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

[ANick57]

I will give myself the credit of not asking a group of willing enablers to talk me off the ledge regarding a jump into BP, Sharps (et al). A few decades, maybe a bit more than just a few, ago, the thought of the Sharps was as in my young, pure mind, the stuff of legend. That view hasn't changed. So, I have been mining the world wide web for a while, answering some questions and finding more.

Back 'when', the thought of the Sharps was not cluttered with the 'slight' list of piddly details. At least not in my mind. Barrel lengths, weights and to some degree chamber options are mostly sorted. (I did find an article someone linked to on the board that helped bridge the confusion some on rifle markings versus some of the cartridge definitions, more inquiry to come on that though.)

But, actions. I'm limiting myself to the falling blocks, there's plenty of variation available and little more to wish for regarding strength. The 1885 Winchester (and re-makes) are viable firearms and have some good things to be said for them. I don't know enough about the Hepburns to really have an opionion. The Sharps model variations, I really haven't run across any great discussion of benefits of the variants, so *specifically* which one.. that's a fine question.

What are the differences functionally, among the '74, '75, '77?? Granted, that can be taken or given as a generic difference or could be specific to a given manufacturer, not discounting that not all makers offer all models.. or have.

The '74 seems to be the common and possibly (?) heavier action. (Which can get into off center hammer movement & effects on accuracy, etc.)
The '77 looks like it shaves some weight off the action, which can go into a heavier barrel?


Somewhere down the line, someone will ask, 'What are you using this one for?'. Well, either some kind of local shoots or range. I would list the possibility of hunting with it, but really if I'm hunting 'modern firearm' I have other choices, and frankly for big stuff I look to the bow. I really don't know enough about BPCR 'games' to hold forth any aspirations there of. So far.

Thanks!

Nick

[sharps4590]

An "answer" to your post could take several paragraphs and get into a whole lot of extraneous horse manure about a lot of differences, advantages and disadvantages between makes and actions and cartridges. I would recommend one thing, the 45-70 as your first cartridge. As this is your first endeavor into BPC rifles and it doesn't appear you're looking for a dedicated target or hunting rifle, the rest of my answer is simple. Get the one that puts the biggest grin on your face and go forth, happily slaying steel, paper and game.

[Dan Cash]

An "answer" to your post could take several paragraphs and get into a whole lot of extraneous horse manure about a lot of differences, advantages and disadvantages between makes and actions and cartridges. I would recommend one thing, the 45-70 as your first cartridge. As this is your first endeavor into BPC rifles and it doesn't appear you're looking for a dedicated target or hunting rifle, the rest of my answer is simple. Get the one that puts the biggest grin on your face and go forth, happily slaying steel, paper and game.

Best advice you could hope for.

[Remmy4477]

Second on the advise! The 45-70 is an easy one to reload.

[ANick57]

Gents,
Thanks for the thoughts. Truly. But 'it's about the actions'. :)

Trust me, the collective record is rife with discussions of caliber / cartridge. The .45-70 is a quite logical and predictable recommendation for a 'starter'. Or the 'half-starter', if you will.

Well back before I had a thought about having a gray hair, my dad, younger brother and self set up to cast and reload for dad's trapdoor. Not exactly a squirrel rifle but a heck of a lot of fun, albeit very 'sub-potential' light loads. Since then I've much more recently crossed paths with a Browning 1885 in 7mm Rem Mag, of which I like the rifle more than the cartridge. I really like the falling block and part of the kid in me giggles each time the hammer dives out of sight. So, a .45-70 in an '85 is viable. Probably pretty practical too. And maybe down in third place on 'the list'.

But, Sharps it is not. And, as noted before, the one thing I've not found is a conversation about the the 'benefits' of the later model Sharp actions. Or disadvantages if there are. Or are those others only an aesthetic difference?

Thanks again,

Nick

[KCSO]

Best short answer get Mike's book, Buffalo Rifles of the Old West and start reading.

[Bent Ramrod]

Pretty much economics, aesthetics, historical association and whatever floats your boat.

