Remington Rolling Block #2 To 38-55???

I have a #2 rolling block in 32RF and I was hoping to have it bored to 38/55 and swap the extractor. I got it at an auction thinking it was a larger action than it turned out to be (they were unsure of caliber and action). From reading up it looks like the #2 action can chamber the 38/55 but the strength might not be there for heavy 38/55 loads, I'd be in the bp pressure 38/55's.

Will this work or best to chamber it for 32-20/line to 25-20 and leave it OR just kick it down the road. If it was a 32-20 / 25-20 I'd probably just it a handful of times and kick it down the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .45Cole

I have a #2 rolling block in 32RF and I was hoping to have it bored to 38/55 and swap the extractor. I got it at an auction thinking it was a larger action than it turned out to be (they were unsure of caliber and action). From reading up it looks like the #2 action can chamber the 38/55 but the strength might not be there for heavy 38/55 loads, I'd be in the bp pressure 38/55's.

Will this work or best to chamber it for 32-20/line to 25-20 and leave it OR just kick it down the road. If it was a 32-20 / 25-20 I'd probably just it a handful of times and kick it down the road.

---

I'd never chamber a #2 in any large rifle cartridge. So the .38-55 would be out for me. Now the .32-20 or .32 S&W Long would both be good choices, but either might need to be relined depending on groove diameter of your #2. And of course it will need to be converted to CF also. Some of these old .32 RF rifles have larger groove diameters, so I suggest you slug the bore to see if yours is around .311"-.312" before you decide how to proceed with the change to CF and barrel change. A .32 S&W Long would be the cheapest route as it just requires a slightly larger chamber and CF conversion. And brass is readily available.

I concur 100% with marlinman93. .38-55 is way to much for a #2 sporting rifle. There are quite a few viable options that would be safe and enjoyable to shoot. They are fine rifles.

A few years ago I seen that Uberti was making a rolling block that looked somewhat like a no. 2 Remington and they had them chambered in 38-55 and 45-70 ! I never seen one other than online but they listed them as under 6 lbs. and I couldn’t imagine a 45-70 in a rifle the size of a no. 2 ?
I did own a Uberti like that but it was a 22 rimfire. It was a gun I really didn’t want but was priced quite low so I bought it, never even shot it and sold it shortly afterwards for a small profit. I guess the brass parts on it didn’t appeal to me.

Jedman

I wonder if it would be a candidate for a .38 S&W conversion. not .357! I have no background in the details of such a conversion, but components would be everywhere.

I've looked at those over the years and wanted one but for some reason they were made to very low quality standards. For some reason some of their guns are quite nice and others are pretty much junk. I still dream of a nice #2 chambered for 25 Hornet firing black powder. What a neat thing to carry around in the woods.

.38 S&W in an original #2 would be ok, so long as the load is not hot rodded. It would be pretty similar to .38 rimfire, which is an original chambering. I have 13 examples of the #2 sporting rifle in .22 up through .44 cal. I shoot just about all of them. They are sweet rifles.

I think if I chambered a #2 Remington in .38 it would be a .38 Special, but ream the chamber short so any .38 Special factory ammo wont fit. That way you could use cheap .38 Special brass and trim it to fit the short chamber, and have a great gun and cheap easy to find brass.
If you want a .38-55 there are still large numbers of #1 Rolling Blocks available cheap that would be an excellent choice for a rifle in .38-55!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marlinman93

I think if I chambered a #2 Remington in .38 it would be a .38 Special, but ream the chamber short so any .38 Special factory ammo wont fit. That way you could use cheap .38 Special brass and trim it to fit the short chamber, and have a great gun and cheap easy to find brass.
If you want a .38-55 there are still large numbers of #1 Rolling Blocks available cheap that would be an excellent choice for a rifle in .38-55!

---

Or chamber for 38 Short Colt and use Starline brass?

I see that this thread took off a little. After reading more on the #2 and such it seems like it's no match for the 38/55, but nice as it's stronger than the #4. Update - I won it at an auction sight unseen, marked .32 on the barrel and had all the lookings of 32RF. The gun looks original and has beautiful case coloring under the pin holder and beautiful bluing under the forearm. The firing pin is centered in the bore and a 32-20 cartridge fits perfectly into the chamber, a 32 soft lead bullet slugs the barrel to ~.311" - .312". I'm working on cleaning out the barrel, lots of leading and then I'll shoot some 32-20's I have loaded for the 1905 and police positive special.

If it is a factory .32-20, the barrel will be marked "32W" on the bottom flat, ahead of the forend. If it is just marked "32", it was a rimfire converted to centerfire.

Please post some clear, close up photos 😀

I am building a Remington No. 4 that was chambered for 32 RF. Am turning it into a 22 Magnum Just got a Shelin .224 blank. Busy cutting octagonal flats. Hope to be finished by Spring. Maybe bust a woodchuck or two.

Sounds like quite a find. Do post pictures!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nobade

Or chamber for 38 Short Colt and use Starline brass?

