Sharps? Variants? BPCR? (Or, "Feeling what might be a developing 'itch'.")

[oldred]

The half cock vs full cock should not be a problem either way and lowering the hammer to half position or cocking from half position is such a simple matter that it shouldn't be a problem at all either way. Some designs simply don't allow to going to half cock upon closing while some such as the 1885 can be either way with just a minor modification one way or the other so I suppose it boils down to what is preferred. Personally I like the half cock type as I am convinced that it is safer although I would be the first to admit that saying the full cock version is unsafe is stretching things more than a little. However it does just seem to be safer and I see no downside at all to having the half cock vs the full cock and I am sure that at least for me a quick followup shot would not be hindered in the least by the hammer closing to the half cock position.

[Don McDowell]

i get the impression you don't like rollers, don?

Nope wrong impression on your part. Just pointing out observations of the various types of rifles, from experience from over a half century of using the various rifles, and historical research.
A ruger #1 is fully cocked and ready to go once the cartridge is chambered and the block closed,, only difference between it and the 1885's, rollers and Stevens rifles is you have the tang mounted safety..

[country gent]

Same way with the Sharps Brochrdts from that era even its striker was cocked and the safety was engaged. The Brochardts safety was a simple little sliding tang behind the trigger inside the trigger guard. It engaged a boss on the back of the trigger restricting movement.

All in all most can handle letting a hammer to half cock pretty reliably, Im more concerned with the ones who cant seem to keep a rifle ( any fire arm for that matter) pointed down range or in a safe direction. They turn to talk to you or a buddy and the fire arm is pointed at you.

[marlinman93]

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..
Hence came the slogan from Sharps, "our rifles never shoot backwards"

I have quite a few Rollers, and have shot them for many years. But I think you need to look at a Rolling Block's function again Don. What you described bout a Rolling Block dropping the hammer when the breech block is closed (if you've pulled the trigger first) is true. But the second part about the block being pushed closed on a case and the gun's ignition of the primer causing the breech to strike back and break the shooter's thumb is just plain impossible!
As soon as the breech block closes enough to allow the hammer to drop, the design of the Rolling Block allows the hammer to be dropped. As soon as the hammer drops it falls behind the breech block and prevents the breech block from moving. If the breech block could move as you described, it would open up upon firing and you'd have a face full of cartridge and hot flames! What you described is impossible in a working Rolling Block.
Furthermore, a Rolling Block does not have a sear! The Rolling Block design uses direct contact between the trigger and hammer. No sear used in between, nor is one needed. Here's a good diagram that shows how the Rolling Block design safely blocks the breech block when the hammer drops. Might want to study it, and before telling that tale.



And here's what DeHaas had to say about the Rolling Block design:

"In all Remington Rolling Block actions the breech block closes the rear of the chamber, but it is the hammer which holds and locks the breech block closed when the rifle fires. Thus the hammer has to functions, to lock the breech block closed, and to fire the rifle."

[marlinman93]

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"

Yes, a firing pin can get stuck on a Rolling Block, but not any easier than any other gun without a firing pin interlock or return spring. Butt to set off a primer by closing the breech block would take more than simply closing the breech block. It would require the shooter to sharply snap the block closed with enough force to strike the primer pretty hard. That's just not a normal way anyone would ever close a Rolling Block breech, and it's highly unlikely it could happen. Not saying one couldn't do so if all the stars aligned, the firing pin stuck, and somebody closed the breech block pretty hard. But it's certainly more of an old wife's tale than a commonplace happening.
This might help refresh your memory on how a Rolling Block functions. Go to around 4:50 to see how the hammer blocks the block to keep it locked during firing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GadzX6vPl8Y

[Don McDowell]

Val, the tip of the trigger that engages that notch in the hammer is the sear... With that small gap that exists between the hammer at full cock and the breechblock if the breechblock is just a few thousands from being fully closed and you pull the trigger, the hammer is no longer engaged by that tip of the trigger thingy, push that breechblock ahead just a slosh and the hammer will fall... Try it sometime if you ever get around a roller.. You might be surprised.
Odd that you've supposedly shot these rifle so much, that you've never experienced, nor know of anyone that has had the experiences I've described, let alone that has been well documented from back in the day....

[EDG]

Just like it impossible for you to fumble a Sharps hammer?
Who are you kidding? People have been fumbling hammers since they were first invented.
If you decide to lower the hammer what do you do with a set trigger?0

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.


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.

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.

[EDG]

I have seen a pierced primer blow the hammer back in a 7X57 roller.
The breech block flipped open and the case was partly ejected.
It can happen.....
They can be a Darwin hole for a newbie.

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.)

[rfd]

geez louise. what IS the big deal about a roller's action in terms of safety? none. unless yer an idiot who shouldn't be messing with guns, and there are always some of those around who haven't been genetically removed from life's gene pool. on all my pedersoli rollers, there IS a sear. a sear can have many different forms, but no matter what it looks like or where it's located it is a sear that when tripped by the trigger the hammer will fall. when the breech block is pulled even slightly back, the trigger is blocked, and when the breech block is fully forward the trigger can be pulled. big woo. it's a big boy's gun, not a toy. stop the roller bashing nonsense. there were millions built as opposed to thousands of falling blocks because rollers work well, are easy builds, and are easy to load (in most cases, easier/faster than a falling block), easy to shoot, and are easy to maintain. this is not a roller versus sharps thing, so sharps lovers, get over it.

