Remington Rolling block #1 conversion

O

Oceancaptain

Inactive
Thinking about a project and wanted to get some feed back. a while back I was watching Larry Potterfield do a conversion on a Remington Rolling Block #1 in .32 rim fire to .32-20WCF. With anything he makes it look "easy" but 32-20 isn't exactly economical either. I was thinking maybe update and chamber to .32 H&R magnum or maybe .327 Federal magnum or something a little more available then 32-20.

First things come to mind is chamber pressure. Is this safe? I know the rolling block action is pretty much indestructible but what about these +100 Y/O receivers. are they stout enough to handle the pressures of a modern round like the .327 Federal. If this was your project and you just wanted to make the conversion to center fire and re chamber vice a new bore or obtaining a new barrel what cartridge would you chamber?
 
The Rolling Block is NOT indestructable. It is a strong action only in the context of other 19th century single shots.

The .327 Federal/Ruger is a pretty hot round. Maybe the sheer mass of a No 1 action will hold it. How about a nice .32 H&R?

How are the bore, groove, and rifling specs of .32 RF compared to a modern .32 centerfire of whatever flavor?
 
I agree that the .327 might be a bit much for the old gun, but .32 H&R should be OK as far as pressure goes. But in addition to pressure, my concern would be barrel material. Those old guns usually had barrels made of iron or of very soft steel, and I think any large number of modern smokeless powder loads would destroy the rifling pretty quickly. That would be even more true with .32-20 with its jacketed bullets, but then I wouldn't recommend that either.

Very often, folks who do and promote those conversions forget that more is involved than just the mechanical changes.

Jim
 
attachment.php


I bought a Rem Rolling block #5 either 1905 or 1910 type.
The guy who sold it to me have no idea of the bore size or the cartridge it had been converted to.
Neither did I, but I was interested.
Turns out it is a tight version of 38 special.
I have overloaded it to double 357 mag level.
There is a strange malfunction.
When the primer pierces, gas comes back into the rolling block and gets it to roll.
The action gets half way open and jammed. I have done it a few times. It does not seem to damage the action, but makes a jam that takes minutes to clear.
 
Clark said:
There is a strange malfunction.
When the primer pierces, gas comes back into the rolling block and gets it to roll.
The action gets half way open and jammed. I have done it a few times.
Click to expand...

That suggests enough gas passes through the firing pin tunnel to drive the hammer far enough back to unlock the action. What has that done to your shooting glasses and face? Has there been any case rupture and lateral shrapnel?

The logic of creating such loads and, especially, repeated use of such loads with such results escapes me.
 
Right. Since the breechblock is locked shut by the hammer, movement of the hammer can allow the breechblock to unlock.

There is another issue if the rifle is converted to a high pressure cartridge - the firing pin hole has to be bushed and the firing pin diameter reduced. If that is not done, the result can be blown (erroneously called "pierced") primers, with escape of gas back through the breech block. Small pieces of the primer are also blown back into the breechblock, often clogging the firing pin and causing misfires.

Jim
 
James K
Small pieces of the primer are also blown back into the breechblock
Click to expand...

When I pierce primers in a Kel-Tec P11, the plug is in front of the firing pin. If I pull the trigger when the chamber is empty, the divot comes out of the bore fast, like a 1960s spud gun.
 
It does not take much Google Searching to find pictures of blown up Rolling Blocks.

This has some excellent photos:

Catastrophic Failures of Rolling Block Rifles

http://dutchman.rebooty.com/RBfailure.html

Not knowing the steel quality, not having calculated the shear, I would leave the things alone, or in their original cartridge. I am very leery of the pre 1920 era firearms, and really don't feel confident in their steels till you get to the 30's.
 
Buffalo Arms has .32-20 in smokeless cowboy loads for $31.00 a box of 50, so ammo isn't especially expensive.

If you don't reload, having some obsolete firearms is a good reason to start. I'm reloading for Martini-Metford, Martini-Henry, Cadet, Danish Rolling Block, US Krags, and Swiss Vetterli. You get tailored loads easy on the antique, at a decent cost, and a lot of fun to shoot them when you feel like it, not just when you can pony up for ammo at $4 a round or something.
 
I have overloaded hundreds of different guns thousands of times, and I have noticed a few things.

Nearly anything I would call steel will take 120 ksi of stress.

When it calculates it will fail, it takes ~~40% more because static stress and a millisecond of stress are different.

The dead soft chambers with .1" wall thickness [up to .5" ID ] in a work up will hold up until brass flows. C26000 brass (cartridge brass) Temper - H06
Tensile yield strength - 65,300 psi is good in many cartridge case head shapes up to 80 kpsi chamber pressure.

What is the point?
The above link to a failed rolling block with a thick walled barrel that split, did not fail in a work up.
 
A proper conversion from rim- to centerfire will leave it with a small, closely fitted smokeless firing pin.

I was surprised to see they made the big No 1 action in such small calibers.
 
Another problem with using original barrels .Use of jacketed bullets will quickly wear them out.
My fine repro RB is made of 8620 .A good steel but I'll keep to factory loads which works well for most things. 45-70 works by making large holes not by high velocity !!
 
Appreciate the info!!!

I did not think of the rifling on these soft steels the barrels but agree would wear out pretty quickly. I think if I do this the laundry list would have to include re-barreling the action... I really think a 32 H&H would be pretty cool though.
 
Clark wrote, "Nearly anything I would call steel will take 120 ksi of stress."

Aside from wondering what "I would call steel" really is, and how the exact pressure of the round is determined if the gun blows apart, I think it worthy of note that many of those old guns, even into the 20th century, were not made of steel at all, but of wrought iron. That was the reason for the use of case hardening to reduce wear; steel can be hardened by heat treating, iron cannot.

(The fact that color case hardening was later used with steel purely for cosmetic reasons does not mean that was its original or only purpose.)

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top