https://imgur.com/user/Vol423

How strong are these tip-up rifles? A 360 No 5 looks about like a 38 S&W or maybe 38 special. The former owner shot light charges behind a hollow base 147 grain wad cutter in 38 Special cases. The bore is so-so. Could it be safely relined to say, 22 Hornet? How about .357 Mag? 22?
opinions welcome.

Beautiful rifle. I think it has 357 maximum written all over it. Brian

I've seen many break action rooks lined to 22Hornet.

I think a 357 Max. would be much too powerful for one of these rifles.
Maybe it could be bored out to 38-40. That would be a nice cartridge in a rifle like that.

You are right, Ben. These little rifles do not need to be made into something they were never ever intended to be.
The Hornet is pushing it, and the rifle for sure needs to be tight on the face. If not, a proper rejoint before shooting. Not a "tightening" by some jackass with a ball-pein hammer.

I would try shooting it as-is first, maybe with jacketed or coated bullets. If that fails, you could reline it to .32-20. It would probably need the extractor built up, but an appropriate pressure level for the action.

Huvius, Good point. You are probably right. Brian

I think that the previous owner had the right idea. Hollow base bullets do work well in these. The tip for success is to use the .38S&W cases instead of cut-down .38 Specials. They are three thousandths of an inch fatter, and seal the breach better. About three grains of Red Dot or similar is ample.

Here in Britain many were relinered to .22 Hornet, which has a nice thick rim, but it will not shoot to the sights. I suppose a rebore to .38-40 (really a 0.400" calibre) might work, but it is really too powerful. A better bet is .32-20. I have two Rook rifles in the calibre, a single and a double, and they work well at just on the speed of sound with a 100 grain lead bullet.

Some years back someone in Holland linered these to take the 5.56mm x 50R cartridge, and the pressure was FAR too high for the actions - beware!

HB

Olde England - raining again

Hi Allan, your rifle appears to be a twin to mine.
If the water table has a triangle with “ PATENT 3091-1871 “ send me a PM and I can give you some information from Greenwood’s book that may be of interest.
Best
Larry

Looking at your rifle, I wonder if it is a little larger than the run of the mill 360 No.5 rook rifles.
Probably sized more like a rifle I have, a Leeson 360 2-1/4” rifle.
If so, that does open up the options as far as reboring although the action does only have the two bites on the barrel lump.

I shot my Holland 360 No.5 last weekend although I load a paper patched 150gr bullet using black powder in that rifle.
Not correct but very satisfying all the same.
That’s my thought on a 38-40 which I would like to do myself using black and a paper patched bullet, as heavy as will shoot.

my rifle is marked 1885 on the water table and with patent 15215. The barrel is .900 across the flats at the breech and the water table is almost 3 inches long. I added some more photos to the imgur post.

https://imgur.com/user/Vol423

Speaking of sights, I have never seen such tiny sights and so low to the barrel. I have another martini actioned rifle with the same tiny sights. it’s a .380 CF. Pretty much the same cartridge. In fact my rifle is marked for both cartridges. I have a more robust martini actioned rifle relined to 32-20 with a tang sight. I may have to put the tiny Kahles 22mm scope in the photos on one.

Hi Allan, thank you for the pm. As the picture I sent you shows, they look quite similar, Sorry my mistake. Mine was made earlier by John Stanton, probably Between 1871-1875.
Best of luck in your restoration efforts. They are certainly interesting firearms.
Larry

practicing posting image

https://imgur.com/gallery/FFeQ6RG

https://i.imgur.com/3Dz6C4t.jpg