I've owned & shot several Whitney rollers in the past including a fairly nice 20 ga shotgun. As Frank de Haas said in his book, they're not quite as well made or finished as some of the Remingtons but are just as strong. Although sometimes a little soft as were some of the Rems.

There are two major Whitney variations, the original first model and the New Model. The original has an extra block piece and the New Model is essentially a modified Rem copy without the extra breech piece. I have never owned a first model, only the New Model.

The New Model was made in two frame widths much like the Rem 1 and 1 1/2 models, the smaller was identical to the larger except having the sides narrowed down to better fit the smaller cartridges. My shotgun used the wider frame as did the large CF cartridge rifles, but by far the majority of New Model Whitneys were the narrow frame style made for small cartridges. My rifles & shotgun had well-fitting blocks & firing pins which did not need bushing, but YMMV. The later New Models had firing pin retractors but my earlier ones did not. For whatever reason, de Haas' book didn't show or mention the wide-frame New Model, only the cheaper & less-attractive narrow frame.

IMO the large wide frame New Model guns are equally as strong as the Rems although possibly a little soft for really heavy smokeless loads. Frank de Haas says that the original first models with the extra breech piece are equally as strong as the Rems. His comments appear to reflect no knowledge of the wider-type New Model frames & so I was a little surprised to encounter them.

The narrower New Model frames are rounded on the corners and are not nearly as attractive as the wider-frame guns which have crisp sharp edges like the Rems. The wider-frame guns are MUCH more attractive, and, as I say, IMO are fully equal in strength to the Rems.

I've seen Whitneys selling for almost as much as Remingtons, IMO you got a heckuva buy & should have kissed the guy.
Regards, Joe

Yea, JD I thought it was a good buy when I was buying it for just an action! It looked so ugly with the brown fuzz all over the wood and metal, but I thought any decent "Rolling Block" action should be worth the $100.
I was pretty surprised when it not only cleaned up nicely, but had the Whitney address on the tang. I like Remingtons, but I probably would have taken it apart for the action, had it not turned out to be a Whitney.
This gun is the second variation, and must be the large frame you mentioned, as it has the sharp edges like a Rem. The only real difference that jumps out, is the cross pins. Unlike the Rem. the plate holding the pins into the receiver, are part of the pins, and swing together under the retaining screw. That odd arrangement caught my eye when I first saw it, but not being well read on rolling blocks, I didn't recognise it for what it is.
Thanks a bunch for your info, it is very helpful!

Pete, I believe the first model WAS called the split breech model. I too heard that the reason for the split breech & other differences like the lever-type extractor and the integral pin retainer arms was in order to avoid patent infringements. The Flayderman info is new to me, but who knows?

MG, DGW still has a few parts for the Whitney, a few years ago I bought some NOS block/hammer pins and an NOS extractor. IMO you have a very fine basis for any sort of BP cartridge of any size that would be appropriate for the biggest BP Remington action. The big 7mm smokeless Rem is probably a little stronger IMO but not by that much. Your frame is SO MUCH more attractive than the thinner one, that there's literally no comparison. The Whitney New Model thin frame is one UGLY sucker! Looks like all the edges have been buffed round & the side walls thinned down, kinda similar to the Rem 1 1/2 but filed & buffed round on the edges. Most New Model Whitneys are sporting guns and so have the more delicate hammer spurs and gracefully tapered trigger guards. My large frame Whitneys have had somewhat wider TGs than the small frames, although not nearly as clunky as some Rems.

Of the Whitneys I've owned, some have had firing pin retractors but most have not. The earliest one of mine with a retractor was # 76xxx while the latest one without a retractor was # 66xxx, FWIW. Have no idea how many were made in total.

Whitney made some special finer high-grade and long-range rifles much like other makers, some of the larger-calibered ones are pictured in Grant's books. Little info seems available except in Grant and de Haas, and I've found much of that to be contradictory to each other/itself & also what I've found in my own guns. I'm sure much of the history was lost when Whitney sold out in the 1880s.

de Haas seemed to believe the first model Whitney was far superior to the New Model, but he also seemed to be unaware of the existence of the wide-frame New Model. IMO it's fully as strong as the BP No 1 Rems, although not quite as finely designed & finished. Looks mighty good too.
Regards, Joe

I thought the same thing Pete. Seemed more logical to make a copy, which is where they ended up, after the split breech first model. My only guess would be the company's desire to try and copy, but still be unique. The internals of the first model are completely different from the Remington, according to DeHaas. I guess their pride made them at least try it, and then costs made them come to their senses. Money does help make better decisions sometimes!
After reading more in DeHaas, I see he is calling the first model split breech, the M72 model. He seemed to think the slimming down on rounding of the receiver on the majority of second model Whitneys is what made them ugly and added to his conclusion that they were not as strong. I guess the slimmer action would be weaker, but whether it would make a difference in rimmed cartridges, I would think not.
Still like JD, after seeing what the slim, rounded receiver looks like in DeHaas' book, I'm glad this one doesn't have that later feature!