I have a couple of #5 Rolling Block rifles/actions that I've always intended to redo. One was a 7x57mm with a shot out barrel and rough wood, etc. thus gives the opportunity to start fresh. The rifles were rough, so not military collectibles and no concerns on outcomes.
So, I've gone back and forth on what cartridge I could go to as I work through other projects over the years. As for looks, I've pretty much decided on the sporterized look I'll go with. Round sporter 24 to 26" barrel, semi Monti Carlo raised butt with check piece, scoped, all blued, etc.
However, it the cartridge I've not been able to decide on. Seriously thought about a new 7x57 barrel, 7-30 Waters, 30-30 AI, 357 Mag or 6.5x55. As for use, perhaps deer from a blind, mostly targets for fun and just because I I think it would just be a cool looking.rifle to have.
I waver on the 7mm, for I have 2 7mm-08s, one in a Mauser 48 that is in the process of becoming a Stutzen rifle. I have 2 other 30-30s in single shot rifles. The 357 would be the cheapest to shoot, but really no need for the longer barrel and it's really a large frame for the cartridge. The 6.5x55 would be fine for deer here and if I handload I could keep the pressure low. 7-30 Waters is a nice thought, but I already have 7mm08 a d 30-30. I like the thought of a 327 Fed Magnum and it looks like chamber pressure might be ok. Not interested in a 38-55 and I have a couple of 22 Hornets.
So while the 357 Magnum seems to be the most practical, any thoughts on other cartridges I should think about?
If I was going to buy or build a #5 Rolling Block, I would favor a cartridge it was originally chambered for like the 7x57. I also like rimmed cartridges in my single shots (Ruger #1's & 1885's) so the 7-30 Waters & 30-30AI fit that criterion well. If I wanted to combine those two criteria into a single rifle, then some of the rarer rolling blocks were chambered in .30-40 Krag & .303 British. So both of those cartridges are rimmed & historically correct. I have a bit of nostalgic fondness for the .303 British ever since I shot my first deer with one. It's the only caliber I have two of.
But these suggestions are based entirely on a personal preference that might have no meaning to you at all. I know that manufacturers like Pedersoli make reproduction rolling blocks in 357 Magnum but for some reason (probably notstalgia), that choice doesn't appeal as much even if it is very practical. But whatever you decide to build, as long as you're happy with it, then that's all that matters. Good luck with the project!
I am suspect of the strength of the original military rolling blocks. The action design is good, but the metallurgy and maintenance would keep me from chambering one of them for a high pressure cartridge. I'm fairly risk averse when it comes to high pressure in some actions, like the Krags and most pre-1898 small ring military Mausers.
I've owned a couple of 1902 Remingtons in 7x57 that were in excellent condition, but both had excess headspace such that the fired case stretched to close to separation, probably the reason for me being risk averse about them.
I agree with the concerning metallurgy thoughts. I know that with the #5 they even tried a few in 30-06 though. I've seen on in 6mm Rem, but I'm not sure I would want to try that.
I originally planned to go back with a sporter profile 7x57 barrel chambered with correct chamber dimensions to address the head space issue that these rifles can have. I like the thought of period correct cartridges.
Then I decided to expand my horizons. With the 6.5x55 and 7x57 having the same modern chamber pressure and the same bolt thrust I thought that the it might be close enough to period correct to meet that need. However, I think that originally the 7x57 was loaded to a lower pressure than the 6.5x55. Although, I've seen some swedish rolling blocks that look to have been originally 6.5x55.
Along the rimmed carriage path, I like the suggestion on the 7x57r... now you have me thinking about a 6.5x57 Mauser or the rimmed version. A gunsmith friend had suggested a 6mm 30/30 AI wildcat., but the 6.5x57R might be a better and easier choice.
This the thought of a lower pressure rimed cartridge such as the 30/30, 30/30 Improved, 6mm-30, 7-30 Waters but I'm not really sure about them...
As with many of us, I don't have a need for this build, but it's nice to have options and the journey can be a lot of fun.
I have nothing against the 6.5x55 since I own a Ruger #1 in that caliber & it's one of my favorites. In my previous post, I had leaned toward the 7x57 mainly because there wasn't that much difference between it & the 6.5x55 and it was more historically connected with #5. But both would be good choices.
With my fondness for rimmed cartridges then your suggestion of the 7x57r or the 6.5x57r would definitely fit into that list. The smaller 5.6x50r Magnum could be interesting as well. If you want to be historically accurate, then put the 7.62x54r on the list. Some people may associate the rimmed Russian more closely with the Mosin-Nagant rifle, but Remington did make 2,900 rolling blocks for the tsar in 1912 so it's historically accurate as well. And since rifles in that caliber are still in production, ammo & brass are available.
