Remington New Model Revolver - Comments/Input?

[otisrush]

Hello folks........

This is a Remington New Model revolver I have. There are a couple of things I was wondering if I could get any insight into.

* The most worrying thing to me is the discoloration on the metal on the bottom of the handle. It looks suspiciously like a serial number was buffed out. Is there normally a serial number in this location?
* The frame and cylinder are both stamped with the lone letter "D" in a few places. Is there significance to this? I presume so - but don't know what it is.

I get the sense a ton of these were made. Is that the case?

Thanks!

OR

 

[Patrick H]

Hi, Otis and welcome. I certainly see the discoloration you referenced on the bottom strap of your revolver's handle. It looks very suspicious to me, too. I don't know enough about these firearms to answer your question, but check back often, because I can guaranty you that help will be along very soon!

 

[hrobalabama]

The "D" is an inspectors' mark. The photo was not clear of the wood stocks. Usually there is an inspectors "cartouche.'
Usually two on the ones used in the war. This was the final inspectors' mark prior to being issued to a unit.

 

[13th Missouri Cavalry]

I do know that remington sold more revolvers to the army then colt did, seeing that remingtons were 15 dollars and the colts cost 20 dollars.

 

[Palmyra]

The serial number should be on the underside flat of the barrel (lower the loading lever to see it). I believe it's also stamped on the grip frame, under the grips (left side near the butt maybe?). However I don't think there was a serial number stamped on the actual butt, where that scuff mark occurs on your revolver.

 

[Don Dixon]

I assume that you thought that you either had or had purchased an original revolver. On original weapons:

* The serial number is stamped on the underside of the barrel under the loading lever, and on the side of the frame under the left grip pannel.

* "D"s are stamped on both sides of the barrel at the breech, and on the right side of the frame between the barrel and the cylinder. My original revolver also has a "P" and an "N" stamped on the left side of the frame. [Your pistol does not.]

* The Remington stamp on my original revolver does not have a period after the "A" in "USA". [Your pistol does. Addiitonally, the Remington stamp on your firearm appears to more deply struck than the stamp on my original.]

* If the stocks are originl, and the pistol entered military service, there will be an inspector's cartouche on the left grip panel. [Your pistol does not.] I say this advisedly, since Remington did have civilian sales of these weapons during and after the Civil War.

* There is no serial number on the base of the butt of the pistol.

On modern reproductions:

* The Italian makers -- Uberti and Pietta -- put their serial numbers on the base of the butt, where the serial is clearly visable. That that area of your pistol appears to be scrubbed is curious. There will also be makers marks on the barrel, and Italian proof marks on the right side of the frame above the trigger guard and on the cylinder.

* Feinwekbau -- who made reproduction "Model 1858s" for Hege -- stamped their serial numbers on the bottom of the barrel, but both the top and bottom of the barrel are clearly marked to indicate German origin.

Clearly closer examination is warrented. I would look for areas on the pistol which appear to have been scrubbed: the top and bottom of the barrel, a spot on the cylinder, and the location of Italian proof marks on the right side of the frame.

My opinion without a closer examination is that you have a modern repoduction that has been tricked up to look like an original. This is one of the reasons why I have serious objections to "defarbing," purely aside from possible violations of firearms laws. If it was represented as a defarbed gun that is one thing. A legitimate defarber should leave some clues that the firearm has been defarbed, but the appearance of defarbed guns is often close enough to original that the unwary can be deceived. If this pistol was represented as original there is possible manufacture and/or sale with intent to decieve. There is a considerable price difference between an orginal pistol and an Italian reproduction.

Between 17 August 1861 and 23 March 1865 the Federal government bought 127,863 Army and Navy revolvers from Remington (EX DOC 99).

Regards,
Don Dixon

 

[Patrick H]

Don, that is a very thorough (and interesting) analysis. I'm sure Otis appreciates your effort. I thought the patent roll mark looked awfully crisp, deep and clean, but that was purely an uninformed reaction to the photo.

