Quote:
Originally Posted by uscra112
Martini henry does that (just cant see hammer) - modern bolt guns do it - pumps ----- shotguns of all types .....................................
Quote:
Originally Posted by uscra112
Martini henry does that (just cant see hammer) - modern bolt guns do it - pumps ----- shotguns of all types .....................................
considering all the 19th century rifle actions, i've always found the rolling block to be best (at least for me). there is a reason why millions of them were built and in military service world wide as well as buffalo running, as compared to the fractional far fewer of all those falling block action variations. a roller is extremely easy to field strip let alone fully disassemble, it's ambidextrous, the block is activated with the smallest of movements while remaining on aim and not having to lift the gun to clear a lever, and the action itself is clearly a strong one. rollers rule. ymmv.
And those all have safeties, which the 1885 does not. To put an 1885 on "safe" you have to hold the hammer with your thumb and pull the trigger to let it down onto half-cock. Not very positive with cold, wet hands or while you're distracted. Yes, I've seen (well, heard) it happen on a target range. We were all admonished by the rangemaster soon after. Some users of course learn to hold the trigger back while closing the action, which is OK if you have gymnastic hands. Do it carelessly and you have the hammer resting on a live primer, or worse yet the tip of the sear resting on the point of the half-cock notch.
Same complaint is true of all the old lever guns except the Sharps-Borchardt and the Savage 99. Only feature I do not like about my otherwise beloved Marlins.
I have a safe full of Brownings and I have never had to take one apart. I have no idea why you would not mention that the Sharps is put on half cock from full cock in the same manner.
The Uberti Highwall goes directly to half cock when the action is closed. So are you going to complain about it too?
If you can' t handle lowering the hammer of a single shot I would suggest you not use an external hammer gun that has no safety. A reasonable person really concerned about safety would just open the action. That is how safety is managed at rifle and skeet ranges.
The roller has one issue and that is the potential of the action unlocking right in your face. No matter hoe much you love a roller everything is right there in your face if you have a blown case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfd
The sidehammer Sharps doesn't push the hammer to full cock by itself. Nor does the hammer have to go to full cock to load the chamber. You close the action with the hammer on half cock.Quote:
Originally Posted by EDG
If these repro 1885s go to HALF cock, that's fine. (Their lawyers probably put 'em up to it.) Original 1885 doesn't. The hammer is left at full cock.Quote:
The Uberti Highwall goes directly to half cock when the action is closed. So are you going to complain about it too?.
All rolling blocks also leave the hammer at full cock after loading, of necessity. But they have tall, almost vertical spurs that are more easily manipulated with wet, cold, or gloved hands, using the side of your thumb. So does the Sharps for that matter. The 1885's spur is lower, flatter and shorter. You have to press the ball of your thumb on it, and if you don't press hard enough it can slip. It does happen, even to the best of us, if we are careless about it.
Now you sound like the Glock fanbois. "I have the technique down cold, I never make a mistake, therefor the gun is perfectly safe. If you can't handle it you're a ______". Yeah, right.Quote:
If you can' t handle lowering the hammer of a single shot I would suggest you not use an external hammer gun that has no safety.
And with modern brass and primers, how often will that happen at black-powder pressures, unless the firing pin is very badly fitted? Which the O.P. won't have if he buys a reproduction. (It is worth checking carefully when selecting a used original.)Quote:
Originally Posted by EDG
a modern built roller replica (by far most are from offshore pedersoli), that has no added half cock safety (as done for some foreign military originals), is a safe and strong action, and can easily and safely handle smokeless as well as the good ol' holy black. the prime difference 'tween a roller and falling block is the shooter movement required to work the action, and why the roller is just easier and faster. rollers just don't get much love because they don't have the romantic aesthetics of a sharps and there are no onshore commercial rollers offered (other than tippmann, which is offered in a non-competitive platform, but their action can be purchased separately).Quote:
Originally Posted by EDG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCVWIOwKZZw
I once saw a video of a guy shooting a rolling block pistol. His motion was so fast on reloading that you might have been forgiven for thinking it was a SAA.
The '74 Sharps has neat history, but is a real PITA to operate, ESPECIALLY when you add target accessories like DST's and scopes that need to be pulled back in the mounts. It's not a rifle where you can casually put down your '94 or your 700 and just casually start shooting - you need to get into a zone when shooting a Sharps.
