Advice on remington Rolling Block

[Steve77]

I have a Remington 30-06 742 Carbine for sale locally. A fella is offering to trade me a 45-70 Remington rolling block for my carbine. I don't know much at all about the Rolling blocks. What are the pros and cons of these guns? What kind of value does it have? What questions should I ask about it or things to inspect?

Here are a few pics he sent.

[GOPHER SLAYER]

I don't know what your Remington carbine is but I would not trade a popgun for the rolling block. I can't tell by the picture how old the RB is but the buffing and bluing look terrible. With that small barrel in 45-70 the recoil will be brutal. Tell the man thanks, but no thanks.

[marlinman93]

I also wouldn't give much for that particular Rolling Block. Most of the work would have to be redone as the stocks are poorly shaped, and barrel would be worthless to my needs. The action could be salvaged, but I find originals from $150-$300, so I'd rather start with one Bubba hasn't messed up yet.

[bob208]

I had one with a thin barrel like that in .45-70 it was a bruiser it did not stay here long.

[BCRider]

It looks to me like an Italian reproduction done as a more modern hunter. I do have to agree with the others about how brutal full loads might turn out. A good recoil pad would be a wonderful addition.

The forestock looks like someone bobbed the nose with a power saw and called it good. Even a LITTLE attention could greatly improve the looks of that.

If you want a lighter sort of simple rifle for field use I'd suggest that this might well serve you nicely provided you tailor the loads to what the gun likes and fit it with a good recoil pad.

As for the recoil having shot some Sharps and other big SASS long range rifles in .45-70 I jumped at a .38-55 instead. A .40-65 might be another nice round but I've never seen a rifle in that caliber other than one someone had and was keeping. But .45-70 in any of the stronger loads is too much for my shoulder too. Even on a big heavy barrel gun.

[Steelshooter]

It could be a gun that Gun parts (numrich) offered years ago, original rolling block action with a 24" shaw barrel.

[Steve77]

Thanks for the advice folks, I decided to pass on it. I like the idea of it, but I don't enjoy being punished. I wheel and deal and take a lot of guns on trades just to try them out, but I picture this gun being gratuitously painful now that you mention it. I shoot a 454 Casull Bisley Blackhawk that is pretty stout. It is interesting and it shoots well, but it isn't much fun for a long session, so it is getting sold. I think the rolling block would be a similar experience, so I'll just skip it.

[rfd]

good you passed on that rolling block. i *love* rollers of the .45-70 and .40-65 persuasion, but have no clue as to that one's origin. these dayze, the only new production rollers i know of worth getting are the offshore pedersoli's "target" models with DSTs - they are really good guns capable of extreme accuracy, not at all cheap starting at $1200 and running to $2000, but worth every penny ... and that don't include quality tang/globe sights!

[tdoor4570]

I would have taken it in a flash just to shoot

[KenH]

I agree with other folks, that forearm is "UGLY"!!!! bad ugly - like a box. No flow at all to it.

AS far as recoil, that is a rolling block action and even if a modern reproduction made with strong metal it's still not the strongest action around and should be limited to Trapdoor loads (1200 to 1300 fps?) - Maybe Marlin loads (1700-1800 fps???)? Certainly NOT the full power Ruger type loads. Full power Trapdoor loads are not "too" bad, and you could go with "Cowboy" loads that are pretty decent on recoil. If you reload you can tailor the loads to your desire. Load 1,000 fps (or less) with 350 to 400 grain cast and it becomes a pleasant load, and punches holes in paper nicely 100 yds or so. If you're looking at those 600 to 1,000 yd ranges then you do need the full trapdoor load.

On the stock...... I don't know if that would fit or not with a rolling block action - looks sorta "modern" to me. Part of the mystic of Rolling Blocks are the "traditional" look they have.

Ken H>

[Steve77]

I like stuff I can load pretty stout, so it probably wouldn't have been a good fit for me.

[Chill Wills]

Take the rifle and some cash.
It is a mix of ugly and very ugly. Never will be much with that stock but give me an hour with a rasp and then some 60 grit and it could be the start of something likeable and a fun shooter.

At very safe pressures you can load it strong enough to tip over buffalo. Don't under rate it 1500 FPS with a 405 grain bullet is no pussycat.

[enfield]

I would have taken the rolling block over the 742 , even though it had a very ugly forearm. waaaay more fun than a plane old 30-06. you can do lots to make a very nice rolling block ( cant do much with the other one though )

[marlinman93]

A 742 is worth much more than what that Roller is worth. Better get at least $200-$250 cash on the trade.

[Hardcast416taylor]

My45/70 RB started life as a heavy barreled tuned pederosli action. I sent it out to have a custom stock work and fore end hanger done in AA grade walnut. I got it powder coated and put Lyman globe front sight on and a buffington style rear from Track of the Wolf. Several years back I put a long range rear `Quigley` style rear tang sight on for distance shooting. It`s a rather expensive rifle for all that is done - but it`s mine!Robert