Roller or Sharps

[missionary5155]

Good morning
I started my BPCR shooting with a 1884 Trapdoor in 1982. Several fellers in East Central Illinois ( Danny Powell, Lizard and others) kindly encouraged and guided.
From there I bought a Navy Arms roller 45-70 and rebarreled it. Next bought an origonal 43 Spanish. Then a 43 Carbine. Then a Pedersoli Roller.... So I am stuck on Rollers.
Some of you own or have owned both Sharps and Roller. Having shot both types which would be your preference ? Excluding barrels... what are your opinions on the strong points or weakness of each.
Me I bought my first Roller beacuse it was very affordable and available.
So what do you say... ?
Mike God Bless you.

[Gussy]

I have all 4. 4???? yes 4, you missed highwall. I like the simple action of the roller and I think the smaller, center hammer has advantages. I think the sharps is stronger (new ones) and having shot ML for years I do like that big old side hammer.

Depends on what you want to do with it. I don't think a hiwall can be beat for target work of any kind. I like to hunt with my sharps. The roller is very accurate and works well for targets also. The trap door is just fun.

No, I didn't answer your question exactly. If I could have only one....a hiwall. Very strong action, available in any configuration and trigger type, can't be beat for lock time in a normal production gun.

[missionary5155]

Greetings GUSSY
I have been waiting for a Highwall in 38-55 to pass along my way.... I have a Ballard in 38-50 (was a 38 Long) that goes on ground hogwalks with me up NORTH there when we are about. I just decided to keep the question to the two actions.
Thanks ! Good to read your thoughts. Mike

[Pat I.]

Mike if you ever want to find out for sure I have a pretty nice Shiloh #3 with MVA sites in 40-65 for sale ftf in Illinois. Nothing fancy just the standard model. Even have a new Saeco mould to go with it.

[Don McDowell]

I prefer the Sharps over the Rolling Block. I think the Sharps to be a bit more accurate.

But if you get down to center hammer guns, then the High/lowall is head dog.

[KCSO]

As far as accuracy goes i don't think either the Shharps or a Roller is better. Depending on the extractor design in the roller it is harder for a case to slip by a roller extractor. The Roller is a little hampered by the deep action and stocking a rolller with a comfortable stock is just a little more chalenging. In addition the hammer design of the roller limits it to practical cartridges as too long a case won't clear the hammer nose. The Sharps has a poor firing pin design. The Balllard is a weak action and not really suited for larger cartridges as is the Steven's 44. The original Rolers had a terrible stock and buttplate design and were punishing to shoot. I shot an original #1 in 45-75 one summer and hated it and hated the single set trigger, but the most accurate 45-70 i ever shot is roller in buffalo gun style.

I have had or shot everythng made in the single shot line and If I were restricted to just one it would probably be a HiWall, but a Rolly would be #2.

PS I learned to shoot with 22 shorts and a #4 Rolling Block many years ago and the gun is still in the family and my great nephew is learing to shoot with it now.

[wonderwolf]

I have a pedersoli sharps and A 43 spanish rolling block. I'll admit I have only shot a small handfull of rounds through the 43 RB as the barrel simply needs replaced (working on getting old barrel off is a PITA). The sharps I have shot for one season so far and love it. Its a Long range express in 45-70 and weighs about 14 pounds. It is accurate with PP loads and gives me great satisfaction whenever I shoot it. If I had a RB built up about the same weight as the sharps in 45-70 or whatever case I'm sure I would be just as happy with it. Although I hear they are easier to clean as the rear sight can/will fold down flat so you have a straight shot through the barrel with a rod.

[Ron B.]

Hello Fellas!
I'm new here; so, bare with me!

I'm a huge single shot fan also; owning more than two hands can hold of these noise makers! I'm partial to Sharps; any Sharps, except foreigners. I love RBs too; and Traps. Speaking of which, has anyone tried Lone Star's custom Rolling Block? I own one in 45-120; and it's a tack driver! My only problem with it is, the hammer design. Shooting such a long cartridge I find the bullet wants to occassionally wedge itself on the top of the hammer; 'fore chambering/unchambering. Recently, I sent two RB actions to Long Star. Dave's making me a 38-55; and 50-70. I'm anxious to see the finished products for sure.

GRB

[Boerrancher]

I have had both the sharps and the roller. Over all I prefer the sharps over the roller, enough that I sold my No 1 target rifle and kept the sharps. The sharps design is stronger by far. I have shot loads in mine that would have made Elmer Kieth cringe when he was alive and at the top of his game. Also I had trouble getting anything larger than a 405 gr boolit to load in my roller because the hammer was in the way, so no Postal boolits.

