midland man
Member
nice pistol I wished they made it in 45 colt then I would like that! but the rolling block rifle in 30-30 should be a nice piece! 
Rolling Block Pistol
- Thread starter Panzerschwein
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
OP
OP
Yes that's one!! I wish Uberti would make these again, especially in .45 Colt!!
goldpelican
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 259
The problem with that is, the orginial .50 rolling block pistol fired a .50 cal Rim-Fire cartridge.
And Starline couldn't make those.
rc
And Starline couldn't make those.
rc
OP
OP
No, but a .50 case of some kind cut down to the original case length and loaded with similar bullets would be very interesting. Kind of like how people load .56-50 Spencer as a centerfire today even though the originals were rimfire.
I highly doubt they'd make it in that caliber though. I still think .45 Colt would be "the next best thing" to an original .50 rolling block pistol, and better in many ways.
I highly doubt they'd make it in that caliber though. I still think .45 Colt would be "the next best thing" to an original .50 rolling block pistol, and better in many ways.
I do too.
And it would for sure appeal to more people who are not reloaders, and don't want to spend two times what the pistol cost on Starline 'special run' cases they make once every 10 years, new bullet molds, and speciality reloading dies they don't make.
If they made it in a new .50 centerfire caliber?
They couldn't sell 25 of them in a year.
If they made them in .22 RF, .22 WRM, .357, .44, and .45 Colt?
Tool up the production line!
rc
And it would for sure appeal to more people who are not reloaders, and don't want to spend two times what the pistol cost on Starline 'special run' cases they make once every 10 years, new bullet molds, and speciality reloading dies they don't make.
If they made it in a new .50 centerfire caliber?
They couldn't sell 25 of them in a year.
If they made them in .22 RF, .22 WRM, .357, .44, and .45 Colt?
Tool up the production line!
rc
In the 1897 and 1902 models of the Rolling Block, Remington adapted the extractor to rimless rifle cartridges. Many thousands were made in military calibers like 7x57 and sold in both South America and Europe. So, rimless cartridges would be no problem for a pistol by Uberti or other maker. Candidates that work well in fairly short barrels might be the .300 Blackout or the 7.62x39.
Rimless cartridges would not be an insurmountable problem.
Getting a rolling block to hold much more then the original calibers they were chambered in, even with modern steels would be risky in my opinion.
Certainly not in .454 Casual, .460 or .500 S&W, or any of the modern rifle calibers.
There is a lot of 'spring' in the action, and case separation would be a big problem.
rc
Getting a rolling block to hold much more then the original calibers they were chambered in, even with modern steels would be risky in my opinion.
Certainly not in .454 Casual, .460 or .500 S&W, or any of the modern rifle calibers.
There is a lot of 'spring' in the action, and case separation would be a big problem.
rc
The Navy Model used rim-fire.
The Army Model used an inside primed center fire just as the early .45-70.
Don't forget that the Spanish used a rimless cartridge in their later RB rifles...7x57 mm Mauser. It had a special extractor set up to deal with the rimless case.
Dixie used to sell turned cartridge cases for various rim fire. There was a chamber cut on one side to allow one to "prime" the case with a .22 blank. the blank did have to be aligned by hand to be where it was hit by the rim-fire firing pin.
-kBob
The Army Model used an inside primed center fire just as the early .45-70.
Don't forget that the Spanish used a rimless cartridge in their later RB rifles...7x57 mm Mauser. It had a special extractor set up to deal with the rimless case.
Dixie used to sell turned cartridge cases for various rim fire. There was a chamber cut on one side to allow one to "prime" the case with a .22 blank. the blank did have to be aligned by hand to be where it was hit by the rim-fire firing pin.
-kBob
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,319
Ephraim Kibbey
Member
midland man
Member
Dixie part # KA1202 used to be a .32 rimefire case as described by me above.
It was machined from brass stock and had a chamber for a .22 blank so one could line the edge of the .22 blank up with the firing pin. It was recommended that a .310 round ball be used atop a BP load.
They also had .44 RF but it could not be used in Henrys or Winchester 66 because those had double firing pins one of which would thus strike the solid rim on the other side. I have oft wondered if it might work if a notch were cut in the rim directly opposite the .22 cal chamber.
.56 for the Spencers and spencer calibered ACW carbines.
.32 XLRF which I believe was for some of the little remigton RBs and other various drop block types.
.38
and .41 RF
they recommended the Dynamit Nobel crimped blanks which they also sold.
Late 80's , early 1990s they sold for between 4 and five dollars each or six for around $24.
There have been posts both on THR and I believe Rimfire Central about an outfit that makes a kit to reload .22 RF and I would suppose that if you did find a few rounds of any other rimfire in decent cases that they might be reloaded the same way.
