rolling block vs. sharps

[dakota]

I wonder why I seem to hear more regarding Sharps than Remington Rolling Block. I understand the rolling block was quite popular in the late 1800's.
Both rifles have, imo, slow to today's standards lock time and they have similar triggers. They have similar strengths (actually the Remingtons came out with higher pressure chamberings after they went to strongly metal).
The Sharps have a side hammer that would seem to be a disadvantage compared to the Remington's hammer placement.

I may have a chance at buying a 50-70 rolling block that is an excellent shooter. Why not??

[dakota]

Actually this should have been posted in center fires, sorry.

[bounce]

It could go ether place, This seems most apropate to me? as I only use black powder in them. Their is no reasion that I can give you as to why you should not but a 50-70 rolling Block. I have ben shooting 50-70 for a long time now and had a New York state musket in 50-70 for a few years, it kicked less hard it seems than a sharps? and with good sights would have shot well too but I did not change the origanal sights and they were just so-so not for conpetive shooting unless all had the same. You can buy sharps now cheaper than Reminton new and more outlets Reminton makes a nice one new but I do not think I know anyone that has that much money so I only see new pedersoli sharps for the most part and old rolling blocks most re-built for compatision or good hunting but they are popular i feel just harder to find a good shooter at a good price

[dakota]

Navy Arms (?) came out with a replica rolling block, didn't they? I have not seen one yet. I have a habit of stopping at every small gun shop I see as I travel across the country. I also go to gun shows when I can. I don't often see sharps or remington rolling blocks for sale. I suppose I could look at the WEB sites also.
I am not sure why I want a 50-70. But it seems it would make a decent deer rifle and it would be fun to shoot. I have lots of soft lead (not pure lead) which came from a lead covering on medium voltage cables -- lead sheathing. That should work ok shouldn't it? So far I have only used plumbers lead for my .54 muzzle loader.
Most of the long range black powder cartridge shooters tend to use a rapid or fast rifling so that they can shoot heavy bullets, don't they? I don't assume the 50-70 would ever compete as a long range cartridge. The bullets are sort of short for the diameter, I think.
Finally I read an old Rifle magazine where one of the wirters who write a lot about these black powder cartridge rifles who said something like the 50-110 was inadequate for elk. That seemed to be a strange comment. What do you think?

[deputydon]

The reason you don't see them @ gun shows ect. is the people who buy them tend to keep them. I once had a orginal 50-70 that was from Bounce and was foolish enough to part w/ it to Two Moon's who said it was for his wife. .............. well she might have seen it anyhow .............I now have an orginal Rolling Block in 45-70 for a number of years now and WON'T let 2M's wife get this one!~!!! If you can find one buy it and hang on to it; I don't have a Sharps cause orginals are out of my $$$$$ class

[stumpjumper]

dakota said:

Actually this should have been posted in center fires, sorry.

Dakota ~
This is a good place for your thread. Granted it is a centerfire, but the majority of shooters that use this type of firearm more times then not, load them up with black powder in the cartridge.

[stumpjumper]

Dakota ~
I like your taste in firearms .

www.navyarms.com/html/single_shot_rifles-carbs.html

[bounce]

1st the wirter for the mag was saying that for some unknowen reasion we do not know. most of them are lier's and have some agenda? a 50-70 is good medicen a 50 -110 is awesome medicen. 2nd I sold a C. Sharps 45-70 and then bought a Pedersoli 50-70 long range target just cause I wanted a New 50-70 at a some what decent price. The C. sharps was nice & perfict shooter. The Pedersoli is just as nice. but for much over 500yds your right about the bullet and if you wish to shoot further a 45 or 40 would be better but I think a 50-70 will shoot the steel ram's just as good as any other cal. The 50-70 has become my pet cal. it is fun, kinda spendy geting set up but once you do it's no worse, and I like shooting something most others arn't. I've had a 2nd Allen sprigfield trapdoor & the rolling block both gone now but were fun now I have an origanal 50-70 sharps carbine and the pedersoli both exelent shooters but both kick like a gov't mule both way harder than the two I no longer have & the pedersoli is 12# thats the only thing when I got it that I was not expecting I thought it would be like shooting a 38-55 Hi wall boy was I wrong!! it is better than the carbine though buy a buch. 20 RDS on it and you do wish to stop. as for the lead I think it would be just fine but let T/M'S chime in on that if he will?

[Jack]

A 50-110's not enough for elk? Hmmmmm, must be some of those armor plated elk that only a 340 mangl um will kill.............

[dakota]

I have little experience in BPCR's, but I try to read a lot (and I sometimes take offense to what some writers put down.) I have been trying to read up on BPCR's. I have a book written by Sam Fadala (sp?) on black powder guns, I thought it was informative at least for me. I also see a lot of articles in Handloader, Rifle and other magazines.
To me a 50-110 has sufficent power/penetration/energy/momentum/what-ever to take down anything on this side of the ocean so I was surprised at this author's comments. I have shot my 54 muzzle loader with 120 grains of FF and it seems to me that may be comparable to what a 50-110 might do. But I am no expert.
The main reason for my choice of 50-70 is similar to the reasons many of you have mentioned.

