Sharps vs Rolling Block?

This country is full of overly sensitive and easily offended bed wetters. For Petes sake, where's John Wayne when you need him? And by the way, rolling blocks are ugly and Sharps rule the day. Percussion and cartridge.

This country is full of overly sensitive and easily offended bed wetters.

Click to expand...

The only thing for which I ask from my fellow humans is mutual respect. It says more about them than it does about me when they insist on disrespect, double down in it, and defend it.

Peabody came out at tag end of Civil War, so would have been somewhat available for buffalo hunting. Like Remington, they sold a lot of their production to foreign militaries.

Might have been some buffalo shot with Ballards and Maynards, too.
And untold numbers of military surplus rifles.

.45 Gov't anemic?
Not very well distributed in the commercial market in 1975, maybe; the Army only got it in 1873 along with the SAA .45.

Buffalo Bill's Lucrezia Borgia was a Trapdoor .50-70.

.45 Gov't anemic?
Not very well distributed in the commercial market in 1975, maybe; the Army only got it in 1873 along with the SAA .45.

Click to expand...

Anemic when compared to the cartridges that were favored on the plains.
Remington's 1875 catalog doesn't even list the 45 govt.

My vote is for the Sharps,I own a Shiloh Sharps long range express and have to admit it's quite accurate at the distances I shoot. My only complaint is that I it weighs in at 14 lbs but on the other hand recoil is negligible.

kay, I changed the "I" word to "Native American". Sorry if I offended anyone! I was not under the impression that that term is offensive to the native peoples of... oh there I go again, I don't know what to say without offending so I just used "Native American" and I'm sorry in advance if that term itself is offensive.

Click to expand...

That is sincerely appreciated. The term is offensive, but thankfully not used much any longer. Native American, American Indian, native are typically suitable. These days one never knows quite what to call some ethnic groups without giving offense, so I understand.

"if a shell is hard to chamber and you put extra pressure on the breechblock... Kaboom you've got a hand and faceful of shrapnel from the exploding case."
It is pretty apparent that a breech failure in the RB is gonna be ugly (whereas it's basically impossible with the Sharps), but were such failures all that common before the 20th century steel actions? I'm not an expert on ancient metallurgy

"rolling blocks are ugly and Sharps rule the day"
Rolling blocks have two hammers & a funky reload but are quite narrow/handy, while the Sharps action looks like a stubby fist and feels like one, too. That's why I like the Peabody; it's still got the percussion-cap-era mule ear hammer on the side, is quite strong (probably second only to the Sharps at the time), and has a very slender and dignified silhouette. Perfect post-bellum cartridge gun

"This is a gun forum, but from what I see, quickly becoming a place where many, like myself, are unwelcome."
The only person stamping their feet, is you. The rest of us are sighing heavily with resignation. Clearly no insult was meant, clearly no harm done. Not good enough for someone with an axe to grind, though (the folksy inclusion of American genocide/indian* warfare is itself far more 'offensive' than the specific group referred to, and even then it's an entirely accurate scenario within the context of the time period)

TCB

*the "pejorative" is the same word with a southern accented pronunciation (or is it British?). Plenty of more important things for aggrieved native Americans to complain about than ancient slang no longer used pejoratively.

Not good enough for someone with an axe to grind, though

Click to expand...

Maybe you can't read well and comprehend, but we were done here a couple posts ago.


And if you're not native, you're speaking far out of turn.

barnbwt, not talking about breech failure. The rolling block firing pin would protrude, and just closing the breech block set off the primer, so the entire case head of the cartridge was exposed and unsupported.
Sharps also had a similar problem when the gun got fouled, if the shooter used something to pry the shell in far enough to close the breech, it was possible to set the primer off causing the exposed case to explode. That's what prompted Fruend to make his "improvement" to the Sharps action.

Sorry guys, I feel pretty bad right now. I spelled the word as I originally did because I thought that was the "Southern" pronunciation of the word. I was not aware that it was pejorative of the Native American race, of which I greatly admire. I will be more careful next time!

Click to expand...

No worries. I don't think you meant anything malicious at all. It's just a word that, in the current era, is akin to the N word for most natives.

