Rolling Block strenght

[RemSoles]

Hi guys, I was wondering how strong the swedish 1867 rolling block rifles are? Will they handle 50-90, 45-90, 45-100 with blackpowder or equivelent smokeless loads? I am thinking of getting one of these rifles in bad shape and rebarreling it.

[Wayne Smith]

They were originally chambered in 50-70 and 7mm Mauser. The problem with the longer cases is getting it over the hump of the rolling block to chamber it. You may be able to get a 50-90 in, I'd bet a 45-110 would hang up.

[leadman]

To get a 45-110 in you probably would have to grind off part of the hammer nose. I've seen this and can't say I care to do it.
I've a Pedersoli in 40-65 and really like it. It isn't a magnum but I can still obtain 1,400 fps with a 400 grain boolit. I usually shoot it at about 1,250fps.
Ackley seemed to think the smokeless actions were pretty strong.

[Dutchman]

The Swedish m/1867 rolling block was chambered in 12,17x42R rimfire. A small number of trials rifles were chambered in 11mm Jarmann. The m/1860-64-68 Swedish rolling block was also chambered in 12,17x42R. The m/1867-68 Swedish rolling block was chambered in 12,17x42R. In American numbers the 12,17x42R can be likened to .50-75-345 but the case is narrower in the head diameter than the US .50-70 Gov't cartridge and the two are not interchangeable.

When the military rifles were retired and ended up in civilian hands the breechblocks were converted to center-fire so they could reload. This subsequent cartridge is known as the 12,7x44R Swedish. They are basically the same except the later has a center-fire primer. The Swedish military never used a center-fire cartridge in the m/1867 rolling block. The m/1867 Swedish rolling block will kickass on the m/1889 in shooting competition. Into the early 20th century Swedish shooters much preferred the 12,7x44R as it will bang the gong all the live long day while the 8x58R Danish will start to walk bullets all around for a couple reasons, one being barrel heat and barrel band tension. I've never, not once, heard of a m/1889 rolling block delivering any case of whoopass on the m/1867 rifle. The m/1867 3 band muskets are wonderfully accurate rifles.

The m/1889 Swedish rolling block was chambered only in 8x58R Danish in a loading level less than the m/1889 Danish Krag rifles. The m/1889 rolling block requires a lower chamber pressure than the Krag.

The Swedish rolling block, which is what the original poster asked about, was never chambered in either .50-70 Gov't or 7mm (of any kind).

Do not mistake the Swedish m/1867 with the m/1889 as the latter had new breechblock and hammer manufactured and the receiver was re-case hardened. This leads some shooters to erroneously belief its capable of handling just about anything. Wrong. The m/1889 rolling block has woefully inadequate ability to FLEX under pressure and is known to be too hard. As well there is next to no gas escape in the design.

While some/many shooters will scoff at any warning and state loudly that THEIR rolling block hasn't blown up yet so that means all rolling blocks in the entire world will never blow up. That's how you define your basic "internet expert".

I'm here to tell you rolling block rifles DO blow up and HAVE killed shooters. Consider me the Yang to the internet expert's Ying.

Swedish m/1867 rolling blocks and other models produced in Sweden have steel receivers. Steel as in 1867, not 2009. Metal fatigue is cumulative. Make sure you know what that means before you proceed. Make sure your family will be taken care of should you be one of the few who is killed when his rifle grenades into his face/brain/skull.

Smokeless powder in a blackpowder rolling block has always and will continue to be a controversial subject, as it is with all black powder firearms. Don't take someone else's word for what may be the last decision of your life. I'm not trying to present a balanced and fully informed opinion here. Ik ben Yang. You can get the other side from some one else.

We don't know which of these cartridges the shooter stuffed in his ratty *** rolling block because he was killed when the receiver failed and most of the breech block launched rearward through his eye and into the rear part of his eye socket. These photos are from the Swedish police national forensic laboratory.


Dutch

[RemSoles]

Wow, thanks for the replies. It would probably be a better idea to stick with the original barrel in 12.7-44r then or if I rebarrel to 50-70 with blackpowder I guess. Thanks again, just wanted to see if anyone had some insight, I'm definitely not trying to kill myself.

[JSnover]

To get a 45-110 in you probably would have to grind off part of the hammer nose. I've seen this and can't say I care to do it.

I'd hate to grind the hammer too. Assuming the pressure level is known safe and the problem is rim diameter/OAL, why not file a little off one side of the rim? I shoot 400 grain boolits at about 1200 fps. My only problem is I like to seat them long so they engage the rifling. I took a little off each rim, chamber them with the flat spot at 6 o'clock... problem solved.