The 74 Sharps, the Hepburn, the Ballard and the original Winchester are the easiest to take apart for cleaning and maintenance. The Sharps has the most nuance if you’re into the buffalo-hunting era.

If you aren’t into such stuff that much, but still want a competitive BPCR, the C. Sharps 1875 Model is probably the best value for the money. I think you can get a single-set trigger for one now. It’s more easily manufactured and less popular than a 74, so the buyer gets a price break. Hepburns and Ballards in high grades are very expensive. Our expert shooters around here say the Ballard set triggers can be set to extreme lightness, while those on the Hepburns are not all that great.

The side vs central hammer deal has pretty much been debunked. If you don’t want to manually half-cock the hammer before opening the action, get a Ballard, Hepburn or Winchester.

The 77 Sharps has a lighter action than the 74. Since there are no shoots under the Creedmoor 10-lb weight limit any more, this one is also pretty much a matter of individual taste.

You might get Mike Venturino’s Shooting Buffalo Rifles of the Old West. He has a chapter that compares the available actions and their perceived advantages/disadvantages.

[country gent]

Several little things. Look at and handle as many as possible of the sharps and other falling blocks you are interested in, get an idea of what feels right. If close attend a shillouette match or 2 as a spectator and watch, ask questions and observe. Check out Pedersolis, C SHarps, Shiloh Sharps, CPA websites and see what is offered and or available. There are a lot of options available. A 74 Sharps in 45-70 will handle almost any task given it. Look around and get information from the different makers. Pedersoli is getting good reveues and offers a lot of variations off the shelf. C Sharps, Shloh and CPA build just what you want.

[Don McDowell]

There really isn't any "hard" to load for cartridges, I would suggest staying with cases shorter than 2 5/8 in either straight or bottleneck configurations , mostly on account of the amount of powder consumed each time you pull the trigger. Loading cartridges where you get 70 or there about rounds per pound of powder eats up cases of powder in short order.
If a 74 Sharps is what you want then Shiloh is the place to go.
If an 1885 variant is your choice then C Sharps is the choice.
If a Hepburn then DZ Arms.
The 75 model from CSA is a decent choice for tight budgets.
Ballards are hard to come by and not inexpensive when you do find one.
Can't speak to the 77's yet, but I do have one from Shiloh on order.
Don't overlook the occasional bargain on one of the 1878 Sharps that crops up on occasion, built either on an original action, or one from the Borchardt rifle company (no longer in business)

[jdb3]

If you get a chance to go to Big Timber, MT you can go to both C Sharps and Shiloh. They are across the street from each other. I chose the Shiloh because I liked the people better and their product is second to none. You can also put hands on several different examples and make your choice. I really like mine, wouldn't change it for the world. Got a Montana Rough Rider in 50-90, it kills moose with aplomb! Jim

[jonp]

I recommend a cheaper alternative. A nice 43 Argentine Mauser would fit the bill for trying out BP without breaking the bank.

I did just fondle a Uberti 1873 Win clone in 45LC for long enough I was getting stares from some of the customers in the Cabelas

[rfd]

anick57 - i think you already have a clear and firm grasp of what you want and what you'll do with it. the rest is up to your disposable cash and how long you wish to wait to get hooked up and get shooting. :)

[MT Chambers]

Don't forget the rolling block, great old time action, certainly strong enough for BPCR, lots of old actions kicking around.

[uscra112]

+1 on the rolling blocks. Extremely simple mechanism, and not infrequently they win prizes in BPCR matches. Their only fault IMHO is that the firing pin has to be watched to make very sure it is free in the breechblock. It can get stuck, and then it's possible for the gun to fire out-of-battery if the breech is closed smartly.

And then of course, there's Bill Cody's actual buffalo rifle, which is on display in the Cody Museum. It's a Trapdoor Springfield. Yup. Seen it with my own eyes.

I wouldn't recommend a Ballard for a beginner. They are fussy to keep clean and in tune, (I have several), extractor is weak, and unless you can afford a forged receiver model, they are frankly rather dangerous in the large calibers, especially when used with smokeless.

[ANick57]

I have Mike Venturino’s, "Shooting Buffalo Rifles of the Old West", on order. Sounds like a great lead for details. Thanks KC and Bent!

