Another Unnumbered Remington-UMC (Complete Opposite of the NICE ONE!)

nebseyer said:

Does it have the same eagle head stamp on the slide above the FPS?

Click to expand...

nebseyer,

Yes,---IIRC it does.

Don't have a direct shot of it,---but there's something there.

(Look at the damage to the back (top) of the slide,---how did it get the roll stamps if that mistake was made during the rough machining?)

Best Regards,

P.S. Might be able to get more pictures of it. If so, will take a better shot of the back of the slide.

I know exactly what JohnnyP means. Didn't mean to attach any "glorious past" to old and worn guns. If we don't know their histories we can't assign any definite past to any of them. Just sort of "cud 'uv". I simply like an old gun that shows that maybe someone used the thing that really needed it at a critical time to him, and maybe a critical time to a whole lot of other people too. I have a 1911 Colt that was made in 1914. It shows no abuse at all, just lots of holster wear, about 50% original blue, and quite a lot of grip edge battering. I know where it was sent when new but any history after that is a mystery. So we know it was used heavily, probably went to France in '17, or '18 and after that, who knows. It's a good, honest, US service gun that obviously "did its bit". To me it has more personal value than an early 1911 sent to some gov't arsenal and never going any where after that until ending its its days of "service", still wrapped inits brown paper shroud, deposited in a collector's safe cum gun mausoleum only to be taken out and prayed over with great awe on rare and sacred occasions.

No luck yet with additional pictures. IIRC, many parts on this had errors/mistakes in manufacturing,---look at the hammer, the rear sight, and the back of the slide (reject parts that made it into a pistol). Before pictures, the curator, field striped the pistol, used a straight edge to demonstrate both sides of the receiver were flat, and then demonstrated (with a digital micrometer) that the width of the receiver was greater than minimum specifications (and the sides were parallel). And, the same with the slide. Only speculation and imagination on how these (both pistols ?) occurred. (Again, did not completely examine all of this pistol.)

It is the opposite of the Nice One,---the Nice One looks like it (and possibly the others [22] noted) could have been similar to the early Replacement Pistols (or early production test/sample pistols).? And the other,---just a collection of reject parts.? At this point, it is just speculation on how it looked (how nice ?) when it was assembled around 100 years ago.? And, now they "is what it is"!


P.S. It was suggested (concerning the slide damage) that the entire length of the top of the slide looked like the part behind the rear sight, when the slide was roll stamped.? Then the final preparation was done to the sides ( to flatten the raised metal due to the roll stamping).? Then the top of the slide was prepped exposing the low part behind the sight.?