[marlinman93]

Dutch,
That's the best factual info on Rollers I've read on the internet! Well written sir! I love Rollers, and enjoy shooting them, but with common sense in reloading for them.
I shoot an original #1 Sporter in .44-77 Sharps Bottleneck, and I'd like to keep it in one piece, so it gets nothing but cast lead and BP.

[longhorn]

I'm absolutely with the Dutchman on this, and I own 2 rollers. It's a BLACK POWDER design; even a cursory review of internal ballistics will show that black and "smokeless equivalent" loads may have similar peak pressures and extremely different pressure curves. I'd warn against anything but black or bp substitutes in any bp design, including rollers, Sharps, and trapdoors, even if they were built last week--but I haven't seen any ads for eye replacements lately.

[Harry O]

I have a 45-70 RB rifle that was built on a Swedish receiver. I decided when I built it that I would ONLY use black powder in it. I have seen too many pictures over the years of blown up old guns that used "smokless equivalent" loads.

Remember that the stuff they called "steel" back in 1867 was very little stronger than cast iron. I have personally tested "high strength" steel that was made during WWI (an aircraft part) and it was lower strength than the lowest strength steel that we could buy at the time (about 30 years ago). What we know as steel has continuously improved in strength, elongation, and toughness (which is a different property than strength) over the last 150 years.

Stick with BP and you will live longer.

[leadman]

Accurate lists loads for SMOKELESS POWDER ACTIONS with a 400 grain boolit and 37 grains of2495 powder, 1633 fps, psi is 19,600.
Same boolit with 52 grs. 8700 powder, 1183fps, 16,800 psi. I have shot this load, very accurate and even smokes almost like black.

I would only use these in a modern reproduction in excellent condition.

I wonder what cartridge the blown up RB was actually chambered for.

[yarro]

The blown up gun was chambered in 12.7x44mm Danish. I have the rifle version, which is fine with moderate BP loads and 350ish grain bullet with cases being made from cut down .50 Alaskan with the neck mouth reamed. They suspect that the blown up rifle was fired with a .500 Nitro in it. It is important that you slug your bore to ensure that you aren't trying to drive anything too big down it and be prudent in your loading of BP. Make sure that the action is in good condition and that the hammer spring is strong. I also have an 8mm Krag-Jorg. that was sporterized, which is sad as it had obviously never been shot before it came to me. I have not got around to making brass for it yet, but it will be BP only as well.

-yarro

[leadman]

Remington did build a no.5 in smokeless calibers 7mm Mauser, 30-30, 30-40 Krag, 303 Brit, 32-40 smokeless, 32 Win. Spl., 38-55 smokeless and others. This was in sporting configuration. There was also a military version in 236 Rem., 7.65 Mauser, 7.62 Russian and others.
That was from Remington Rolling blocks by Konrad F. Schreier, Jr.
I owned a no.5 military in 7x57 at one time. It had BATJAC stamped in the stock. I was told that was John Wayne's company.
One thing about the 7x57 chambering in the old rollers is that the body of the case is longer than modern 7x57. That is why everyone thinks there is something wrong with the headspace. These were made before SAAMI specs.
My old gun was pretty rusty so I finally sold it as a wall hanger.

Even with a no.5 I would use extreme caution in loading smokeless rounds for it.

[Harry O]

One thing that should be kept in mind about Swedish RB's is that they were some of the earliest that Remington ever made. There were 20,000 complete rifles and 20,000 receivers made by Remington for the Swedes in about 1867-1868. That is a long time ago. They should be limited to BP only.

The smokless powder versions were made around the turn of the last century and made with better steel. Steel made a huge leap in strength in the 1880's to 1900. It also made smaller jumps after WW1 and during WW2. Just because they were made in smokeless cartridges does not mean that you should use the same in a 50 year older gun that was made of weaker steel.

[Dutchman]

One thing that should be kept in mind about Swedish RB's is that they were some of the earliest that Remington ever made. There were 20,000 complete rifles and 20,000 receivers made by Remington for the Swedes in about 1867-1868. That is a long time ago. They should be limited to BP only.

The smokless powder versions were made around the turn of the last century and made with better steel. Steel made a huge leap in strength in the 1880's to 1900. It also made smaller jumps after WW1 and during WW2. Just because they were made in smokeless cartridges does not mean that you should use the same in a 50 year older gun that was made of weaker steel.

Just so we keep in mind exactly ~which~ smokeless rolling blocks we're talking about....

The Swedish 1867-89 were made from blackpowder frames that were re-case hardened and fitted with new made forged hammers and breechblocks. The model year being 1889 but I've not seen any dated prior to 1891 for the conversion date though there may be some earlier. Last dates are 1896/97. I'm not 100% on the last year they were produced. For the most part 1896 but I've heard there are some conversions dated later. The conversion date is stamped into the right side of the barrel flat behind a new serial number XXXXX/96 thusly also on the wood below the metal.