 

[otisrush]

I greatly appreciate the info! I inherited this from my father. I'll be fascinated to determine if this is original or not.

Re: The patent roll mark: What bothers me is that it is not straight. And as you'll see below - the S/N is not straight either. Was that typical?

Find below more pics I've taken. FYI - it is a 5 digit serial number. But in the photos that have the S/N I've pixelated out the last digit. It is 9744X The S/Ns all match: under the loading lever, on the left side of the frame under the grips, and on the inside of *both* grips. I also noticed the "B" stamped on the left side of the frame by the front of the cylinder.

You'll also see a pic of the right side of the trigger guard/frame area. I'm not sure what some of the marks Don describes look like - so I don't know what I'm looking for. The one area immediately under the cylinder is "curious". It looks like a ding - not some sort of stamp. But again - I don't know what they look like. Also notice the cuts in the face of the trigger. I don't notice any unusual wear or buff marks on the cylinder.

Do any of these give indication one way or the other as to what the origin of this is? BTW - I examined the exterior of the grips and cannot find even what remotely might be considered a cartouche.

Thanks!

OR

 

[Don Dixon]

Otis,

My original revolver is serial numbered in the early 100,000s, and has the Federal army inspector's cartouche on the left panel of the grips. Neither of the grip panels is marked on the inside with the revolver's serial number.

The "D" on the right side of the breech of the barrel of your gun also appears to be more deeply struck than the "D" on my weapon.

Remington did not manufacture these firearms with the modification shown on the face of the trigger of your gun. But, having said that, a lot of things have happened to Civil War firearms over the last 150 years.

If you Google the term Italian black powder proof mark, you will find drawing/photo examples of them. I think that I see a trace of one of the asterisk shaped Italian marks in the area above the trigger guard on your weapon. But, one would need a closer look with a magnifying glass.

Again, this needs a close phyical examination by someone who knows these firearms.

Regards,
Don Dixon

 

[otisrush]

Very very interesting! It sure sounds like my dad got a replica and didn't realize it!

Give it to me straight: Are you saying there really isn't a way this is "original" given everything you've seen? It sounds like having a lower serial number with no cartouche (and yours does with a higher serial number) is highly suspicious - along with the deep strikes of the stamps.

Is it worth anything given this situation?

OR

 

[Don Dixon]

Otis,

A little more research: Flayderman's Guide to Antique American Firearms says that the Remington New Model Army Revolver went into production in 1863. Flayderman states "Serial numbers continue from Model 1861 Army and commence approximately in the 15000 range..." Your barrel marking is for the new model series, but your serial number does not match that series according to Flayderman.

Based upon what I've seen and the information from Flayderman, I think its a defarbed replica or a forgery. If it is an Italian reproduction it is worth $200 to $400, dependent upon what someone is willing to pay. Those who like debarbed guns would probably go toward the higher end. If it is an original, which I really don't believe it is, it is worth in the range of $1,400 to $2,000 based upon my observations of pricing locally.

Regards,
Don Dixon

 

[otisrush]

Don:

Thank you SO much for all the information you've provided. I greatly appreciate it.

I'm not quite following your first paragraph above.

* Are you saying the top barrel stamp should at least say 1863 if it really was a New Model?
* Flayderman's states New Model S/Ns continued on from 15,000. Mine shows 97,000. I'm not getting the S/N discrepancy per se. The first bullet (patent of 1858 but New Model started in 1863) I get - kind of. (Meaning could the New Model, which started production in 1863, have been using a capability that was patented in 1858.)

The '.' in "U.S.A." I find especially interesting - as that seems like something that would not change from model to model - at least for that era.

 

[Palmyra]

No, the top barrel stamp will have the patent date. He means that production of the New Army began in 1863. Here's a good reference 1858 New Army for you to look at: http://www.nramuseum.org/guns/the-g...vers/remington-new-model-army-percussion.aspx
Note the "U.S.A" at the end of the model the NRA shows, vs what appears to be a "U.S.A." on your model. Otisrush, can you perhaps give a good well lighted photo down the bore of your example to show the rifling? Many replica barrels will use a different rifling pattern than the originals (The two most common Italian makers-Pietta and Uberti- use different twist rates and directions of rifling for example).

