Remington RB Carbine need help bore .514

[ehull]

Really nice carbine. It dates from pre August 1870 because of the concave shape of the lower surface of the breech block. It could be .50 Spencer rimfire or a larger cartridge - Remington used both in that era. It appears pretty standard in its configuration.
An enigma is the "US" mark on the frame. Please upload a photo of that.

[stanforth]

Thanks for putting that on. It really is a nice piece.

[ehull]

Jim, thanks for the good photos. I believe the "U.S." is a spurious addition. The U.S. Army did not use this type rolling block carbine, and those it did use were marked differently. Those used by the various state militias would not have had a "US" marking, but rather state marks. Also, the marking is irregularly stamped, with the periods separated from the letters. However, it is a fine condition example.

[rudybolla]

That is really a shame about the US stamp. Someone took a high condition and relatively scarce carbine and mucked it up in an attempt to "martialmotize" it. Very sad.

[Dick Hosmer]

Ed, I'm sure we can all agree that it is certainly not any adopted US model, but could it not perhaps be something that was tested, or experimented with, and was simply marked U.S. to indicate ownership? I'm thinking here of the varied, and sometimes quite crude, P/HBR stampings on the Navy rifles. There is little uniformity there at all.

[ehull]

Dick- Always a possibility but lacking any documentation that that US bought the gun - as compared to a merchant's submitting a sample - it is speculation. The US purchased test samples that I have seen had uniform stampings from a die, not individually applied letters. But anything is POSSIBLE.

[Dick Hosmer]

It also occurs to me that if any one were trying to hump the value, and knew enough to believe that such a mark would enhance the piece, that they would have done a better job. To me, it seems more like a "hey, maybe we should mark this" kind of thing, rather than an attempt at fakery. Sometimes the simplest answer turns out to be the right one - but, we'll probably never know.

Jim, when you acquired the gun, which truly is a very nice little carbine, was any special point made about the U.S. marking?

[Dick Hosmer]

Didn't know it had a U.S. on the buttplate - and that might alter thoughts about the receiver marking, almost making it superfluous (to either hypothesis).

I was going to wonder if it could be some relatively close ancestor of the common 1867 .50-45 CF Navy carbine? It certainly could be a "back shop" piece - doesn't appear to have been issued.

[ehull]

Jim, What is the caliber? There was a period 1869-70 when Remington made some of these in a .50RF that is bigger than a .50 Spencer.
What are the tang markings? To match the breech block type it should be two lines ending in 1866.
Also, is the buttplate interchangeable with a US rifle musket or is it the narrower Remington type.

[Dick Hosmer]

Searched Hoyem Vol. 1 (usually most helpful) with no definitive results, other than to assume the intended round is something from the post-war developmental/experimental morass. Chamber length would appear to point to a RF version of what would ultimately become the .50-45 Navy round. I'm thinking the arm, which looks to my untutored eye (don't own such a carbine) very much like a regular 1867 Navy, might even be unique in that chambering. That's about the extent of my thoughts - I yield to my friend Ed Hull as the early Remington authority!

[JWLASER]

I am the current owner of this rifle, any suggestion on what it might be?

[ehull]

Please read all the discussion on this thread. It is a standard remington made carbine, circa 1870. The only open question is the cartridge it uses.