This one below is a sporterized m/1867-89 in caliber 8x58RD (Danish).



The only difference in strength between the one above and the one below is the one above was re-heattreated? Boy, that makes me warm and fuzzy all over, hey?

This is all beside the point of what caused this rifle to come apart. I've become like an old woman concerning rolling blocks because of what I've learned and experienced in the last 9 years of owning them and studying them. Great historic rifles. But with limitations and in some cases those limitations can be mitigated with knowledge. That's why I make a big deal of rolling block strength anymore.

Kill yourself with knowledge, not ignorance .

[northmn]

I had a couple of RB's worked over for BPC's way back when. One was an old derelict that a gunsmith worked over for me. One of the first things he would do is replace the Block pin with one made out of good alloyed steel. It was a wear area anyway. Claimed that was one difference between smokeless and BP. Case hardening reduses wear but does not do a lot for strength.

Northmn

[Frank46]

you have to stop yourself and ask. Ok here is my sswedish rolloing block. Its stamped 1875 the year is 2009 thats 124 years old. Ok some were reworked with new hammers and breech blocks mine had the dirty deed done in 1896. She's in nice shape and was probably carried by some swedish hunter out in the cold and snow. Mine eventually will become a 50-70 just because I want one. Small case, big boolit and hopefully decently accurate. Back when numrich has the buffalo hunter kits I fitted a barrel to a nice #1 BP action. Since I was financially challenged back then. Cases were resized over and over what I didn't know was check them for length. So at one point the cases had lengthened to the point that they would no longer fully chamber. One of the other shooters was a friend of my Dad's and asked when was the last time I had trimmed the cases. The blank stare said it all. I fired loads that were for the 86 winchester in that rifle. When I told him what I was shooting he almost turned white. See we learn from others mistakes. And believe you me I made my share. I tried 32-20 pistol bullets behind a full military load from argentine military ammo. Not much accuracy as most of those bullets blew up going so fast. But even then I learned something. Frank

[Harry O]

Just so we keep in mind exactly ~which~ smokeless rolling blocks we're talking about....

I was thinking about the 7mm Spanish/Mexican rolling blocks when I wrote that. They did have better steel, not merely re-heat-treated cast iron. I would be very afraid of using anything other than BP with cast iron.

[Dutchman]

Swedish rolling blocks, none of them, were made from cast iron. They are steel.


Dutchman

[jh45gun]

Remington did build a no.5 in smokeless calibers 7mm Mauser, 30-30, 30-40 Krag, 303 Brit, 32-40 smokeless, 32 Win. Spl., 38-55 smokeless and others. This was in sporting configuration. There was also a military version in 236 Rem., 7.65 Mauser, 7.62 Russian and others.
That was from Remington Rolling blocks by Konrad F. Schreier, Jr.
I owned a no.5 military in 7x57 at one time. It had BATJAC stamped in the stock. I was told that was John Wayne's company.
One thing about the 7x57 chambering in the old rollers is that the body of the case is longer than modern 7x57. That is why everyone thinks there is something wrong with the headspace. These were made before SAAMI specs.
My old gun was pretty rusty so I finally sold it as a wall hanger.

Even with a no.5 I would use extreme caution in loading smokeless rounds for it.

I have a No 5 that I have had rebarrled to 45/70 and I shoot loads in the bottom third range of the Marlin/Winchester loads in the loading books the action is plenty strong enough for these loads. Yes I have had it gunsmith checked in fact a smith did the barrel for me a Green Mountain 32 inch full octagon barrel. I also contacted Steve Garbe about it and asked him about the strength of a no 5 action. No they are not as strong as a Ruger No 1 but they are stronger then a Trapdoor too. On the black powder actions I would only shoot loads that are black or are lower power smokeless rounds.

[Harry O]

Swedish rolling blocks, none of them, were made from cast iron. They are steel.
Dutchman

Cast iron was a poor choice of words. However, they WERE made from iron. Forged from iron ingots that were cast. They did not have what we consider steel before the 1880's or so. That is after the Swedish rolling blocks were made. The only steel before the 1880's was made in very small quantities with a high labor content. If you check Winchester books, they made the change over from iron to steel until the 1880's to 1890's when it became easily available. Even then, the "steel" was only 10% to 15% stronger than the iron it replaced. BTW, the reason for "damascus" barrels was that they were as strong as the early steel for a little less money. When the strength of steel continued to rise (and damascus could not), damascus was no longer made.