Just swapping emails with a friend about that rifle. He reminds me that Carlos Gove (in Denver I believe) made underlevers and side lever conversions of the Remington for buffalo hunters back in the day. I once lusted after an original Gove back in the late 90s but didn't have the dollars for it at the time. It was basically as your rifle.
My friend also said that Haugh had a very good reputation for gunmaking but he is now passed, sadly.
The #5s should have a rotary extractor and if so, there would probably be a visible screw on the outside of the action, so he thinks it is probably a #1. Most #1s had round tops however, but and #5s had more meat from which to mill the octagon so smiths prefered that, and I think #5s were forged while #1s were cast.
There was a pretty famous TX smith by the name of Higgenbottom or Higginsbotham that made rollers from scratch. It's possible he made that action, but it's at least as likely that it was milled from a #5 or #1.
Your friend has it backwards. A #5 has a rotary extractor, which doesn't have the left side retaining screw. The earlier #1 has a sliding extractor, and the small screw in the left side. But the 1896 #1 Rolling Blocks also had a rotary extractor long before the smokeless #5 came about. So they sometimes get people confused into thinking they're also smokeless. The difference in the two rotary actions is the #5 is thicker in width and more metal in the receiver threads area.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/qclHjMQ.jpg)
