.44/77 Fired at Last

[Jimmill]

Caprock,
I have never had a problem chambering a round with the rcbs 44-370 bullet. I do size it to .446 when lubing. When measuring a soft slug pushed through the bore across a land and groove measures .446. The bore in this rifle is excellent and the rifling is very thin. The rifling in my Remington #1 sporter in 45-70 looks twice as deep as this 44-77.

You have a couple of nice Remingtons there. Do you think the buckhorn sight on your 32rf is original? I have seen a couple of #1's with both rear sights, a buckhorn and an r&r.

Jim

[Caprock]

I understand that some of the Baco brass was really thick and other batches were thin enough to allow use of the .446 bullet. Mine was evidently the former. .43 Spanish brass from Jamison is good but also too thick for my roller....all this was one of the reasons I went to paper patch.

Remingtons are notoriously difficult to measure the groove because of the 5 groove rifling they used so mine at 451 is an avg guessimate but fairly close I think. My bore has "salt and Pepper" pitting for about six inches in front of the chamber mouth then gets pretty slick.

Yeah, a sliding buckhorn, RR, and beach front was pretty common on the rimfires I don't think this particular sight is original to the rifle but Remington did offer one that is similar. These are all covered for the most part in Marcots book.

[Jimmill]

I understand that some of the Baco brass was really thick and other batches were thin enough to allow use of the .446 bullet. Mine was evidently the former. .43 Spanish brass from Jamison is good but also too thick for my roller....all this was one of the reasons I went to paper patch.

Remingtons are notoriously difficult to measure the groove because of the 5 groove rifling they used so mine at 451 is an avg guessimate but fairly close I think. My bore has "salt and Pepper" pitting for about six inches in front of the chamber mouth then gets pretty slick.

Yeah, a sliding buckhorn, RR, and beach front was pretty common on the rimfires I don't think this particular sight is original to the rifle but Remington did offer one that is similar. These are all covered for the most part in Marcots book.

I thought that rear sight might be an altered version of the one shown on the Deer rifle in Marcots book.

[Caprock]

If it is it was put on after the fact I think since the dovetail was cut right through the middle of the barrel address

[Don Kenna]

I’ll try to attach some very poor pictures of my Remington #1 sporting rifle in .44/77 chambering. I didn’t take them and will blame the photo quality on the seller of the rifle who provided them. Photography is not one of my strong suits, but I promise I will try to post better photos of it in the hopefully near future.

Basic information on the rifle is as follows:
Barrel length: 32 inches
Barrel configuration: Octagonal, heavy straight-taper
Barrel markings: Pre-1886 “E. Remington & Sons,” etc. (top flat); “44 S” (bottom flat, faint, evidently acid etched just forward of forend tip); “S.T.” (bottom flat, clearly stamped under forend)
Trigger: Single set
Receiver: Flat side
Rear Sight: Spring step elevator (early square front type)
Front sight: Standard Remington dovetail; brass blade on steel base
Butt plate: Standard Remington sporting semi-crescent
Forend tip: steel

I am especially pleased to have obtained this rifle, as it is a prime example of a heavily used but properly cared-for rifle in completely original “unbutchered” condition. The bore appears to be nearly perfect, as far as I can tell. The rifle’s finish is all original. The wood has not been “restored” and has the original varnish finish with just enough dents and gouges to give it character. It probably has at least 75 percent of the original rust blue on the barrel, but it has turned an even velvet brown. Although there is no discernable metal wear on the frame and trigger guard (crisp serial number and patent markings), only traces of case hardening colors remain. The nitre blue on the hammer and breech block are pretty much intact. The condition of the metal finish seems to indicate that the rifle spent a lot of time outdoors being exposed to ultraviolet light. The seller knew that he had something valuable—and charged an appropriate price. But he didn’t seem to quite understand exactly what that something was. He was completely flummoxed by the set trigger’s operation. He apparently doctored some of the photos to make it appear that much more case color remained and that the blue was still much more “blue” than the brown it really is. That amused me when I received the rifle.

As the original .44/77 rifles are notorious, the bore is an oversized .450-inch. Unlike some I’ve read about, though, this rifle’s chamber neck will accept a cartridge with a .450-bullet, which seemed like an exactly perfect fit. As “exactly perfect” chamber fit in a black powder cartridge rifle makes me a bit nervous, I asked Steve Brooks for a .449-inch mould, and that’s exactly what I got. The bullet is a 402-grain flat point with very generous lube grooves.