Over the years I have seen a number of .32 RF Remingtons converted to .32 Center Fire, I believe .32 S&W or .32 S&W Long. Some were nicely done, apparently a new breech block like folds converted the Spencers with and some were reworked original breech blocks some well done and others were serviceable.
-kBob
It was machined from brass stock and had a chamber for a .22 blank so one could line the edge of the .22 blank up with the firing pin. It was recommended that a .310 round ball be used atop a BP load.
They also had .44 RF but it could not be used in Henrys or Winchester 66 because those had double firing pins one of which would thus strike the solid rim on the other side. I have oft wondered if it might work if a notch were cut in the rim directly opposite the .22 cal chamber.
.56 for the Spencers and spencer calibered ACW carbines.
.32 XLRF which I believe was for some of the little remigton RBs and other various drop block types.
.38
and .41 RF
they recommended the Dynamit Nobel crimped blanks which they also sold.
Late 80's , early 1990s they sold for between 4 and five dollars each or six for around $24.
There have been posts both on THR and I believe Rimfire Central about an outfit that makes a kit to reload .22 RF and I would suppose that if you did find a few rounds of any other rimfire in decent cases that they might be reloaded the same way.
Over the years I have seen a number of .32 RF Remingtons converted to .32 Center Fire, I believe .32 S&W or .32 S&W Long. Some were nicely done, apparently a new breech block like folds converted the Spencers with and some were reworked original breech blocks some well done and others were serviceable.
-kBob
Until recently, I had a 43 Spanish Remington Pistol. Somebody had cut down a saddle ring carbine and bent the tangs and made pistol grips. Who ever did it was a good gunsmith. Not a hack job. The problem was that it was in 43 Remington Spanish Carbine. A full half inch shorter than the regular 43 Spanish.
Ephraim Kibbey
Member
OP
OP
PRD1
Member
Funny you should mention RB pistols...
since I just recently acquired 2 such after the passing of a long-time friend.
They are both target pistols built on original 1871 Army RBs: one is a .44 Special, with an altered grip frame and other modifications, but having the original 1901 Remington target model adjustable rear sight.
The other is a re-barreled (by me) .50 Navy CF, with adjustable rear sight and hooded-bead front, but otherwise much as-issued.
Both have outstanding trigger pulls, and shoot very well, indeed.
PRD1 - mhb - Mike
since I just recently acquired 2 such after the passing of a long-time friend.
They are both target pistols built on original 1871 Army RBs: one is a .44 Special, with an altered grip frame and other modifications, but having the original 1901 Remington target model adjustable rear sight.
The other is a re-barreled (by me) .50 Navy CF, with adjustable rear sight and hooded-bead front, but otherwise much as-issued.
Both have outstanding trigger pulls, and shoot very well, indeed.
PRD1 - mhb - Mike
Attachments
I recently saw a boxed set of them,,,
A gentleman at my range had a pair of them chambered for .357 Magnum,,,
I was afraid to get too close as I was actively drooling.
He did allow me to fire one of them though,,,
3 rounds of .38 and 3 rounds of .357,,,
I fell in mad love on the spot.
They made them in .22 LR as well,,,
I would sell my dear sweet sister to the gypsies for a matching pair.
I saw one at a gun show several years ago that was chambered in .22 LR,,,
It looked unfired but the man wanted a small fortune for it,,,
If I recall correctly his asking price was over $500.00.
You do realize if they made any more they would be incredibly expensive,,,
My guess would be in the 5 to 7 hundred dollar range.
Aarond
.
A gentleman at my range had a pair of them chambered for .357 Magnum,,,
I was afraid to get too close as I was actively drooling.
He did allow me to fire one of them though,,,
3 rounds of .38 and 3 rounds of .357,,,
I fell in mad love on the spot.
They made them in .22 LR as well,,,
I would sell my dear sweet sister to the gypsies for a matching pair.
I saw one at a gun show several years ago that was chambered in .22 LR,,,
It looked unfired but the man wanted a small fortune for it,,,
If I recall correctly his asking price was over $500.00.
You do realize if they made any more they would be incredibly expensive,,,
My guess would be in the 5 to 7 hundred dollar range.
Aarond
.
expat_alaska
Member
PRD1
Member
expat:
Assuming your reply was intended as a comment on my post: no offense taken.
