Quantcast
Rolling Block Fans? - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Tools and Technologies > Rifle Country

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 21, 2014, 03:46 PM   #1
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 3,178
Rolling Block Fans?

Today I did something I try to avoid when possible: impulse buy. But, when I was presented with something I hadn't run across in person before --a gin-ewe-ine Remington rolling block-- and in a practical smokeless bottleneck chambering --7mm Mauser-- I just couldn't resist. Rolling blocks are just one of those iconic staples, so I'll always have room for one in the collection. I'm told most of the 7mm models went to Mexico, presumably to battle Zapatas/etc. at the turn of the century.

The Good:
-Everything works as best I can tell; this is the 1902 model with the rotary extractor
-Stock is in decent condition, very dented but the finish looks very good to compensate (probably refinished)
-No rust or pitting anywhere, just a cosmoline-like substance in all the nooks and crannies that looks like rust (barrel and hammer stamps/knurling are very faint, suggesting either lots of wear or some refinish filing; patent stamps are strong, though)
-Extremely strong rifling, and a smooth, consistently dark bore. All rounds went through the same hole at 10yrds without trying in the pistol range behind the shop I test fired it in
-Test fire showed expected oversized neck in the chamber, but zero noticeable setback of the shoulder. Primers were beaten to hell, but none ruptured.
-Trigger is somehow smooth and in the 4lb range, which seems quite odd compared to reports I've read of 20lb triggers. Hammer is very stiff to cock as you'd expect

The Bad, and Ugly:
-Some wussy dingus glued on one of those rubber butt pads known for hardening and cracking in an ugly manner. I think he at least did not cut the stock to do so and just replaced the steel plate.
-The sling swivel on the butt has been removed and the stock repaired (looks like an armory-style repair, but is likely done by the same dingus)
-Self-same dingus may have ground down the sight base (it's a straight ramp instead of a fancy arc or stair-step profile)
-Self-same dingus removed forward sling swivel and replaced it with an ugly hex-bolt
-The buttstock is a little loose on the receiver, so I really need to fix that before recoil causes cracking (there's also a little splinter of the forearm missing by the barrel-band leaf spring on the right side)

I paid a little more than lowest market value, but for something cool & uncommon to be unexpectedly brought to my attention, I'm willing to pay a little bit of a "finder's fee" to the LGS. The sporterization, while annoying to someone with historical sensibilities, isn't really noticeable or obnoxious, with the obvious exception of the played-out buttstock which is an easy fix. If the same bubba who did the chopping also did the trigger work, all is forgiven (it's seriously as light a trigger as my K31; I just tested both )

What's the proper technique for cocking/loading these guns? There's not as much instruction on Youtube as I'd have expected. For the test firing, I pulled the hammer with my thumb and the block with my index finger, inserted a shell held between my middle and third fingers with my thumb, before closing the block with my thumb as I brought my hand down to the trigger. Not as slick as a K31, but not as awkward as I'd expected, either.

TCB
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20140621_130705.jpg (90.8 KB, 105 views)
barnbwt is offline  
Old June 21, 2014, 07:09 PM   #2
R.W.Dale
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 14, 2005
Location: Northwest Arkansas
Posts: 10,248
I dearly love my little reproduction baby rolling block in 357 magnum.



Count me as a fan
__________________
I understand what both sides are saying in the JHP vs FMJ arguments, but the fact remains that no matter what you're getting shot with YOU'RE STILL GETTING SHOT!!!
R.W.Dale is offline  
Old June 22, 2014, 01:04 AM   #3
BCRider
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 15, 2008
Location: Pacific North"Wet" Coast of Canada
Posts: 6,156
That's how I load mine. Being a single shot rifle it's not some sort of speed demon at any rate.

How well does the wood fit to the tangs extending back from the receiver? It's possible that the holes for the through bolts are worn and that it was over tightened at some point so it may be that all the repairs needed will end up internal to tighten things up nicely. Perhaps give us some close up pictures of the area and start by removing the stocks to better evaluate the issue.

