Any help for a Rolling Block? Thanks!!

[ehull]

From your description of the caliber, barrel length and locking action this is a New York State Model rifle. In the late 1880s they were listed in catalogs for commercial sale, but they are scarce with no state military markings. Photos will help for identification.

[Dick Hosmer]

Since I only collect the Springfield-made rolling blocks, I do not have a New York model for comparison. I do have an example of the Springfield-built Model 1871 with locking action.

That said, there is something very strange about the profile of that hammer; obviously it is not the absurdly tall one, but unless there is significant distortion from the camera, it does not appear to match the normal lower ones, either. The thumbpiece also looks "not quite right". I have never disassembled a locking action, and do not know if it is possible to swap-in different parts and modify them to function?

Given the rifle's geographical location, I suppose it is possible that it might have been repaired at some time without access to the "proper" parts? If such was the case, whoever did the work did a VERY nice job. Or, could it be some sort of early prototype of the locking action?

Interesting gun - I'm sure Ed will be able to enlighten us further!

[ehull]

The basic rifle is the New York State Model. The patent markings on the tang are for the "locking action" model. The barrel length and the sling swivels on the trigger guard and forward band are characteristic of the State Model. The small, single letter inspectors' marks and large cartouche on the wrist are NYS military inspection markings.
The only question is the originality of the breech block and hammer. Does the "locking action" function normally? When the breech block is moved to closed, the hammer should automatically move slightly forward into half cock, with the hammer locking the breech block closed. To fire, the hammer must be re-cocked. If this doesn't work, then someone has replaced the block and hammer with non-locking versions.

[rudybolla]

While my personal interests run to Scandinavian commercial and sporting rolling blocks, it has given me an opportunity to see many gunsmith modifications to military rifles. Could the hammer and block be an example of a very good gunsmith taking the NY model parts and expertly modifying them to new profiles? I have seen stranger things and equally well done.

[Dick Hosmer]

That was my thought, though you have stated it more clearly. I cannot speak for the internals, or for what may have been substituted, cannabalized, or had the profile altered, but that hammer and thumbpiece (especially) just do not look "right". The work - whatever it may have been - is very nicely done, though. The checkering could have been done (or redone) by anyone with a file, a vise, and a steady hand.

[jon_norstog]

Challenger,

I would agree that it looks like parts were swapped. The checkering on the block is definitely not factory, and with the original parts, the hammer would not drag on the block. Remington set those things up loose so they wouldn't jam in action.

The rest of the rifle looks really nice, perhaps it was sold out of service without its internals? Bannerman's, perhaps?

jn

[Dick Hosmer]

Hi Jon,

Yes, in the "1871 locking action" (used on only a very few models) the hammer actually DOES "drag" on the block at one point in the cycle.

There was a concern that, especially with green troops, it was potentially dangerous to have the gun left at full cock over a live round, upon closing the breech. If the recruit was unsuccessful in safely lowering the hammer, assuming the rifle was not to be immediately fired, there could be an accident. The trapdoor, loading at a true half-cock, did not suffer this "problem".

The solution was for the block to automatically trip the hammer as it was closing. Rather than be caught, clear of the block, at half-cock - which some sources erroneously state - the hammer actually drags on the block, and must be thumbed back before firing. There is no "safe" way to load the rifle and leave it on half-cock for carrying without manipulating the hammer. It was apparently thought that the dragging provided sufficient friction to serve as a half-cock. That was a fallacy, as (with any gun) the hammer could still get caught on something and wind up cocked.

A rather complicated (partial) solution to a problem caused by the rifle's basic design.

[Dick Hosmer]

Hello Franco,

My current thinking is that the rifle is some sort of NYS piece, possibly post-use civilian purchase, which has the locking feature intact, but has had the hammer and block re-shaped. This is based on your saying that the action functions as an 1871 should. If block and/or hammer had actually been replaced that would probably not be the case. Interesting rifle!

[ehull]

For some clarity: with the "locking action," when the breech block is closed the hammer automatically moves forward so that the front edge of the brace (the lower semi-circular part of the hammer) fits UNDER the lower back edge of the block. The block is locked closed just as firmly as if the hammer was fully down; it's not just by a friction fit. The hammer must be cocked again to open the breech, or to fire.

[Dick Hosmer]

Thanks for clarifying that - what I meant was that the hammer does not (seem to) fall into the "normal" half-cock notch, or, perhaps my 1871 (which is about 90% - so it wasn't used much) is broken/has a flaw. It is the only one I have ever handled, and I have not taken it apart, so, I may have misinterpreted what actually happens. My hammer does (appear to) drag on the block as opposed to slipping beneath it - but - the block cannot be opened, so, I guess something else is engaging? That is all very odd, because it is not as though one can slip the hammer into half-cock (or even a false half-cock) since one's thumb/finger is not normally restraining the spur when the hammer "falls" (is automatically tripped). Very strange, indeed.

[ehull]

I should have specified that I was describing the NYS Model. I do not have a Springfield Model 1871 for comparison.

[ehull]

From your description, your rifle does not function as a standard NYS Model. This is more indication that the hammer and breech block are substitute parts.

[Dick Hosmer]

This thread has taken an interesting and unexpected turn, not the least of which being Ed's last statement. If anyone had asked me - prior to this discussion - if the Springfield and NYS actions were identical in function my answer would have been an unhesitating "yes", but apparently that may not be correct.

It may take a couple of days, but I guess I'd better pull my 1871 out of the safe and REALLY go through the motions "by the numbers" as Franco did. At some point, I may even attempt to pull the buttstock and see if anything appears broken - but that joint looks to have never been apart so I am reluctant to do so. Perhaps another reader would care to chime in here?

Hard to believe that there would have been two parallel and essentially simultaneous designs on the same action meant to achieve the same result. Equally hard to believe that Ed (whom I look up to as "Mr. Rolling Block") does not have a US 1871 - they are not uncommon here in the States at all, and many are in near excellent condition, with presumably properly functioning actions.

[ehull]

Franco, can you remove your buttstock and take photos with the action closed and open?