Remington Argentine 1879 Rolling Block

[Charlie in Co]

Finally got to the range with it today. It shoots 2" to the right at 25 yds. Anyway to fix the windage? Neither the front nor the rear look windage adjustable

[405]

Actually they were designed to only shoot in a strong wind out of 3 O'clock!
I've got one. The issue rear battle sights are a little crude for target shooting anyway. You could add a tang on the rear but that would require drilling and tapping at least one hole in the tang. Mine is in good enough shape that I didn't want to alter the gun. I found a base with a dovetail cut in it that had about the same contour as the barrel. I used the existing rear sight mounting holes and added the base. Then found a low profile elevation adjustable peep that fit into the doevetail. Killed several birds with one stone. The rear sight is now farther back for longer sight radius, it is windage and elevation adjustable and it is a peep for better target picture. There are also regular open leaf sights that have a dovetail that would fit into a base that has a dovetail.

If you do rig up another barrel sight.... it has to be fairly low to the barrel. Otherwise that short front sight will only allow POI shooting at loooong distance and the POIs at shorter distance will be way high.

[405]

Charlie,
I'll post here to share in case others may have a similar situation. I found all the parts for the sight and base in a friends store... back in the gunsmith area... mixed with a bunch of junk in several boxes. Looking in both Brownells and Midway catalogs I see many similar sights and parts that could be made to work. I think the leaf sight I used may be part of two different Williams sights. I don't know the brand of the base but have seen it in the catalogs.

The base can be anything with a standard dovetail. The one I used is steel for some other gun with a barrel contour nearly same as the RB. It has a 3/8 dovetail in it. The leaf sight has a standard dovetail but has a peep instead of the usual blade. The elevation is adjusted with a screw seen in the pic. The windage is adjustable with either the base dovetail or the smaller peep dovetail.

I can get up to about 250 yard elevation POI with this set up and as little as point blank. If I needed more elevation I'd have to go to a ladder type barrel sight with the dovetail and simply replace this sight. Still.... the low front sight, fixed blade requires that the rear sight be kept low otherwise the minimum POI would be at much longer ranges. I think when I was using the original battle sight the minimum POI was something like 250 yards, and the POI at 50 yards was about 12" high! The way the sight is set up now, zeroed at 100 yards with my ammo, the center of the rear aperture is .45" above the flat at the breech/chamber area as seen in the pic.

Hope this helps!

[Marvin S]

405 pertty much covered it. I just got back from shooting mine today and done something similar to what 405 did except i used an old T/C sight mounted to a base I milled out. I have been very pleased with the way this thing has come around to shoot and it sure is a keeper.

[John Boy]

Anyway to fix the windage?

Easy Fix ... Put some shim stock under the rear sight

[405]

Easy Fix ... Put some shim stock under the rear sight

JB,
Might work to cant the whole rear sight assembly but only for long range distance. I don't think this is a drift correction as is seen on something like the Buffington TD sight. What Charlie describes is a very large MOA windage/mis-alignment. Something like 8 MOA. Plus, if his gun is set up like many, it's not very practical for any kind of accuracy target shooting at the minimum long range these tend to be registered to.

[Marvin S]

405, what brand rear sight is that? It looks like a Williams but I cant find it anywhere.

[405]

MarvinS,
I don''t know for sure. I scrounged the parts out of a box of sight parts at a friend's store. Like you, I think the leaf is a Williams. It did have a blade in it mounted with a very small dovetail. I pulled the blade out and found a small peep that had a matching dovetail and used it. I wouldn't doubt that the peep is also a Williams. I think the base is some different manufacturer and have seen it in either Brownell's or Midway.

[Charlie in Co]

Well this is a very neat setup. I would like to duplicate it but don't have a lot o parts laying around. I do have a bunch of T/C sights on hand. I guess the secret is in finding a base that fits where the original rear is mounted.

So, having said that, what about 1 D&T hole for a tang sight. Is that a real value killer for an original condition?

[bubba.50]

405's rear sight looks like the williams base from the ones they put on marlins now with a peep blade assembly added. just my opinion and you're welcome to it, bubba.

[405]

Charlie,
By far the easiest, most straight forward way to a much better sight (I didn't say cheaper) would be to drill and tap a hole in the tang then add a tang sight. How much it would detract from value- anyone's guess but for certain some amount.

An alternative to drilling and tapping the tang would be to get a tang sight that will work along with a longer stock bolt screw that will fit the sight base and the gun. That will provide at least one screw for mounting the sight base to the tang. Then clean both the tang surface and underside of the sight base with acetone and alcohol. Apply a dab of JB Weld to the forward portion to act in place of the forward screw. It should be plenty strong and will not permanently alter the gun.

[Charlie in Co]

405, so I like your last idea best> I can probably get a local gunsmith to make a longer screw. What tang sight would be a good candidate, throw out some models. How about the military front sight? Good enpugh or is there a way to make a clamp for a globe front? I like this project so far.