And congrats on a great single shot action in such a useable and relatively common chambering.
__________________
Sent from my boat anchor desktop via my pizza greased fingers....
BCRider is offline  
Old June 22, 2014, 03:11 AM   #4
Float Pilot
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 27, 2007
Location: Kachemak Bay Alaska
Posts: 2,579
I have owned a couple. One in 50-70 and one in 7x57mm. They are a neat rifle.
I would not mind owning a Swedish version.....
__________________
Experimental Hand-Loader, Wilderness photo guide, Float Plane,Tail Wheel and Firearms Instructor
http://site.dragonflyaero.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Drago...ref=ts&fref=ts
Float Pilot is offline  
Old June 22, 2014, 12:08 PM   #5
Dframe
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 21, 2013
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 599
I've always admired them but never quite was able to part with the money. someday!
__________________
Detectives, and Cobras, and Agents!
Oh My!
Dframe is offline  
Old June 22, 2014, 10:16 PM   #6
WVRJ
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 1, 2012
Posts: 179
I was lucky enough recently to trade a 22 I had for a Rolling Block that my buddy's grandfather had built sometime in the 40's or 50's.It has a massive bull barrel chambered for 219 Zipper.I got a box of Remington ammo with it,and when I cleaned it up and shot it,was very surprised to see 3 shots go into 1.5 MOA.I quickly ordered loading dies and smoothed out the trigger.As it is now,it'll put 5 40 gr V-Max's into waaay less than an inch at 100 yards every time,best group so far is 5 into .360.I was told by a few experts that it wouldn't be accurate at all.I'm very happy with that rifle,and the nostalgia that goes with it makes it even more special.I try to imagine that fine old gentleman shooting groundhogs with it,and am gonna take it on a few trips to the hayfields and shoot 1 groundhog with it.
WVRJ is offline  
Old June 23, 2014, 05:03 PM   #7
tark
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 25, 2013
Location: atkinson, ill
Posts: 213
barnbwt: WARNING>>>WARNING>>>WARNING!!!! I have owned, and built from scratch out of blocks of steel, several rolling block rifles. The last was a 30-06 which was proofed at 80,000 PSI. They are a strong gun, but there appears to be a problem with the 7MM guns, both the 1897 model and the 1902. It isn't that they ARENT strong enough for the 7mm Mauser CTG, they are. The problem seems to be that they were chambered for an early version of the round, which was about ten thousands longer than the current.

I have owned three 7mm rolling blocks in my life and all of them had deep chambers. A fired 7mm case in any of them was horribly stretched hear the web and was useless for reloading. Not that you would want to try. If you fire a round in yours you will probably get the same result. But do NOT try, the stretching is so bad it boarders on dangerous! You would also notice that the hammer was very stiff to cock after each round. That is a rolling block's way of telling you something is wrong.

Not to worry! The solution is simple. Make your own cases (of the proper length) out of 30-06 brass! It is amazing how many obsolete military rounds can be made from that case. To include: 7.65 Argentine; 7.7 Jap; 7mm Mauser; 8mm Mauser; 6.5x55 Swedish; just to name five of the top of my head.

The procedure is simple. Unscrew the decapper from the full length die. Grease up a 30-06 case and run it up into the 7mm die. You will get a 7mm case with a neck about 3/4 " long. Trim that off and you're ready to go. I use a simple punch to de-prime all of the cases before starting and it is a good idea to anneal them afterward. You can experiment with unscrewing the die slightly until you get a case the correct length. On some brass you might have to ream the inside of the neck, but if you stick to commercial brass (not military) you should be OK.

I would stick to standard pressure loads for the gun, and remember: If the hammer doesn't cock easily, you're feeding it too much pressure. Rolling blocks are a fascinating piece of history and you will enjoy it immensely!
tark is offline  
Old June 23, 2014, 09:00 PM   #8
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 3,178
Quote:
The problem seems to be that they were chambered for an early version of the round, which was about ten thousands longer than the current.
Interesting. The first round I fired, I compared carefully to the unfired brass for the exact reason you state (bad headspace, which I'd heard some of the guns have; I didn't realize they merely had funky chambers), and I found the shoulder setback is barely, if at all, detectable. Like, .01 inches, max. It's the neck that's completely loosey goosey in my gun, at least; a good .02" larger in diameter than it should be. The brass does end up longer, but at the neck rather than the base (I'll probably still section a case to be sure, but the neck-to-rim change is no more severe than any other 30-06 class rifle I've used)

