The forearm must be removed in order to remove the barrels from the frame/receiver. There were seven grades of the Model 1889. One had fluid steel barrels and the others had damascus, laminated or twist steel barrels. There are numbers stamped either on the bottom of the barrels or on the water table that tell which grade the gun is and the type of barrels. Post those numbers and we can identify your gun. Also post the serial number and we can give you the year it was made.

 

Lol...I understand the forearm must be removed, but the barrels will still not seperate. Under the left barrel (moving from the breech to the muzzle), there is a fancy P, then what appears to be a 1, then another 1, then a G and finally an 8. The right barrel is the same, except there is a small p between the fancy P and the 1. Serial number under the forearm is 232859 and, forward of the latch, are the numberts 453.

 

I apologize if I insulted your intelligence but you'd be surprised how dumb some people can be about guns. As I said, there were seven grades of the Model 1889. All were pretty much the same except for barrel material and the amount and quality of engraving. All had pistol grip stocks, a hard rubber butt plate and a matted rib. Grade no 1 had a fluid steel barrel, the rest had either damascus or twist steel barrels. Grades 4 through 7 had increasing amounts of engraving. Gun serial number 001 was made in 1889 of course and the last one, serial number 250,401 was made in 1910. Serial number 232,859 was made in mid 1908. Serial numbers for 1908 began with 236.001 and ended with serial number 243,200. The number 1 stamped under the barrels indicates you have a Grade 1 with fluid steel barrels. Back then, damascus barrels were preferred and were safe for the ammunition in use then. My reference book "The Breech Loading Shotgun In America 1860 to 1940" written by the late Joseph T, Vorisek has this to say about the Model 1889. "The Model 1889 was the result of a series of changes made to the Models 1882,1883,1885 and 1887 and it is probably the epitome of the American made hammer double in terms of strength, durability and general construction. The Model 1889 was made in 10.12 and 16 gauges with 28, 30 or 32 inch barrels." I too have a Model 1889 and if I remove the forearm and open the barrels, they almost fall off the receiver.

 

So with the information you provided would it be safe to say a serial number of 243298 would mean it was the 98th gun made in 1909?

 

You needn't worry about insulting my intelligence. Thank you for the great answer. I have been shooting 2" Poly-wad shells in the gun because they develop only about 6000 psi and other than the failure to seperate, I have been very pleased with the gun.

Thanks again for the help.

 

Just a dumb question - you are pulling down on the latch on the bottom of the forearm when trying to remove the forearm, aren't you?

(And I'm not insulting your intelligence), but some folks are unfamiliar with that method of takedown.

 

Yep, forearm removes without problem.

 

My 1889 has the numbers under the barrel 4992, 28,74.37 33 and p. Can anyone tell me what these all mean?

 

Researcher01 has posted, "By 1900 the Model 1889 serial numbers had reached 100000..." Each of those twelve years would have had an average production of over 8000 guns, so I presume that your serial number 4992 means that your 1889 was literally produced in 1889.

Those numbers "28,74.37 33" that you recorded from under the barrels are not recognizable to me. Please post a photo of both the action flats and under the barrels for us.

We need to know if you have a 10, 12, or 16 gauge, because I am guessing that "37 33" are the numbers on the lugs that are the pellet counts which yield the choking of the barrels. If so and if you have a 12 gauge, then (3)37/499= 67.5% and (3)33/499= 66.7% of #8 soft lead shot that hit a couple of 30" circles at 40 yards, so you have an Improved Modified fixed choke for each barrel. Remington patterned the barrels with 1-1/4 ounce loads of #8 soft lead shot which have about 499 pellets. Of course the arithmetic changes if you have a 10 or a 16 gauge. [ETA: I dated your gun at literally 1889. Later arithmetic beginning in 1902 assumed 511 pellets of #8 chilled lead shot.]

Welcome to ShotgunWorld, rmeltonknox. Once we see your photo and know the gauge of your 1889, we can answer your question correctly. My apologies if my guesses are incorrect, sir.

 

The initial price for a Grade 1 was $14.95, a Grade 2 was $21 and a Grade 3 would set you back $23.