However, as I said, the gripframe of that pistol has been modified from the original 'humped' style of the 1871 Army, as is seen in the other pistol of the pair: on careful examination it is possible to see where the hump originally was on the rear of the frame. I do not know why it was removed, exactly, but some of the other modifications to the pistol make it seem likely (to me) that the pistol was dropped at some time, damaging the frame at that point and doing further damage to the hammer spur (since shortened, also visibly) and the thumbpiece on the breechblock (since removed and replaced with the knurled pin visible in the photo) - both of those modifications work well. Of course, all this work may have been done just because the original owner wanted it that way. I actually prefer the unaltered gripframe, and have considered ways of restoring it, but will probably just accomplish the same effect with a new pair of grips.
The serial numbers of the 2 pistols are in the 1871 range, and close to each other. I had discussed the altered .44 with the previous owner when the .50 was re-barreled some years ago (the original barrel of which had been smoothbored at some time), but do not remember any details he might have told me about the modifications to the .44, which were presumably made by whoever built it. The barrel of that pistol is engraved with the name 'Hal J. Mallett' on the top flat, but I have not been able to learn anything about the gentleman.
PRD1 - mhb - Mike
Assuming your reply was intended as a comment on my post: no offense taken.
However, as I said, the gripframe of that pistol has been modified from the original 'humped' style of the 1871 Army, as is seen in the other pistol of the pair: on careful examination it is possible to see where the hump originally was on the rear of the frame. I do not know why it was removed, exactly, but some of the other modifications to the pistol make it seem likely (to me) that the pistol was dropped at some time, damaging the frame at that point and doing further damage to the hammer spur (since shortened, also visibly) and the thumbpiece on the breechblock (since removed and replaced with the knurled pin visible in the photo) - both of those modifications work well. Of course, all this work may have been done just because the original owner wanted it that way. I actually prefer the unaltered gripframe, and have considered ways of restoring it, but will probably just accomplish the same effect with a new pair of grips.
The serial numbers of the 2 pistols are in the 1871 range, and close to each other. I had discussed the altered .44 with the previous owner when the .50 was re-barreled some years ago (the original barrel of which had been smoothbored at some time), but do not remember any details he might have told me about the modifications to the .44, which were presumably made by whoever built it. The barrel of that pistol is engraved with the name 'Hal J. Mallett' on the top flat, but I have not been able to learn anything about the gentleman.
PRD1 - mhb - Mike
expat_alaska
Member
Thank you PRD1 - Mike.
As you have pistols in hand I am not trying to disprove your claims; far be it from that. Just making a comment.
IMO, it just seems odd that someone would purposely change the frame configuration of an 1871 Army, unless as you say, damage occurred at some point. Insofar as that is concerned, that's a bunch of file work.
At any rate, nice looking pistols, sir! I wish I had the 1871 Army. I like the late 19th century sights.
Jim
As you have pistols in hand I am not trying to disprove your claims; far be it from that. Just making a comment.
IMO, it just seems odd that someone would purposely change the frame configuration of an 1871 Army, unless as you say, damage occurred at some point. Insofar as that is concerned, that's a bunch of file work.
At any rate, nice looking pistols, sir! I wish I had the 1871 Army. I like the late 19th century sights.
Jim
PRD1
Member
expat - Jim:
Thank you - I like them very much!
The altered grip frame is very shootable, and not unlike those found on the larger Stevens and other contemporary singleshot target pistols: perhaps that shape and feel is what the original owner was after. Having shot them both, I personally find the unaltered grip more satisfactory.
The adjustable sights on the .50 were actually made and installed by the previous owner, at the same time it was re-barreled - the rear sight has only elevation adjustment, and a fairly limited range, while windage must still be corrected by moving the front sight. This particular combination does not work as well for me as the more modern Patridge set on the .44, because the round bead is mated with a very shallow (and short) rear notch and blade: I intend to change both to provide a Patridge combination of better proportions. If I work-up my ambition, I may incorporate windage in the rear sight, as well, and will almost certainly leave the hood off of the front blade (personal preference).
PRD1 - mhb - Mike
Thank you - I like them very much!
The altered grip frame is very shootable, and not unlike those found on the larger Stevens and other contemporary singleshot target pistols: perhaps that shape and feel is what the original owner was after. Having shot them both, I personally find the unaltered grip more satisfactory.
The adjustable sights on the .50 were actually made and installed by the previous owner, at the same time it was re-barreled - the rear sight has only elevation adjustment, and a fairly limited range, while windage must still be corrected by moving the front sight. This particular combination does not work as well for me as the more modern Patridge set on the .44, because the round bead is mated with a very shallow (and short) rear notch and blade: I intend to change both to provide a Patridge combination of better proportions. If I work-up my ambition, I may incorporate windage in the rear sight, as well, and will almost certainly leave the hood off of the front blade (personal preference).
PRD1 - mhb - Mike
- Status