I figure that would probably jack up the brass and make it split within a reload or two, but non-catastrophically, of course, through a neck split. To be honest, I'd just as soon ream the chamber out to 30-06*, provided the action is strong enough of course, or even just bump the bore to .308 because then the .02" oversize throat is just about right for the larger bullet as is. As deep as the rifling is, I wonder if I'd even need to have the lands re-cut . But as it stands, besides fairly rough ("weathered") chamber walls and a too-large neck, it seems alright judging from the brass. From what I have read, putting light rounds through a RB is even worse than heavier ones, since their gas-handling of poorly sealed breeches is very poor, so I suppose that puts a floor on how gentle you can be on the gun.

I'm more worried by the gigantic firing pin practically impaling cases it's hitting them so hard; I need to see if there's a way to keep it from shooting so far forward without sacrificing primer support; a replacement pin with less slack to move forward, or something. By "stiff hammer" I just meant the mainspring is a beast compared to most modern hammers, by virtue of the action's design --not because it was noticeably harder to pull back after firing (it wasn't, and is only a little stiffer when cramming spent brass back into the gun and dropping the hammer; that binds the action a little, same as it would any gun)

TCB

*EDIT: Screw that, I'd rechamber it to 7.5x55 Swiss; check out the similarity between x57 on the left and GP11 at the center
barnbwt is offline  
Old June 24, 2014, 04:16 AM   #9
tark
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 25, 2013
Location: atkinson, ill
Posts: 213
Barnbwt, be CAREFUL!! Remington never chambered the 1897 or 1902 actions for any cartridge developing more than about 45,000PSI. The #5 sporting rifle, with the same action as your military rifle, was chambered in 303 British, 30-40, 30-30, 7mm, 7.62X54 Russian, and possibly 32 Winchester spl. They are extremely rare today and Remington only made a few hundred.

I have made two centerfire rolling block rifles out of blocks of steel; a 45-70 made from 1045 alloy and a 30-06 out of 4140. Both were made thicker, larger and stronger than the old Remingtons. The 06 has action pins that are 9/16" in diameter and the sidewalls on the action are fully 1/2 inch thick. Both were discussed at length and pictures posted in the expired thread; "Why no new rolling blocks?"

My point is, if you chambered or re-barreled your gun to any of the rounds you mentioned You would probably be straining that old action to the limit. Some loads in those calibers are well over 50,000 PSI.

Remember that the metallurgy of 110 years ago was stone age compared to today....
tark is offline  
Old June 27, 2014, 05:45 PM   #10
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 3,178
Supposedly, 7.5x55 GP11 only generates 45,500psi (yet another way it is the ultimate battle rifle cartridge ), but your concern is duly noted and appreciated. I'm just trying to see what options may be available to salvage the barrel*, since as it stands its brass can probably not be reloaded with any practicality. It also occurs to me, that some of the out-gassing issues I've heard about may in fact be due to the roomy neck allowing more "poof" to get around the case body if the gas seal is not perfect (not unlike H&K flutes)

Quote:
Remember that the metallurgy of 110 years ago was stone age compared to today...
I don't know exactly what steel was used for this specific gun, but steels comparably strong to what we have now were certainly available in the '00's for the right price --it was inspection methods and an understanding of fatigue, fracture, and failure mechanics in firearms that was lacking. They didn't have the high-alloy steels like 4140 and such that can get ridiculously strong, but the hardenable carbon/chrome/nickle steels were sufficient, provided they were designed with +50ksi chamber pressures in mind (and no sharp inside corners). It's not like these RB's were made from cast mild steel (they are forged high carbon nickel-steel, as I understand it)

Quote:
I have made two centerfire rolling block rifles out of blocks of steel; a 45-70 made from 1045 alloy and a 30-06 out of 4140. Both were made thicker, larger and stronger than the old Remingtons. The 06 has action pins that are 9/16" in diameter and the sidewalls on the action are fully 1/2 inch thick. Both were discussed at length and pictures posted in the expired thread; "Why no new rolling blocks?"
I read through that a while back, thoroughly agog at your wonderful projects . 4140 is a good bit stronger than truly needed for nearly all gun-type applications, unless you are going for a modern, lightweight build. A very cursory glance at your beefed up design suggests to me it is probably overbuilt by several times if not more, but as I understand it, ultimate strength isn't what is important in a rolling block, but rigidity.