The fatigue of patterning all of these double barreled shotguns is baffling to me.

The 1889 guns were popular and were some of the first guns produced by the new Remington Arms Company following the bankruptcy of E. Remington & Sons in 1888. The price of these well-made Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 3 1889 guns was fair, modest, and not excessively profitable.

Remington Arms Company could not have afforded to pay very much to people who counted nearly 700 little holes in paper for every 1889 sold. And what a nerve-racking, frustrating job that must have been for those poorly paid employees. There were 134,200 Model 1889 guns produced, so by 1908 employees had counted about 94 million little holes in paper. What baffles me is the corporate choice to be so precise with individual choke labels rather than just go by constrictions as is done today. Any thoughts?

There are no known surviving hang tags of any 1889 guns, but below are hang tags of that era. Notice the pellet counts of the left and right barrels that identified the fixed chokes to customers, seven decades before Winchokes and almost nine decades before Remchokes. These pellet counts were stamped on the barrel lugs as shown previously, with the 3 in hundreds place omitted.

 

All right, suppose Remington had constructed a devise that collected only the pellets within a 30" circle at 40' distance, weighed them, and divided their weight by the average pellet weight to calculate the number of pellets. Yes, that would be a nearly effortless and rapid way to record the pellet counts for each barrel. Now how do we confirm that some method like this was used rather than paying employees to count millions of holes in paper?

 

That's pure speculation, and highly improbable. Besides, lead pellets vary highly in diameter, even today, and also in density varied based purely by the composition of the ore by specific mine. In addition, in those days, most shot was lower quality "drop shot".

 

Remington Arms Company could not have afforded to pay very much to people who counted nearly 700 little holes in paper for every 1889 sold. And what a nerve-racking, frustrating job that must have been for those poorly paid employees. There were 134,200 Model 1889 guns produced, so by 1908 employees had counted about 94 million little holes in paper. What baffles me is the corporate choice to be so precise with individual choke labels rather than just go by constrictions as is done today. Any thoughts?

My guess is that they were making it up. "Winging it" as they say.

It's not like turn-of-the-century manufacturers were immune from marketing BS.

 

Lol...I understand the forearm must be removed, but the barrels will still not seperate . . .

If at first you don't succeed . . . try a bigger hammer.

Seriously, I think I would take a nylon hammer and gently tap around the joints of the action. It could be that century-old dried up gunk has glued the action together. I wouldn't pound on it, just gentle taps to see if you can loosen the bond. A bit of Kroil probably wouldn't hurt, either.

BTW, I had a high-condition 1899 for a time. It was a lovely gun but, boy oh boy, did it have a lot of drop to the stock. I couldn't shoot it.

 

All right, suppose Remington had constructed a device that collected only the pellets within a 30" circle at 40' distance, weighed them, and divided their weight by the average pellet weight to calculate the number of pellets. Yes, that would be a nearly effortless and rapid way to record the pellet counts for each barrel. Now how do we confirm that some method like this was used rather than paying employees to count millions of holes in paper?

That's pure speculation, and highly improbable. Besides, lead pellets vary highly in diameter, even today, and also in density varied based purely by the composition of the ore by specific mine. In addition, in those days, most shot was lower quality "drop shot".

The average pellet weight was a constant that was unaffected by variations in diameter or density of the ore. Remington assumed 499 pellets of #8 soft lead shot per 1-1/4 ounce load, and beginning in 1902 they assumed 511 pellets of #8 chilled lead shot per 1-1/4 ounce load. Thus the average pellet weight was assumed to be 0.00251 ounce, and beginning in 1902 was assumed to be 0.00245 ounce.

So far I have seen a different pellet count on every barrel lug that I could examine online, so I do not agree that Remington Arms Company made the numbers up. Nor do I agree that Remington employees counted 94 million holes in paper.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Such a device today could drop the pellets that entered a 30" circle from 40' away onto a scale, and divide that weight by 0.00245 ounce, and then divide that calculated number of pellets by 511, to determine the percentage of shot that hits a 30" circle from 40' and hence whether the choke was M, IM, F, etc., in less time than it takes to aim and pull the trigger.

Once more, how do we confirm that some method like this was used rather than paying employees to count millions of holes in paper?

