Confederate Gillam & Miller Rolling Block Transformation
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 окт 2021
- / forgottenweapons
www.floatplane.com/channel/Fo...
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! shop.forgottenweapons.com
Most people think about the Remington Rolling Block as a purpose-built rifle, but it was also used as a way to transform muzzleloaders into more modern breechloaders. Remington did this commercially, and small gunsmiths did it as well. Essentially any old rifle could contribute a barrel, stock, and furniture - just add a Remington action and you can have a cartridge-firing rifle for much less that the cost of getting one brand new.
The Rolling Block transformation we are looking at today appears to have been built on a Confederate Gillam & Miller rifle - an extremely rare pattern. Gillem & Miller only managed to produce 677 rifles for the state of North Carolina during the Civil War, and only a handful of intact surviving examples are known. This one shows what was typical of usable arms in the post-war South - they were used hard, and updated when feasible to keep them useful.
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
6281 N. Oracle 36270
Tucson, AZ 85740
"The front sight was brass, typical of Gillam & Miller, and was broken off which is also typical of Gillam & Miller."
Ian could roast anyone with such smooth delivery they'd say "thank you" and move right on feeling like they just got high praise from the lord and savior
@@emmanuelmonge6965 Smooth operator
150 years from now "and this is a great example of a Russian 91/30 converted to a hunting rifle by a poor Southern hunter during the later 20th or early 21st centuries.. isn't it quaint?" Perspective is all about the long game.. Another stellar episode!
@@eye4991 Not really, my dad did just that.
If there's anyone I trust to "do a bit of speculation" it's Ian.
I agree, he has the background experience.
Let me fix this for you
H&K supported *gun jesus*
Watching and listening to Ian quietly geek out at having a mystery rifle he can solve is utterly adorkable, and I could watch this sort of thing for months.
@Thermal Ions: agreed.
or Ben Cowen
I love how this rifle looks.
Simple and straight to the point.
Rolling blocks are some of my favourite antique firearms in the looks department for sure.
Simple and straight to the point is a good design philosophy for bayonettes, too.
@@joshuabessire9169 Excuse me, Mr. Bessire, there are several Yataghan bayonets in the outer office who'd like a minute of your time...
I had no idea that muzzle loaders were converted to breech loading with Remington Rolling Block actions. Learning something makes this a good day. Thanks, Ian.
Forgotten weapons, where history is interesting and your education is guaranteed.
The early swedish rolling blocks had old muzzleloader barrels. The Norwegian navy built a few from old kammerladers.
Yes, but this one is not a swedish rebuild.
@@fbq-3652 where did i write that this one was swedish? It was a note on other manufacturers with similar approach to manufacturing rifles.
@toeff7852 a couple 8mm carbines were even used to fight the German invasion of Norway in ww2
How could this conversion ever be financially viable? You're getting nothing more than pieces of old furniture and the barrel (if even that, since you might use the liner in it) from your donor gun, that's all, and you have to pay a lot to the gunsmith to fit an expensive operating mechnaism, sights etc, essentially to build a gun from the ground up.
@@fbq-3652 where did he say that? Please show me. I'll wait.
Mans drive to invent killing machines is fascinating from an engineering view.
Yeah simple, reliable, looks pretty light and sturdy. Thats a lot of ticks. Thanks for the upload.
I did not know that other rifles were converted to the rolling block action, although after having it pointed out, it seems fairly obvious that it would have been done.
Nice. The rolling block was a truly interesting developmental step, aside from being interesting in itself and in historical use context. Also much fun meeting you at the recent hangout in Helsinki!
Yes Sir, In the post Civil War era a lot of Military arms were used as game getters to put food on the table!
When I got my 1863 British Enfield Tower rifle, it had been used as such. I know this because the front wood had been cut down to make it handier. It was also still loaded! It wasn't loaded with powder and ball, it was loaded with powder, shot and paper wadding. This told me that it was being used as a shotgun for small game.