The more I learn about the action, the more it reminds me of other early locked breech systems, which had very long or circuitous load paths, which meant more deflection for a given load. It didn't technically make them weaker, but it caused the chamber to distort beyond brass-safe levels once smokeless pressures were attained in modern cartridges. Because of that, you needed super-massive parts so less flex could build up along the line of action from breechface, to locking mechanism, to reciever. Otherwise, the chamber flexes back, the brass expands, and either ruptures (destroying the action by its poor gas-handling design), or binds the rolling block when the action springs back onto the now-stretched brass --the stiff hammer you warned me about, I'm guessing.

Since my brass was neither bound up after firing, nor unacceptably distorted (except the neck diameter ) I have to assume this particular PPU 139gr SP load is not taxing the action unduly (well, aside from the borderline-looking primers which are practically pushed through the case web) --I don't see any warning signs like I've read about or would expect, so I don't see why loading down would be needed (below this particular load, at least). I do understand that some 7mm milsurp ammo from WWI and later was loaded to '06 pressures, which would obviously be beyond what this action was intended for.

I suspect your increasing the pivot axis diameters in your 30-06 RB contributed the most by far to firming up the action, since that very rapidly reduces the contact load deflections of a pin in a hole (by the fourth power, if memory serves). Beefing the sideplates or blocks would only stiffen proportionally. Since the other big contributor of RB breech flex is clearance between the hammer and block, I wonder if a design could be made that puts a slight incline between their mating surfaces so the falling hammer actually tensions the block as the primer is struck? It would at least put that enormous hammer momentum to better use than abusing those poor primers , and if the incline was only a few degrees, friction & leverage would be sufficient to keep the chamber pressure from forcing the hammer back.

Quote:
The last was a 30-06 which was proofed at 80,000 PSI.
That's nuts, man . Did you at least chrono that round for bragging rights? Did you actually design the action to a set pressure/thrust/deflection, or was it simply beefed until it looked right, and proof tested? I'm just curious if the numbers really did require all the extensive increases you did for safe 30-06 function (if so, I too would have serious reservations about the rolling block action )

TCB

*The barrel was either significantly worn or refinished at some point, with markings being extremely faint and the surface smooth, but its patina matches the receiver so replacing it would mean refinishing the whole dang gun and stock for the gun to look presentable
barnbwt is offline  
Old June 27, 2014, 09:51 PM   #11
BCRider
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 15, 2008
Location: Pacific North"Wet" Coast of Canada
Posts: 6,156
Barnbwt, your analysis on the need or rigidity to go with strength is well thought out. It's why front lug locked bolts are so dominant these days. It's simply the most direct and least flexible option.

That doesn't mean us fans of rolling and falling block designs have to lay down and play dead though....

And yeah, Tark's efforts are a grand inspiration to all of us home shop types. I'm hoping to follow in his boot steps at one point over the next couple of years. Just got to finish up my shop renos.
__________________
Sent from my boat anchor desktop via my pizza greased fingers....
BCRider is offline  
Old June 27, 2014, 11:13 PM   #12
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 3,178
Like I said; they're not weak, just inefficient in their use of metal like all early mechanisms --but super easy to make with manual machine tools (not a coincidence, of course)

"That doesn't mean us fans of rolling and falling block* designs have to lay down and play dead though..."

