Baby Rolling Block!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks so much sir, I would greatly appreciate that.

Perhaps I am being to hard on the stock design... I much rather like the idea of a Rolling Block #2 action, and one chambered in .357 magnum would be right up my alley... I just hate the way the stock looks, though I probably just need to handle one in person... but that's not easy to do!
 
Cooldill, that story about the 22s being built on a smaller frame sounds like a load of Toro Caca to me. I think they just wanted to get you "off the phone" I have examined both, and they look the same size to me. They are both exact copies of the #2 action, which is more than adequate, in strength, to handle either round.

Trimming down the fat fore end on the 357 is extremely easy to do. I would go that route.
 
tark said:
Went to your link, and Taylor arms makes this gun sound like their creation, which it is not. It is a reproduction of the Remington #2 rifle like I mentioned.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that!!! And it is made of better steel than the originals! #2s were chambered in every caliber from 22 to 44-40WCF. My original, made shortly after the Civil War, is in 32 rimfire. Damn it! I cant find ammo!

It is a bit cobby, but the bore is shootable, if I could only find ammo. As you can see, it looks exactly like your baby carbine. The #2 was one of Remington's most popular guns, it was inexpensive, reliable, simple, accurate and chambered in all of the popular pistol calibers of the day.
Click to expand...
Tark dixy haa reloadable 32 rimfire cases these use a ofset .22 blank as a primer
http://www.dixiegunworks.com/product_info.php?products_id=8154 there was also a guy modding 32 colt brass to use .27 nail gun blanks in the same way this looked like a much better option as the rim was no longer position sensitive but good luck getting 32 colt brass
 
Cooldill, if you're this keen on the .357Mag rollling block you need to stop worrying about the stock shapes. The wood working end of things is a lot easier to fix than the metal working side of the picture. As mentioned a half hour with a coarse cut file and some sandpaper and then a refinishing and the forestock will be fine.

For what it's worth I find an issue with both the .22 stocks AND the bigger rolling block stocks. Like you I prefer the forestock of the .22 and I really like the swoop of the shoulder stock of the .22 over the straighter lines of the center fire version. The lower swoop and resulting higher comb will make it easier to get a really nice high cheek weld. A factor that seems to have been forgotten on a lot of rifle stocks these days.

But I'm not a fan of the "shotgun pad" on the rimfire. For classic gun shooting of this sort I want a proper crescent butt plate that hooks over my upper arm so I can get into a more classic side on stance. And the center fire version has something closer to that for my tastes.... but it's got the "too straight" lines that you and I both dislike.

So..... some wood working and wood finishing is in order.

I'm still thinking of one or the other as a Christmas present to myself. I'm flip flopping over the .30-30 and the .357 though. Can't seem to agree on one over the other for more than half a day at a time.
 
You're right. :(

I guess I'm stuck on that upswept stock and shapely forend, for better or worse... I think I better still buy the gun as soon as they come in from Taylors, because the idea of the gun just sounds too good even if it does come with an unappealing stock shape.
 
I have a Pedersoli RB Baby Carbine in .357 mag. My wife bought it for me 8 years ago because she thought it was "so cute!"
Heavy barrel on it (0.790" at the muzzle) that measures 20" from muzzle to breech face.
I have used it for sneaking around in the bush looking for deer. My favorite hunting load uses 158 grain JSP bullet and L'il Gun powder for just under 1960 fps. For just messing around I'm using Longshot powder and hard-cast 158 grain RNFP bullet at 1456 fps.

I really like the shape of the forearm with the barrel band.

This is the only photo I have handy of it.
The rear sight has since been replaced with a tang sight.
P1010155.jpg
 
sniper58 said:
I have a Pedersoli RB Baby Carbine in .357 mag. My wife bought it for me 8 years ago because she thought it was "so cute!"
Heavy barrel on it (0.790" at the muzzle) that measures 20" from muzzle to breech face.
I have used it for sneaking around in the bush looking for deer. My favorite hunting load uses 158 grain JSP bullet and L'il Gun powder for just under 1960 fps. For just messing around I'm using Longshot powder and hard-cast 158 grain RNFP bullet at 1456 fps.

I really like the shape of the forearm with the barrel band.

This is the only photo I have handy of it.
The rear sight has since been replaced with a tang sight.
P1010155.jpg
Click to expand...
Looks good, but the Uberti version are far lighter from what I hear.

To quote Martha:

That's a good thing.
 
357

You might keep your eye out for an older version. My Uberti 357 and 22 look like twins. Same perch belly stock and fore end. Not sure why they changed it.
 
I think it is a handsome rifle as is. I had a rolling block single shot pistol years ago. It was of Italian manufacture, though I don't remember which one. The hammer nose which contacted the firing pin mushroomed after firing 50 rounds. The rounded head of the firing pin dented the hammer nose from striking it 50 times.