I think for this run, the falling blocks are giving me more than enough choices. Not to throw rocks at the Mauser, but it is a bolt. JonP, I did get my hands on a similar Uberti, a rather gorgeous '73 in .38 WCF which I am able to fondle as desired. :) Took a while to find that one but so far, so good.

MT and USCRA, good info on the rolling blocks. I'm more interested in them in an historic sense than having one, so far anyway. The Martini is in a similar category. More of a 'know of them' than known to any real depth.

Bent, Country and Don, you guys have some solid tips and pointers. Pity about the Hepburn triggers, but then again, that does whittle away at the list a bit. Not a bad thing. We'll see what comes up in the reading, but the range observation trip(s) are going to have weight of their own.

RFD, I'm not sure how firm I am really, but I'm at least closer. If anything, I've at least gotten my criteria sorted better. Perhaps the firmest item on the decision tree is that not a single rifle is going to cover all uses of interest. Having little to no real target rifle background, that one is a trick question, but very pertinent.

I got to pic Silver Jack's mind on the local BP and some conversation on Sharps a few weeks ago while we were re-homing some of his surplus .38 WCF brass and such. By the end of that get together I was pretty sure that I was probably looking at a minimum of two rifles... not real sure if two is the right number, come to think of it. Figuring out which is first up is a bit of a key point. Again, a great topic to take to the range for observation too.

Right now I'm seeing three potential uses. Mid-range target, which is of interest, but has the question of, 'How interested?', yet to be answered but is a pretty specific use firearm. Off-hand target, which is a bit of a broad category, depending if I go just as informal range or more to a 'shoot' environment. And lastly, the hunter / plinker. I suspect that the last two *might* be covered with one rifle adequately... or not. :)

So in a sense, firmer. :)

Thanks all!

Nick

[Don McDowell]

I
Right now I'm seeing three potential uses. Mid-range target, which is of interest, but has the question of, 'How interested?', yet to be answered but is a pretty specific use firearm. Off-hand target, which is a bit of a broad category, depending if I go just as informal range or more to a 'shoot' environment. And lastly, the hunter / plinker. I suspect that the last two *might* be covered with one rifle adequately... or not. :)

So in a sense, firmer. :)

Thanks all!

Nick

You could uses 1 rifle to cover all of your stated intended uses. Either a sharps with a standard weight barrel or an 1885 with a #3 weight barrel. Keep the length 30 inches or shorter.
Chamber's would fall due to readily available cases, and reloading dies, to either the 40-65 or 45-70.

[uscra112]

Formal offhand target shooters (i.e. the immigrant German "Schuetzen" shooters) determined by 1900 that their best calibers fell between .28 and .33 - even the venerable .38-55 gave too much recoil to let a man shoot a score without excessive fatigue, unless he was built like Paul Bunyan. 'Course a score for those guys was 100 shots in a day at 200 yards. That game is still played today, but you might find something less demanding.

[marlinman93]

There are calibers for old single shots that are either more available brass and does, or have a reputation for being easier to work up loads for. There are also calibers that or cases that are either extremely high priced or take a good amount of work to form up cases to load with. So I'd start with thinking how much time and money you're willing to invest in getting a rifle shooting. Then make a choice on what calibers fit into that price and time frame.
It's pretty tough to go wrong with a .45-70 as a first choice for BPCR or general fun shooting. A .40-65 is also a close 2nd and I personally like it as much as the .45-70 myself. Either will have readily available brass, and very reasonably priced dies. So both are excellent choices. The .45-70 has more variety of makers offering the caliber than the .40-65 does, but still enough choices for either.

[EDG]

Of the falling blocks I much prefer shooting the Browning Highwall.
Simply open
Load
Close
Fire

Compared to the rigamarole of the Sharps
Pull hammer to half cock
Open
Load
Close
Pull hammer to full cock
Set the trigger
Fire

[uscra112]

Of the falling blocks I much prefer shooting the Browning Highwall.

All good until you have to take that Japanese "High Wall" apart. By most accounts it's a nightmare inside.

