. Meanwhile, I suspect my friend will keep the screw in place in his roller. He competes with it like is and does just fine.
Can't see how we'd be going down a new rabbit hole? But we do need to help discus with correct info, and that's my only point of even debating this. Over nearly 140 years a lot of old single shot rifles got modified, or reworked, so we shouldn't assume they are the way the factory sent them out at this point.
Yes, I have checked them, and replied to you. Do you really want to continue this debate after already being told you're wrong about sliding extractors being late, and rotary being early? What would it do for you for me to point out another error in your PM pictures, other than it showing a lower screw for a tension spring used for rimless cartridges on a late model Rolling Block? You admitted you don't know Rolling Blocks, yet want to continue this debate.
The OP's gun doesn't have this screw, so it's irrelevant to determining the period of his Roller. His is a late model smokeless action, built for a rimmed cartridge, or reworked to a rimmed cartridge chambering.
I think I'm done with this discussion, and wont respond to further posts with you.
Awesome. I'm must swapping notes back and forth for the OP. I could not care less about rollers, personally.
Thanks for your - whatever.
I am looking to give it a new home and now I can semi intelligently say what it is ,what its not and also where the most interest lies I think I can say its a late model Rem roller No1 maybe a No5 custom and add something about the Gove influence on the gun too very helpful info all of it
It turns out I am getting the build history of the gun from Jack Haugh's Grandson!!! Ill post it if anyone is interested in seeing it
It turns out I am getting the build history of the gun from Jack Haugh's Grandson!!! Ill post it if anyone is interested in seeing it
Absolutely. Knowing the barrel maker in particular, may add some additional value. Do you know the approximate date?
It turns out I am getting the build history of the gun from Jack Haugh's Grandson!!! Ill post it if anyone is interested in seeing it
Absolutely. Knowing the barrel maker in particular, may add some additional value. Do you know the approximate date?
Not yet I will have answers in a week or so . Jack Haugh did the whole rifle from top to bottom and his grandson has the records as the Gun shop is still open and has been handed down to Jacks son Frank then now on to Cole his Grandson I will make sure I get the barrel info
Jack Haugh was a very well respected American gunmaker. I believe he specialized in early American and English style firearms. If you do a search of him you should be able to find some pertinent information on him. You don't see his work come up for sale often. Some other forum sites have already been suggested which would be a good place to start for additional information. He was a master gunmaker and craftsman who performed all the work on most of his creations- wood, metal and engraving. His grandson should be a wealth of info, his son if still living. You have a wonderful firearm by a very well respected maker. Caveat, I have no relation to this man other than what I have read and heard over the years- always held in the highest esteem.
I believe that Jack started making replicas of early American flintlock rifles, don’t remember which styles and moved on to modern custom rifles and as has been mentioned, he did it all. Actually Cole is Jacks son and Frank must be the grandson.
Never have talked to Frank, but a number of times with Cole. Last time, a few years ago I’d called him to compliment him on a stock fitting and checkering job he’d done for me and he indicated his son had done the checkering, but didn’t mention the sons name. I think there are some prior threads on this site that mention both Jack and Cole and the quality of their workmanship!
Jack was one of the icons of American gunmakers, mastering the gunmakers art all the way from the American Longrifle up to modern contemporary styles. He is missed.
If any of you know of where a for sale copy of the book "Jack T. Haugh" by Mel Hankla is located I would appreciate you informing me as I have been unable to locate one for some time.
Kindest Regards;
Stephen Howell
This guy can positively ID your action,,,, But I wouldn't worry about it, its a fine rifle whatever the action is!!!
http://www.rollingblockparts.com/
Jack Haugh was truly one of the best gun builders we had. He passed in early 2018, I believe. Frank and Cole are his sons. Bryndon Steele (BSteele) will probably be along soon to comment as he was quite close to Jack and spent a lot of time in Jack’s shop in Milan, Indiana. We’ve lost two of the best the last few years in Jack and Jerry Fisher and they’re definitely missed. Two of the finest men I’ve known.