---

Considering the .38 Short Colt brass is .23 cents each, why not just shorten .38 Special? It's the same diameter, and .38 Special brass ued is way cheaper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockindaddy

I am building a Remington No. 4 that was chambered for 32 RF. Am turning it into a 22 Magnum Just got a Shelin .224 blank. Busy cutting octagonal flats. Hope to be finished by Spring. Maybe bust a woodchuck or two.

---

Well I wouldn't since the .22 Magnum is a 24,000 psi cartridge and way too hot for the little #4 action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .45Cole

I see that this thread took off a little. After reading more on the #2 and such it seems like it's no match for the 38/55, but nice as it's stronger than the #4. Update - I won it at an auction sight unseen, marked .32 on the barrel and had all the lookings of 32RF. The gun looks original and has beautiful case coloring under the pin holder and beautiful bluing under the forearm. The firing pin is centered in the bore and a 32-20 cartridge fits perfectly into the chamber, a 32 soft lead bullet slugs the barrel to ~.311" - .312". I'm working on cleaning out the barrel, lots of leading and then I'll shoot some 32-20's I have loaded for the 1905 and police positive special.

---

It sounds like a .32-20 WCF not a .32 Long CF.

Every time a Remington No.2 in .32-20 comes up I am reminded that Frank DeHass wrote in his book "Single Shot Rifles and Actions" not to use them with the HV loadings. I can't find my copy of the book now, it has been MIA for several years.

I would load it to original specs and enjoy it.

Robert

Attachment 321822
Attachment 321823
Attachment 321824
I don't see any 32W on it so it must have been converted in the past, the hammer and block finish do look a little off compared to the rest of the rifle.

Yes, that is a rimfire breech block that has been converted to centerfire.

The #2 was made in 38-40 and possibly in 44-40. The original pistol on the same frame was made in 50 Navy. I see no problems with going to 22 mag on a #2. The SAMMI max load ( 24,000) for 22 mag is the same as the max load for the 22 LR, 17- II and 17 HMR. I have converted a few rim fires to 32 S&W (15,000) and would have no problem going to 38 special ( 17,000).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marlinman93

Well I wouldn't since the .22 Magnum is a 24,000 psi cartridge and way too hot for the little #4 action.

---

It might be Ok; someone should check my bolt thrust calculation to see. You are not going to blow up the barrel, but the action must react the force of the case head on the breach. If we ignore the contribution of friction of the case sidewalls in the chamber, then bolt thrust is case head area times the pressure. Using area as Pi R squared the ratio of the case head areas are 32x32/22x22 or 2.1. The .22 WRM does not produce twice the pressure.

That says .22 WRM should be fine. Actually looking at SAAMI data, the .22LR and the .22 WRM have the same max pressure. The .22 WRM has only a tiny bit larger head diameter. The .22 WRM's performance improvement does not come from higher pressures it comes from greater case volume and slower powders.

Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtknowles

It might be Ok; someone should check my bolt thrust calculation to see. You are not going to blow up the barrel, but the action must react the force of the case head on the breach. If we ignore the contribution of friction of the case sidewalls in the chamber, then bolt thrust is case head area times the pressure. Using area as Pi R squared the ratio of the case head areas are 32x32/22x22 or 2.1. The .22 WRM does not produce twice the pressure.

That says .22 WRM should be fine. Actually looking at SAAMI data, the .22LR and the .22 WRM have the same max pressure. The .22 WRM has only a tiny bit larger head diameter. The .22 WRM's performance improvement does not come from higher pressures it comes from greater case volume and slower powders.

Tim

---

Not a true comparison as most tested ammo in .22LR runs around 11,000-12,000 psi, so not nearly as hot as actual .22 Magnum chamber pressures.
But there's a couple issues with the #4 action that are of concern. First being most are takedown actions with a slip fit, and even the solid frame/barrel had a pressed fit barrel, not threaded. And second the action's thin walls and tiny pivot pins are pretty weak.
I just wouldn't do it, but it's not my gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marlinman93

Not a true comparison as most tested ammo in .22LR runs around 11,000-12,000 psi, so not nearly as hot as actual .22 Magnum chamber pressures.
But there's a couple issues with the #4 action that are of concern. First being most are takedown actions with a slip fit, and even the solid frame/barrel had a pressed fit barrel, not threaded. And second the action's thin walls and tiny pivot pins are pretty weak.
I just wouldn't do it, but it's not my gun.

---

I guess my point was the .22 Mag would not put more stress on these parts than .32 RF because of its smaller diameter even with the higher pressure. That said, those actions did not hold up well to the .32 RF either. Best choice would be .22 LR and standard velocity ammo.

Tim

I am a bit late to this thread but I have seen one of the Uberti rifles in 45-70. It was for sale at a gun show, talked a little with the owner/seller. It was every bit a #2 roller, light weight and not very comfortable to shoot. Pretty sure that it why he was sending it on down the road to a new owner.
No idea of what material it was made from but was all blued as opposed to be color cased.
Sam