[405]

I looked very long at that short, sharp profile front sight. Since I think they are sweated on... it was a little more than I was willing to get into. I put the rear sight together first and worked up a load with a custom .442 bullet. It shot so well I didn't go any farther. A globe front would be nice but would require a custom, sweated on base or band after removing the front.

The tang sight could be most anything from a basic Lyman or Marbles type with the finger-turn shaft for elevation adjustment, to a similar type that is windage adjustable to a full blown vernier or Soule type with windage and elevation. It all depends on budget Two things with the tang mounted sight. 1) If it is a basic Lyman, Marbles type without windage or a basic staff and slide without windage then you'll have to shim to set the "Zero" windage. --as John Boy suggested with the barrel sight-- 2) An over-riding question is grip fit. The location of the staff on the sight base (forward, middle, rear) will be important.

Another advantage to the tang sight is that most would allow short range zeroing no matter the height of the front sight.

[bigskybound]

Since all of the Argentine rollers have had the real collector value refinished out of them, I wouldn't let that stop any modification. Since I wanted to shoot mine in military BPCR matches, I filed the front sight down, leaving enough metal for a dovetail. Then I installed a simple blade that I filed down to shoot POA at 100 yds. The front sight was then adjustable for windage, much like the Danish M67. The Argentine rear sight is probably the best one from the black powder era of rollers.

[Marvin S]

bigskybound, my RB is in very good shape with a bore that looks factory new. It does not appear to be refinished but I wonder how it could be in such good shape for as old as it is. Can you shed any light on this?

405, are you turning the case necks to fit that .442 boolit? I have made a custom mold for mine and size to .440 as that is the biggest my chamber will allow. I use a pan lube of bees wax, olive oil and pet jelly with soft lead and have had zero leading. I still need to either change or file down my rear T/C sight to lower my POI. Right now it is on for about 200 yards.

One more thing is why does one suppose that all of these are so far off for elevation. I can see the windage problem with maybe a barrel not being indexed @ 12:00.

[405]

bigskybound,
Not sure about all that. Unless the gun you're talking about is maybe a parts gun out of someplace like Bannermans ?? I'd guess most of these 43 Span RBs in original configuration that are seen in the US were purchased/imported in bulk directly from the storage arsenals of South America... maybe in the day when that was common... 1950s? Many are in really good shape. Another guess is that when other newer military guns became available to the countries using these RB, the issued RBs were brought back into the arsenals, refurbished if needed, then put into storage. As collector type guns I think in that case they're still considered original military. If they all have been after-the-fact refinished, whomever did it accomplished a really well done, quality restoration. The barrel marking on mine has a simple "R" stamp, the bayonet lug is correct, bands correct, swivels correct, all parts seem to be correct, sights correct, etc. The bore is excellent. I have no idea where all the original barrels in excellent condition would have come from to do such refurb, rebuild? Unless Bannermans or others had access to a bunch of unused Remington 43 military contract barrels. No matter, to each his own about drilling or cutting on one.

A really good resource for info about shooting these is a book Shooting the .43 Spanish Rolling Block by Croft Barker

MarvinS,
I imagine mine has a more typical BPCR "liberal" chamber of the day so there is no problem with the .442 bullet diameter. I slugged the bore as difficult as that is with the odd land/groove number and best guess was .441 for my grooves. I got tired of trying so-called 43 Span bullets/molds sized no larger than .439-40. I designed a Mountain Mold to drop a 380 grain bullet at .443 diameter. I size to .442 and have plenty of neck clearance. My neck chamber diameter is .463. The numbers are: Bullet .442 + 2X .009 neck wall = .460.
I use Bertram 43 Spanish brass.

[Charlie in Co]

This rifle is not refinished and all the parts look exactly like in Croft Barkers book, The chamber cast I made shows that a bullet larger than .442 will not chamber because of the throat. The barrel may not be indexed correctly but I don't know how to check this.

[405]

Don't know about that detail of these. I think the over-riding issues would be breech face cut out for the extractor and the final headspace dimension.

[bigskybound]

405:
Any Argentine model that looks minty blue was refinished in the 1950s when shipped back to the US. Oriiginal M79 guns usually had tinned receivers. The hot blue put over these original receivers is often very splotchy where it did not tske well. Tang markings are usually very faint under the reblue. Also most have a line of pitting along the woodline where stock meets barrel. This is also blued over. I have had about half a dozen of these, as well as two original, non-refinished M79s. So if Charlie in CO has a minty blue M79, it was refinished and lacks the collector value of the unrefinished guns.

[Charlie in Co]

It is not minty blue, the tang markings are clearly seen and it doesn't have a crest on the receiver. It was not ground off I've seen that on 91's. There was no crest ever stamped.