I’m really more of a Sharps rifle person, but I do have a great deal of respect for the Remington System rifles, especially regarding their durability. While I find them very interesting—and far more durable and reliable than some believe—I’m not that much a fan of Remington single-set triggers. While they do seem to remove most of the creep from the trigger pull, the three I have on original rifles can’t seem to be set much lighter than two pounds’ pull weight. Were I ordering a rifle from Remington back in the day, and knowing what I know now, I may have opted for a plain trigger. In any case, as nearly as I can tell from my 1877 Remington catalog reprint, this particular rifle would have cost $35.50 at that time.

I’m not really a fan of bottlenecked black powder cartridges, much preferring the straight variety, so I’m not likely to approach Shiloh Sharps about building me a .44/77 match or even a hunting rifle. Having stated that, I’m also well aware of the historical importance of the .44/77 cartridge. I do think it was quite an improvement over the .50/70, and it pre-dated the .45/70 by at least four years. Considering the rather crude sights on this old lady and my cataract-beset old eyes, I think the rifle and I did pretty well in keeping most shots within four inches at 200 yards.

Comments are welcome.

Don Kenna

http://s1369.photobucket.com/user/DonKen...a.jpg.html

http://s1369.photobucket.com/user/DonKen...9.jpg.html

http://s1369.photobucket.com/user/DonKen...c.jpg.html

http://s1369.photobucket.com/user/DonKen...8.jpg.html

http://s1369.photobucket.com/user/DonKen...8.jpg.html






[/size][/size]

[bobw]

I’ll try to attach some very poor pictures of my Remington #1 sporting rifle in .44/77 chambering. I didn’t take them and will blame the photo quality on the seller of the rifle who provided them. Photography is not one of my strong suits, but I promise I will try to post better photos of it in the hopefully near future.

Basic information on the rifle is as follows:
Barrel length: 32 inches
Barrel configuration: Octagonal, heavy straight-taper
Barrel markings: Pre-1886 “E. Remington & Sons,” etc. (top flat); “44 S” (bottom flat, faint, evidently acid etched just forward of forend tip); “S.T.” (bottom flat, clearly stamped under forend)
Trigger: Single set
Receiver: Flat side
Rear Sight: Spring step elevator (early square front type)
Front sight: Standard Remington dovetail; brass blade on steel base
Butt plate: Standard Remington sporting semi-crescent
Forend tip: steel

I am especially pleased to have obtained this rifle, as it is a prime example of a heavily used but properly cared-for rifle in completely original “unbutchered” condition. The bore appears to be nearly perfect, as far as I can tell. The rifle’s finish is all original. The wood has not been “restored” and has the original varnish finish with just enough dents and gouges to give it character. It probably has at least 75 percent of the original rust blue on the barrel, but it has turned an even velvet brown. Although there is no discernable metal wear on the frame and trigger guard (crisp serial number and patent markings), only traces of case hardening colors remain. The nitre blue on the hammer and breech block are pretty much intact. The condition of the metal finish seems to indicate that the rifle spent a lot of time outdoors being exposed to ultraviolet light. The seller knew that he had something valuable—and charged an appropriate price. But he didn’t seem to quite understand exactly what that something was. He was completely flummoxed by the set trigger’s operation. He apparently doctored some of the photos to make it appear that much more case color remained and that the blue was still much more “blue” than the brown it really is. That amused me when I received the rifle.

As the original .44/77 rifles are notorious, the bore is an oversized .450-inch. Unlike some I’ve read about, though, this rifle’s chamber neck will accept a cartridge with a .450-bullet, which seemed like an exactly perfect fit. As “exactly perfect” chamber fit in a black powder cartridge rifle makes me a bit nervous, I asked Steve Brooks for a .449-inch mould, and that’s exactly what I got. The bullet is a 402-grain flat point with very generous lube grooves.

I’m really more of a Sharps rifle person, but I do have a great deal of respect for the Remington System rifles, especially regarding their durability. While I find them very interesting—and far more durable and reliable than some believe—I’m not that much a fan of Remington single-set triggers. While they do seem to remove most of the creep from the trigger pull, the three I have on original rifles can’t seem to be set much lighter than two pounds’ pull weight. Were I ordering a rifle from Remington back in the day, and knowing what I know now, I may have opted for a plain trigger. In any case, as nearly as I can tell from my 1877 Remington catalog reprint, this particular rifle would have cost $35.50 at that time.