If historical accuracy isn't a priority but low pressure / recoil is, then something based off the 7x57 parent case like the 257 Roberts might an interesting option if you're looking to do something different. For rimmed cartridges that aren't historically accurate, some of the lever-action calibers might make good choices. The 348 Winchester is rimmed & still available. So is the 35 Remington. With a custom single-shot, you do have a lot of options.
Re: headspace in the M1897, M1902, and M1910 #5 Remington Rolling Blocks. It's true there's excess HS in most all of them, but not because of wear or soft actions. For some reason they made them that way in comparison to then current (and today's modern SAAMI) 7x57 cartridge specs.
I'm no expert on Rolling Blocks. I just recently acquired my first #5 7mm. But what I typically do in such situations is I research the heck out of things, in my own library and the internet. What I found is a universal declaration of excessively long chambers in these things, and my personal example proved it. My chamber is a heavy 1/32" longer than "normal", case head to shoulder. Why they purposely did that is anybody's guess - I can't find a concrete reason. One theory is because of the intended end use of these rifles, sh*thole 3rd World Countries (mainly South America) where ammo that would be crammed into poorly maintained rifles could easily be mud caked, corroded, or otherwise compromised and it was a way to keep them functioning.
Dunno - but my personal theory reflects my jaded opinion of corporate greed. Picture if you will a big international corporation (Remington) selling tens of thousands of rifles to small countries who have no ammunition-making capabilities either, who have to buy all their ammo and hopefully from the same corporation. I submit that Remington made those guns with "special" chambers that only work best with the "special" ammo Remington sold them, and create a captive market that couldn't be filled by the end-users buying ammo from other outlets. (And then as now the real profit lies in aftermarket sales, same as with cars and many other things.) The trick was to make the chambers long enough to work best with Remington's ammo but not necessarily blow up if, say, Spanish or German ammo were to be fired in them. Like I said it's merely my personal theory, based on how big corporations manipulate markets - no different 120 years ago than it is now.
For whatever reason, we users today gotta contend with it. I knew my chamber was probably long, and I was too lazy to do a chamber cast to find out exactly how much too long. I started with a stash of 7x57 brass and necked them up to 8mm with a .324 expander ball in my RCBS Expander Die. Simultaneously I also found a stash of 8x57 brass. I ran those cases into my 7x57 sizer die incrementally until they would just barely allow the breech block to close. That tiny secondary shoulder I created on the brass showed me that the shoulder in my chamber is about 1/32" longer than a standard 7x57 shoulder. I continued with charging and seating bullets in them, and headed out to the range this week to test them. (Essentially it was an exercise in fireforming a pile of brass so I could later work up some loads in earnest.) Mild charges of 16 grains SR-4759 and Hornady 139gr. 7mm jacketed bullets. Cases snapped out to fill the chamber nicely with no stretching of the case body/head (allowing future reloading to proceed normally) and accuracy was pretty astonishing. Had I just loaded a pile of ammo willy-nilly at standard 7x57 dimensions (or fired a bunch of new factory ammo) my brass would've stretched hellaciously or even tore, making them worthless for future re-use.
50 yards (five shots), issue iron sights, Remington #5 Model 1902:
The bore of this rifle is better than most but not as good as some #5's: dark-ish grooves but with sharp well defined lands.
A handful of cartridges loaded with a loading manual's starting load of 35.0 grains IMR-4895 and the same 139 jacketed bullet delivered equal accuracy and pristine fired brass eminently suitable for re-use.
Next up: casting a pile of lead bullets to see how the old girl likes them. Stay tuned.
Last edited by gnoahhh; 10/15/23.
"You can lead a man to logic, but you cannot make him think." Joe Harz "Always certain, often right." Keith McCafferty
I think the Remington #5 is plenty strong. Certainly on par with other single shot actions of the era such as Stevens 44 1/2's and Winchester High Walls, and stronger than others such as the Ballard and Low Wall. As such, "modern" cartridges can be fed into it but I would nonetheless respect the fact that they were constructed of low carbon case hardened steel as everything was back then. I would personally adopt a pressure level of, say, 40K psi for safety's sake. That could include a lot of the suggestions I've seen mentioned here as long as all due respect for old steel is concerned.
I suggested the .357 Maximum because I've been having a lot of fun with it in a Martini Cadet, a rifle produced in the same era as the Remington #5 of similar low carbon case hardened steel. In truth I would also seriously consider a custom 7x57 barrel because I now see how splendidly the old war horse handles that cartridge.
