sharps vs rolling block

[trevj]

I think the Sharps are mostly kinda fugly, so, never really been interested in owning one. No aspirations to be 'like a buffalo hunter'. While I certinly would take a freebie, I won't be putting any money down.

I have a couple rolling blocks around, and while I think they are an elegant solution to what they were designed to solve (a cheap way to update and upgrade a LOT of Military Muzzle loading rifles to use cartridges) I don't hold them in much esteem for their looks as a matter of course, though some of the higher spec Sporting models were quite well done. Certainly cleaner and simpler lines than the Sharps models though.
Well worth tracking down the Patents by the likes of Gove and others, who converted the Rolling Block actions to lever operation with automatic cocking and the like. The term "contraption" fits very well.

My feelings on the worries about the fouling falling into the action vs. not, are that every rifle made since, has pretty much had all it's guts open to the same exposure or near enough to, as the examples being held as 'inferior because', and yet, it has not proven a problem. About on par with controlled round feeding. Makes a swell point to argue, over a cuppa coffee, but in real world terms, pretty much a non-event.

A bunch of better shooters than I ever will be, have pretty much proven that a set trigger will shoot larger groups than a single trigger. The movements of the one mechanism firing the other, in a set trigger, lengthen the lock time and add an element of variability to he shot, or so the story goes. The guys doing the work on that were bench shooters, using High Walls and other set trigger era guns.

It all amounts to whatever floats yer boat, though. If we all thought only one woman was beautiful, and the rest were not, it'd be a pretty dull old world.

Cheers
Trev

 

[mooncoon]

My feelings on the worries about the fouling falling into the action vs. not, are that every rifle made since, has pretty much had all it's guts open to the same exposure or near enough to,

I will take exception to the bit about all rifles have their mechanism exposed to fouling. The Sharps cartridge rifles is the only one that I can think of which isolates the entire lock mechanism by encapsulating it in the stock. The breach block can be easily removed and cleaned and replaced. The Spencer rifle probably also meets the criteria with the qualification that you can still get cleaning water into the magazine tube. There are other single shots which also do not leave residues in places that are difficult to clean (Snider, Werndl, Tabatierre etc) but by and large they are not particularly strong actions and many are also not particularly common

cheers mooncoon

 

[powderman]

I will take exception to the bit about all rifles have their mechanism exposed to fouling. The Sharps cartridge rifles is the only one that I can think of which isolates the entire lock mechanism by encapsulating it in the stock. The breach block can be easily removed and cleaned and replaced. The Spencer rifle probably also meets the criteria with the qualification that you can still get cleaning water into the magazine tube. There are other single shots which also do not leave residues in places that are difficult to clean (Snider, Werndl, Tabatierre etc) but by and large they are not particularly strong actions and many are also not particularly common

cheers mooncoon

What do you think of the Ballard action in regards to fouling?

 

[mooncoon]

What do you think of the Ballard action in regards to fouling?

I have a couple of Ballards and like them. Easy to strip and clean and most of the mechanism is enclosed within the two piece breach block. I have rarely taken the blocks apart to clean the inside and they seem to have remained in fairly good condition internally. I had forgotten about the Ballards in my previous post. Also in thinking back to the Winchester model 85s, I like them for smokeless shooting but of the various trigger options, I like the standard trigger and both the single set and the double set, wide set triggers, when I had a close set double trigger, it was very variable in how much pressure it took to release. I don't know why but that was supposed to be common with that version of trigger.

cheers mooncoon

 

[trevj]

I will take exception to the bit about all rifles have their mechanism exposed to fouling. The Sharps cartridge rifles is the only one that I can think of which isolates the entire lock mechanism by encapsulating it in the stock. The breach block can be easily removed and cleaned and replaced. The Spencer rifle probably also meets the criteria with the qualification that you can still get cleaning water into the magazine tube. There are other single shots which also do not leave residues in places that are difficult to clean (Snider, Werndl, Tabatierre etc) but by and large they are not particularly strong actions and many are also not particularly common

cheers mooncoon

Yeah, alright. If you were the sort of fella that felt the need to boil the kettle then pour it over the gun without much regard for where the water ended up, I could see it being a problem maybe. Funnels have been around for a long time though.

But for the rest of us, it so far has not been so much trouble.

There are such a thing, as patches, and a damp one of those will still soften the fouling.

I'd certainly not put up with owning an ugly rifle because of the risk of getting water in the action otherwise, if I was sloppy.

Cheers
Trev

 

[mooncoon]

Yeah, alright. If you were the sort of fella that felt the need to boil the kettle then pour it over the gun without much regard for where the water ended up, I could see it being a problem maybe. Funnels have been around for a long time though.