And I'm underwhelmed with the way the 1885 leaves the hammer at full cock. Unsafe IMHO. Only advantage is faster followup shot, but how often does one really need that?

[indian joe]

All good until you have to take that Japanese "High Wall" apart. By most accounts it's a nightmare inside.

And I'm underwhelmed with the way the 1885 leaves the hammer at full cock. Unsafe IMHO. Only advantage is faster followup shot, but how often does one really need that?


Martini henry does that (just cant see hammer) - modern bolt guns do it - pumps ----- shotguns of all types .....................................

[rfd]

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.

[uscra112]

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.

[EDG]

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.

[EDG]

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.


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.

[uscra112]

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 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.


The Uberti Highwall goes directly to half cock when the action is closed. So are you going to complain about it too?.
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.


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.

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.

[uscra112]

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.

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]

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.

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).


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

[uscra112]

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.

[Bigslug]

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.

[rfd]

i'm hoping to be able work with tippmann and acquire their roller sans barrel for bobby hoyt to do his magic.

[Don McDowell]

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.

[marlinman93]

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?

[oldred]

All good until you have to take that Japanese "High Wall" apart. By most accounts it's a nightmare inside.

And I'm underwhelmed with the way the 1885 leaves the hammer at full cock. Unsafe IMHO. Only advantage is faster followup shot, but how often does one really need that?

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.



Only advantage is faster followup shot, but how often does one really need that?

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,

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).

[marlinman93]

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.

[Don McDowell]

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?
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"

[Don McDowell]

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,,

[rfd]

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.

[Don McDowell]

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"

[rfd]

i get the impression you don't like rollers, don? :roll: :-P

[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? :roll: :-P

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.

http://www.hallowellco.com/rolling-block-diagram1.jpg

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.

http://www.hallowellco.com/rolling-block-diagram1.jpg

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 !!!!

[rfd]

... 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 ...

that the round would not seat properly into the chamber is immediate grounds that there is a problem, and that cartridge should be removed and not forced into the chamber. this is first and foremost an operator issue.

[oldred]

Don, I saw the same thing, or nearly the same, happen back in the 80's when a guy did just as you described. He first pulled the trigger and nothing happened and while he was "fumbling" around with it trying to determine what happened he bumped briskly forward on the block with the heel of his hand and the hammer fell causing the rifle to fire into the ground at his feet, so yes it can happen! When the rifle recoiled backward the spur of the block ripped a rather nasty gash in the web of his hand between the thumb and finger but the situation was not nearly as bad as it could have been because someone could easily have been killed. This accident was probably due to not fully understanding the gun's design along with grossly improper fail-to-fire followup procedure, regardless of rifle design pounding on any part of the thing even with a bare hand (as in this case) especially with the hammer in the cock position is definitely not the proper way to deal with a FTF!

BTW, ANY part that engages the hammer to hold it in the cock position is referred to as the sear even if it is an integral part of the trigger.

[marlinman93]

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 !!!!

I got it, but it still seems less than plausible to think someone could first try to shoot a Rolling Block with a cartridge that didn't want to chamber. Then pull the trigger dropping the hammer on a less than fully closed breech block. And if that wasn't enough warning, he then pushes hard enough on the breech block (without first re-cocking the hammer) to drop the hammer and break his thumb with recoil.
If all this makes sense to you, and sounds feasible, then I'm not sure I'd want to shoot next to anyone who could think it makes sense, or ignore all the warning signs as it happened. Anyone who ignored all that deserves to break their thumb. But they could have saved some steps and just put their thumb on an anvil and hit it with a hammer.

[oldred]

I got it, but it still seems less than plausible to think someone could first try to shoot a Rolling Block with a cartridge that didn't want to chamber.