"You can lead a man to logic, but you cannot make him think." Joe Harz "Always certain, often right." Keith McCafferty
Since it already has a right-sized rimless extractor, I think it should become a 45 ACP. You have enough deer rifles already.
Bruce
Bruce,
An interesting and great thought!
I was actually planning to make a single shot H&R into a 45 ACP. It's been in the burner for about 3 years. This would be a nicer variant. I could even convert to 45 Colt at a later time if I wanted to...
Assume your actions are fitted with the rotary extractor? It's neat the way they work, and being spring loaded I'll guess they can function with both rimless and rimmed cartridges?
"You can lead a man to logic, but you cannot make him think." Joe Harz "Always certain, often right." Keith McCafferty
Sorry, got a bit sidetracked with work and high school girls volleyball.
Still thinking though this project. For some reason I'm sort of returning to the 7x57 and the 6.5x55 thoughts.
Frankly, if it could handle the pressure, I'd deal with the blasphemy and make it a 6.5 CM and build.it out for my teen age daughter. Low recoil, proven modern chamber design and readily available ammo. She won't ever be a reloader, but she has stated that it looks like she is going to end up with some pretty cool rifles one day.
I would ask you to consider the response I printed in an above reply. These actions were built of case hardened low carbon steel - perfectly ok for the smokeless cartridges of that era and the pressures they generate. When you start talking about chambering one in something that generates 50K+ psi I gotta urge caution.
If handloading for oneself that's all well and good, things can well be contained on the safe side of the line. But, what happens when an heir, buddy, or a stranger who buys the gun off a table at a gun show 40 years from now, takes and chambers something really hot in the old girl?
Original chambering in 7x57 makes sense to me. Even if a factory round goes up the spout sometime it wouldn't be a bad thing. (They still load 7x57 factory ammo to old timey specs don't they? If not, forget what I just said!)
"You can lead a man to logic, but you cannot make him think." Joe Harz "Always certain, often right." Keith McCafferty
I would ask you to consider the response I printed in an above reply. These actions were built of case hardened low carbon steel - perfectly ok for the smokeless cartridges of that era and the pressures they generate. When you start talking about chambering one in something that generates 50K+ psi I gotta urge caution.
If handloading for oneself that's all well and good, things can well be contained on the safe side of the line. But, what happens when an heir, buddy, or a stranger who buys the gun off a table at a gun show 40 years from now, takes and chambers something really hot in the old girl?
Original chambering in 7x57 makes sense to me. Even if a factory round goes up the spout sometime it wouldn't be a bad thing. (They still load 7x57 factory ammo to old timey specs don't they? If not, forget what I just said!)
I did read what you said earlier and that helped pull me back to the 7x57 side!
The concern of "what about later in time" over someone putting too much pressure in a round in the future is a real concern that I'm not taking lightly. However, SAAMI specs for the 5x57 and 6.5x55 are both 51,000 PSI and looking at them the bolt thrust would be the same. From a convenience perspective I spoke having to handload all the time. I know the benefits, but, I've managed to get to where I have about 6 hobbies going it seems. The nice thing here in the old USA most factory 7x57 and 6.5x55 are both loaded to a lower pressure level to address the concerns over old metals.
I also decided that this thread needed a picture of the inspiration of what I would want to make this sporter look like. However, my build won't be this fancy!.
As for your excessive head space, couldn't you take a couple of turns off the barrel threads, cut the barrel to action shoulder back and then run a hand reamer to clean up that upper chamber and bring it into modern specs? In theory that would help your accuracy.
As a side note, I would have tried to do that with the original 7x57 barrel on this RRB, but it was shot out long before I was born. So thus the opportunity to rethink potential cartridges to use.
As for your excessive head space, couldn't you take a couple of turns off the barrel threads, cut the barrel to action shoulder back and then run a hand reamer to clean up that upper chamber and bring it into modern specs? In theory that would help your accuracy.
As a side note, I would have tried to do that with the original 7x57 barrel on this RRB, but it was shot out long before I was born. So thus the opportunity to rethink potential cartridges to use.
I approached it differently, not better but differently. I wanted to replace the breechblock and hammer pivot pins anyway, so I oversized the new pins made of 0H2 rod, and carefully reamed the frame holes a few thou off center forward toward the barrel. Turned out well, trigger modifications were negligible, extractor mods were very simple and I ended up with a nice .30-40 Krag single shot. Just wish I hadn't sold it to fund another project that didn't turn out as well. lol
Well this is a fine pickle we're in, should'a listened to Joe McCarthy and George Orwell I guess.
So. Still working on this. I had decided to clear out some excess stuff first and then figure this out. I was shocked by how many rifles, stocks, barrels and projects I had. Not that I'm alone with that issue...