 

I'm not ready for this one to fade away quietly into the night.

For more data on this, and some speculation, see the late Charles G. Semmers' book "Remington Double Shotguns." Chapter XVIII is devoted to the barrel markings, including pellet count. He has a picture of the table Remington used for pellet counts... Book is available through Double Gun Journal.

Remington created a table of pellet counts for their own internal company use to define fixed choke designations of their barrels, and not to fool gun buyers. However, I am skeptical about the phrase "the actual pellet counts" that Researcher01 has used very frequently in boilerplate answers about these old double barreled shotguns on various forums.

Remington Arms Co. stamped the actual pellet counts of their test patterns on the rear barrel lugs of their Model 1889 hammer doubles and their Model 1894 and 1900 hammerless doubles.

I am skeptical that Remington employees counted 94 million holes in paper for the 1889 gun, and beaucoup more millions of holes for the 1894 and 1900 guns. Once more, how do we confirm that some method of physical measurement such as I proposed was used for the barrel lug numbers rather than paying employees to count millions of holes in paper?

 

Hello folks, I'm new here and am excited to find out more about my shotgun.

It is a 10 Gauge 1889 32 inch barrel. It was handed down through my family and so far as I can remember has always been missing the hammers. I assumed it was not worth it to try to assemble it since it has a Damascus barrel but I recently took it to a gunsmith in the area. He said it is in good shape and could certainly be used with available light loads as discussed here in this thread.. so I have been looking for hammers. Today someone posted some on ebay and I snatched them right up.

I'm attaching an image of the under barrel and receiver in hopes that someone can shed some light on the grade and year of this shotgun. In case you cannot see the numbers the serial appears to be 78088. The numbers on the mount arms are 33 and 39 and there is a small number 2 stamped between the mount posts of the barrel. Further up the barrel on the left barrel if you were the shooter looking down the barrel is stamped a number 1 then a 3 and letter Z very close together. Another 1 and Letter Z on the right barrel at the same length. A number 63 is stamped on the foregrip catch on the barrel.

I am also wondering what length of light load shells to get as it seems like all I am seeing is 2 5/8 as the smallest.

Also, any tips or links that anyone can share for how to restore the gun properly without diminishing value would be greatly appreciated. I dont want to mess up the Damascus engraving.

 

Welcome Astro.
Please review
https://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewto ... 5&t=366087

Did your gunsmith measure the chamber length? Did he examine the bores with a bore scope? Did he provide wall thickness measurements from breech to muzzle? If not, you need the help of someone with the interest, equipment and expertise to properly evaluate your gun.

Use the Search function to find (lots) of previous threads regarding the Remington 1889. If the barrels are damascus, it is a No. 3

 

Welcome to ShotgunWorld, Astro209. As Drew Hause said, you have a #3 grade Remington Model 1889. Your sxs originally sold for $23.

Hello folks, I'm new here and am excited to find out more about my shotgun. It is a 10 Gauge 1889 32 inch barrel... I'm attaching an image of the under barrel and receiver in hopes that someone can shed some light on the grade and year of this shotgun. In case you cannot see the numbers the serial appears to be 78088. The numbers on the mount arms are 33 and 39 [sic, 33 and 35, please look closely, sir]... I am also wondering what length of light load shells to get as it seems like all I am seeing is 2-5/8 as the smallest...

As shown on one of the tags displayed in my post above, the 10 gauge was chambered for 2-7/8" shells. Researcher01 wrote, "In 1895 Union Metallic Cartridge Company offered 10 gauge shells in 2-5/8" and 2-7/8" lengths. The heaviest payload 10 gauge factory loaded shells offered during the time frame the Model 1889 was offered was 1-1/4 ounces of shot, pushed by black powder, bulk smokeless powder (drams) or dense smokeless powder (grains)." Per a 1902 Model 1889 hang tag, the maximum 10 gauge loads of H. C. Schultz, DuPont, or Hazard bulk smokeless powders was 3-3/4 drams Measure. The maximum loads for dense smokeless powders were 50 grains Laflin & Rand; 30 grains Ballistite, or 45 grains S. O. Rifleite. Proper black powder loading was considered equal volumes of shot and powder.