Not trying to argue at all but having witnessed a similar incident to what Don described it does make sense if you look closely at what happens. First the block is back only SLIGHTLY but even that is enough to block the hammer from falling, just as it is designed to do. Although the hammer can not fall due to being stopped by the slightly opened breech block it does move slightly allowing the sear to become disengaged and leaves the hammer resting on the block, push forward on the block with any amount of force as long as it's sufficient to finish closing the block and then the hammer will no longer be supported by the block. Since at that point the block no longer stops the hammer and the hammer was allowed to fall forward far enough to disengage the sear before contacting the partially open block the hammer will be free to fall after the block is pushed fully forward! Seems quite simple to me and I can only assume that the incident I witnessed (the first falling block rifle I had ever seen BTW) and the one Don described were very similar. In the one I saw the guy simply bumped the block forward with the heel of his hand then the hammer, which had been resting on the barely open breech block was now no longer supported since the block was fully closed at that point, instantly fell causing the rifle to fire. Although the rifle functioned normally after the hammer fell and no part, either the block or hammer, moved from it's normal position during firing the recoil simply pushed the entire rifle back with obviously sufficient force to cause injury from contact with the breech block spur.

[marlinman93]

I spent an hour today with a half dozen different Rolling Blocks trying to duplicate this "slam fire" for lack of a better term. I even went so far as to slightly oval case mouths on empty cases to try to create a little resistance so the cartridges would resist chambering, and thus create this perfect storm where a hammer could fall on the breech block, and then push the block closed to have it drop and strike the primer. It wasn't easy to do, that's for sure!
Either the trigger would not trip because the hammer was back far enough to disconnect the trigger, or the case wouldn't allow the block to be closed just enough to allow the hammer to drop and trigger to release. I was able to begin closing the block a little at a time as I held the trigger squeezed, and then use my other hand to push the block slowly closed until the trigger would finally trip and the hammer would rest on the block. But it was a juggling act to make it happen, and the difference between the block being fully closed and a few thousandths open, allowing the hammer to drop, but not clear the block was very marginal, and not easily accomplished. It was tough to have a case with enough resistance to hold the block open, but also easy enough to push the block closed with the hammer resting on it adding friction.
It only reinforced the idea that the shooter would have to ignore a problem to make this whole scenario play out. Every Rolling Block I took from my safe had the same interference fit, and resisted any effort to easily drop on a slightly open breech block. It might happen, but not without negligence on the part of the shooter.

[rfd]

mm93 - were they originals, repros, etc?

[indian joe]

I spent an hour today with a half dozen different Rolling Blocks trying to duplicate this "slam fire" for lack of a better term. I even went so far as to slightly oval case mouths on empty cases to try to create a little resistance so the cartridges would resist chambering, and thus create this perfect storm where a hammer could fall on the breech block, and then push the block closed to have it drop and strike the primer. It wasn't easy to do, that's for sure!
Either the trigger would not trip because the hammer was back far enough to disconnect the trigger, or the case wouldn't allow the block to be closed just enough to allow the hammer to drop and trigger to release. I was able to begin closing the block a little at a time as I held the trigger squeezed, and then use my other hand to push the block slowly closed until the trigger would finally trip and the hammer would rest on the block. But it was a juggling act to make it happen, and the difference between the block being fully closed and a few thousandths open, allowing the hammer to drop, but not clear the block was very marginal, and not easily accomplished. It was tough to have a case with enough resistance to hold the block open, but also easy enough to push the block closed with the hammer resting on it adding friction.
It only reinforced the idea that the shooter would have to ignore a problem to make this whole scenario play out. Every Rolling Block I took from my safe had the same interference fit, and resisted any effort to easily drop on a slightly open breech block. It might happen, but not without negligence on the part of the shooter.

I agree !!! but poor (negligent) gun handling is way too common - and a lot of guys who are perfectly safe and competent normally, they get hyped up (nervous) on the line and respond poorly to malfunctions

[oldred]

For sure the incident I saw was shooter error but the whole thing started with a tightly fitting case, I remember that part well since the guy was trying to sell this rifle and was demonstrating to me and another guy how it worked, as I said earlier this was the first Roller I had ever seen. The other rounds he had were checked and most would not chamber properly and we determined the rifle was probably ok but I declined to buy it anyway, I doubt this incident would have happened with properly prepared ammunition. For that reason it's not surprising you had difficulty duplicating the problem as I would think it very unlikely that you would have poorly prepared ammo that would not chamber properly, regardless the shooter in that case was in error because of the way he handled the problem.