Great video, Yall Take Care and be safe, John
When Ian said ”look at some features”....I swear i heard a large German laughing
It's the new Legolas Gillam & Miller LOL
Joerg Sprave intensifies.
Today on Forgotten Weapons: the Chu Ko Nu!
_thwip-thwip-thwip-thwip_
"HA HA HA HA HA!"
This is a slingshot pocket-pistol combo. Let me show you it's features! ... That's it for today. Thanks and bye bye
How most people view Ian's speculation:
Kirk : A guess? You, Spock? That's extraordinary.
Spock : [to Dr. McCoy] I don't think he understands.
McCoy : No, Spock. He means that he feels safer about your guesses than most other people's facts.
Spock : Then you're saying...
[pause]
Spock : It is a compliment?
McCoy : It is.
Spock : Ah. Then, I will try to make the best guess I can.
If only these old pieces could talk!
But then again, I suppose they do... If one is willing to listen.
Thank you, Ian.
The brass on there looks great. I like that the rolling block is plain. With the patina from the years, it looks nice with the brass barrel rings.
"Will someone please tell me -- when does lack of maintenance become patina?" -- Mark Novak 🤣🤣🤣
Keep, rolling, rolling, rolling block.
😁 Reference to Limp Bizkit!! Greetings from 🇦🇷
I pack a chainsaw...
Wow, that's really fascinating. Great detective work, Ian knows his guns!
it was an interesting time when you could as a small military, equip your force with superior weapons than your larger more imperial neighbors might be able to or were willing to
You still could today, but the differences between small arms is minimal these days.
@@polygondwanaland8390 nonsense. There's a lot of man portable equipment large armies don't ship out with for economical reasons. 40mm grenade launches, attached or otherwise come to mind.
That's half the reason we hire so many private military groups. They *do* have that equipment.
@@SerinaDeMadrigal Also, small arms were much more important in that period, in proportion to every other military arm (except naval arms, if you were a primarily coastal power).
@@cheyannei5983Large armies still deploy with 40mm grenade launchers…well at least the US does.
@@Covey7342 The man portable versions are few in number. We really don't issue as many as we need, likely because we never got around to making a 60-70lb gun and mount that could actually reach out to 3km with some new grenades
Literally just checked to see if you posted a new video today yet and then went back and then literally 5 seconds later got the notification
I just received two Remington Rolling block rifles at the shop. One in .22R and the other was converted into 16ga Centerfire but I’m not sure what it was converted from.
I have one in .50-70. Great rifle!
I always wanted one in 22lr. Maybe one day
I always wanted one in 22lr. Maybe one day
I want one in .44Mag
The riveted nose cap was the common way to attach the nose cap from the very early flintlock era until the post civil war era. The southern percussion firearms used that method up until the thirtys. I use use it when I make a longrifle now.
Back in the day when the action of the gun was good enough to be the name of your gun,
Fascinating little details on this rifle. Thanks so much.
Why do I have the distinct feeling I'll be running into this rifle all over the internet for the rest of time?
Very interesting video on a very interesting specimen, Ian. Keep them coming!
I love all the videos you produce, but the ones where you are deducing the prominence of a firearm, based on the item that I enjoy the most. Especially for the very old rifles and pistols you seem to have a penchant for finding. Thank you, Ian, AKA Gun Jesus. 😃
Not a patreon but I try to watch all your videos. You like weird and obscure guns I think I have one a model 1959 mossberg.22 with the matching scope that was only made to fit the model 1958 and 1959. My grandfather bought it new for ,you guessed it $19.59 in 1959
Thanks Ian
Ahh so I'm guessing that an original Gillam & Miller so worth a whole lot more to collectors than this rolling block conversion
Awesome old piece!
This channel is bussin’
It’s also great for hunting legendary animals!
Great info.
I've always wanted to buy a rolling block action, and turn it into a little .410 grouse gun.