Just for the record, I think that boiling water down the barrel is a poor decision. My impression from others more experienced than I, is that boiling water accelerates rusting of the bore. I do believe in using hot water because cool or cold water in my experience does not dissolve the fouling nearly as quickly nor as well as hot water as it comes from the tap. Some of the barrels that I shoot are somewhat less than pristine and require a good flushing and scrubbing to get clean. I guess I must be using second rate funnels because even used with care, they still leak a bit out of the junction of funnel and chamber. The leakage entering the action can be reduced a bit by angling the barrel back a bit so that water spills on the ground rather than into the action.
It still comes back to that I like the Sharps because of its history and because of its design. In spite of that, on the few occasions that I shoot in competition, my rifle of choice is actually a rolling block in 38-56

My final thought on the subject of me being sloppy is that a clean work bench is a sign of a disturbed mind :>)

cheers mooncoon

 

[gunlaker]

I most shoot Shiloh Sharps, and a Borchardt in competition these days, but have a few other types as well. I was recently shooting in Phoenix and while in the pits had a conversation with John Venhouse ( Dave Gullo's shooting partner ). He told me that he'd twice had wood soften near the tangs on an action that wasn't closed like on a Sharps. This came from wiping between shots while lying prone. In the hot southern ranges it's pretty much necessary to wipe with patches that are quite wet when shooting in 90-100 degree weather and very low humidity. I hadn't thought of that possible problem before but thought it was worth thinking about.

Chris.

 

[sail32]

As far as ease of maintenance and operation I think the Remington Rolling Block wins easily.

None of the other makes mentioned in this post were made in such great numbers or adopted by, and made in, as many countries as the Remington Rolling Block !

 

[Sharps '74]

Remington had a winner with the RB. It lasted well into the smokeless era and was well nigh fool proof in the hands of unskilled users.

However, the iconic Sharps has a cachet the RB never had and never will. It ranks up here with the '73 Colt SAA and the '73 Winchester. Anything else is a wanna-be.

 

[a j cave]

I have 2 rollers, a 50-70 & a 30-40. Both look good and a pleasure to shoot. I also have 2 Sharps, a Shilo in 50-90, and an original paper cartridge gun rebarelled to 45-70. I love the sharps, it would be my 1st choice every time.

 

[hickstick_10]

The sharps is more fragile, particularly with the firing pin (it truly is a cruel joke of a pin) and the lever tension spring. Not as easy to fire from prone. It has a slight edge on the Remington for camming in a slightly sticky shell.....and I do mean slight basically just the radius base of the shell and leverage of the lever is doing it. Same with extraction. Side locks inlet into wood in a humid environment are a massive PITA to remove for repair, and it was one of the main reasons the British army adopted the Martini Henry. The US army didn't need to worry about this as much when it chose the trapdoor.

The Remington has no camming ability whatsoever, zip nada zilch, your limited by thumb strength or how willing you are to apply your boot heel to the the block tab. Extraction is equally dismal, and lots of old rollers have busted extractors. It is an easier gun to fire from prone, and firing pin is more robust. I like how the lock is completely contained within the action.

I dont think one is superior to the other overall in performance.

 

[chasseur]

From what I have read the Sharps was the favorite of the Buffalo hunters with the rolling block a close second.Also it was the rolling block with all the military contracts world wide that saved Remington from going out of business after the civil war .it was a very simple ,robust and rugged firearm.

 

[CarbineGirl]

I have shot a rolling block and they are enjoyable and easy. I do own a beautiful shiloh sharps sport #3 45-110 which is absolutely beautiful. It definitely has a much higher "wow" factor that the rolling block I fired. And is such a well made finely crafted rifle.

I think it comes down to what you want out of your gun.

 

[mooncoon]

The Remington has no camming ability whatsoever, zip nada zilch, your limited by thumb strength or how willing you are to apply your boot heel to the the block tab. Extraction is equally dismal, and lots of old rollers have busted extractors. It is an easier gun to fire from prone, and firing pin is more robust. I like how the lock is completely contained within the action.
.

My 38-56 rolling block has a tight chamber and a long tight throat (3/4 of the slug is seated in the throat). If the breach is a tiny bit open, friction slows the hammer down enough that the gun will not fire. For that reason after putting a shell in the chamber, I close the breach then lower the hammer and finally give the ear of the breach a couple of taps with a wooden block. Important to lower the hammer so that if the gun ever did fire (stuck firing pin for example) the hammer has locked the breach closed.

cheers mooncoon

 

[a j cave]

Just sold 3 Shiloh Sharps and a couple rollers. I still have a couple of each. I like the Sharps but mostly on looks. In compition there are more Shiloh than any other. If this is for non compition shooting then they are both fine and the Pedersoli is suitable. JMO

 

[Sharps '74]

This is like the Ford vs Chevy debate. It will never end. You pays you money - you takes you choice.

 

[trevj]

Just for the record, I think that boiling water down the barrel is a poor decision. My impression from others more experienced than I, is that boiling water accelerates rusting of the bore. I do believe in using hot water because cool or cold water in my experience does not dissolve the fouling nearly as quickly nor as well as hot water as it comes from the tap. Some of the barrels that I shoot are somewhat less than pristine and require a good flushing and scrubbing to get clean. I guess I must be using second rate funnels because even used with care, they still leak a bit out of the junction of funnel and chamber. The leakage entering the action can be reduced a bit by angling the barrel back a bit so that water spills on the ground rather than into the action.
It still comes back to that I like the Sharps because of its history and because of its design. In spite of that, on the few occasions that I shoot in competition, my rifle of choice is actually a rolling block in 38-56

My final thought on the subject of me being sloppy is that a clean work bench is a sign of a disturbed mind :>)

cheers mooncoon

I'm with ya on the 'clean bench' thing!