The action has been identified ,the guy arguing with the results admits he knows nothing and sharing second hand information it is a wonderful gun built by a great craftsman .i have owned a bunch of rolling blocks I only have one 1902 left it has the rotary ejector my 1897 had the sliding extractor .i have a hiwall that was converted from leaf main spring to coil spring it has the cut in the action for the leaf spring it is not a original coil spring action .i hope you get my point.mark
Thanks so much for this info it really helps. I have added a picture of the Gove-Remington underlever to the photos
much respect
Bill
I know that rifle well. It hung on the wall in the shop for a long time. It’s a Gove copy. Gove made the lever to assist in chambering a cartridge in a dirty chamber. It’s a hell of a lot of work to make that conversion. The set triggers and sights were made from scratch. The rear sight being a copy of a Fruend. I don’t recall who made the tang sight, but I’m sure it was the best available at the time or he would have made that too. The barrel is most likely a Douglas, as Jack was also great friends with Fred Depoy at Douglas and got the best of the best blanks.
He built it to shoot BPCR, but it was a couple ounces over spec. He was trying to decide if he should rebarrel, rebore to a 45 cal, or shorten the barrel to make weight when a friend offered to buy it. Great find!
I know that rifle well. It hung on the wall in the shop for a long time. It’s a Gove copy. Gove made the lever to assist in chambering a cartridge in a dirty chamber. It’s a hell of a lot of work to make that conversion. The set triggers and sights were made from scratch. The rear sight being a copy of a Fruend. I don’t recall who made the tang sight, but I’m sure it was the best available at the time or he would have made that too. The barrel is most likely a Douglas, as Jack was also great friends with Fred Depoy at Douglas and got the best of the best blanks.
He built it to shoot BPCR, but it was a couple ounces over spec. He was trying to decide if he should rebarrel, rebore to a 45 cal, or shorten the barrel to make weight when a friend offered to buy it. Great find!
[quote=Discus420][quote=BrentD, Prof]
Mr Steele I have been in touch with Jacks son Cole and he is looking through Jack's files for more info . I guess Jack took a lot of notes. It would be extremely helpful if you could put a date on when the rifle was made , when it hung on the wall???? When it sold??? Any and all information would help a great deal. I dont expect dates but general time frame would narrow things down a bit.
Thanks
Bill
I know that rifle well. It hung on the wall in the shop for a long time. It’s a Gove copy. Gove made the lever to assist in chambering a cartridge in a dirty chamber. It’s a hell of a lot of work to make that conversion. The set triggers and sights were made from scratch. The rear sight being a copy of a Fruend. I don’t recall who made the tang sight, but I’m sure it was the best available at the time or he would have made that too. The barrel is most likely a Douglas, as Jack was also great friends with Fred Depoy at Douglas and got the best of the best blanks.
He built it to shoot BPCR, but it was a couple ounces over spec. He was trying to decide if he should rebarrel, rebore to a 45 cal, or shorten the barrel to make weight when a friend offered to buy it. Great find!
Steele;
Thank you very much for stating that the double set triggers were made from "scratch"by Jack. He was the acknowledged master of building double set triggers in the USA.
Stephen Howell
This is listed on Gunbroker and I will give anyone from this forum a 1000$ off the buying price
https://photos.app.goo.gl/W2V1coxjutX5zw6N6
An authoritative source says it is an early #1.
But really doesn't matter. It's a very sweet rifle. And again, I hope you have what it takes to load for it. Anything come with the rifle?
I Added a bunch more photos that the gunshop used for the GB ad it will show what type of Remington it is if can get some of the experts to take a look please
https://photos.app.goo.gl/W2V1coxjutX5zw6N6
THIS IS NOW UP FOR SALE AND WILL LIKELY SELL FOR A LOW LOW PRICE it has no reserve and is at 2500$ Today [img]
https://auctions.thegunrunner.com/[/img]
STILL FOR SALE NOT ON GUNBROKER BUT YOU CAN SEE IT HERE
[img]
https://auctions.thegunrunner.com/[/img]
Still Under 3000 $ 3 days left to auction closes [img]
https://photos.app.goo.gl/W2V1coxjutX5zw6N6[/img]
2 HOURS LEFT AT AUTION LOOKS LIKE IT WILL SELL FOR UNDER 3500$ a Jack Haugh 12,000 $$ [img]
https://auctions.thegunrunner.com/[/img]gun new unfired with ammo thats CHEAP
I don't think it's that cheap. The heyday of custom BPCRs is long past now. It's a very n8ce gun. But not $12k.
Is there a reason you decided to sell it just picking it up earlier this year?
https://bid.beckortauctions.com/lot-details/index/catalog/34582/lot/5499421
Do I see $4660 before the buyer's commission?
No, looks like it closed at $2695 before auction fees.
No, looks like it closed at $2695 before auction fees.
Then what was the $4660? I saw that price posted as well.
I think Bill should clarify the amount it sold for.