Per the Remington website, Model 1889 was introduced in 1889 and discontinued in 1908 with a total production of approximately 135,000 shotguns in mainly 10 and 12 gauges, and far fewer 16 gauges. The serial number blocks were 0,000 - 105,000 and 200,000 - 260,000, and serial numbers were re-assigned to the 200,000 block circa 1900. Therefor your serial #78088 was produced before 1900.

Researcher01 wrote, "According to Charles Semmer's book Remington Double Shotguns the Model 1889 serial numbers started at 30000." The administrator of Remington Society of America dated a 10 gauge Model 1889 serial #34663 as made in 1890. Subtracting 30000 from 105000 yields 75000 Model 1889 guns were produced from 1889 - 1899. Suppose we average that 6818 guns were made annually during those eleven years. If we subtract 30000 from your #78088 yielding 48088, and observe that 6818 x 7 years = 47726, then we can guess that your #78088 was made about 1896.

Lug marks of 32-37 indicate a pellet count. These numbers do not indicate choke. Every shotgun leaving the factory was test fired. Unfortunately we do not have a "hang tag" [for a 10 gauge Model 1889] which would tell us what load was used in test firing. There would be a third number in front of these two numbers which would tell the amount of shot. Could be a 3 meaning 332-337 pellets of ??? shot hitting a 30" circle at 40 yards.

Let me suggest that the 10 gauge patterning loads in 1896 were 1-1/4 ounces of #8 soft lead shot, the same as the 12 gauge patterning loads. After all, the maximum 10 gauge loads in 1896 were 1-1/4 ounces.

"33 and 35" are the numbers on your barrel flats that are the pellet counts which yield the choking of the barrels. You have a 10 gauge, so (3)33/499= 66.7% and (3)35/499= 67.1% of #8 soft lead shot that hit a couple of 30" circles at 40 yards, meaning that you have an Improved Modified fixed choke for each barrel. Remington patterned 12 gauge barrels with 1-1/4 ounce loads of #8 soft lead shot which have about 499 pellets, and I assumed that the 10 gauge patterning loads in 1896 were also 1-1/4 ounces of #8 soft lead shot. [Later arithmetic beginning in 1902 assumed 511 pellets of #8 chilled lead shot.]

Good luck, sir.

 

All right, suppose Remington had constructed a device that collected only the pellets within a 30" circle at 40' distance, weighed them, and divided their weight by the average pellet weight to calculate the number of pellets. Yes, that would be a nearly effortless and rapid way to record the pellet counts for each barrel. Now how do we confirm that some method like this was used rather than paying employees to count millions of holes in paper?

The average pellet weight was a constant that was unaffected by variations in diameter or density of the ore. Remington assumed 499 pellets of #8 soft lead shot per 1-1/4 ounce load, and beginning in 1902 they assumed 511 pellets of #8 chilled lead shot per 1-1/4 ounce load. Thus the average pellet weight was assumed to be 0.00251 ounce, and beginning in 1902 was assumed to be 0.00245 ounce.

So far I have seen a different pellet count on every barrel lug that I could examine online, so I do not agree that Remington Arms Company made the numbers up. Nor do I agree that Remington employees counted 94 million holes in paper.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Such a device today could drop the pellets that entered a 30" circle from 40' away onto a scale, and divide that weight by 0.00245 ounce, and then divide that calculated number of pellets by 511 (if the year of manufacture was 1902 or later), to determine the percentage of shot that hits a 30" circle from 40' and hence whether the choke was M, IM, F, etc., in less time than it takes to aim and pull the trigger.

[ETA: If the gun was made before 1902, a device today could drop the pellets that entered a 30" circle from 40' away onto a scale, and divide that weight by 0.00251 ounce, and then divide that calculated number of pellets by 499, to determine the percentage of shot that hits a 30" circle from 40' and hence whether the choke was M, IM, F, etc.,]

Once more, how do we confirm that some method of physical measurement like this was used rather than paying employees to count millions of holes in paper?

 

The Remington 1889 I own has some strange characteristics.

First, it is impossible to seperate the barrels from the rest of the gun.