That said, the Highwall is undoubtedly the best and strongest of the single shots. You have the center hammer design of the Remington roller, and the strength of a falling block like the Sharps. I had a Browning Highwall in a 45-70, nice looking gun that had a good trigger and smooth action, but like every Browning rifle I have ever owned the barrel was crap. A fella offered me more money than what I thought it was worth and sold it instead of having it re-barreled.

Best wishes from the Boer Ranch,

Joe

[jh45gun]

I prefer the Sharps over the Rolling Block. I think the Sharps to be a bit more accurate.

But if you get down to center hammer guns, then the High/lowall is head dog.


I would suspect it comes down to barrels over actions.

[jh45gun]

Never shot a sharps but I sure like my Roller I had built with a Green Mountain 32 inch full octagon barrel and a number 5 smokeless action in 4570. Gunsmith did the metal work I did the wood.

[Don McDowell]

Never shot a sharps but I sure like my Roller I had built with a Green Mountain 32 inch full octagon barrel and a number 5 smokeless action in 4570. Gunsmith did the metal work I did the wood.

Owning/shooting more than one example of each the roller and the sharps, my opinion is the sharps is more accurate, and it doesn't have as much to do with the barrel as it does ergonomics, lock time, strength of action, and rigidity of barrel to action mounting.

[missionary5155]

Again thanks everyone.... Pat I. That is a tempting offer... gonna have to check out my piggy bank.
Mike

[Don McDowell]

Missionary the thing is I don't think you can go wrong with any of em. Best to have 1 or more of each tho , just in case.

[texasmac]

Boerrancher,

You said, "I had a Browning Highwall in a 45-70, nice looking gun that had a good trigger and smooth action, but like every Browning rifle I have ever owned the barrel was crap."

I’ll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you are not including the Browning BPCRs, all of which have Badger barrels, as one of the Browning rifles you've owned. If you are than there are a few thousand rifle owners that would most likely take exception to your comments, especially those that have won or placed in the money in many competitive events around the country, including the Raton Nationals.

By the way, I've spoke with many owners of both B78 & M1885 Browning's with Miroku barrels who would not agree with you. I personally have not shot a Miroku-barreled Browning so I don't have first hand experiences to draw on, but given the proper ammo loaded and shot by a knowledgeable reloaders and shooters, the Browning BPCRs will match or exceed the accuracy of any of the much more costly custom rifles.

And given the many positive comments I heard about the Browning Traditional Hunter rifles, I would not hesitate to purchase one for hunting. These have Miroku barrels.

Wayne

[Pat I.]

Again thanks everyone.... Pat I. That is a tempting offer... gonna have to check out my piggy bank.
Mike

If you don't have some pretty big piggies you better make that a cow bank.

[Boerrancher]

Boerrancher,

You said, "I had a Browning Highwall in a 45-70, nice looking gun that had a good trigger and smooth action, but like every Browning rifle I have ever owned the barrel was crap."

I’ll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you are not including the Browning BPCRs, all of which have Badger barrels, as one of the Browning rifles you've owned. If you are than there are a few thousand rifle owners that would most likely take exception to your comments, especially those that have won or placed in the money in many competitive events around the country, including the Raton Nationals.

By the way, I've spoke with many owners of both B78 & M1885 Browning's with Miroku barrels who would not agree with you. I personally have not shot a Miroku-barreled Browning so I don't have first hand experiences to draw on, but given the proper ammo loaded and shot by a knowledgeable reloaders and shooters, the Browning BPCRs will match or exceed the accuracy of any of the much more costly custom rifles.

And given the many positive comments I heard about the Browning Traditional Hunter rifles, I would not hesitate to purchase one for hunting. These have Miroku barrels.

Wayne

This was an 1885 Miroku, and it looked like the riflings were cut by a beaver. Every Browning rifle I have ever had my hands on was Junk in a fancy package, from that 1885, to an A-bolt, and a BAR. I guess they would work for a hunting rifle, but damn if I am going to pay that kind of money for a rifle I want it to shoot better than 3 MOA at 100 yds. I have a Mod 94 Win 30-30 that will shoot better at 100 yds than most of the Brownings I have seen at the ranges. I am sure that I just made a lot of Browning owners mad, but I grew up with a Father who was a champion 600 yd shooter for years and a custom rifle builder to boot. I grew up expecting most guns to shoot MOA or better.

Best wishes from the Boer Ranch,

Joe

[longhorn]

Sounds like you've had poor luck with Brownings, B.R. I had a Browning 85 in .45-70 and still cherish an 1886 SRC; both barrels were slick and shot/shoot very well. I could tell a couple of horror stories about Rugers, but I've owned a bunch, and most were more than acceptably accurate. If I were looking for an out of the box MOA rifle in a real hunting caliber, I'd buy a Weatherby or a Savage (I don't own either).