I'm more concerned that most responses to me have been to attack me for bringing up the faux pas.

Less people using offensive language in polite conversation can't be a bad thing, right?

What I find offensive is that someone would vote for the Rolling Block over the Sharps!
(haha, just kidding of course)

What I find offensive is that someone would vote for the Rolling Block over the Sharps!

Click to expand...

Haha - and there are 7 of them!

I think the Rolling Block is a neat action and truly fun to work and shoot, but no match for the Sharps action in strength.

RB. I own one and have owned another in 45-70. I also have fired the Sharps extensively. The RB is faster, lighter, and simpler. It is a better fighting gun. Either will knock over large mammals.

I have owned or used a variety of rifles from that era. The one I usually grab for a day in the woods is a Springfield Single Shot rifle, chambered for the 50-70 but the 45-70 would work also. Next for me, the Rolling Block. The Sharps never did it for me. I have tried several times and sold them to someone who saw the movie and "needed" a Sharps.

Kevin

Wisco said:

Why has a racial slur - used twice in one post - stood unedited since last night?

Perhaps no one knows better, so I'll educate you: "Injun" - That's a disgusting, offensive, ignorant and antiquated way to refer to Natives.

Click to expand...

Oh good Lord. If I had a nickel for every time I've been called a Pollock I'd be rich. Who cares?

I voted for the RB because I have one made in 1882 all matching with crown proof marks.

jim in Anchorage said:

Oh good Lord. If I had a nickel for every time I've been called a Pollock I'd be rich. Who cares?

Click to expand...

I care!

I'm not much of a hand with the rifle, and have little experience with either ones mentioned.

But from what I've learned I'd go with the Sharps.

A black powder rifle in those days fouled pretty quickly, and I think the extra leverage provided by the under lever would be a benefit in ejecting fired cases, over the limited leverage of the rolling blocks rather short handle.

Bob Wright

Oh good Lord. If I had a nickel for every time I've been called a Pollock I'd be rich. Who cares?

Click to expand...

To be fair, do you resemble a fish in any way?

I'd probably take whichever one was available and that I could afford, but I am much more inclined towards the Sharps.

I had a Pedersoli Rolling Block carbine, and I have a Shiloh Sharps 1874. I'm not sure if my perspective would have been drastically different in 1875, but there's something that appeals to me about the Sharps that I didn't get with the rolling block.

A few points. I would love either one. Both had their good points and their bad. The rollers were simpler and easier to manipulate quickly, but they were difficult to load when they got filthy. The sharps were able to handle larger cartridges, and the action was stronger, but if you forgot to half cock it before lowering the breech block you ran the risk of breaking the tip of the firing pin. The roller was (still is) cheaper and simpler to manufacture. The sharps is one of the most classic and beautiful rifles ever made. Rollers are good looking in a sporting configuration but nothing like the Sharps.

I voted for the Rolling Block because I just like the diabolically simple design of the thing. It is stupid simple and it does everything asked of it.

So stupid simple I can make them myself, a 45-70 and a 30-06.

I shot a few Sharps rifles belonging to buddies before I looked into the options and got my own rifles of that period.

I really lusted after the 1885. And I got one recently when I came across a Pedersoli/Taylors 1885 chambered in my preferred .38-55.

But my first was an old Danish rolling block that had been re-barrelled with a Shiloh octagonal in .38-55.

Both just seem lighter, sleeker and generally less clunky than the Sharps. Personal preference I know. But there it is.

In fact I'd want to get a trapdoor before I went for a Sharps. I guess I'm just contrary that way....

Howdy

One advantage of the Rolling Block over the Sharps is there is no lever under the Rolling Block. Easier to operate if you are in cramped space. Quicker to load too.

I have this Pedersoli Sharps. On mine, the barrel is polished and blued, not a matte finish, but I have seen them with the matte finish.

Keep checking back with Dixie, they periodically put some models on sale. I paid $800 for mine, about $200 less than the standard price at the time.

https://www.dixiegunworks.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_92_184&products_id=2576&osCsid=1c91mco67b01tde0cds5neks31