 

[otisrush]

More pics.

I noticed the "P" on the left side of the loading ram. This is right where the diagonal "sweep" beings. Could this mean Pietta?

It is extremely hard to get pictures of the bore. The lands and grooves look like they're roughly equivalent in size. The rifling seems very "gentle" from a twist perspective. It's very difficult to ascertain the twist direction. I *THINK* it is a counterclockwise twist - as viewed from the rear of the pistol. I put calipers on a groove as best I could. It measured .125". (This is not scientific by any stretch. I simply tried to line up the tips of the calipers with what I was seeing as the groove lines.

Lastly, I did notice two "R" stamps on the cylinder.

Really lastly: I looked at that "ding" on the right side of the frame under the cylinder under a magnifying glass and it really does look like a ding. I'm not saying definitively that it is. But it looks like a gouge - like it is scalloped out or something.

 

[Don Dixon]

Otis,

My original Remington has a "P" on the loading lever like yours. But, it does not appear to be as deeply stamped as yours. None of my three Italian reproductions has a mark at that location. One could easily have added such a mark.

My original Remington has an "R" and a "C" on the cylinder. None of the reproductions are so marked. They just have the Italian proof marks. But, with the Italian proof marks removed, other marks could easily have been added.

The Remington/patent stamp on the barrel of the NRA museum's gun is the same as the stamp on my original revolver [i.e., missing the period after the "A" in "USA"]

"...like it is scalloped out or something..." That is how you remove the manufacturer's markings on a reproduction firearm -- by buffing them out -- and turn it into something that it is not. When the mark is removed, there will be a slight dishing of the metal until enough metal is removed to delete the original mark. Forensics labs can bring up the original markings -- like serial numbers -- but that requires physical examination and chemical testing.

In this discussion, we've taught you how to create a forgery of a weapon if you have the proper stamps.

Again, you need to have this thing physically examined by someone who is familiar with the original weapons.

Regards,
Don Dixon

 

[Patrick H]

Hey, Otis,
Regardless of how the authenticity of this piece comes down, I'll just say this much: I think it's a nice revolver, even if it's a reproduction. If it's a repro, then it's probably a shooter, so that would be a bonus! If it turns out to be a repro, it might not be worth a fortune to a collector, but I think it's priceless because you inherited it from your Dad. Things don't get much better than that! So I think you've got a real treasure there, regardless of when it was made, or by what company on which continent!

Furthermore, I am certain our friend, Don, is NOT trying to throw water on you, but he is just giving you all the best information he can, based on the pictures.

So...congratulations on a nice revolver, regardless of its age.

 

[mikekj]

Just pull out a screw and see if it's metric or not. That's usually the quickest way to tell, if a quick visual doesn't reveal anything.

 

[otisrush]

The information in this thread has been so helpful. I can't thank enough all the responses and help. I'm not worried about "cold water". I'm interested in understanding the reality of the piece. "It is what it is." as they say.

It is very cool to have something my dad acquired. I will try to find someone where I am that can look at it. It would be REALLY fun if it became a shooter. That would be a twist I would not have expected. But if it heads that direction that would be quite the fun thing to do at the range.

Thanks again all!

OR

 

[TinCan]

Enjoyed this very much, really interesting information!

 

[kevikens]

In my state of NJ those changes, if an original "defarbed" into something else, would make it a "defaced" and therefore illegal firearm and possibly in other states as well where black powder arms are considered guns. If you do reenactments, check on a state's firearm regulations before taking it another state. Also, but, as I am not an attorney, I don't know this for sure, but I think US federal law allows for interstate transportation of a firearm from one state to another, provided the firearm is legal to possess in the state one enters. Perhaps others more versed in the law could comment on that but living where I do, where such a gun is considered a firearm and maybe one that is illegal to possess. I would never have one in my possession.