It nevers ceases to frustrate me when you look at or purchase a No.1 Sporter with matching serial numbers and it it isn't even possible to determine the year of manufacture. Occasionally one gets a little information as to a manufacturing year. 

I have a 44-77 No. 1 Sporter with a silver plaque.No way to determine who the people were mentioned on that plaque but it is dated November 1879. The serial number is in the low 3,000 range. I think it is safe to assume that the rifle was made sometime in 1879 or no earlier then 1878. Not much info, but better then nothing. Now I have another rifle without a plaque with a serial number in the 1400's. I would assume that this rifle was most certainly made before 1879 
How much earlier who knows. It would be nice to know Remington's rate of prodiction on No1. Sporters if it was in order and if it ramped up during the Buffalo Hunting years.

Any member out there with Rolling Blocks with plaques that are dated? If so what is the serial number range? Maybe over time it might be possible to at least narrow the manufactruing time frame to a window of a few years. This would be alot better then what we have now. 

Why is it so hard to believe, I've bought guns that were made in 1940 but they were not shipped out of the factory till the 1970's. These were found in a S&W factory warehouse long after they were discontinued.

I've bought others that must have sat in the Winchester factory warehouse for at least six years after they were discontinued.

At this time Ruger is selling some models that were made in the mid 1980's and mid 1990's, a factory letter will show that the gun was shipped in 2012, but that of course that does not mean that the rifle was made in 2012.

Sometimes there can be a long time frame as to when a gun was mfg. and when it was shipped. 

I would think that a gun made in 1874 could very easily have a plaque that is dated 1879.
  Regards
   H. M. P.

Many of the early gun makers were pretty loose with their assembly of premade receivers. Often times a number of receivers were built and numbered, but assembled much later. Sometimes in the clutter of old plants boxes of parts sat in a corner and were overlooked for years, then discovered and assembled later.
I've seen this with Marlins, Ballards, and Remingtons, but I'd assume others did likewise. It's more prevalent with makers who had ups and downs in production, or hit hard times occasionally. When things were slow, or money was tight, they scoured the plant and assembled what they found rather than start from scratch.
Had a 1892 Marlin that had a 1896 serial number, but shipped after WWI in post 1923. Had many others that shipped 3-6 yrs. after the serial number indicated.

Along similar lines, read what John Dutcher has to say about Ballard A-1 Long Range Rifles.
I don't remember word for word, but I believe the jist of it was that these fine guns sat for years after long range matches lost popularity and the dealers even discounted the price to move them.

Schuetzendave wrote on Jun 14^th, 2012 at 5:10pm:


As I recall, there were no serial numbers on Remington Rolling Block receivers.  Lower tangs were production marked from 1 to 10,000 and then the numbering sequence was repeated.  The tang numbers had no relationship to year of production.

JackHughs

Amazing that any company could survive with such lax records. Wonder how many rifles albeit in parts made it out of the factory in the hands of less then honest employees.

Almost makes you want to cry when you see history discarded. Of course like every generation there is no realization that they are living and making history. Wish I had a time machine, Sure would be a great experience.

Some of the plant practices in place back in the early manufacturing period are totally alien to our thinking today.  One of those practices led to many lost or hidden parts.  That is the practice of semi-independent contractors essentially running company plant as an in house subcontractor.

The practice worked like this:  A journeyman craftsman was put in charge of running a particular shop or process in the plant and the company would provide the shop, materials, and power.  The company would more or less decide what to pay him on a piece basis based on the production rate they saw in their prototyping stages.  He would then hire workers to run the machine or hand processes, and pay them on a per piece basis.  Of course, even in those days, a workman would judge how well employed he was by how much money he took home each day, not how much he took home per piece.  The foreman would also try to pay by the piece a rate that came out to about the minimum daily rate the workmen would work for, and he would keep the profit between company rate and workman rate as his profit/pay.

Savvy workmen engaged in a practice called work banking.  They would draw raw materials from the store, work on the piece, and complete it.  Then, rather than turning in the piece for payment, they would draw another, and work it.  If they could work up several pieces in the day, they would turn in a few for payment and stash the others.  Then, after a few days, they would re-negotiate the piece rate to make a good daily rate based on their production.  If the foreman didn't see them work banking, he would have to concede that he was underpaying, and raise the rate.  When they neared the end of the run or their expected employment, they would bring out the extras and add them to their daily production, and get paid much more.  If they got fired, injured, or otherwise terminated, the stashed pieces might not be found for some time.

dave