1858banner

Author Topic: No 26631 a Navy  (Read 355 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Racing

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 1261
No 26631 a Navy
« on: July 05, 2020, 01:53:57 PM »


A semi worn Navy,i guess. Stocks are certainly on their last leg,told customer it might be an idea to adress that. As he´s intent is to shoot the thing the original stocks can be replaced and put to the side in my opinion.

Jobs pulled tho. Yes.
For once the wear that had made cylinder clearance increase was to the recoil shield. That´s a first!  {:(
Checked length of the cylinder,of course,and even tried a stocker of known good dimensions...but still had like 0,9mm clearance.
Giving that some thought i opted to add material to the entry/forcing cone of the piece.

In turn timing was a tad off,handled that. Just drifted that small cam for the bolt a millimeter approx and done deal. Rest of the innards were in absolutely ok order.
Added material to the front sight..and of course as the barrel was on the lathe i handed the poor thing a fresh muzzle job too.

First trials,shooting the thing,come tomorrow i hope.  :-*
DVC - 2020

Offline Certus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 36
Re: No 26631 a Navy
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2020, 05:54:20 AM »
Hi,
You may already be aware that this particular Remington New Model Navy dates from February 1864. Although I only shoot replica Uberti Remingtons, I felt the need to own an original even if it were just to provide an historical link to the ones that I actually shoot. Mine carries Ser No 30162 and was made in December 1864 for delivery as part of one of the final consignments to the Navy in that same year.
Having plenty of time on my hands, I completely stripped and inspected the gun which in my opinion would be perfectly safe to shoot should I want to use it for its original purpose. The chambers all align accurately with the breech, the lock-up is still consistent and with hardly any more play than with my replicas. The bore is a little dull, but still has a reasonable amount of rifling remaining with no evidence of excessive pitting. As I live in the UK, the only problem would be the need to register it on my Firearms Certificate which is a requirement in the UK should the gun be used rather than kept for just "Curio or Ornament". Although this sounds a simple process, it involves much form filling and communication with the police authorities.
If I do go down that road, it will only be shot sparingly with light loads to provide some comparison with the replicas I use regularly.
Look forward to hearing how the Navy performs after your visit to the range.

Brian


« Last Edit: July 07, 2020, 08:27:44 AM by Certus »

Offline Racing

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 1261
Re: No 26631 a Navy
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2020, 06:05:11 PM »
Uhu.
I replied a back while in that thread of yours. :)

I live a tad northeast of you,in Sweden. Our laws work a little different why most of us up here use these guns to this day.
Let me put it simple,what worked back then works just as well today if in good working order. The old´uns are indeed permit exempt to us too and in contrast to you guys we´re by law allowed to use them.
Something i sincerly doubt will come to change anytime soon having gone over our laws with a good lawyer friend of mine recently - for other reasons.

Spares for the old originals can be had via for instance S&S or Lodgewood in the US and from personal experience i can tell you that they both look the job and fit/work well.

As for light loads just cause it´s an original gun,no offense but i´ve heard that to boredom by now. I use all of mine as their creators intended,full on military loads. After by now massive amounts of rounds out of the lot of them (own a bunch) i have yet to experience a failure. (weeeell...LOL)
Parts like nipples and what not are service items of course but that apart? Sure,have busted the occasional spring or two but that´s it.
Also be aware that an original Remington is made out of mainly cast steel. This brings that no matter HOW injured or kaputt it might seem it can ALWAYS be repaired. A regular DC TIG welder can make very short notice of whatever damage on one of these old warhorses.

Mind you,the 44 cal ones see 38-40 grains of 3F and 220 grains slugs (The LEE so called "Ruger" boolit) on a regular basis and just keeps on performing. It´s blackpowder...relax.
As long as the firearm in case is mechanically sound just use away to hearts content. The steel involved with the original pieces (swedish according to legend btw! LOL) works just as well today as it did back then and as an engineer i can attest to that as long as the Sigma 0,2 limit hasn´t been stretched that steel will perform just as well in another 150 yrs as long as one doesn´t let it rust to death.

By the way.  :-*
She works just fine. That Navy in the pic up there. We had that handled yesterday as stated...  {L*

That said there´s something about the Navy guns that i appreciate. Don´t get me wrong,the mainstay of the permit exempt wheelguns around the house are 44´s but..there´s the occasional 36 cal too.
Them Navy´s are like a 7/8 size copy of the 44´s which just makes them more nimble n lighter. Not that i mind,but seeing that most load their 44´s up with approx 140 grains RB´s and a Remmy Navy (an original at least) will easily take 30 grains beneath a military style approx 130 grain boolit..all said n done what´s the difference - sort of?

