Gtscotty
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,635
..... Nice.
Sharps vs Rolling Block?
- Thread starter Panzerschwein
- Start date
- Status
..... Nice.
OP
OP
Panzerschwein
member
Okay guys... I'm beginning to feel like a real nut but... what about a .30-30 Rolling Block? 
Yes, I know, it doesn't have the true old west caliber, but it came out in 1895 so that was when Rolling Blocks were still being made/used. Better than one in .300 Blackout or something!! LOL!!
Would you guys like a .30-30 Win Rolling Block? Pedersoli makes one, and it sure looks sweet!
Yes, I know, it doesn't have the true old west caliber, but it came out in 1895 so that was when Rolling Blocks were still being made/used. Better than one in .300 Blackout or something!! LOL!!
Would you guys like a .30-30 Win Rolling Block? Pedersoli makes one, and it sure looks sweet!
dh1633pm
Contributing Member
Cooldill, I considered that. I had a No 5 that in serious need of something. 30-30 would be about right, but I don't already load for it. I then considered 45-70, but it is more expensive that other choices. Already have an 1895G. I was really set on 45 ACP. I don't load it already, but I have bullets and powder that would work. I then settled on 45 Colt. I have plenty of brass, bullets and powder. The barrel blanks are cheap enough. Gunsmith has no issues working with it. So I had my No 5 re-barreled in 45 Colt. 1 inch bull sixteen inches long. I had a rail made for the top. Yes they had those in 1902 didn't they? Happy with the choice. It shoots well. I will finish up the project over the winter. But I like it so far. Cheap scope in the picture just to see how it looks. Forearm isn't done. Just about finished with the butt stock. And yes that is a brass butt plate.
Attachments
Last edited:
Wisco
member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,239
Okay guys... I'm beginning to feel like a real nut but... what about a .30-30 Rolling Block?
I don't load my own, but you've got some great possibilities with a wide range of bullets in a single shot 30-30.
tark
Member
dh1633pm thats a nice looking roller. Let us see it when you are finished in the spring!
Cooldill, Remington did make the rolling block in 30-30, late in its life. It was called the #5 sporting rifle and it was also chambered in 30-40, 7mm Mauser, and .303 British. It never caught on , in 1900 sportsmen preferred Winchester Repeaters. Only 198 rifles were sold and survivors today are worth a fortune.
This was the rolling block I copied when I made my 30-06.
Cooldill, Remington did make the rolling block in 30-30, late in its life. It was called the #5 sporting rifle and it was also chambered in 30-40, 7mm Mauser, and .303 British. It never caught on , in 1900 sportsmen preferred Winchester Repeaters. Only 198 rifles were sold and survivors today are worth a fortune.
This was the rolling block I copied when I made my 30-06.
OP
OP
Panzerschwein
member
Thanks gang! Santa will have to stop by my house this year LOL!
Don McDowell
Member
If a person wanted a 30-30 single shot the rolling block would be as good as any.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read that the main reason the buffalo hunters liked the Sharps is that it would chamber the long cartridges that were coming out at the time, like the .45-110 and .50-110. The Rolling Block had a maximum COAL that it would accept, and like any group of young men, the buffalo hunters wanted more power. I've never fired either, but it appears to me that the besides the cartridge length limitation, the Rolling Block is a superior design, within the limits of the strength required to hold the cartridges of the day.
The one area in which the Sharps shines is recoil control. A heavier rifle would be a lot easier to shoot all day long. For exploring, I'd prefer the lighter RB. For campaigning, the RB is less susceptible to dirt and grime, since the action is closed on the bottom. It's also faster to fire.
The one area in which the Sharps shines is recoil control. A heavier rifle would be a lot easier to shoot all day long. For exploring, I'd prefer the lighter RB. For campaigning, the RB is less susceptible to dirt and grime, since the action is closed on the bottom. It's also faster to fire.
Old judge creek
Member
I've had a Shiloh Sharps for close to 20 years now.
It wears a mid-range Soule tang sight, a spirit level globe front sight, and a Hadley eyepiece. My all purpose lower 48 cartridge is a 405 grain cast bullet loaded to 1475 fps (+/-).
I can hit 'most anything I can see out to 650 yards and we have a rock on a hill side about the size of an "office" refrigerator that we regularly "shoot" at 900 yards.
I'd take the Sharps over the Rolling Block time and again.
It wears a mid-range Soule tang sight, a spirit level globe front sight, and a Hadley eyepiece. My all purpose lower 48 cartridge is a 405 grain cast bullet loaded to 1475 fps (+/-).
I can hit 'most anything I can see out to 650 yards and we have a rock on a hill side about the size of an "office" refrigerator that we regularly "shoot" at 900 yards.
I'd take the Sharps over the Rolling Block time and again.
tark
Member
John C hit the nail right on the head, or at least partially. Rolling Blocks can and did accept long cartridges.....as long (pun intentional) as they weren't too large in diameter. The Creedmoor rifles used calibers up to 45 and case lengths up to 2 and 7/8" but that was about the limit. Any larger in diameter and you had to use a short case. You will never see a roller in 50-90 or 50-140.
I've never had a taste for rolling blocks after I flipped the block up on one checking the fit of some hand loaded .45/70s and put a 450 grain lead slug through two walls, a couch, lengthwise, and a ping pong table when the hammer jumped the full cock notch and sheared the half cock notch.
That was almost 40 years ago.
One of the most dangerous actions ever developed.
That was almost 40 years ago.
One of the most dangerous actions ever developed.
Don McDowell
Member
The Sharps rifles were better able to handle the heavy barrels the hide hunters preferred, for both the ability to shoot longer without heating up and "shooting wild", and dampen the affect of recoil.
Keep in mind very few of the "long" cartridges saw as much action in the hide trade as did the 44 bn, and 50-70.