And that's why I don't unquestioningly buy into the "you need to relegate that one to shooting hand loaded black powder mouse fart loads like a cast iron Howdah" lines I've seen reflexively spewed on boards (not at all like Tark's reasoned cautions), because the original rifles were actually quite powerful for the time. 7x57, as introduced, was a plenty powerful cartridge, but somewhere along the way it appears somebody thought it'd be cool to load it to 8x57 pressures. I guess the similar case lengths gave them the idea

FWIW, SAAMI specs for 7x57 are only 46000CUP, so factory ammo loaded to SAAMI spec may not be beyond the Remington's capabilities --obviously the hotter stuff will be, though. The real problem seems to stem from the cartridge's age; it's been around long enough that lots of people have screwed with it and there's now a whole range of what "7x57 Mauser" means, just like the Old West cartridges than range anywhere from 18000psi black powder to 55000psi crazygonuts hand loads

If the rifle is good to shoot GP11, I'd just as soon do that so there's no longer a risk of someone dropping a Buffalo Bore 7x57 in there and catching a breech block through the eye (guess what happens when the breechblock pivot hole lets go...). I'd obviously stamp over the (~.002" deep and nearly illegible) "CAL 30" marking on the barrel

ETA:
-7.5x55 has a base/rim .02" wider, and 2X as thick at the rim as 7x57; that means no metal must be added to the extractor, and if it fits loose enough, there might be no mods needed at all
-7.5x55 is bigger in all dimensions except at the inside corner of the neck; if I simply chased the current chamber, I'd have a two-step neck which would leave a ~.03" chamfer at the base of the neck. No big deal safety-wise, but weird looking brass that you would probably prefer not to reload (but GP11 essentially isn't reloadable). My STGW57 has taught me a lot about just how insignificant minor shoulder variances can be so long as the action locks up tight
-The neck diameter of my fired brass is about .005" narrower than unfired GP11 necks; sounds mighty convenient
-The lands diameter at the muzzle measures .300" exactly, so it would appear a bore-out to .308 would likely expose all new metal. If done properly, the boring/rifling would result in as accurate a barrel as this one's profile can offer
-The combination of boring, rifling, crowning, rechambering, GP11 ammunition, and the existing trigger quality could make for an extremely accurate rifle

TCB
*Don't lump in falling blocks; they are the most rigid breech locking design there is. Unlike rotating breeches, there is no "open air" anywhere near the breach lugs to allow the action to unlock, and the lugs themselves are much 'stubbier' and therefore not stiffer in cantilever bending. I'm currently working on a gas-operated falling block in 5.7x28, and it's crazy how small the actual locking parts are due to the configuration's efficiency; the bolt is .3" tall, .6" wide, and .28" thick

Last edited by barnbwt; June 27, 2014 at 11:39 PM.
barnbwt is offline  
Old June 27, 2014, 11:25 PM   #13
Cooldill
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 19, 2011
Location: Kansas
Posts: 890
Neat! I love me some Remmy Rollie Blocks!

If I can't have one in .308 or 7.62x54R (<dream gun material) than give me one in .44 magnum! SAAMI specked at 36,000 PSI the Rolling Block should work fine with it.
Cooldill is offline  
Old June 28, 2014, 02:21 AM   #14
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 3,178
Nah, your dream gun should be one of the Russian Winchesters . As 'small' as the Model 5 is for a rifle of its era, a 44mag version would have to feel like shooting a 22

TCB
barnbwt is offline  
Old June 28, 2014, 07:13 AM   #15
Jim Watson
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 24, 2002
Posts: 17,956
You can't bring up the 7mm Rolling Block without hearing: "The problem seems to be that they were chambered for an early version of the round, which was about ten thousands longer than the current."

Which seems strange when you think about it. The 7x57 as we know it was in regular issue in 1893, so what early "long" version would Remington use in 1902? I think they were just made "roomy" to try to assure extraction from a single shot instead of a bolt action with a big claw extractor.
__________________
I have a few facts and a lot of opinions.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old June 28, 2014, 10:43 AM   #16
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 3,178
I think they were made roomy (shoulder and neck) so you'd never have to kick the block closed. No bolt camming in either direction, after all. It's actually fairly tough to rechamber a spent cartridge, so I imagine a snug match chamber or fouling would make closing the block very iffy in combat conditions. On my rifle at least, even if the shoulder were roomy (and it does not appear to be), the case headspaces enough on the body taper to ensure the case head is firmly against the block once it is closed, making any mis-match further down less risky (if you believe how case-stretch dynamics are supposed to work with the case sticking to the chamber walls before stretching)

