Anyone know anything about Remington Rolling Block pistols?

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

Hi, everyone.

I am wondering if anyone knows anything about the pistol version of the Remington Rolling Block.  I have one in .22 LR, and I have seen them on the used market in .22 Short, and ".50 CF."  The .50's are all advertised as being either US Army or Navy issue.   Does anyone know if these are .50-70, or are they some other cartridge?  Were the pistols available in any other calibers, or is .50 and .22 it?  Is there any source that can tell me when my own pistol was made?

First hand knowledge, or pointing me at some source with the information would be appreciated.

 

On a more practical note,  I do know that there were more than a few makers of single shot pistols in at least .22 rimfire.  I don't know about large, centerfire pistols beside the Rolling Block, but I've often thought a single shot pistol side match could be fun.  Would anyone else be interested?

 

[Alpo]

Remington made the 1867 Navy pistol in 50 rimfire. Conversions were made to change it to centerfire.

 

They made the 1871 Army pistol in 50 centerfire.

 

And then Uberti made them in a half a dozen different calibers.

https://gunvalues.gundigest.com/uberti-aldo-uberti-usa/14375/model-1871-rolling-block-pistol/

 

 

This is from Cartridges of the World, 13th Edition.

 

.50 REMINGTON NAVY

Historical Notes:
Developed for the single-shot, rolling block, Remington Navy pistol of 1865, this load was replaced within a year by an identical inside-primed centerfire type. The final commercial version, Boxer primed, was manufactured until World War I. The Remington Navy pistol has been obsolete since the early 1870s.

General Comments: The .50-caliber rimfire was a
rather potent handgun round. Velocity was low, but the big heavy bullet would have had considerable effectiveness. However, .44- or .45-caliber handguns are more efficient, and the military eventually standardized on .45-caliber cartridge arms. The original load was a 290-grain bullet and 23 grains of blackpowder.

[La Sombra]

The 50 CF pistols are setup for 50 Remington Navy or 50 Remington Army. There are a few that are chambered in 50-45 Cadet. All three chambering are different. A portion of the 50 Navy pistols were remade into Cadet rifles.

I reload 50 Navy for a Cadet rifle built from a 50 Navy pistol. The brass is from cutdown and reformed 56-50 brass with the rim turned down. Buffalo Arms is my source for the brass.

 

More info here.

https://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/RRB/rrb.html

 

La Sombra

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

11 hours ago, La Sombra said:

 

More info here.

https://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/RRB/rrb.html

 

La Sombra

 

Interesting article.   Based on the descriptions, mine is either an 1891 or a 1901 Target Pistol.   But the serial number has 4 digits.  What an interesting mystery.  Probably a 1901.   When I get home from work, I'll dig it out of the safe and compare it more closely to the descriptions and let you know.

[Jabez Cowboy,SASS # 50129]

One of my friends has one, chambered in .50-70...  So yes it seems some were made in this configuration ...

 

 

Jabez Cowboy 

[Trailrider #896]

I have loaded ammo for both the Navy and the Army RB pistols. I used shortened .50-70 brass for both. This was a number of years ago, and I owned neither guns. I did fire them, and, trust me, the one with the sharp knuckle on the back HURTS! I think that was the Army version, whereas IIRC, the Navy had a curved backstrap that rolled up in your hand!

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

Okay, I am 99% certain mine is a 1901.   I'd like to post some pics, but I left my phone at work.  Maybe tomorrow.  

Sadly, the forestock is broken with about a third of it gone, but I still have the original piece.  Maybe I'll look into getting it repaired somehow.

 

 

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

As promised, here are some pics of my pistol.

 

Given the shape of everything, and the checkering on the grips and location of the sights, I am fairly sure this is a 1901 model.  It looks a little rough around the edges, but overall is in good functional shape.

 

From this side, you can see how the markings are still clear and sharp.  But you can also see the broken forestock.  I am gonna be showing this to a gunsmith soon, one who specializes in restorations.   I've seen some before and after pics on his website where he has taken things that look too far gone to repair and now has them looking like new.  At the very least, I plan to ask him to fix the stock.  I may go further.  I think it would be nice to see this gun looking like new again, but I have not yet made up my mind.

Still wish there was a side match where I could use this.