Keep in mind very few of the "long" cartridges saw as much action in the hide trade as did the 44 bn, and 50-70.
col.lemat
Member
Got a original Remington in 45/110, one inch diameter barrel 32 inches long, 48 over all length, weighs12 pounds, barrel is marked Carlos Gove, Denver, Tang sight as well as regular sight on barrel. Hammer nose has been modified for the longer shells. Last kill shot was at a buffalo in Arizona in 99 at 300 yards. documented with photos.
Last edited:
BCRider
Member
On the historical side of things I was just watching Hicock45's video on shooting a Uberti 1885 falling block. He makes mention that by the time the 1885 hit the market that the heyday of the bigger buffalo shoots was drawing to a close. So that might be the proper reason why there were not many 1885's seen on the plains for long enough and often enough to be made mention of.
Onmilo's post above does raise an issue with the rolling block style action. I've checked loaded ammo in my own but never "flipped" things around. But in the future I might just have to arrange for some sort of tie down for the hammer as an added safety measure for ammo checking at home.
Referencing Hicock's video again he notes that some of the early 1885 guns would come up at full cock when the block was raised. And how this was later changed to half cock and that is how the Uberti works today. Perhaps there were a few cases early on which caused Winchester and JMB to modify the action to come up in half cock.
Onmilo's post above does raise an issue with the rolling block style action. I've checked loaded ammo in my own but never "flipped" things around. But in the future I might just have to arrange for some sort of tie down for the hammer as an added safety measure for ammo checking at home.
Referencing Hicock's video again he notes that some of the early 1885 guns would come up at full cock when the block was raised. And how this was later changed to half cock and that is how the Uberti works today. Perhaps there were a few cases early on which caused Winchester and JMB to modify the action to come up in half cock.
tark
Member
Onmilo's bad experience is an interesting one. I assume he is talking about a #1 action, the largest. One way this could happen is for the top of the trigger, which functions as the sear, to break off completely. I have never heard of this but it is certainly possible. The only other way is for the the spring powering the lock lever to have broken. The lock lever prevents the trigger being pulled with the action open. If it doesn't function, and the trigger is pulled with the breechblock open, the hammer will be released.....and closing the breechblock will let it fall. It should STILL be caught be the half cock notch, but I have seen Rollers with the leg on the half cock broken off. It is entirely possible that that was what happened.
But one of the most dangerous actions ever made? I don't think so. Rolling block rifles have an enviable reputation for ruggedness and simplicity. They are very strong, and my 30-06, made from 4140, ate an 80,000 PSI proof load and several hundred factory loads since. They fixed the protruding firing pin problem very early on with a retraction device. they were used in every climate from tropical to near arctic, and they gained a reputation second to none.
Besides, Custer's favorite rifle was a sporting Roller in 50-70, which was the longest a 50, cal round that would fit in the action. I voted with Custer. (But I won't ride into battle with him!!!)
But one of the most dangerous actions ever made? I don't think so. Rolling block rifles have an enviable reputation for ruggedness and simplicity. They are very strong, and my 30-06, made from 4140, ate an 80,000 PSI proof load and several hundred factory loads since. They fixed the protruding firing pin problem very early on with a retraction device. they were used in every climate from tropical to near arctic, and they gained a reputation second to none.
Besides, Custer's favorite rifle was a sporting Roller in 50-70, which was the longest a 50, cal round that would fit in the action. I voted with Custer. (But I won't ride into battle with him!!!)
gunnerh
Member
I have 2 RB, a Mexican 7X57 and .43 Spanish rebuilt in 45 colt. I got the 7mm in 1961 from an ad in one of gun mags. With long 170ish bullets, it shoots 3 inches at 100. I got my 1st deer with it. I took the 45 colt and some cash as payment for a goat. Put a old Lyman peep sight on it. I trained my kids and they kids with it. Great transtion from .22s . Light and simple to use. I have a Siles 45/70 with 22" 1/2 round I like it but not like my RBs.
See if you can handle each one and pick the one you like. No wrong picks here. Enjoy
See if you can handle each one and pick the one you like. No wrong picks here. Enjoy
Jim Watson
Member
Half cock on closing was an option from Winchester. No extra charge on a rifle with set triggers but $2 on a gun with plain trigger or $1 to have added to an existing rifle. I cannot imagine that it was popular on a rifle that cost $10-$15 in 1901. Mine sure doesn't have it, nor does my Miroku Browning for that matter.
I think the Winder .22 Musket which was intended for the Cadet program was standard with the half cock start. Think Junior ROTC with kids being taught to shoot.
Apparently Uberti puts us all in the same category as junior high students. I understand that the action link can be reversed or replaced to give normal full cock operation.
Yes it was an OLD #1 action from an Egyptian or some such ordered rifle rebarrelled to .45/70
The trigger had sheared a chunk off at some point and when I flipped the block up that one time what was left let go.
I have no idea how long the gun had been in that state but I was always impressed by how light and crisp the trigger was on that rifle...
The Remington action is actually stronger than any of the Sharps actions including the 1875.
The only thing that bested it was the Browning designed 1885 and frankly, Browning could best about anybody when it came to simple, sound, strong gun designs.
The Remington is also much better design for accommodating a large heavy barrel.
The rear frame tangs are longer and stronger than the Sharps and take center of balance stresses much better meaning the stock isn't inclined to crack like the Sharps rifles with heavy barrels.
The top of the front receiver ring is also thicker and stronger than the Sharps which means an extra heavy barrel won't cause the receiver ring to crack with heavy use.
Mind you I don't hate the Remington action, I just think it is the most dangerous practical design.
Then again, I've not unintentionally put a bullet through a couch with a Sharps or and 1885 either....
- Status
