Remington RB question

I recently picked up this somewhat battered RB and wondered if there is enough here to date it. Standard 3 band, 34 inch barrel and chambered in 43 Spanish. Attached are photos of all the markings I can find.
The rear sight is missing the slider and there is no cleaning rod. Are these parts available?
Also, which bayonet would be correct with this rifle?

I found it interesting in that the middle band appears to be a replacement from some other rifle as the is no band retainer of any type. It is not a split band with a screw and the is no retaining spring in the stock. (it seems to be held on by friction alone.

Any help or guesses will be welcome...

DeanAttachment 101867

The barrel-bands marked with a "U" are Remington bands. The one with a Crown is for a Danish model 1867 Rolling-Block.

There are Rolling-Block barrel-bands that 'screw-clamp' and ones that are retained by a band-spring. The Danish band on your .43 cal. Rolling-Block is an incorrect replacement.

It appears your 'bayonet-bar' is altered or a variation. The bar is for a saber bayonet, but now, it appears your barrel will also accept a socket-bayonet.

"The Military Remington Rolling Block Rifle" by George Layman is a useful book for puzzling through countless variations of the RB.


Attachment 101896

Thanks for the info.... I wondered about the Danish mark on the band. (I have a couple of newer Danish firearms with the same mark..)
The bayonet lug looks like it was made that way. No sign of any metal being removed.
So, I need a clamp-type middle band & swivel , a couple of rear sight parts and a clearing rod.
How is "Womack's Rolling Block Parts" to deal with? Any other suggestions??

Also, is the peep sighted rear sight unusual? I don't know that I have seen that set-up before/

Dean

It could be an illusion, but, the area that I have framed in red seems to have a different shade to it. This could be suggestive of removed part of bayonet-bar.

Attachment 101900

I just carefully checked the area again. There is no sign of anything being removed. But, What the hey, the gun isn't nice enough to make much difference......:crying:)
I used a ring flash on my camera when I took the picture and that appears to be bounce-back from the flash. (One of the problems of using a ring flash on close-up pictures....)

Some sight information:

Attachment 101901

Shooters of RBs please note: the sighting notch at the end of the sight leaf has a slope on the far end. The vertical surface should be towards the shooter, to provide a sharper sight picture. As shown in the picture provided by Butlersrangers. Please look at any Enfield muzzle-loader or BPCR rifle to confirm the prevalence of this sensible arrangement.

Unfortunately, RBs appear to have been so messed about with in their service lives that a lot of them have the end of the backsight leaf, and thus the sloping face, towards the shooter, which produces an awful sight picture with a lot of reflected light on the leaf. Maybe a misguided alteration - or even specification - on the assumption (false) that it would be advantageous to have the notch as close as possible to the shooters eyes?

If you want to get better results from your RB, make sure that the vertical face is towards your eyes. And since any "bluing" will have disappeared a century or so ago, blacken it to improve contrast.