Does anyone have a definitive source showing the SAFE pressure rating for the Rolling Block action? I realize they were made in several sizes, but I am really only talking about the newest (not modern production) smokeless model.
Good information on the various models would be nice also
Seems like modern steel (if well fitted) would only make one stronger.

Wonder if a smaller lighter hammer would have any change in "lock time"? Would it still have enough momentum to fire a primer?

I have a smokeless rolling block in 219 zipper.
I did have the firing pin turned and bushed. The lock time is fairly slow, but you can get a good trigger pull with a little work.
It shoots nice little groups too!

The #5 smokeless Rolling block action is safe (won't blow up) to about 55,000 psi in a 30-06 size case head. It won't operate correctly, though, and the brass won't be re-usable.

It will operate correctly to about 34,000 psi on a 30-06 case head and to 28,000 psi on a 45-70 size case head.

The rolling block action is best suited to low pressure black powder cartridge calibers. It has two primary deficiencies that limit it:
1) It has no safe way to handle gas leaks. They blow into your face through the open breech gap between block and barrel.
2) It "springs", and allows the brass to stretch, and opens up the breech gap. (see problem #1)

Anecdotally, many original 7mm's will stretch and warp the case head with factory 7mm ammo. The above pressure limits have been arrived at by trial and error and concensus among shooters, as the limits where stretch is minimized, the brass is reloadable, and gas leaks have not been observed.

Do not lighten the hammer, nor the hammer spring. If a primer backs out or bursts, it will blow the firing pin back, cock the hammer, blow open the breech block and forcefully eject the case into your face. With resultant injury/death, of course.

Do lighten the trigger by going to rollingblockparts.com and purchasing this spring: Rolling Block Trigger Spring It will reduce the trigger from 15 pounds or more to about 3. A lot easier and more reliable than trying to thin the factory spring, and it greatly reduces the apparent creep at the same time. The wire spring will never wear out or break, either.

Years ago a friend had one that he had lightened the hammer spring on so much that it would re-cock itself and self extract the brass after every shot. By inertia; a bit disconcerting to shoot it. Actually, quite scary.
Anyway, even with the smokeless 7mm ones, do not go over 35K psi. With black powder ones, don't go over 28K.

What, if anything, can be done to a #5 smokeless 7mm with what I see is a common chamber problem. Fired brass is a bit bulged and even a bit crooked. It can be resized but just aint right.

could possibly be rechambered. or, have it rebarreled.

quote:

Originally posted by scutulatus:
What, if anything, can be done to a #5 smokeless 7mm with what I see is a common chamber problem. Fired brass is a bit bulged and even a bit crooked. It can be resized but just aint right.

Rebarrel and tight breech the chamber. Make sure there's no slop in either the hammer or block pins, and make new pins if necessary. Overream the holes to the largest dimension you measure in any, and then make the new pins.

Finally, lower the pressure of the loads you use to under 34,000 psi.

Barrels are too thin to do much reboring, and rechambering will make it unsafe because anything bigger, like a 7mm mag, would be a potential bomb for a future owner. That would be a viable idea, for light loads. But put a factory load in it and bad things will happen.
A wildcat like a 348/7mm might be better.
That 7mm was not the 7x57 Mauser cartridge we know, which causes much confusion among new Spanish rolling block owners. It is not a chamber problem; it is an ammo problem.
Much like the 7.62 CETME; the Spanish built the 1916 (1893 action) for that, and once people started shooting 308s and 7.62 Nato from those rifles, they quickly developed excessive headspace.
Who wants a 7mm rolling block anyway? Make it something with a bigger hole in the barrel.
But rebarreled, with a proper 7x57 Mauser chamber, it would be fine.

This one is tight like new. So what is the correct brass for this chamber?

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Barrels are too thin to do much reboring, and rechambering will make it unsafe because anything bigger, like a 7mm mag, would be a potential bomb for a future owner. That would be a viable idea, for light loads. But put a factory load in it and bad things will happen.
A wildcat like a 348/7mm might be better.
That 7mm was not the 7x57 Mauser cartridge we know, which causes much confusion among new Spanish rolling block owners. It is not a chamber problem; it is an ammo problem.
Much like the 7.62 CETME; the Spanish built the 1916 (1893 action) for that, and once people started shooting 308s and 7.62 Nato from those rifles, they quickly developed excessive headspace.
Who wants a 7mm rolling block anyway? Make it something with a bigger hole in the barrel.
But rebarreled, with a proper 7x57 Mauser chamber, it would be fine.