I hope the hammer of this little rifle has been properly hardened.

Let us know how you like it. :)
 
Help me understand the very angled stock. Looks to me like a proper cheek-weld on this thing would line up your eye with the bottom of the hammer.
 
Does the Pedersoli Baby use the same #2 size receiver as the Uberti/Taylor model?
 
Help me understand the very angled stock. Looks to me like a proper cheek-weld on this thing would line up your eye with the bottom of the hammer.
Click to expand...

It may not be as bad as that but you're right that it's not great. And it gets worse with a long range vernier peep sight when it's dialed up the staff for long distance shots.

It's the nature of the original design though.

It does seem to not be quite as bad if we adopt the period correct sideways stance with the butt plate more onto the shoulder/upper arm than when using the more into the collar and square on stance that seems more common now.
 
BCRider said:
It may not be as bad as that but you're right that it's not great. And it gets worse with a long range vernier peep sight when it's dialed up the staff for long distance shots.

It's the nature of the original design though.

It does seem to not be quite as bad if we adopt the period correct sideways stance with the butt plate more onto the shoulder/upper arm than when using the more into the collar and square on stance that seems more common now.
Click to expand...
These rifles' architecture is conducive to really good offhand shooting. The recoil is not objectionable at all. Once one finds the balance point on the fore end of the rifle, the crescent buttplate properly placed on either the ball of the shoulder, or outboard of the ball of the shoulder and inboard of the biceps, maintaining an erect head position and a straight spine, the rifle will just hang on the target, balanced only on the weak hand. One only has to gently manipulate the trigger to get a clean break on the target. Subtle elevation adjustments are easily accomplished by adjusting the angle of the strong side elbow up or down, or rolling the shoulder up or down a very little for more gross adjustments in elevation.

I don't find that I have to use much muscle tension to hold the butt in position, which tends to introduce tension and wobble to the stance. It is quite relaxing not to have to muscle the rifle into the shoulder pocket and scrunch into the standing position as I have experienced with more modern stocks designed for prone or seated position shooting.

I think you will really enjoy your rifle Cooldill.
 
Bluetopper,

Nope.

Think of Sharpes or Browning/Winchester.

Want to get weird? take a look at a Starr Civil War era breech loader. it is a rolling block that gets lifted and locked by a falling block.....weird and if field reports are to be believed did not work as well as either.

-kBob
 
Stubbicat said:
These rifles' architecture is conducive to really good offhand shooting. The recoil is not objectionable at all. Once one finds the balance point on the fore end of the rifle, the crescent buttplate properly placed on either the ball of the shoulder, or outboard of the ball of the shoulder and inboard of the biceps, maintaining an erect head position and a straight spine, the rifle will just hang on the target, balanced only on the weak hand. One only has to gently manipulate the trigger to get a clean break on the target. Subtle elevation adjustments are easily accomplished by adjusting the angle of the strong side elbow up or down, or rolling the shoulder up or down a very little for more gross adjustments in elevation.

I don't find that I have to use much muscle tension to hold the butt in position, which tends to introduce tension and wobble to the stance. It is quite relaxing not to have to muscle the rifle into the shoulder pocket and scrunch into the standing position as I have experienced with more modern stocks designed for prone or seated position shooting.
Click to expand...

That's an excellent description and really nails the feeling I get when taking my stance with a rifle that has a crescent shaped recoil plate.

We REALLY see this with the old traditional cap and flint rifles. Short little shoulder stocks on the back ends of heavy barrels that seem to extend more than half way to our targets. Yet with the proper period stance of being side on to the target the support hand finds that the balance point is right where it needs to be to easily support the whole works. It gets this from the increase in span of having the rifle running across the front of our torso instead of out from it.

The point is that these setups look and feel terrible until the proper stance and hold is used. Once we click into this idea suddenly the rifles that seemed so clumsy before fit like that favorite pair of old slippers.

I also found that it really pays with the fit of the butt plate to the shoulder ball or extreme upper arm to get that elbow up high. You really want the upper arm to be pretty well level so it creates the right mount point for the hollow of the crescent. It's OK to look like you're doing the "chicken dance".... :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
What is your favorite single shot action type?
2 3
Replies
62
Views
6K
HOOfan_1
H
R
  • Locked
Uberti Baby rolling block load questions
Replies
2
Views
347
Maverick223
Maverick223
Panzerschwein
  • Locked
New Rolling Blocks!
2
Replies
46
Views
12K
BCRider
BCRider
Panzerschwein
  • Locked
.30-30 Rolling Block?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
9K
tark
tark
R
  • Locked
.357 Uberti baby rolling block, mini range report
Replies
2
Views
2K
R.W.Dale
R
Back
Top