sharps vs rolling block
- Thread starter m1978
- Start date
shootist1876
Member
Sharps have more romance associated with them, but I prefer the Rolling Block.
Will pick up a Pedersoli when funds allow.
Will pick up a Pedersoli when funds allow.
It was once thought that the central hammer of the RB was superior to the side hammer Sharps. Competition has disproved that.
The Sharps has a slight camming action when closing, the RB not. The Sharps has superior extraction. Both actions are sufficiently strong, the barrels bursting before the actions fail.
I own five Shiloh Sharps rifles but only one RB, an original Remington in .43 Spanish. Had a RB in 45-70 with a crescent butt. It kicked the snot out of me so it was sold.
You pays you money, you takes you choice.
The Sharps has a slight camming action when closing, the RB not. The Sharps has superior extraction. Both actions are sufficiently strong, the barrels bursting before the actions fail.
I own five Shiloh Sharps rifles but only one RB, an original Remington in .43 Spanish. Had a RB in 45-70 with a crescent butt. It kicked the snot out of me so it was sold.
You pays you money, you takes you choice.
the advantage of the Sharps is that the lock mechanism is completely separate from the fouling. On a rolling block fouling can drop down into the mechanism combined with water from cleaning can cause internal rusting. Beyond that, the rest comes down to personal taste. In terms of recoil, that is a factor of the cartridge being shot and the weight of the gun shooting it. If I had to chose, it would be in favour of the Sharps.
cheers mooncoon
cheers mooncoon
The Sharps' action is stronger that the RB, this holds true for all falling block actions. The "clear shot" into the chamber of the Sharps will allow for longer cartridges than that of an RB, as I recall the longest cartridge you can get into the chamber of a RB, getting it to clear the hammer, is the 45/90.
shootist1876
Member
Shiloh Sharps rifles cost much more than Rolling Block replicas, costing around $3000.00 U.S. depending on the custom options.
So, they are of course staunchly defended by elitists.
You can buy a very nice Pedersoli RB for around $1250.00.
Depends on how deep your pockets are. You pay your money and you take your choices.
shootist1876
Member
I fired a Rolling Block in .50-140 some years ago, so the cartridge restrictions are not true.
As for strength, Remington Rolling Blocks were used as military rifles by no less than 40 different nations and were chambered in cartridges as powerful as the 7.62X54R (7.62 Russian), which launches a 180 grain bullet at 2550 FPS and rivals the .30-06 in both effectiveness and chamber pressure.
So, Remington Rolling Block actions are very strong.
Modern made Rolling Block replicas aren't made to take these pressures, but neither are the Sharps Replicas, of course.
Really, a moot point, considering that they are all chambered for low pressure 19th century black powder cartridges now.
fingers284
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Alberta Cowboy Ranges
A RB that will chamber a 50-140 had to have had the hammer modified for more clearance...unmodified hammer= 45-90 or 50-70 about max's out the room they give you.
The blanket statement about the strength of the RB is a bit overboard as well...lots of difference in the metal strength of a #1 BP action and a # 5 "smokeless modern" version of later years production
The blanket statement about the strength of the RB is a bit overboard as well...lots of difference in the metal strength of a #1 BP action and a # 5 "smokeless modern" version of later years production
BrotherRockeye
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Rural Saskatchewan
Having owned and enjoyed both, I kept a Sharps...and wish I'd kept a RB too.
It's a matter of personal preference imo, and I prefer the Sharps.
It's a matter of personal preference imo, and I prefer the Sharps.
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
I have both, an original Remington Rolling Block that was rebarreled unknown years (many) ago and a Shiloh Sharps.
The Rolling Block was an advantage "back in the day" because you could always get the action closed, even if you had to hit the block with a rock. This might have kept you alive in case of emergency. The Sharps was more cumbersome to load because you had to half-####, then drop the lever, then load and finally come to full-####. You ran the risk of breaking the firing pin's tip off if you simply dropped the lever without first coming to half-####. The Remington action is extremely simple, consisting of 5 main parts and a trigger assembly.
The Shiloh Sharps tend to be much more finely finished than most Rolling Blocks on the market now, tis true. But they are one shop, and the preeminent shop at that. But anyone who handled a Lone Star Rolling Block can tell you that they were built and finished to an equally high degree.
One could argue, successfully I think, that the Winchester 1885 was superior to both due to the speed at which you could fire it. No half #### then lever then full ####, no full #### then rotate the block by hand, no nothing. Drop the lever, insert a cartridge, raise the lever and shoot. Come to think of it, I have one of those too (Browning) so I really don't have a dog in the fight!
#45-70Problems
The Rolling Block was an advantage "back in the day" because you could always get the action closed, even if you had to hit the block with a rock. This might have kept you alive in case of emergency. The Sharps was more cumbersome to load because you had to half-####, then drop the lever, then load and finally come to full-####. You ran the risk of breaking the firing pin's tip off if you simply dropped the lever without first coming to half-####. The Remington action is extremely simple, consisting of 5 main parts and a trigger assembly.
The Shiloh Sharps tend to be much more finely finished than most Rolling Blocks on the market now, tis true. But they are one shop, and the preeminent shop at that. But anyone who handled a Lone Star Rolling Block can tell you that they were built and finished to an equally high degree.
