|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
387
guests, and
6
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,443
Posts544,800
Members14,405
| |
Most Online1,258
Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,702 Likes: 405
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,702 Likes: 405 |
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.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan) ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/qclHjMQ.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,702 Likes: 405
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,702 Likes: 405 |
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.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,702 Likes: 405
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,702 Likes: 405 |
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.
Last edited by BrentD, Prof; 01/24/23 11:47 PM.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,702 Likes: 405
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,702 Likes: 405 |
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
2 members like this:
Discus420, bushveld |
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 52 Likes: 5
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 52 Likes: 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 725 Likes: 20
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 725 Likes: 20 |
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.
Last edited by Vall; 01/25/23 11:58 AM.
|
|
1 member likes this:
Discus420 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,702 Likes: 405
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,702 Likes: 405 |
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.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 725 Likes: 20
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 725 Likes: 20 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,702 Likes: 405
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,702 Likes: 405 |
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 725 Likes: 20
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 725 Likes: 20 |
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.
|
|
1 member likes this:
BrentD, Prof |
|
|
|
|