I did however get the 45 ACP single shot competed and sighted it in the other day. So at least one thing was completed.
I've pretty much decided to go with 7x57, 30-30 Improved or 357 Mag at this point.
It's not as easy to fix excess headspace on a Rolling Block as just setting the barrel back! You need to correct what caused the excess headspace, and that can be the hammer and block pins, plus wear to the block. Blocks usually end up after decades of shooting (especially the #5 7mm) with the block face not being true perpendicular to the bore. So if you set the barrel back it results in the rifle's headspace issues fixed, but rims will bend each time you fire from the block being angled to the bore. So the face of the blocks need to be trued after you install new pins. Then the barrel headspace can be set and they're back like new again. I personally would not use most of the cartridges listed in the original post in a Rolling Block. Most are much higher pressures than the original early 1900's 7x57 those rifles were chambered in, and could result in an accident after firing. I stick with rimmed cartridges in my builds, and mostly old "hyphenated" rimmed cartridges. I have Rolling Blocks in .44-77BN, .45-70, .40-70 Straight, .40-50 Straight, .38-55, .32-40, and some other chamberings. I love old Rolling Blocks, and love building off surplus military actions too. I've built a half dozen over the last decade, and still have some spare receivers to build more! This was an old Husqvarna military action I rebuilt and put new barrel and stocks on. It's a .40-50 Sharps Straight:
Vall, that was my concern too with my #5 early on: were the pins worn/bent? I drifted them out and carefully mic'ed them and checked them in a comparator and they're perfect, and pin gauges in their holes confirm no wear there either. I took it one step further and used feeler gauges to determine if the breech block is parallel to the barrel face and near as I can tell, it is - maybe a thousandth or so tighter at the bottom than at the top, certainly within the realm of living with it.
The action defines the word "tight" - the hammer radius is snug on the breech block radius. If it were any tighter it would be detrimentally tight. My sloppy chamber is just that and not a result of bent/worn pins which is why I proceeded with making it shoot.
As for your cartridge recommendations I'll bow to them, but I still feel that moderately loaded 7x57's and sanely loaded .357 magnums and Maxi's are ok too. My thinking is geared toward an astute handloader feeding it, and if a hotrodder gets ahold of it and goes crazy what'll happen is it won't grenade on the first shot but will loosen up radically very quickly after very few shots - the beauty of soft steel that yields and bends without shattering. (The very behavior of early 98 Mausers that were also made of unsophisticated steel alloys, and nobody complains too much about their strength.) Of course a limiting factor with any cartridge selected is always brass strength also.
"You can lead a man to logic, but you cannot make him think." Joe Harz "Always certain, often right." Keith McCafferty
For some reason I can't explain, the 256WinMag has always intrigued me. I know finding loaded ammo is tough but Buffalo Arms has some occasionally and Hornady still makes that 60gr flat nose bullet. a 60gr bullet going 2500fps ain't nothing to sneeze at.
---------------------------------------- I'm a big fan of the courtesy flush.
I have a few Rolling Blocks ,one is .22LR, one is original Swede 8x58R and I am currently building a full Custom #5 action in 405 Winchester Heavy Barrel . I dodecagon milled the top of the receiver , and section of the barrel leaving the bottom 1/2 round for the forend , cut a wedding ring in front and then tapered the barrel to a Boss section at the end , that I may want to Magnaport later. I have some Nice figured Black Walnut to make the stock and forend out of. It is a work in progress. Looks like I will have to rent a Chamber reamer as I haven't found one for sale other than PTG and not a fan of those. Rich
You know you might be facing your doom if all you get is a click when you are expecting a BOOM !
"I love old Rolling Blocks, and love building off surplus military actions too. I've built a half dozen over the last decade, and still have some spare receivers to build more! This was an old Husqvarna military action I rebuilt and put new barrel and stocks on. It's a .40-50 Sharps Straight:"
[/quote]
That is a lovely build.
Your comments on the pressure is something that's I've considered from the start. That is also why I was thinking 30-30/7-30/357 since factory ammo would be well below the pressure limits and in line with/lower than 7x57. I also have a good amount of 30-30 ammo, so would be easy to hand load for me. I like the 30-30AI thought mostly from a brass longevity aspect. But, if I decided to sell it, then the 357 would be the easiest to move. I sometimes just decide to get rid of things.... I'm in that process right now.
I guess you could also say that I enjoy the planning/dreaming part of a project. I just have to make sure I don't overthink it.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/yceC7A9l.jpg)
Swap in whichever barrel suits your mood that day.![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/xONwkUnl.jpg)