Yup, BTDT. My #5 is now a 38-55.

Correct brass for this rifle is a cartridge that does no longer exist. I know of no way to make it. Some have made 7x57 brass work by moving the shoulder forward, but the base is still too big on many rifles. I have had them in excellent condition, and shot 7x57s out of them; with buldged brass and backed out primers. They were just bought for the actions anyway. Still have about ten of them.
Might make a new chamber and use 9.3x62 brass, which is larger in the base, for those rifles that need a larger base OD. Still keep pressures down. No 50K psi stuff.

Many sources list the 7X57, 7X57 Mauser, 7mm Mauser 256 Rigby as all the same What is with that? I don't doubt you but "doesn't exist anymore" in the world of reloading, wildcatting ect don't sound right.

quote:

Originally posted by scutulatus:
Many sources list the 7X57, 7X57 Mauser, 7mm Mauser 256 Rigby as all the same What is with that? I don't doubt you but "doesn't exist anymore" in the world of reloading, wildcatting ect don't sound right.

There is a difference.

https://www.remingtonsociety.o...viewtopic.php?t=4500

Lot's more info out there, all you have to do is start looking. As I said earlier, BTDT with original 7mm Rolling Blocks.

quote:

Originally posted by scutulatus:
Many sources list the 7X57, 7X57 Mauser, 7mm Mauser 256 Rigby as all the same What is with that? I don't doubt you but "doesn't exist anymore" in the world of reloading, wildcatting ect don't sound right.

I've never been totally convinced that it's a different cartridge, or just different ideas about fit and tolerances. The military didn't care in any way about reloading brass, so as long as it didn't rupture too often upon firing, bulging and warping of brass wasn't a problem. So, they could very well have used standard 7mm ammo in oversized chambers. But, the most probable answer is they used ammo that was also off sized, not standard 7mm, as DPCD said. I had one that shot standard 7mm sized brass without problems, but I've had several that the cases didn't fit. Not sure if that was wear or design, as most were well worn.

You can easily verify the status of YOUR rifles chamber. Cerrosafe your chamber, and then spend some time with Cartridges or the World, or Ken Howells Designing and Forming Custom Cartridges to identify what it is. Then, find a source of donor brass to start from, and make the brass. Fire form a few, send off for custom dies, and you're set. Or, just rebarrel to something known for less cost and better reliability. Key feature is this rifle/action will NOT work with modern cartridge pressures.

Mr Scut:
It was not a standard 7x57 like Germany used. If it was, then modern 7x57 ammo would fit, just like it does in all other 7mms from the period and even earlier. Military forces could not tolerate misfires or separated cases at all.
Remington did not simply have sloppy tolerances in 1902. None of their other products of the period exhibit any lack of quality.
Believe it or not.
So, It is now either a wildcat proposition, a swelled brass and misfire situation, or a new barrel.
This discussion is not new; we've been talking about the since I saw my first Rolling Block in 1961 when they were sold for $9.95 in the back of every American Rifleman.

Somewhat off topic, but if you want to see an artistic Rolling Block build, check out this thread:

https://www.assra.com/cgi-bin/...BB.pl?num=1626915624

You will not be disappointed.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
...
This discussion is not new; we've been talking about the since I saw my first Rolling Block in 1961 when they were sold for $9.95 in the back of every American Rifleman.

My memory was $5 each, but that was a while back. I've slept a few times since then.

If I had an original Remington roller in 7mm, I would make a cast of the chamber and then figure out what modern brass (and dies) could be used to fit it best. Just because it was 'supposed' to be a 7x57 doesn't mean anything as far as loading for it now goes. And keep the pressure low!!

Some years ago, a half-dozen rolling blocks showed up all at once at a friend's small gun shop in Grants Pass, Oregon. I asked about them, and Phil pulled out a No. 5 in 7mm that had failed like a blooming flower at the breech. The collector of those rolling blocks nearly lost an eye and got the scare of his life when that rifle let go -- and it was otherwise in excellent condition. He brought the rest to Phil and said, "sell 'em."
I have no idea what load was in that rifle when it let go, but it just reinforced my belief that the rolling blocks are for BP and low-pressure cartridges only.
That said, I cannot recall ever hearing of any of the RBs chambered in 8mm Lebel for France having any issues. Maybe someone here has info ...