Lockup is tight and the barrels pivot down for loading.

This has worked for me on stubborn break-open guns:

With the forend off, and the barrels opened a bit, grasp the barrels in one hand and the forward end of the buttstock in the other hand.

Bang the barrel pivot point down onto your knee, at the same time strongly pressing both arms towards each other - like you were trying to break a branch in two.

.

 

Choose one:
a. The OP figured this out.
b. The OP is a castaway on a deserted island with only a soccer ball as his friend.
c. The OP is in the witness protection program.
d. The OP is in reality Batman.

 

I have recently bought an old Shotgun. It appears to be an 1889 Remington.

The action, trigger guard/trigger assembly, and barrels look like they are Plated. It looks like Chrome to me.

One hammer is also chromed as well. Neither Side Plate is Chromed.
The other side plate appears to have been a replacement because of the non-plated hammer
The Barrel assembly measures 19 inches in length

The Serial number is 99975
Preceding the serial number is a 1
and near the center by the Screw is a number 8

What can you tell me about this Shotgun

 

The number 1 left of the serial # 99975 on the action flats of your Remington 1889 means that it is a Grade 1 gun with decarbonized fluid steel barrels. Grade 2 guns have twist barrels and Grade 3 guns have Damascus barrels.

Researcher01 has posted, "By 1900 the Model 1889 serial numbers had reached 100000..." Each of those twelve years would have had an average production of over 8000 guns. I presume that your serial # 99975 was produced about 1900.

You have not specified whether your gun is a 10 gauge or a 12 gauge. (There were not many 16 gauge guns made.) Let me suggest that the 10 gauge patterning loads in 1896 were 1-1/4 ounces of #8 soft lead shot, the same as the 12 gauge patterning loads. After all, the maximum 10 gauge loads in 1896 were 1-1/4 ounces.

"30 and 42" are the numbers on your barrel flats that are the pellet counts which yield the choking of the barrels. By the above reasoning, regardless whether you have a 10 gauge or a 12 gauge, (3)30/499= 66.1% and (3)42/499= 68.5% of #8 soft lead shot hit a couple of 30" circles at 40 yards, meaning that you have an Improved Modified fixed choke right barrel and a Light Full fixed choke left barrel. Remington patterned 12 gauge barrels with 1-1/4 ounce loads of #8 soft lead shot which have about 499 pellets, and I assumed that the 10 gauge patterning loads in 1900 were also 1-1/4 ounces of #8 soft lead shot. [Later arithmetic beginning in 1902 assumed 511 pellets of #8 chilled lead shot.]

The 10 gauge and 12 gauge Model 1889 had 30" or 32" barrels until 1898, when a 12 gauge Model 1889 with 28" barrels was introduced. Your barrels were cut down to 19" on 18 Apr 1953 (no, just kidding).

Will you replace the badly cracked stock? Welcome to ShotgunWorld, Steve 1979. Good luck, sir.

 

Concerning folks counting the pellet strikes within a 30 inch circle, that just isn't practical and Remington had some pretty good Manufacturing people in 1899. A much more logical approach is to use a larger sheet of paper and count the strikes outside the 30 inch circle. Because it's a heck of a lot easier to count up to 30 or 40 than it is up to 450 or thereabouts. BTW, I'm a manufacturing Engineer and have been doing the job for 30 years and coming up with simpler ways to accomplish a goal is large part of my job.

 

Small difference, but I believe it's 513 pellets, not 499. At least Lyman's #2 handbook book list that figure. I've also seen 510 for a 1 1/4 of #8 shot.

As for removing the barrels, it can be tricky if you're not use to doing it with a Remington. First, you must hold the top lever ALL the way OVER to the right. I do this with my right hand. Then the barrels can be moved back and forth a bit. You'll find the right spot and they'll come apart. The problem has to do with the way Remington makes the extractor move with the small pivoting rocker under the barrels. I've never seen another SxS use this method. One side of the rocker rides against the guns pivot pin, so that rocker must be shoved away from the main pin, then the barrels moved back against the pin to be removed. At least that's the way I see it. Anyways, it takes a bit of fiddling to get them off. Good luck.