The Rolling Block is a joy to operate, and has a fair amount of the history, although not necessarily in a target role during it's heyday (I believe most of that came later). If you want to factor in worldwide military abuse at the hands of millions of illiterate privates, it is easily the most proven mechanism of the bunch. MOST of them are ready to go as soon as loaded - good, IMO (more on this next)
The High Wall is hella strong & easiest to operate, but it's arrival after most of the bison had been wiped out doesn't really make it a "period" rifle. I LIKE the immediate cocked-&-ready aspect because if you're NOT firing, you're NOT in a hurry and can take your time to focus on what you're doing & bring it down to half cock. If you are immediately firing - ESPECIALLY if your game needs to be shot twice - multiple stages ahead of the shot are irritating. Browning didn't assume the operator was stupid and chose not to do his thinking for him. My first gun was a hand-me-down Remington 510 single shot with a safety that auto-engaged every time the bolt came back. Good for a nine-year-old through his first box of ammo, but pretty irritating afterwards - "OK. Operator discipline. I GET it! Can I shoot now?" Springfield's small batch of 1871 .50-70 Rolling Blocks would automatically drop the hammer to a pseudo half-cock safety notch when the breech block was closed. I get the military's paranoia over a private in barracks having N.D.'s, but in an actual shooting war, it's time he doesn't necessarily have. You ever try to shoot clays with a double that has an automatic safety and fail to fire because "Dangit! I already took that thing off!" ? Most annoying firearm feature on the planet, IMO.
The Ballard has a FAST lock time for a hammer gun, and is unquestionably the best off-hand target action, but isn't the strongest beast for hotter loads.
i'm hoping to be able work with tippmann and acquire their roller sans barrel for bobby hoyt to do his magic.
I once saw a guy shooting a rolling block and didn't have the breechblock completely closed, so when he pulled the trigger it just went click, he then saw the couple of thousands the breech lacked of being closed so he shoved it closed, hammer then had clearance to fall, sear wasn't engaged, the resulting recoil broke his thumb, which was still exerting pressure on the thumb piece of the block.
Even in the last 10 years or so there have been instances of the shooting backwards thing that the Sharps company and others used in their advertising why their guns were better.
Don, I'm confused how that could happen with a Rolling Block? I can see how the hammer wouldn't drop, and also how the hammer would drop once the block was pushed closed. But once pushed closed the breech block is trapped by the hammer and would not be allowed to move more than a few thousandths of an inch? How could that break his thumb in such limited movement?
I must agree fully here and also with your description in the other reply of how an accidental firing could easily happen, it happened to me years ago while wearing gloves and lowering a very similar hammer on a Stevens single shot shotgun. Also what you are saying about the Jap High/Low Walls is absolutely true and it baffles me why a lot of folks discuss these rifles with the original models as if they are somehow the same when they could hardly be more different. A somewhat similar, but not at all identical, outside appearance and the same name is about all they share since the action is totally redesigned containing a great many more parts working on different operating principles, not one single part is even close to the same as anything in an original design rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by uscra112
We are not in full agreement on that one but ONLY because there simply is no faster followup shot! That has always seemed to be the only argument for a full-cock-on-closing hammer but the advantage is simply not there and the argument that it is faster is taking the old "splitting hairs" adage to extremes. Why is this true? Well think about the whole followup shot routine, two equally capable shooters with two identical 1885s except one is half cock and the other is full. Both shooters begin the followup process at the same time so let's look at it,Quote:
Originally Posted by uscra112
Shooter number one has the full cock rifle so he lowers it, opens the lever, extracts the empty, inserts the fresh round and closes the lever as does Shooter number two using the EXACT procedure and taking EXACTLY the same amount of time.
Now it get's different, shooter number one has the hammer left at full cock so raises his rifle to his shoulder, takes aim and fires, shooter number two has half cock so he simply thumbs his hammer back AS HE RAISES HIS RIFLE to his shoulder and fires at the SAME time as Shooter number one!
Be it an old single shot shotgun, an 1885 or whatever in that style no one raises their rifle to their shoulder and THEN thumbs the hammer back and during a followup or any "snap" type shot we simply cock the hammer as we throw the rifle to our shoulder so no time is lost with either style hammer. If someone wants to "split hairs" and insist there really is a tiny advantage that might make a difference during a followup shot there are a couple of things to consider there too, first just as you asked "How often would such a shot even be needed"? Obviously it would be rarely if ever where such a split second would make the difference (even if there was a split second delay!) but of course the possibility is always there, however if both style rifles are fired at the same time it makes no difference anyway. The chances of an accidental firing FAR outweigh any hypothetical advantage on the outside chance that a split second "might" save a hunt someday, that is even if such an advantage is even there and I submit that it is not.