Like I said before, I think the Sharps design is kinda ugly, and don't really aspire to own one. It is, to my eye, an inelegant collection of lumps and lines that just strikes a discordant visual clash. Lots of the British, African Game rifles too. The 1877 Model was a bit more refined looking, the Borchardt was quite modern, and if the company had survived, I figure they would have pretty much ended up somewhere pretty close to where Winchester picked things up with the 1885. Might even have prevented the 1885 from happening at all. But who's to say for sure, eh? Coulda. Mighta. Didna!

It was used by the Buffalo Hunters because it was available in heavier weights and calibers than what the other makers were able to provide. Winchester was making repeaters in anemic pistol calibers, at that time, and one of their driving reasons for pursuing the Browning Brothers single shot design, was to be able to sell a heavier caliber gun than their product line could handle up till then. By the time they came up with a repeater that would shoot the bigger cartridges, the Buffalo were done, as a driving economic force.

If what I have read is to be trusted, about half the Sharps Rifles that left the factory to shoot Buffalo, were equipped with telescopic sights, most of which were even more expensive than the guns themselves. Rolling Blocks and Trapdoors were used a bunch, but a fella that wanted to make as much money for his crew as a Buffalo shooter could, wanted something heavier to adsorb the recoil, and more powerful, if he could get it, to prevent his crew from having to cover more ground in a day (less profits) so the cost was bearable to get what they wanted.

Personally, I think there are a LOT of guys out there that are pretty tied in to the Fantasy version of events, rather than anything resembling reality. Quigly Down Under, pretty much created an industry to go with, eh?

Cheers
Trev

 

[Sharps '74]

I'm with ya on the 'clean bench' thing!

Like I said before, I think the Sharps design is kinda ugly, and don't really aspire to own one. It is, to my eye, an inelegant collection of lumps and lines that just strikes a discordant visual clash. Lots of the British, African Game rifles too. The 1877 Model was a bit more refined looking, the Borchardt was quite modern, and if the company had survived, I figure they would have pretty much ended up somewhere pretty close to where Winchester picked things up with the 1885. Might even have prevented the 1885 from happening at all. But who's to say for sure, eh? Coulda. Mighta. Didna!

It was used by the Buffalo Hunters because it was available in heavier weights and calibers than what the other makers were able to provide. Winchester was making repeaters in anemic pistol calibers, at that time, and one of their driving reasons for pursuing the Browning Brothers single shot design, was to be able to sell a heavier caliber gun than their product line could handle up till then. By the time they came up with a repeater that would shoot the bigger cartridges, the Buffalo were done, as a driving economic force.

If what I have read is to be trusted, about half the Sharps Rifles that left the factory to shoot Buffalo, were equipped with telescopic sights, most of which were even more expensive than the guns themselves. Rolling Blocks and Trapdoors were used a bunch, but a fella that wanted to make as much money for his crew as a Buffalo shooter could, wanted something heavier to adsorb the recoil, and more powerful, if he could get it, to prevent his crew from having to cover more ground in a day (less profits) so the cost was bearable to get what they wanted.

Personally, I think there are a LOT of guys out there that are pretty tied in to the Fantasy version of events, rather than anything resembling reality. Quigly Down Under, pretty much created an industry to go with, eh?

Cheers
Trev

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A lot of us think the '74 Sharps is an elegant rifle, the Borchardt not.

"Quigley Down Under" sold a lot of Sharps rifles, but not necessarily that particular model. Shiloh will try and talk a customer out of ordering the true "Quigley" model in 45-110 with straight grip and military crescent butt plate. It hurts! I'm not talking about a couple of shots to prove your manhood, I mean a lengthy string of rounds as per a silhouette match.

I'm not sure you are correct about the number of Sharps that were telescopic sight equipped. The gear of buffalo hunters need to be rugged to survive horse drawn transport.
I've rarely seen pics of rifles so equipped. I think most were likely shot with the factory barrel sights not even tang mounted verniers.

"Sharps - the rifle that made the West safe for Winchester"

 

[gunlaker]

I'm a big fan of the 1874, but mainly because Shiloh builds them. I do like the Borchardt's quite a bit. I have one that was rebuilt by Curt Hardcastle and it has worked well for me in long range competition. If Shiloh ever gets around to building them I will definitely order one . Not ideal for the silhouette shooters though unfortunately.

Chris

 

[mooncoon]

The question that I wonder about is how far were most buffalo shot at? In "The Border and the Buffalo" by Frank Cook, it would appear that ranges were relatively short although he never actually says how far most of his shots were. I was left with the impression that ranges were in the 75 to 150 yards category. On the other hand the book (forgotten the title) by Frank Meir, who shot with a scope sighted Sharps, implies that he shot mostly at 200 to 400 yards or perhaps a bit further. Both of my guesses or impressions seems credible based on the overall text of each book.

cheers mooncoon