I love the way it looks, I love Rolling Block I have taken deer and used them in competition
Very cool.
At around 1:30 - 1:32 (and other places) you can see some scratches on the side of the barrel that look like they are, or at least might have been, barrel markings. Then again, they might have been someone using a pipe wrench to tighten the barrel.
Anothe great video Ian
Rolling that block
I agree that firearms like this are extremely interesting :)
Good comparison of popularity and design of mauser is to development to what rolling block was!!!
My FIL has one of these that has had the breech welded up
Mr. Dremel and a good gunsmith MIGHT be able to fix that.....
Ian, at 6:39, you say there is a "cleaning rod channel". If this was originally a musket, wouldn't that be a "ramrod channel"? Not trying to be pedantic, as I'm sure it was used as a "cleaning rod channel" after the conversion, just wondering if it was always there or added later.
Sort of a common "mistake" that is not a mistake depending on what perspective you take. If the gun is a functioning muzzleloader, you call it a ramrod because that is its primary function. However, once converted to a breechloader, you want to keep a rod on the gun because you will be cleaning and/or clearing the barrel a lot, especially on earlier blackpowder guns with often fragile ammunition. Powder fouling really messes up most breech actions fast, so you want to clean them religiously, and early cartridges tended to not extract correctly or even squib with alarming frequency, requiring one to shove out the offending bits of bullet back out the breech. Thus, it is not wrong to call the rod on a breechloader a cleaning rod, even it was a ramrod originally.
@@genericpersonx333Sorry, my inner pedant came out in my previous comment. I love this channel and I'm a big fan of Ian. It's because of his work that I've come to know and appreciate rolling block rifles, among many other things.
My knowledge of muzzle-loaders is quite limited but, my understanding is that muskets had both a ramrod and a cleaning rod. The ramrod was always kept with the musket, as it was essential to reloading. However, the cleaning rod was usually kept with other paraphernalia (rags, ball dies, etc.) in camp. It wasn't necessary to carry the cleaning rod with the musket because, if the musket was fouled, it would be better to simply affix the bayonet for hand-to-hand fighting. If hunting, returning to camp wouldn't matter because, the game would be long gone by the time you'd finished cleaning and reloading the gun. The dual-purpose ramrod/cleaning rod seems to be a more recent invention (although I could be wrong about that) and the old-style ramrods do not seem capable of being used as cleaning rods. Once the gun had been converted, there would be no need for a ramrod but, as you say, there would be a need to have a cleaning rod on hand.
@@jamesdalton2014 People say that we all have demons and indeed, the Inner Pedant is a most vicious one! :) I can appreciate that for true!
@@jamesdalton2014 Sorry, James Dalton, but your word salad addressed to Generic Person X is devoid of a single bit of truth. A quick examination of CW muskets, U.S. Springfield or imported Enfields, will reveal a threaded hole in in the end of the ramrod. This accepted a worm which the user loaded with frayed cloth (tow) soaked in soapy water to clean the barrel. The user could also thread into the ram rod a ball worm which could be screwed into the loaded bullet down in the breech to unload the musket without firing if desired. Since most CW firing was conducted in volleys, not wild single action like in the movies, the soldier could clean the musket every 4-6 firings. Otherwise the bullet couldn't be shoved down past the fouling and the weapon fired. Lastly, it is comical to imagine a cleaning rod being kept "in camp" to clean the musket. Just imagine 10-15,000 soldiers vying for use of cleaning rods. Can you imagine the Quartermaster people continually loading and unloading thousands upon thousands of cleaning rods day after day, month in and month out?
@@geraldmahle9833 As I said, my knowledge of muzzle-loaders is quite limited. I do not claim to be an "expert". However, while researching the topic to inform my previous comment, it became apparent that there is a difference between modern ramrods, which have cleaning and ball-pulling attachments, and the ramrods actually used when muzzle-loaders were standard military arms. The pictures I have seen of old ramrods show them having brass bell-shaped ends (like a trumpet) without any hole for a cloth. I did not find any photos with the end unscrewed so, I assumed they were pressed or pinned on. I could be mistaken or your "quick examination" was superficial and misleading. You may have been looking at modern reproductions, for all I know. From the tone of your comment, I will take it as given that you are no expert either.
