I'm excited to share this gem with you guys. In fact it could be a Gem, which was the original name of what became the #2 rolling block rifle.  

Some of you know that I'm quite a fan of the #2 rifles. I've not seen one this early, other than in Roy Marcot's wonderful book. While well used over its near 150 year life, it is all complete and original.  It has a late 3 digit serial number and the rotary knife blade extractor. This extractor was only used on the very early #2 rifles. It was considered weak and soon replaced with the sliding bar extractor.  It is chambered in .32 Extra Long rimfire. The bore is well used and pitted, but bright.  

I removed the block and hammer for cleaning, it clearly had not been apart in many, many years. But after a careful cleaning and oiling, the action works great and is very smooth.  Of course there are no records to date it, but I'd estimate that it dates to early-mid 1873.  

I now have five #2 rifles, this being the earliest by far 

 

Very nice Steve!

JerryH

I have never researched the number 2 and was not aware of the name Gem.  You have me curious about a gun I have.  It has the rotary extractor.  Mine has 206 on the outside bottom of the lower tang, like you would expect, but also has 396 stamped on the side of both upper and lower tang which I thought was strange.  Why wouldn’t they use the same number in both places?  I always assumed the 206 was the SN because it has 206 also stamped on the barrel.  So does this put my gun in approximately the same build time as yours?
Bob

Vall, I just assumed everyone would understand mine is a #2.  You know what they say about assuming anything! 

I've got serial #842. I never knew about the knife blade extractor. This one has one. It is just marked 32 on the bottom of the barrel. The bore has a little rifling left but I doubt it would be very accurate. It is in typical condition for a 150 year old well used tool.

Steve, I can post pictures of my rifle but this is your thread.  Do you want me to post them here or start a new thread?
Bob

Here are several photos of my gun serial number 206.  Unfortunately the gun is totally disassembled currently so I do not have full length photos of it but hopefully these will show what condition it is in.  It is generally a nice rifle but does have a cracked frame at each corner just behind the rear of the hammer. Caliber is 38 rimfire.  It is not currently being restored but only used as an example for another gun that is in process.  But, my intent was to restore it but now I'm questioning that thought!

More photos including the disassembled rotary extractor details.

Second "one more"!  This shows a pin set in the side of the frame that is a stop for the rotary extractor.  It is only visible from the inside.

Steve, Yes it is 38 extra long, (correction 38 long not extra long), at least that fits the chamber.  The crack was discuses a while back in this thread. (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
My opinion is that the cartridge had nothing to do with the cracks.  The pins, hammer and breech block are still tight and do not contact the frame.  It doesn’t appear to have been abused so I think over 150 years of handling, use, wood expansion and contraction it has worked on the frame and cracked it.  When I discussed it with Peter at Restorative Welding he said he has seen this on many different makes not just the #2 Rolling blocks.
Bob

Had to dig mine out of the safe, as I was uncertain what serial number range it was in? But mine appears to be from decades later than these #2's. It's in the 20,000 range, so a lot newer.
Mine is a .32-20, and in pretty nice shape. I've used it out to 500 yds. and it's amazingly accurate even at the mid range distance. Bore looks like new, and it has all the original finish on wood, and maybe 95% barrel blue. It has no steel tip, and just the ebony V in the forearm tip. 26" barrel.
It does have a very strange breech block, as it appears to have a sight notch in the center, even though it has a rear Rocky Mountain style barrel sight?

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

I have changed the sights for long range shooting, so it has a mid range vernier, and a globe front. The vernier is a modern repro.

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

That V-notch is interesting.  I have a .32-20 #2 in the 42,000 range, very late production. But no V-notch.

Oh yes, I recall that discussion now - thanks.

I took a good look at mine with a magnifier, but didnt see any cracks. Here is a better pic of that area. 

bobw wrote on Jun 30^th, 2021 at 12:10pm:


Have to take a couple Bob. I set the camera on Macro to try to get a clear closeup of it, but maybe I need to just leave it on auto and let the camera figure it out.

Bob - do you think the rotary extractor would be a problem with modern brass and a cleanly cut new chamber? I would think it would be ok for something like .32-20.

ndnchf wrote on Jun 30^th, 2021 at 7:43pm:


I'm not sure one type of rotary extractor would really work that much better than the other myself? Seems they're very similar, other than one being thinner than the other?
I've not had a bunch of #2's, but of the 5 or 6 I've had in everything from .22RF to my .32-20, none have had extraction issues. Actually, none of them had any issues. The design seems to be one of the neatest of the various Rolling Block models to my thinking.

jimmy, that rear sight has been one that has interested me.  I’d like to hear more about it from anyone that can enlighten me.
Bob

Steve, I feel your thread has been hijacked!  We can continue this discussion here or I can start a new thread if you like.  I would like to discuss more about my rifle and a restoration.  I think this thread is appropriate but only if you don’t mind.
Bob

bobw wrote on Jul 1^st, 2021 at 10:31am:



I'm fine with discussing the early #2s here. It goes along with and builds on my original post.  I think its good to keep all the early #2 info in one location.  Thanks for asking.
Steve

ndnchf wrote on Jul 1^st, 2021 at 9:20am:


But the real issue is indeed stuck cases and a sliding bar extractor. The end that's larger catches the rim better, but that's usually the weak point also on a sliding extractor, as the ends break off fairly easy since the bar itself is quite thin.
I've purchased a number of early #1 Rollers with the sliding extractor missing the end, and the rest of the bar still there. I think the rotary (even small thin rotary) is less likely to break than the sliding bar is.

Just out of interest, I photographed this rifle's extractor and that of another #2, also chambered in .32 extra long, but converted to CF. The second rifle has a sliding bar extractor. I also measured the thickness of each extractor where it engages the case rim to see how much bite each has. The rotary knife blade extractor  thickness is .050". The sliding bar extractor is .187".

Steve, on the converted gun, was it originally a rotary extractor and converted to sliding or always a sliding.
Yes, the extractor width was some concern for me but maybe will work ok.

Thanks, I asked that because I think the rotary might be converted to the sliding which I would not be interested in.  Doing one on a new build was time consuming and stressful enough.
I was warned about the shell slipping past the rotary extractor so doesn’t surprise me you need to be careful.

Just saw this discussion last evening---down to the safe and found that I have SN 46.  32 RF.  From what I see here---probably from 1872.
Bob

Bigskybob wrote on Sep 26^th, 2021 at 2:40pm:



Bob - can you please post some clear, well lit close up photos of your #46 rifle.  I'm starting a research project on #2 rifles. Yours is the earliest I've seen.  Thanks.
Steve

Thanks Bob.  Am I correct in assuming it has the knife blade extractor and Remington address on the tang?