Also it's commonly said that the original Winchesters were full-cock-on-closing and that's mostly true but Winchester offered the rifles both ways after the first few years of production so half cock models can be found. For a production run the 1885 lock system is easier to build in full cocking style because fitting of the sear is non-critical, by that I mean the sear can easily be made to engage the hammer notch over several degrees of travel as the hammer rises so small variations in parts don't matter much. With the half cock models timing of the hammer/sear engagement is highly critical and can only occur over a very narrow range of a few degrees of rise so it takes extra care in fitting to make it happen properly, otherwise the actions are the same (this is not done by using a "Fly" as is commonly suggested, the "Fly" is used to prevent engagement of the sear to the half cock notch as the hammer falls on set trigger actions).
Every old single shot has it's peculiarities, or differences in how they are fired. Most are so minor that it's no big deal, and more a case of what a shooter likes of the positives in a particular gun.
The Sharps 1874 is a very strong action, but the small detraction is they should be put to half cock before lowering the lever to load, or they may eventually break a firing pin. The angled pin can also give an occasional misfire, but that's pretty rarely seen. The underlever can get in the way if shooting off the bench and needs to be turned sideways to open if it hits the bench or rest.
The Winchester 1885 is a very strong action also, and early models cocked on opening the lever. Some didn't like that, so later models don't cock on opening, and have to be cocked. Either works fine for me, and I've seen guys modify either to the other style for their preference. Like the Sharps, it too needs to be turned sideways to clear the lever if your rest is under the action.
The Ballard is a weaker action, although plenty strong enough for the old calibers it was offered in. It handled the .45-110 with no problem, so not a fragile action; just not like the Sharps, 1885 or Hepburn. Like some others it too has the same underlever and same issues with the lever.
The Rem. Hepburn is a very strong action also, and was chambered in some pretty hot calibers toward the end of production. With it's side lever it was specifically designed by Hepburn to be shot off a rest and not change the shooter's hold. The side lever is very nice, but if a case ever gets stuck, it has very little leverage to extract. Never been a issue in mine, and if it was I'd use a cleaning rod to tap the case out.
The Stevens 44 and 44 1/2 are good guns, but the 44 is pretty weak. The 44 1/2 is very strong, but it's size limited it from chamberings that had large rim diameters. The CPA versions fixed this by making their actions scaled up wider to allow for larger calibers. But originals are really not suitable for anything larger than the .38-55 rim diameter.
If you've spent much if any time with a roller, you'll soon see the underside of the block and the top of the hammer pivot have very close tolerances. If for what ever reason the rim of the cartridge isn't fully seated it holds the block out just enough the hammer won't clear when the sear is released. Once the sear is released there is nothing keeping the hammer at the full cock position. By not pulling the hammer back to engage the sear, then pushing the breechblock to fully closed, the hammer will fall striking the firing pin and we all should know what happens when the firing pin hits the primer. By not reengaging the sear when a shooter pushes the block fully closed the gun goes off and presto, broken thumb..Quote:
Originally Posted by marlinman93
Hence came the slogan from Sharps, "our rifles never shoot backwards"
Have to wonder about the complaints of an 1885 being on full cock when the breech is closed, same thing happens with a roller, the hammer has to be drawn to full cock, the round loaded and the breech block closed, leaving the hammer in the full cock position unless and until the shooter either lowers the hammer to halfcock, or fires the rifle,,
there can be operator issues happening with most any firearm.
with a cocked roller action, that breech block needs to be fully engaged with the cartridge head for the trigger to trip the sear and allow the hammer to fall. as the hammer barely begins it's fall, the breech block is locked. anything other than this is an operator error. dittos for most any falling block where the operator forgets to go to half cock as the block is raised on a loaded live cartridge.
Another short coming of the rolling block , especially the earlier versions. If for what ever reason the firing pin gets stuck in the forward postition, it can set off the primer when the breechblock is closed. Yet another example of "the rifle that shoots backwards"
i get the impression you don't like rollers, don? :roll: :-P