[bounce]

I don't think with black powder a cartige makes any real differance in power over muzzel loading so that said your .54-120 would have a small edge over a 50-110 but the 50-110 would most likely be a 450gr. bullet right at this moment the gr.s of a.54 round ball excapes me but I'm sure their is a diferance to give some edge to the 50-110 in that departmet!! Both will kill anything on this side of the pond.

[klsm54]

Any magazine that would print something as ludicrous as some idiotic writer saying that a 50-110 is not adequate for Elk would not get my money ever again... That is bordering on insanity.

I remember a guy by the name of Don Zutz, he wrote for Fur-Fish-Game, writing that there was some unexplained phenomenon that caused a 308 Winchester to be inadequate for even small deer. He said he didn't know why, but the 308 was vastly inferior to the '06 and that he would rather have a 6.5x55, 257 Roberts, or basically anything, over the 308. I figured he was a crack head and quit buying that magizine....

[twomoons]

Back to Sharps vrs Remington...
Having owned several of each and having shot originals in both guns and having read a considerable amount of original litrature on each I will offer the following comments:

#1 The Sharps, like the Hawken caught the public fancy and got the best press. In reality there were 100 Remingtons made for every Sharps ever turned out. If I remember corrrectly Sharps production was about 30,000 sporting rifles and then the civil war carbines that got converted. Remington made over 100,000 rolly blocks for just Turkey alone and at one time the Rolly block was the WORLDS most popular military rifle and were used everywhere. Give Remington the heads up for production.

The Remington had an extractor and the Sharps has an extractor/ejector so if you snap the action open the sharps will kick them out a little faster. By the same token the Sharps can be misfed as sometimes a loaded round will slip under the extractor. Give them equall billing here.

The Rolling block due to it's center hung hammer can only be loaded with a ctg. of a certain length and really works best with nothing over 45-90 length. The Remington Hepburn was made to correct this, but the stock on the Hepburn is somewhat clumsy. Give it to Sharps for ctg versitility.

The Remington Action is as strong as the Sharps and way simpler, The Sharps in the originals suffered from a weak firing pin system and they would leak gas more than a rolly if you pierced a primer. After Sharps went out of business various folks made a living correcting the Sharps firing pin problems and most of the modern replica's have a gas plate and a bushed firing pin installed.
Round to Remington.

The Sharps had a better stock design in my opinion as the Remington has a little more drop and the stock has to accomodate the center hung hammer. In addition the original rolly blocks in target and sporting grade came with the most attrocious cast iron rounded off butt plate ever made. I owned a mint #1 1/2 Rolly Block in 45-75 Van Choate Express and with standard 45-70 loads that gun with the rounded buttplate and a 13" LOP would kick the dog snot out of you. The Sharps Target and sporting arms could be ordered with a wide flat shotgun buttplate and a pistol grip and they managed recoil a whole lot better.
Round to The Sharps.

As to accuracy both guns were used for 1000 yard shooting and both set world records. The Remington bbl were probably the best factory bbl ever made and the Sharps bbls were a very close second. Both guns were in my mind outclassed by the Ballard rifles, which although less well known were also very popular in the old west. Round to Remington by a hair.

So which was/is the better gun? In a factory original gun I would go with the Sharps just because of the stock. If I were 5'5" tall and had shoulders like Arnold S. I would take the Remington. If I were offered a choice between a good Sharps Repro and a Good Remington Repro I would have to say that the Remington would probably be the better gun. But... Quigley didn't shoot a Remington and neither did any of the other Old West Hero's you see on TV or read abut in books so the Remington is still sucking hind tit in the publicity department.

In 1880 Remington didn't care who wrote up their products as they had more military contracts than they could fill. So today, just like the Hawken Rifle craze if you don't have a Sharps you just ain't sh#t. This is somewhat unfortunate as the Remington was over all probably the better rifle. The modern COWBOY CULTURE says everyone in the West carried a Sharps, a Colt and a Winchester, totally ignoring the 2 or 3 thousand other firearms makers who sold guns from 1860 to 1900. I once told Bounce that I would like to show up at a Cowboy shoot with a Remington Keene bolt gun and a Nagant revolver and have someone try and tell me I wasn't authentic.

The last word, If I were to order a new replica rifle for my own use and NOT for any future resale I would buy the Navy Arms Bodine rolly block and never look back. One of my weakest moments was when i sold my original rolly block buffalo gun to DD, that gun will still put 3 shots of B/P in under 8" at 300 yards on comand.

[bounce]

Guess I need to give you a dog snot kicking demistation of a sharps, this should keep your shooting arm quite for a week T/M's, I will give reminton a pass and award dog snot kicker to sharps, Yours was a hunting rifle mine was a musket but my musket was a smooth kicker indeed.

[jimiowa]

Thanks Two Moons! I won't say that was the best comparison of the Sharps and Remington I have ever read because I think it's the only one I have read ;D
A very detailed and objective review, I apreciate that.