As for separate cleaning rods being kept in camp, I meant kept with a soldiers personal belongings (in a foot locker perhaps), not by the QM. I did find photos of that but, they would be modern reproductions so I'm not sure how historically accurate they are. Also, I am unsure of the accuracy of your claim that soldiers had buckets of soapy water and cleaning patches on hand while on the firing line. It strikes me as more likely that soldiers would use the ramrod without any adornments to clear any fouling while in the field. Proper cleaning would take too much time and, given the use of volley fire, too many men would be out of action while cleaning for it to be practical in battle.
I do appreciate replies, especially on this channel because, there are many viewers who are very knowledgeable about specific topics and I always want to learn more. However, your reply demonstrated no such specific knowledge, just a superficial understanding of what I wrote and an insulting attitude. Good day, sir!
Is there a possibility that a small shop bought the surplus from Gilliam and miller a surplus of carbine stocks surplus sights to build a lot of 50 or so cheap rifles?
Its possible
Next book: Confederate mistery weapons
That's not a bad idea ngl
I have a different Rolling Block with a barrel a lot longer & never found the right calibre for it
Makes sense.
EXCELLENT🕵...Thanks👍👀
Your voice is amazing.
Cheers
Спасибо за видео и ваш труд
Cool
Ian, from the looks of this rifle, I don't think this was a poor farmer's rifle. It is in better shape than a rifle that would have likely been used a lot.
Now, a merchant's rifle I can see this being as he could have taken a customer's (the original poor farmer) Gillam & Miller musket in trade and then have it upgraded with a rolling block action and re-sleeved for ammunition which he had access to/stores of.
@@robertl6196 Sure blame the Northerner for what a Southerner did. 😛
How about a Remington Rolling Block Rifle book, from Headstamp Publishing ?
You could make that rifle in 45/70 and sell it today.
Don't look that bad to me for a single shot rifle; and it's in quite good condition for it's age too.
Now the bidding will go insane the day this rifle goes up on auction. 😶
Yoy gotta get your hands on the new SA-35 Hi-Power!!!
I have a Remington Springfield 1871/1872 that appears converted from a trapdoor with a blank spot on the right rear of the for end from the very tip of the action right side plate with plugged remnants of screws etc The ONLY ID mark anywhere but the Remington action are 3 “U”s .
One on the top of the for end at the back hidden by the barrel and one on both barrel rings on the right side
and U.S. # 37 on butt plate
No other markings found anywhere hidden etc that I can find.
The barrel is round 50-70 not lines with 6 grooves, a small Box rectangle front sight and adjustable for distance rear sight but very simplistic and not like the one in this video.
What is the cost of a relined barrel vs a new barrel? Various conversions in the post 1870 era are predicated on the cost savings of keeping the old barrel. You're building around a new action, reusing a stock and furniture - how much $$$ was saved with the barrel?
Cleaning rod? Wouldn't that be a ramrod?(I am not very familiar with muskets)
Interesting with one converted to rimfire
Please do the mg81
Whenever I see the film Heat with Robert DeNiro, I often think how much better that movie would have been if they casted Ian instead of Val Kilmer
Hello Ian and Comment section. My Dad has a Remington Rolling Block .50 that was used in WW1. Its serial number is 20** and I was wondering if it is worth anything? Love your work too Ian 👌
It's worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it.
Thank you because I have no where to start! 🤝
Check in with the guys at The Firearms Forum
Very strange seeing my last name in the name of your video. Gillam, and you even pronounced it right :)
I also love guns like this. Very much that "can do/make it do" American idea.