TCB
barnbwt is offline  
Old June 29, 2014, 12:47 PM   #17
tark
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 25, 2013
Location: atkinson, ill
Posts: 213
Barnbwt, you're right on the 7.5 Swiss round. It might well be a viable candidate for re-chambering. But have you shot your gun to see if it groups well? All three of my previous 1902s had bores that could only be charitably described as "Rough". All three were neglected at some point in their corrosive primed life and the rifling was barely visible. But all three would hold three or four inches at 100 yards with no keyholes! I am picking up another 1902 this Tuesday, one with an excellent bore. I can't wait to see how it groups.

As to the idea that there was an earlier 7mm round that had different dimensions; I just don't know. But I do know this: I had an antique box of Union Metallic Cartridge Company 7mm rounds. The box had a red label and was marked "For Mauser and Remington Rifles" and was loaded with "175 gr Metal Cased Bullet" When I tried one (This happened 40 years ago) It fired and ejected smoothly with no sign of stretching at all! I was just a teenage kid without a caliper, but by using a steel rule, I could see the old UMC rounds were slightly longer, from the base to the beginning of the shoulder. Go figure.

As far as that 80,000 PSI proof round goes; that is pretty much standard for the European (It was German) standard for the 7.62X63 cartridge. I just built the gun plenty strong and I went for it. I believe I mentioned in the other thread that a lot of praying was involved.

One last thing. The Rolling block hammer should NEVER be hard to cock, beyond the obvious fact that it is powered by a stiff spring. If it is,
something is wrong. The hammer on my 30-06 can be cocked easily, with your little finger. Even the steel cased proof round was easy to cock.

Have fun with your Rolling Block, and let us know if it shoots acceptably with its current barrel.
tark is offline  
Old June 29, 2014, 01:12 PM   #18
tark
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 25, 2013
Location: atkinson, ill
Posts: 213
Barnbwt, I have gone over your posts again and I missed something. You mention that your firing pin mangles the primers when you shoot it, almost mashing them into the case.

Something is wrong. The smokeless actions had a small diameter firing pin that should have been prevented by a cross pin from protruding too far. The older Black Powder guns had a larger, wider pin and it almost sounds like you have a BP breechblock in your gun. If the firing pin hole is larger than about .30 thousands or so something is wrong.

I don't know if Remington changed any dimensions on the action when they went over to smokeless, of they just changed to the new, nickel steel, but it may be that you have a Black powder part in your gun. If that is true, I suppose it would be foolish to tell you it will blow up on you if you shoot it; since it obviously hasn't yet..... But it is worth checking out. Is it possible for you to post a pic of a fired case?
tark is offline  
Old June 29, 2014, 08:49 PM   #19
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 3,178
Firing pin hole is a good .08" across. The boltface you describe sounds more like my Steyr M95 (talk about some high pressure junk on that old timer!). Let me know if the picture looks more like a BP or earlier configuration (if Remington was anything like Colt or FNH, they cobbled together newer model-year guns from whatever parts they had laying around, leading to bunch of different permutations. That, or my Bubba did a lot more than glue on a butt pad and cut off the sling loops )

The hammer is hard to cock, but is smooth; it pretty obviously has like a 20lb spring driving it. The block has a little resistance to rotating, but it is 1-2lb weight consistent and just feels "tight" rather than from binding on something--just like I assume you'd want. A little more force is required to snap the extractor over the rim. Zero play, whatsoever, between hammer and block when at half-cock; feels like a contiguous piece of steel. I checked against my other rifles, and this one's trigger is better than any of them, including the K31's . No, I'm not kidding; the Remington is rougher but lighter, and the narrower angled grip is far superior. I think the lock time and hammer jar would be the limiting factors if it was shooting GP11 and had a new barrel.

The bore looks pretty good on mine, honestly; very deep rifling, and fairly smooth "matte" finish, dark patina. No measureable variance at 10 yards, so that comes out to 0MOA at 100 yards, right? I'll have to stretch the rifle's legs just to see, but I have no intention of feeding it expensive factory ammo that can't be reloaded or dialed in. If it shoots good, I might just consider having the barrel removed and either set-back/rechambered, or sell it toward a quality 30-caliber or other barrel to start fresh with. It's not like the one on there now has sharp markings, or anything worth retaining besides the 'look' or an orignal.