[marlinman93]

Val, the tip of the trigger that engages that notch in the hammer is the sear... With that small gap that exists between the hammer at full cock and the breechblock if the breechblock is just a few thousands from being fully closed and you pull the trigger, the hammer is no longer engaged by that tip of the trigger thingy, push that breechblock ahead just a slosh and the hammer will fall... Try it sometime if you ever get around a roller.. You might be surprised.
Odd that you've supposedly shot these rifle so much, that you've never experienced, nor know of anyone that has had the experiences I've described, let alone that has been well documented from back in the day....

Don you keep repeating the same thing, and it wont break any thumbs as you declared earlier!!!! I never said it wouldn't fire the gun, and if you look back I agreed from the start that the gun would indeed fire if the hammer was resting on the block when the block was pushed shut. But you are now leaving off the part you said about it breaking thumbs, which is just plain wrong, and can't happen!! Your point and my counter point were concerning the hammer breaking someone's thumb, which you've now decided to act like you never mentioned. Would you like me to quote you on your comment?
Here you go:

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.

And yes, I own 14 Rolling Block rifles, and shoot them on a regular basis. I have both of my thumbs intact, and never so much as a sore thumb! And I know I wont, because it just can't break my thumb.

I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat this for you to get it?

[Don McDowell]

val you'll have to plead the won't break you thumb case to the guy I saw it happen to...Cuz the recoil of a 45-90 when not held firm is a bit energetic.

[marlinman93]

And were talking semantics I guess with some referring to the tip of the trigger a sear. I call it the tip of the trigger because it's all one piece, and that piece is the trigger. In a single set trigger Rolling Block there actually is a sear on the parts list, as set trigger Rolling Blocks have a separate sear. If you order a trigger for a Rolling Block, and it's not a set trigger model, you wont need to buy a sear, you buy the trigger.

[marlinman93]

val you'll have to plead the won't break you thumb case to the guy I saw it happen to...Cuz the recoil of a 45-90 when not held firm is a bit energetic.

You're talking a freak accident, and something that could happen with almost any gun if the shooter isn't careful! It is not exclusive to a Rolling Block that people could have recoil break their thumb if they don't have a gun shouldered and are holding it with just their thumb.
You could just as easily touch the trigger on any gun that was cocked and if the gun isn't against your shoulder the recoil could break a finger or thumb. The whole scenario you use as an example could be easily prevented by simply ensuring the block is closed, or that you didn't pull the trigger with it partially opened.
I've seen numerous shooters touch off set trigger guns before they were ready to aim. Does that mean set trigger guns are inherently dangerous? Or does it mean shooters should be pointing their guns downrange and have them shouldered before touching the trip trigger?
This is such a ridiculous discussion considering how unusual it would be to happen, and how easily people can get hurt with any gun. I think I agree with the statement that you're quite possibly anti Rolling Block.

[marlinman93]

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.



.

Not so at all! The Rolling Blocks were redesigned to go to half cock on some later Military Rolling Blocks sold to the US Government. These models were specifically designed to go to half cock so enlisted men wouldn't forget to lower the hammer after loading if they weren't going to shoot.
The Whitney Laidley Rolling Blocks also go to half cock after loading.

[Don McDowell]

Well you would be wrong in the anti rolling block judgement.
Problems with the rollers are historic, and if you read enough of the stuff from back in the day it's not a freak accident at all.
The advertising slogan "our rifles never shoot backward" came from somewhere. I don't remember all the details but it was reported that at a long range match in the 1870's at either Camp Douglas or maybe even at Provo, where a shooter using a rolling block had one of those freak accidents and lost an eye.
BTW I remember a similar discussion a few years back on Paco's lever gun forums, when one of the guru's there had the same problem and he got rather upset when folks that knew what the problem was pointed out to him that it wasn't the guns fault it was his..

Bottom line is the roller is no more dangerous nor safer than any other early single shot rifle, and those that tried to convince the OP of this thread ,who is/was interested in a falling block rifle , are doing a real disservice when they omit a ton of detail about the roller, and most especially when they try to rule the 1885's unsafe due to the hammer being in full cock when the block is closed. Same thing happens with the roller, except the shooter is the one that has to put it to full cock to even load the thing..

[marlinman93]

Putting a fired or empty Rolling Block to full cock to load it is not unsafe. And closing the breech block on a loaded chamber of a Rolling Block is no more unsafe than closing the lever on an 1885 that goes to full cock. It's as easy to hit the trigger on an 1885 as it is to hit the trigger on a Rolling Block.
Anyone who is careless or doesn't treat guns with respect can have an accident. It's what you're doing when it goes off that makes a gun unsafe. Not what the gun is doing. Guns don't do this stuff without some input from the shooter. This is the stuff lawyers just love!