I’m not really a fan of bottlenecked black powder cartridges, much preferring the straight variety, so I’m not likely to approach Shiloh Sharps about building me a .44/77 match or even a hunting rifle. Having stated that, I’m also well aware of the historical importance of the .44/77 cartridge. I do think it was quite an improvement over the .50/70, and it pre-dated the .45/70 by at least four years. Considering the rather crude sights on this old lady and my cataract-beset old eyes, I think the rifle and I did pretty well in keeping most shots within four inches at 200 yards.

Comments are welcome.

Don Kenna

http://s1369.photobucket.com/user/DonKen...a.jpg.html

http://s1369.photobucket.com/user/DonKen...9.jpg.html

http://s1369.photobucket.com/user/DonKen...c.jpg.html

http://s1369.photobucket.com/user/DonKen...8.jpg.html

http://s1369.photobucket.com/user/DonKen...8.jpg.html






[/size][/size]

Have you done a chamber cast? I maybe wrong but I think 44s suggests that it is infact a 44-90 2 7/16" Special. This was Remington's answer to the Sharps 44-90 SBN. bobw

[Kurt]

Bob makes a good point. I would make a chamber cast also because the of the barrel markings. ""Barrel markings: Pre-1886 “E. Remington & Sons,” etc. (top flat); “44 S” (bottom flat, faint, evidently acid etched just forward of forend tip); “S.T.” (bottom flat,"

It's a good chance that it could be a .44-90 Rem Special that is about a 2.44" bn case. I have seen that barrel stamp on their long range target rifles. The interesting mark on the under barrel the "S.T." makes me wonder if it might have been setback and re chambered from the .44-100 S.T. that used a 2.6 straight case??????
They could have tried to rub the original chamber stamp off when it was re chambered.

Kurt

[Caprock]

Yeah a cast might be in order as Remington was not consistent with their stampings. Marcots book indicates that rifles using either the 2 1/4 or 2 7/16 cases can be stamped 44S. The 2 1/4 was sometimes loaded with 90 gr and a 520 bullet seated way out thus the Remington Special.

[Caprock]

That is one fine rifle.....lot better shape than mine!

[Don Kenna]

Thanks to all who replied.

I've already done a Cerrosafe chamber and bore cast, along with a lead slug, to provide to Steve Brooks to examine prior to his making the bullet mould. The chamber is a pretty standard (if such really exists) .44/77 chamber of 2-1/4-inch case length. The origin of the rifling, which is nicely beveled, is about 1/8-inch forward of the case mouth.

The "S.T." marking under the forend just stands for "set trigger," with which this rifle is equipped. Thanks to Marcot's book, I knew what that marking indicated, but I was gratified to see it there. A similarly configured (heavy 32-inch barreled) .50/70 rifle that I own is also equipped with a single-set trigger, but has no such marking under the forend. The latter rifle does, however, have a marking of "E.S.," meaning "extra sights," and it does carry a "combination" or "rough and ready" barrel sight. But more about that rifle some other time--

I obtained both Jamison/Captech and Rocky Mountain Cartridge Co. Brass for the .44/77 rifle. The RMC cases have a fairly sharp shoulder as compared to the Captech cases which come with a long, sloping shoulder. Both cases fit the chamber quite well. When fired, the Captech cases form a sharp shoulder about identical to that on the RMC cases.

I think it significant--and I am pleased--that the RCBS full-length sizing die sized the case body only slightly and doesn't move the fire-formed shoulder at all. As I expected, I could tell at a glance that the straight-sided RCBS factory single-diameter, undersized case neck expander was going to be worthless. I replaced it with a .447/.451-inch diameter expander plug from Buffalo Arms which works quite well.

Note that this .44/77 rifle was never intended to be any sort of target rifle, but purely a hunting rifle. As Marcot's book pretty well supports, this rifle was about as long and heavy as Remington #1 Sporting Rifles got, with very few exceptions. I, for one, am convinced that it was a commercial hide hunter's rifle. Now that I've gone through all the gyrations to make it shoot, I have no intention of actually hunting with it, or using it for anything but occasional informal fun shooting. It has earned an honored semi-retirement (like me?), and ought to be around long after me as an historical artifact.

Don