I too enjoy these practical guns of the "common man" shotgun conversions of military issue guns 12 ga french breech loader actions ( careful these tend to fire on opening when worn out! ) .410 lee enfield s bored out for "garden guns" many retired brits had military history. i It took a couple of examples of "SHOT GUN ENFIELDS " muzzle loading. before I found out many army officers actually had special shot guns available for recreational sport shooting of local game.these were made of standard musket parts, locks hammer etc! they are actual original guns NOT modified later for civilian sales! there were plenty of these also like this one Ian is showing. Thanks interesting example
Very true. I own a lovely little 20 ga shotgun converted by Gemmer, St Louis, from an 1868 Springfield. I have no idea exactly when, but the Gemmer marking is very clear on the planed down slab affixed to the gun that was once the rear sight. The square edges of the lockplate and sideplate were both rounded off to make the gun appear more "modern", so I'm guessing it would have been sometime after the 1873 Springfield models were out. It has a full length barrel with a dovetailed brass sight with a bead on it. I occasionally shoot it, and it often draws admiration from other shooters at the range.
Ah, but would that gunsmith back then be demonized in 1800's forums as a Bubba, like someone today would?
Bubba's a lot older than we realize
Hiya Ian. Not related to this gun but I would appreciate help identifying them. They are both decommissioned
👍👍👍
Reminds me of the Husqvarna shotguns.
On cartridge conversion, did anyone ever convert a colt walker to 45-60 to have a companion pistol for their 1876 Winchester in that caliber? It would be a interesting conversation!
It would have required a new cylinder. The original walker cylinders weren't as strong as modern reproductions that you can convert to a brass cartridge with 60 grains of bp.
@@KossoffFan I figure a new cylinder and barrel, good enough steel by 1876 for it to work. It would be a fun gun!
You could probably do it with a modern repro, but I'd be very surprised if you could with 1870s steel.
@@ScottKenny1978 Im sure 1870's steel would do just fine. The metallic casing also adds some strength.
@@sharonrigs7999 the Walker or Dragoon has a relatively thin cylinder.
It would have been even MORE interesting if it had come out of Ethiopia. I don't know too much about gunsmithing, but it seems to me that it's not a minor technical challenge, to drill out a bore and sleeve it with a smaller bore tube. I think it would take a pretty well-equipped shop to do that, and it doesn't seem obvious to me that this kind of work could be done for a whole lot cheaper than just using a newly manufactured barrel. But I guess on the other hand that that would be the only real motivation to do something like that.
Remember that in those time, "machinery" was not some cheap but multi-functional device from "Harbor Freight".
It was common to see deep-hole drills and rifling machines made out of WOOD by the tradesman himself and furthermore, purely hand powered. "Treadle" lathes were the norm in small shops. A steam plant and overhead shafting and belts that drove specialized machine tools was a HUGE investment. Such are the things on which Pratt and Whitney made such a name for themselves, before turning to aircraft engines in a big way.
Relining barrels for low / moderate pressure conversion / "renewal" has been around for a LONG time as well. To this day, you can buy all the tools and the sleeves for .22RF "relining" from a couple of the BIG gunsmith supply houses.
If you ever want to see SERIOUS "barrel liners", visit one of the surviving WW2 USN battleships and look closely at the muzzle end of the 16" "rifles".
Guilliman? Brothers.
Would you explain the economics of doing a conversion vs just buying a new gun. A new Remington rifle would have been effeciently made in a factory and would have been much higher quality vs a kludge like this. There would have been a lot of labor converting the old gun, they had to modify the block for a cartridge that it wasn't made for and they had to sleeve the barrel which sounds more expensive then just using a new barrel. Is it likely that someone did this for themselves instead of paying a gunsmith? Is it like a project car where people end up spending way more than the car is worth?
He had a sentimental attachment.😅
Okay, slightly confused. At first you call the cartridge 56 Spencer, then later 52 Spencer. I'm curious as to which it is?
54 Spencer
.56-52 Spencer. It has a taper, so basically a .56 cartridge and a .52 bullet.