Unfortunately no matter how safe the basic design nor what kind of lawyer inspired safeties are incorporated those with Darwin Syndrome will always find a way!

[marlinman93]

mm93 - were they originals, repros, etc?

All mine are original Remington Rolling Block rifles. All are Sporting models, no military reworks. They vary from mostly #1 Sporters, but also #1 1/2, #2, #4 models. Only looked at my #1 rifles for trying to create this issue.

[Bent Ramrod]

Some of the very early Italian rolling blocks (with brass trigger guards) had very short supporting surfaces on the hammer. I think the actions were sold by Numrich in the early Eighties. With the hammer cocked and the block closed, you could look down into the action through the square gap ahead of the hammer. A friend owned the one I saw, which was barreled to .50-70. He never had any trouble with it, though. But a setup like this would act as an auxiliary sear, catching the hammer at the end of the support and allowing it to click down from there when the block was pushed a little more forward. An original, with full support, would increase the sliding friction as the hammer went down, and probably fail to fire.

But some people have truly wild talents. Getting even an original to go off is not beyond the abilities of these gifted individuals.

Rolling blocks are very critical of ammunition, and I don’t think there is any place on a standard action for the lever seating tools commonly used with falling blocks to get any purchase. I saw a rolling block shooter at a match I attended who couldn’t get his ammo to chamber fully. He was tapping in the shell (rim, hopefully) with a lead ingot using a small hammer. I told him to cut it out, and saw no more tapping, but the ingot stayed out on the lid of his shooting kit. I was sure relieved when he finished up. I guess the Fool Killer was on another assignment that day.

[rfd]

imho, the current crop of pedersoli rollers (and sharps) are really good, if not great guns. i can find no fault with them and i've had lots more than a few and currenty have one of each flavor in .45-70. there is no need for a seating tool on any roller or falling block single shot if the round is well made, but perhaps if the bullet needs to be set into the rifling and then maybe a chamber cartridge seater is a must have (but i dunno of any for a roller). a bugaboo that can happen is having a number of different rifles chambered for the same cartridge and mixing up the fire formed brass ... been there, done that, a dumb move for sure.

[marlinman93]

I've never had many old guns that liked the same bullet and charge, even when they were the same caliber and brand of gun. It always seemed like slugging the bore ended up with different diameter bullets needed. Even on some that shot the same diameter bullet the charge needed varying to get optimum accuracy. Some would be close enough for plinking or hunting, but not close enough for serious target work.
So I've always kept my ammo boxes marked for all the load data, plus which gun they would be used in.

[ANick57]

Time for a little update I guess.

Seems I was innocently minding my own business trundling down the road to South Dakota to a gun dog breed club meeting one fine morning earlier this month. As it had been a bit of a drive already, I pulled off about half-way between Bozeman and Billings to walk the pup, reload the thermos and splash some more stuff in the tank. (Mind you, it wasn't the FIRST stop since leaving the Seattle area.)

While the pump was rolling the counters up, I was looking at the signs on businesses and found myself wondering why the name of the town was making noises in my head like I should associate it with something... hmm.. "Big Timber... Big Timber... ?"

Well, contrary to normal, I did win the memory game and was, after picking up a couple of big bags of M&Ms, shortly strolling through the door at Shiloh so I could put an eye on their display models. And got to put a good number of them to the shoulder and .. okay, I drooled like a 4 month old puppy for a milk bone.

Oddly enough, I managed to pat a rack of 5 (five) stock '74s on the way by.. Okay, I got to get several of those in hand and drooled on all of them too.. But I *did* escape without buying one!!

I did however, get myself a deposit on at '77. I was surprised how much weight they got out of the action with that change.

So, I just have to finish up the 'fiddly bit' list in the next year and a half or so..

[Don McDowell]

Those 77's a pretty sweet. I've seen 4 of them at matches now, and they are shooting quite well... Impatiently waiting for my pay up or die letter on one. :)

[Gunlaker]

They have a nice 32" heavy barreled 1874 in .45-70 on the rack right now. It says standard wood but it looks comparable to the semi-fancy stocked Shilohs that I have.

Chris.