One could argue, successfully I think, that the Winchester 1885 was superior to both due to the speed at which you could fire it. No half #### then lever then full ####, no full #### then rotate the block by hand, no nothing. Drop the lever, insert a cartridge, raise the lever and shoot. Come to think of it, I have one of those too (Browning) so I really don't have a dog in the fight!
#45-70Problems
I don't think that many of us are going to be hammering on our rifles with a rock to chamber a round that may or may not extract. Kind of like jammimg a .223 rd into the chamber of an AR15 with the forward assist. Why make a bad situation worse?
I bought a Ped "Silhouette" Model '74 from Mar-Star. It was so poor that it went back into the box unfired and I asked or a refund. You get what you pay for. If you don't know what a real Sharps should look and feel like, you'd be happy with a Pedersoli.
Not strictly 'Sharps' in details of fit, finish, etc. The devil is in the details. Their forestocks do not resemble the traditional look seen in Frank Seller's book.
Shiloh voids their warranty if you shoot anything other than factory smokeless ammo in a 'modern' calibre.
Right across the street from the Shiloh shop in Big Timber is the shop of the C. Sharps company. They also make fine quality rifles that do well on the BPCR circuit. Good enough for the likes of Mike Venturino to own one or two. They are the ONLY makers who can use the [Old Reliable] logo on their barrels.
The "Quigley" match in the US has suffered a few blow ups as they allow smokeless and duplex loading. Solution? Only admit period BP cartridges loaded with 100% BP.
You know - like Matthew Quigley shot.
I bought a Ped "Silhouette" Model '74 from Mar-Star. It was so poor that it went back into the box unfired and I asked or a refund. You get what you pay for. If you don't know what a real Sharps should look and feel like, you'd be happy with a Pedersoli.
Not strictly 'Sharps' in details of fit, finish, etc. The devil is in the details. Their forestocks do not resemble the traditional look seen in Frank Seller's book.
Shiloh voids their warranty if you shoot anything other than factory smokeless ammo in a 'modern' calibre.
Right across the street from the Shiloh shop in Big Timber is the shop of the C. Sharps company. They also make fine quality rifles that do well on the BPCR circuit. Good enough for the likes of Mike Venturino to own one or two. They are the ONLY makers who can use the [Old Reliable] logo on their barrels.
The "Quigley" match in the US has suffered a few blow ups as they allow smokeless and duplex loading. Solution? Only admit period BP cartridges loaded with 100% BP.
You know - like Matthew Quigley shot.
Last edited:
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
I knew if we both posted long enough we would agree on something! And I agree completely that most of us won't be hammering the breech closed on our Rollers. My comment was in the historical context that someone could, in case of emergency, beat the action closed to get a shot off. In the old days when you could lose your topknot on the prairie that could have come in handy. Same as guys in the gopher patch (well, the southern gopher patch) probably wont hammer a round into the chamber of their AR but a guy down range might well have to.
Venturino also shot a Lone Star Rolling Block.
I have a tight chamber and a long tight throat on my rolling block and I do have to smack the ear of the breach piece, with a piece of wood from time to time. What no one seems to have picked up on is that if you are tapping the breach of a rolling block closed, it is extremely important to close the breach most of the way first (only a 1/16 or so to go) and then lower the hammer before doing any tapping. If the hammer slipped while tapping, the gun could fire unexpectedly. The reason for tapping with a designated piece of wood is that if the block is not all the way forward, the hammer may not strike hard enough for the primer to fire.
I have and shoot both Sharps and rolling block as well as a mod 85 highwall. I like all three but would consider the highwall the worst of the bunch in terms of the risk of fouling and / or cleaning water getting in the action and being time consuming to strip and clean.
cheers mooncoon
.... 'sides, the Highwall t'ain't really a Buffler gun anyhoo. Came out too late. The Sharps and Rollers had decimated the big herds by then.
Correction on my earlier comment that only C. Sharps rifles can bear the [Old Reliable] logo. That was the case with the Farmingdale Shilohs (Wolfgang Droegge era) and up to the split in management that happened in Big Timber.
After that, it was a proprietary right of C. Sharps products only. Farmingdale rifles also bear the "wolf's head" logo on the barrel.
Correction on my earlier comment that only C. Sharps rifles can bear the [Old Reliable] logo. That was the case with the Farmingdale Shilohs (Wolfgang Droegge era) and up to the split in management that happened in Big Timber.
After that, it was a proprietary right of C. Sharps products only. Farmingdale rifles also bear the "wolf's head" logo on the barrel.
I like Rolling Blocks better too
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
That is true...they are ungodly complicated to take apart.
I have had a Remington roller as my first silhouette rifle, then came a #4 perfection Ballard with double set triggers Later on was a highwall then two hepburns I found the Hepburns to have a faster lock time but I was spoiled with sharps with double set triggers I just could not go back to a single trigger.....Rollers are cheap to buy and parts are available lots of wood to choose from to make a. Ustom rifle mater of fact I have another roller that will be made into a bench rifle I will see if I can work the trigger down with a new return spring .
A knowledgeable friend recommended putting a short small stud in the full #### notch to limit the engagement of the sear. Obviously you file it down to get the amount of engagement and trigger pull you want
Cheers mooncoon