There were three different Spencer ammunitions (.56-.56 Spencer; 56-.52 Spencer and 56-.50 Spencer), the .56-.56 Spencer was the first to be adopted, the numbers represent the internal diameter of the chamber at the bottom (not the rim) and at the end (near the rifling). Later at the Civil War, the .56-.52 was adopted, it was conical at the end, in theory at least, that should be a slightly improved version, since it would cause to increase the pressure of the deflagration. Finally the 56-.50 Spencer was adopted to unify all calibers, since they were incompatible.
in .52, not a squirrel gun. I concur guns that were used are much more interesting than pristine specimens that never left storage.
Pristine specimens have their value as well, such as when tell the life story of a rifle and it's an unmodified example. In terms of story though, the used guns can have a much better life story than an inventory gun.
My first thought was. did the confederats have some rifles that was that advanced.
Pogger
I've got a Rolling Block I can't identify. Anyone know where I can get some info on what model and caliber the rifle is??? Its got a very terrible fire firing pin (no rimfire FP hole either so not a conversion from my understanding) and a later ejector type but I can't find many of the markings people seem to use yo identify these rifles.
The rimfire hole was commonly filled in on the conversions, it may be very hard to spot. Typically, they'd simply peen the original FP over in the hole and file it smooth. Then a new hole would be drilled, partially through the original pin at an angle. I own two CF converted Rolling Block rifles, a Norwegian and a Swede. On one of them the conversion is obvious, on the other you have to look really close. If the firing pin looks like amateur file work, then it's probably a conversion. Another giveaway is the hole for the firing pin retention screw, at least on the Scandinavian RF examples the screw originally went all the way through the block. When converting to CF, the firing pin now passes right through that area so the screw has to be shortened. This leaves an open hole on one side of the block leading into the firing pin channel.
Bubba... The early years. 🥺
I swear part look upside down
Pozdrawiam 👍👍👍👍👍👍
Engagement hahaha!!!!
Where are my Red Dead Redemption 2 homies at?? Rolling block is my favorite sniper from that game!
As click baity as it sounds the Rolling Block probably was the Kalashnikov of its day in terms of popularity.
Speculation by IM? Poor farmer’s hunting rifle?
Bodeo 1889
Recent unpleasantness isn't what I'd use to describe the civil war lmao
Yes, Ian has a flair for british understatements for sure.
It is exactly the phrase commonly used for several decades after the end of the civil war.
@@steveh1792 yup.
Which then turned into "the War of Northern Aggression" after Reconstruction.
Sort of a commercial "Bubba gun". . Making a gun they can sell from components on hand. Sort of like what Jeager, and Walther would do later.
Please ALFA M-44
goddammit so close to first!
What a perfect day. My Dunkin Donuts coffee and a new video from Ian. Feel free to substitute Black Rifle Coffee for same effect.
Most likely belonged to a militia unit in the south.
That the Confederates managed to put up a fight as long as they did is an achievement in itself considering that their weapons and equipment were constantly poorer than that of the Union and their firearms industry less developed than in the north.
Several poor union generals were also a bonus.
To veer away from the Lost Cause, it is important to keep in mind that the Confederates had home advantage, and that the technological edge of the Union should not be overstated. For the most part, the Union and Confederacy equipped their troops with comparable or identical firearms and artillery.
They were using imported Enfields for the most part. The Confederacy might not have had a competent arms industry but Britain certainly did.
How could this conversion ever be viable? You're getting nothing more than pieces of old furniture and the barrel (without the liner!) from your donor gun, that's all, and you have to pay a lot to the gunsmith to fit an expensive operating mechnaism, sights, barrel liner etc, essentially to build a gun from the ground up.
That's basically why, after all the concern to salvage the enormous investment in obsolescent in muzzleloading rifles the U.S. encouraged and adopted new designs. Also, the evolution to ever smaller infantry calibers had begun.