For those not in the know the chambers of the Navy´s are roomy.. 30 grains a greased wad and a 85 grain RB leaves PLENTY room to spare.
Was kind of amazed with that the first time i loaded my old Beals up, aka No-897.

IMO the Navy´s are thus about the same shooting experience as are the Army ones. Might sound a little odd but..that´s my take at least and i tend to bring that Beals every so often just out of that mere reason.
At the range the Navy in turn tend to fit the ladies better as they normally have smaller hands then us boys...and many a lady has been VERY impressed and shaken fun by using any of the Navy´s around here.

Even better news is that friend Anders finally found one too,No- 16529,which is a transition one. Still looking into "HOW" much transition..  )L$ )L$
They´re not called transition for nothing i guess...
DVC - 2020

Offline Certus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 36
Re: No 26631 a Navy
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2020, 08:29:12 AM »
Hello,

Thanks for the very helpful and comprehensive reply which is much appreciated. I'm still making up my mind whether or not to shoot my original Navy due mainly to the hassle involved with registering it on my Firearms Certificate given the few occasions I would wish to take it to the range.

As part of my research, I bought a book titled "Remington Army And Navy Revolvers 1861-1888" by Donald L. Ware which has been very useful in uncovering the history and development of both the percussion and metallic cartrtidge conversions of these old revolvers.

The book identifies your friends Navy (Ser No 16529) as having been made in Sept 1862 and as being an Elliot model having a modified cylinder pin to allow removal of the cylinder without the need to lower the loading lever and withdraw the cylinder pin. It also states that around Ser No 16500 another change was introduced to reduce powder fouling by relieving the frame directly in front of the barrel to expose the barrel threads.

The Elliot variants were apparently only made for six months and are consequently among the rarest of the Navy /Army models.
There was however a problem with the gun sometimes jamming as result of the cylinder moving forward under recoil and rendering the gun useless. The Ordnance Dept complained bitterly to Remington who quickly agreed to return to the original arrangement whereby the loading lever needed to be lowered and the cylinder pin withdrawn before the cylinder could be removed.

The so called "Transitional" models did not appear until around the 19000-22000 Ser No No range and were modified to prevent the cylinder pin moving forward under recoil. The modification introduced a screw to the channel of the loading lever with the head of the screw preventing the cylinder pin from being pulled forward until the loading lever was first lowered.

Brian





« Last Edit: July 08, 2020, 11:22:03 AM by Certus »

Offline Racing

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 1261
Re: No 26631 a Navy
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2020, 07:44:16 PM »
From what i´ve seen,and come to understand and read,that´s to be debated.
Might be the 150+yrs but..toss and turn i say.
It comes down very much to what was at hand.
DVC - 2020

Offline Hawg

  • Administrator
  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 10156
  • You done went and done it now!
Re: No 26631 a Navy
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2020, 09:48:33 PM »
Pics are called for. (T^
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy, and tasteth good with ketchup.

Offline Racing

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 1261
Re: No 26631 a Navy
« Reply #6 on: July 17, 2020, 06:30:13 AM »
I´ll ask.  ])M
DVC - 2020

Offline Captainkirk

  • Forum Caesar, Administrator Extraordinaire, Part-Time Gunslinger, Savior of used and abused, and neglected Remmies
  • Administrator
  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7988
  • Black Powder Nut & Remmy fanatic
Re: No 26631 a Navy
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2020, 12:57:27 PM »
Pics are called for. (T^
Demanded is more like it... {_K
"You gonna pull those pistols, or whistle Dixie?"

Offline Hawg

  • Administrator
  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 10156
  • You done went and done it now!
Re: No 26631 a Navy
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2020, 01:40:06 PM »
Pics are called for. (T^
Demanded is more like it... {_K


I didn't want to be too bossy. )L$
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy, and tasteth good with ketchup.

Offline Captainkirk

  • Forum Caesar, Administrator Extraordinaire, Part-Time Gunslinger, Savior of used and abused, and neglected Remmies
  • Administrator
  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7988
  • Black Powder Nut & Remmy fanatic
Re: No 26631 a Navy
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2020, 07:47:28 PM »
Can't fool us. We knew what you wuz thinkin'.  M__
"You gonna pull those pistols, or whistle Dixie?"

Offline Hawg

  • Administrator
  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 10156
  • You done went and done it now!
Re: No 26631 a Navy
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2020, 10:44:47 PM »
Can't fool us. We knew what you wuz thinkin'.  M__

OK, OK, OK, I didn't want to SOUND too bossy. )L$ )L$ )L$
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy, and tasteth good with ketchup.

Offline Racing

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 1261
Re: No 26631 a Navy
« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2020, 06:44:53 PM »
 (?^ (?^

THERE it is!
DVC - 2020