[NickSS]

I own or have owned several single shot rifles of different makes and calibers over the years. I must admit that my favorite actions are listed in this order Sharps 1874, Winchester High Wall, Sharps 1875, Trapdoor Springfield, Ballard, Rolling Block, Martini Henry, and Remingto Hepburn. Overall I like Shiloh or C Sharps rifles better than any others I have tried. I currently own an original Remington target rifle that was relined to 40-65 and a Pedersoli in 30-30 Winchester. I have owned at least a dozen other rollers all military muskets or carbines. A friend of my has a lone star roller in 44-90 that is a beautiful gun and shoots as good as it gets. So to answer your question, either will do the job but if you are talking about off the shelf imported guns buy the Sharps by pedersoli. Their roller is good but not as good due to its non-set trigger. Beleave me that makes a difference. I have owned a couple of Pedersolli rollers besides the one I have now and the non-set trigger needed work to even get near copetion level. Their sharps with double set triggers does not have that problem.

[DonH]

I own and shoot competitively a Sharps '74 (Shiloh) , Rolling block (Lone Star), Win High Wall and a Stevens 44 1/2.
Regarding direct comparison between the Sharpd and rolling block rifles, here are my thoughts base on my experience:
1. Accuracy? No difference contributable to action design.
2. While the Sharps has no real camming action to aid in chambering a cartridge, the Sharps action is much less fussy about cartridge o.a.l./bullet seating depth than is the rolling block action. I realize that throating comes into play here but if a round is not right it just is not going to chamber in a closely chambered roller.
3. The rolling block rifle has (as does the Rem. Hepburn) a great deal of inherent stock drop simply due to the shape of the action itself. My roller has the Creedmoor style stock ( about the highest comb available which looks properly proportioned) and yet has more drop than my Sharps with standard sporting stock. This (for me) is a disadvantage at ranges beyond 300 yds as it becomes just about impossible to keep my check against the stock with the sights at the high elevation settings required.

Beyond these considerations, it is purely a matter of personal preference between Sharps and RB. Given the option, I want one of every kind!

[missionary5155]

Good morning
Again THANK YOU everyone!
I guess the best route is get one of each ! I am waiting on a 1885 to come along. I guess I will expand the list to include a 74 model.
Mike

[Ron B.]

Hey Mike,
Now you're talking! I like my 75; love comes to mind when thinking 74! Lol!

The 85s are sweet; but there's something magical about the 74s. If you shop around, you can pick up a used C. or Shiloh Model 1885 in the $1500 range. IMO, the gun craze, of late seems to have effected mostly handguns and tacticals; the single shot rifles have taken back seat. And Sir, that's fine by me! :)

Good luck,
GRB

[northmn]

Just a thought. When the US team defeated the Irish in the 1870's the first year they used Sharps. The second year they use Rollers. The Sharps ignition system is a little slower. It seems both have their followers, but I think the advantages of the Sharps is mostly aesthetic as that type of action died off very quickly in the cartridge world.

Northmmn

[DonH]

Sharps and Remington rifles were both used at the same time to my understanding. The Remingtons fared better but I believe that to have been a matter of shooter ability as much as anything else. Both makes were chambered in .44-77 caliber ( for the first year at least). It is significantto my mind, that the US team shooting the best breechloaders of the day barely beat the Irish team who used the Rigby muzzleloading target rifles.

Both were rather primitive actions with the Sharps being based on their previous percussion rifle and built using as many left over percussion parts as possible. If a person wants the absolute action from the BP era for target work then buy a Win 1885. As previously mentioned I have one of each of these and will freely admit to the superior design of the Browning/Winchester action. To me, however, the 1885 seems a bit sterile, cold. This is purely a personal thing but due to their repaective roles in our history, both the Sharps '74 and the rolling block hold greater appeal with the Sharps having the edge. For me it borders on mystical.
Given a good barrel, proper loading and shooting technique that big old side-hammer Sharps can still deliver the goods, even to 1000 yds and beyond.

[northmn]

Aesthetics or nostalgia or whatever we call it is what it is all about. It is why we shoot and compare obsolete BP firearms. I shoot traditional muzzleloaders for the same reason and detest inlines. Comparisons of efficiency of obsolete rifles is really kind of humorous, but we do it. The Sharps, with its history and big side hammer, has an appeal that is hard to resist. The rolling block also has a similar history and lasted into the smokeless powder era. If I really wanted the most efficient I would go back to my Remington 700 in 270. These older guns kind of grab you.

Northmn

[StrawHat]

Another option

http://www.peabodyrifles.com/

[Grapeshot]

I bought a Navy Arms .45/70 Rolling Block back in 1972. I still have it. Changed the sights a few times to get the performance I wanted.

Started to read about paper patching bullets in the late 70's and early 80's. Got a Corbin Swage Press with dies to make .445 Paper Patched Bullets. After a got the hang of putting the patch on I found that the accuracy of my Rolling Block was increased and as long as I kept using a lube cookie it would shoot all day. Yep. I really like my Roller.