[indian joe]

I have quite a few Rollers, and have shot them for many years. But I think you need to look at a Rolling Block's function again Don. What you described bout a Rolling Block dropping the hammer when the breech block is closed (if you've pulled the trigger first) is true. But the second part about the block being pushed closed on a case and the gun's ignition of the primer causing the breech to strike back and break the shooter's thumb is just plain impossible!
As soon as the breech block closes enough to allow the hammer to drop, the design of the Rolling Block allows the hammer to be dropped. As soon as the hammer drops it falls behind the breech block and prevents the breech block from moving. If the breech block could move as you described, it would open up upon firing and you'd have a face full of cartridge and hot flames! What you described is impossible in a working Rolling Block.
Furthermore, a Rolling Block does not have a sear! The Rolling Block design uses direct contact between the trigger and hammer. No sear used in between, nor is one needed. Here's a good diagram that shows how the Rolling Block design safely blocks the breech block when the hammer drops. Might want to study it, and before telling that tale.



And here's what DeHaas had to say about the Rolling Block design:

"In all Remington Rolling Block actions the breech block closes the rear of the chamber, but it is the hammer which holds and locks the breech block closed when the rifle fires. Thus the hammer has to functions, to lock the breech block closed, and to fire the rifle."

Don and MM
I am thinking you both right but the impulse to argue is getting in the road here !
Breech block of roller cant recoil open once the firing pin makes contact - impossible due to the design unless the thing comes apart in the process.
however if the operator is leaning forward on the breech block pushing it shut with his thumb when the gun discharges - that is busted thumb for sure unless he is shooting some very low recoil round - the whole recoil energy of the discharge comes back through the stiffened thumb -- ouuccchhhh!!!!

[ANick57]

Well, I guess it's probably true that nobody is ever going to convince anyone that this bunch isn't passionate about their single shots.. not this week anyway!

Rolling Blocks are for me, one of those historic interest guns that have yet to get me excited enough to spend money on one. Just never say, 'never', though. Don't hold your breath either.

Falling blocks in general, with a huge interest in the Sharps, are indeed where I'm looking. I don't mind an educational introduction to the 'others' though. One of the things that I truly admire about the falling block is the simple strength of the block. Compared to trapdoors, toggles and trunions or pins, there's just a huge amount of metal in shear to back up that cartridge. I like it.

Hammer, in-line or hanging off to the side? For the latter, I have some decent amount of time popping rounds through an old Trapdoor, measured in hundreds not thousands. In-line hammers and I are definitely not strangers, going back to the H&R .410 single or the Win '06 .22 that I started on or the numerous hammer handguns or rifles since. It's a pretty busy list. I think I have that one handled as far as letting hammers down. (The biggest tip I have there, DO NOT use the end of the thumb on the end of the hammer, get the thumb around that thing and own it! ) I could not agree more with Country.. MUZZLE control please. Nor would I advocate releasing the trigger while closing the action to lower the hammer. It surely isn't going to be quite most of the time if you try that with the '97 anyway.

I do appreciate the breadth of the conversation here, but let's not get too swept up in the fiddly bits, eh?

Seriously, thanks all!

Nick

[sharps4590]

Goodness....and all these decades I've been shooting single shots of various design because I thought they were simple to operate. I don't recall EVER having to get "in a zone" to shoot any of my Sharps rifles. The few rollers I've played with over the last 50+ years have given nothing but fun and pleasure with none having ever "shot backward". All this brouhaha about single shots makes me wonder how safe my Ideal actioned German rifles and my Haenel/Aydt Schuetzen rifles are or, my Jones underlever single shot & double rifles...with....heaven forbid...external side hammers. As it is, I believe I'll go along being blissfully ignorant, by choice, of nearly all BS I read about single shot rifles in this thread and have even more fun in the process.

[indian joe]

Don you keep repeating the same thing, and it wont break any thumbs as you declared earlier!!!! I never said it wouldn't fire the gun, and if you look back I agreed from the start that the gun would indeed fire if the hammer was resting on the block when the block was pushed shut. But you are now leaving off the part you said about it breaking thumbs, which is just plain wrong, and can't happen!! Your point and my counter point were concerning the hammer breaking someone's thumb, which you've now decided to act like you never mentioned. Would you like me to quote you on your comment?
Here you go:



And yes, I own 14 Rolling Block rifles, and shoot them on a regular basis. I have both of my thumbs intact, and never so much as a sore thumb! And I know I wont, because it just can't break my thumb.

I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat this for you to get it?

Mate - you are not thinking about this at all !!!!! the story as told is the shooter was pushing hard forward to seat a stubborn round with his thumb against the lug on the breech bolt when a 45/90 went off - his thumb took the whole recoil - if it didnt break it or dislocate the thumb its a miracle and I bet it still hurts years later ------if you read and comprehend Dons statement that YOU quoted above - its plain he didnt say the hammer did it "his thumb, which was still exerting pressure on the thumb piece of the block" ----this dumb old Aussie got it first time around -- Mr marlinman93 ???? to busy argufyin to read it right !!!!