Good news; I found other pictures of these guns with sight ramps like mine, so I guess that part wasn't trimmed . I also found a serial/issue number shallowly scratched into the lower tang; TX*******. I'll claim it was used by the Rangers to chase down Pancho, or some BS

TCB
Attached Images
File Type: jpg P6290001.jpg (54.5 KB, 23 views)
File Type: jpg P6290005.jpg (102.5 KB, 14 views)
barnbwt is offline  
Old June 30, 2014, 04:36 PM   #20
tark
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 25, 2013
Location: atkinson, ill
Posts: 213
Well, that certainly looks like the right breechblock. Your firing pin hole looks to be a bit worn, not uncommon with the corrosive residue that would get into the hole and not cleaned. I would knock out your cross pin on the firing pin and examine it. If it looks OK I can only think of one thing that might help your situation; use Magnum Rifle primers and lower your load accordingly. The Magnum primers have a considerably harder cup used in their manufacture, and that might help your problem

Your fired cases look very nice, your chamber is obviously of the right dimension. Hope the rifle I pick up tomorrow is as good.
tark is offline  
Old June 30, 2014, 04:43 PM   #21
tark
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 25, 2013
Location: atkinson, ill
Posts: 213
It is too bad the Rolling Blocks had such a glacially slow lock time, which rendered them only So-So as a target rifle. Some of them, as you have discovered, had wonderful triggers.

As a curious aside, that old 1902 7mm I had would put that long 175 grain bullet through trees as large as three feet in diameter! I have never owned a rifle in any caliber that would penetrate like those old UMC cartridges.
tark is offline  
Old June 30, 2014, 07:29 PM   #22
Dframe
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 21, 2013
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 599
There used to be a gunsmith who specialised in bushing the oversized firing pin holes in old worn breach blocks. Dang it the name escapes me. Perhaps someone else remembers
__________________
Detectives, and Cobras, and Agents!
Oh My!
Dframe is offline  
Old June 30, 2014, 11:54 PM   #23
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 3,178
I know a guy who rebuilds SMG parts kits into legal semi-autos, who'd be more than capable of bushing the hole back to size, if that's what's needed (it's part of the conversion from fixed to moving firing pin, after all). The actual hole only looks to have a .02" or so radius on the edge and is essentially the same diameter as the pin when extended (the pin looks smaller in the photo because it is so rounded, which might be a bit of the problem itself). Just looking at it, my thinking is the pin simply can travel too far into the case, and boy that hammer has a lot of energy behind it. Couple that with soft primers and soft factory brass, and woo-boy, they takes a whoopin'. I almost wonder if it might be worth trying to simply place a thin, countersunk washer between the firing pin and its stop to reduce the travel by .02" or so. That little a change should not affect the safety of the firing pin support, or anything, probably.

I believe 7.5 GP11 has steel primers so it'd probably be okay (the STGW57 has a hammer which rivals the rolling blocks' --look it up!), but if I was to run 7mm I planned on using hard (or I guess magnum, if they don't sell the magnum cups with the lighter explosive charge) or steel primers. I assume somebody makes milsurp-hard primers for guns that are prone to slam fires.

TCB
barnbwt is offline  
Old July 1, 2014, 06:55 PM   #24
tark
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 25, 2013
Location: atkinson, ill
Posts: 213
I just got home with my new (to me) 1902 7mm . To my enormous relief the fired cases are not stretched, so the chamber is the right length. Darned if I know how or why my other three I have owned in the past all stretched the cases fired in them. Guess Ill never know

Looking forward to an extended range session tomorrow. The gun has a pristine bore.
tark is offline  
Old July 1, 2014, 08:55 PM   #25
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 3,178
What do the necks look like? All bow-legged? Happy shooting

I wonder if guns made before/after a certain run had the new reamers...I'll have to check my serial number at some point.

TCB
barnbwt is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.