[ascast]

too late now, but the Hepburn is the ONLY one designed for Creedmore type matches, expressly. enjoy

[shutinlead]

Time for a little update I guess.



Oddly enough, I managed to pat a rack of 5 (five) stock '74s on the way by.. Okay, I got to get several of those in hand and drooled on all of them too.. But I *did* escape without buying one!!

I did however, get myself a deposit on at '77. I was surprised how much weight they got out of the action with that change.

So, I just have to finish up the 'fiddly bit' list in the next year and a half or so..

Congrats!!!
I have to admit, you're not quite right!!! I grew up within 40 miles of where Shiloh is, fortunately they didn't open business in BT until I'd grown and moved on. I've stopped by a couple times when I went up to visit family, the first time I walked in I placed an order, the next time I bought one off the rack, I don't have the self control you do, if I stopped there again...
Give it some thought, you're going past on your way home, can you really wait for the ordered one???[smilie=l:

[ANick57]

Congrats!!!
I have to admit, you're not quite right!!! I grew up within 40 miles of where Shiloh is, fortunately they didn't open business in BT until I'd grown and moved on. I've stopped by a couple times when I went up to visit family, the first time I walked in I placed an order, the next time I bought one off the rack, I don't have the self control you do, if I stopped there again...
Give it some thought, you're going past on your way home, can you really wait for the ordered one???[smilie=l:

Ha!! On the way home it was late.. really late. About all I could do was look at the exit sign go by and give it a little wave and a grin. I'll be by there at least once before I ever get a letter. However, the interim plan is to locate a pre-loved bangstick to play with. The .45-70 pool has a fair number swimming around available. The '77... I'm thinking that one might wind up being a .40 but, it's early.. :)

[Bigslug]

My Dad's had some hand and shoulder re-hab issues, so I've been the trigger puller for a number of load experiments he's had cooking on a number of his BPCR's.

Since black powder is a velocity limiter, your key to really long range is more bullet mass. The result of course is that you'll want your .45's to be be heavy, and they do tend to thump you.

The .40's seem to be about on par with modern bolt guns (i.e. .30-06) for recoil and may be "the answer" for realistic hunting distances of a couple hundred yards. With the right twist rate and bullet, they can be made to play for the long haul.

For just plain pleasant to shoot, easy to load, and great accuracy, I think a fast-twist .38-55 is really hard to beat. Conventional wisdom seems to indicate it doesn't quite have the legs of the bigger bores, but not getting pounded while shooting at the distances most of us get to play at has real perks.

[Lance Boyle]

Formal offhand target shooters (i.e. the immigrant German "Schuetzen" shooters) determined by 1900 that their best calibers fell between .28 and .33 - even the venerable .38-55 gave too much recoil to let a man shoot a score without excessive fatigue, unless he was built like Paul Bunyan. 'Course a score for those guys was 100 shots in a day at 200 yards. That game is still played today, but you might find something less demanding.


The older I get the more I want to play and not blast myself with recoil. My current toy is a Taylor Arms Uberti high wall in .38-55. 21 grains of 4198 is ok by me.

[rfd]

i have a chronic frozen gun shoulder condition that made me experiment with ways to best mitigate hefty recoil of a full house .45-70 PPB cartridge loaded to the rim with compressed black powder (83 grains) under a 523 grain PPB. a kick killer akton butt stock pad is what i use along with a past shoulder pad, and can fire off 60 or more continuous rounds without feeling a thing during or after.

[rfd]

Formal offhand target shooters (i.e. the immigrant German "Schuetzen" shooters) determined by 1900 that their best calibers fell between .28 and .33 - even the venerable .38-55 gave too much recoil to let a man shoot a score without excessive fatigue, unless he was built like Paul Bunyan. 'Course a score for those guys was 100 shots in a day at 200 yards. That game is still played today, but you might find something less demanding.

with consideration of the above ...

deciding on a BPCR/TR gun is one thing, whilst the cartridge choice is entirely another.

the distances within game(s) to be played will have a large influence on the chosen cartridge. at the longer venues, bigger/heavier lead will be better, and that will typically mean added recoil. it is what it is.