Any help for a Rolling Block? Thanks!!

[Dick Hosmer]

Hi Jon,

Yes, in the "1871 locking action" (used on only a very few models) the hammer actually DOES "drag" on the block at one point in the cycle.

There was a concern that, especially with green troops, it was potentially dangerous to have the gun left at full cock over a live round, upon closing the breech. If the recruit was unsuccessful in safely lowering the hammer, assuming the rifle was not to be immediately fired, there could be an accident. The trapdoor, loading at a true half-cock, did not suffer this "problem".

The solution was for the block to automatically trip the hammer as it was closing. Rather than be caught, clear of the block, at half-cock - which some sources erroneously state - the hammer actually drags on the block, and must be thumbed back before firing. There is no "safe" way to load the rifle and leave it on half-cock for carrying without manipulating the hammer. It was apparently thought that the dragging provided sufficient friction to serve as a half-cock. That was a fallacy, as (with any gun) the hammer could still get caught on something and wind up cocked.

A rather complicated (partial) solution to a problem caused by the rifle's basic design.

[Challenger]

Hello Dick

yes those particular steps to go through in the 1871 action was a detail I already noticed when I got the gun and was comparing it to the action of a sporting rifle Whitney-Laidley Mod. 1872
I already owned. The latter's is even more complicated!
The "locking action" in my rifle works exactly as you wrote, thus it somehow puzzles me I think about a possible making the whole thing (in such a perfect way) outside the Remington factory.
Plus, those tiny "S" and "P" stamped on breechblock and hammer, they reminder me of factory-made pieces marked this way for internal reasons (inspection, assembly etc.). Why should anyone have printed them in that typical fashion, if they had not come out the right way?

Hammer's shape toward upper end is slightly more pointed than most hammers' I observed, even though it's actually identical to hammers of Scandinavian-issued Rolling Blocks. But here I do not know whether these RB were they, too, true Model 1871s.

[Dick Hosmer]

Hello Franco,

My current thinking is that the rifle is some sort of NYS piece, possibly post-use civilian purchase, which has the locking feature intact, but has had the hammer and block re-shaped. This is based on your saying that the action functions as an 1871 should. If block and/or hammer had actually been replaced that would probably not be the case. Interesting rifle!

[Challenger]

Yes Dick,

I too, at this point believe you're right. It's true I do not have here a 100% fully original 1871 rifle to inspect also its locking action and compare to mine's, but basing on what are the respective steps to go through i'd swear the action is really that one, and moreover is indeed tight and flawless.
Also used a magnifying glass to carefully see if and how any traces of welding/modifying/attaching are down to hammer's and block's spurs (if they had been somehow re-shapped) but saw nothing "strange". Indeed it would look like the two parts were originally born this way! Whoever did this must have worked with incredible skills, no other explainations come into mind.
Thanks!!

[ehull]

For some clarity: with the "locking action," when the breech block is closed the hammer automatically moves forward so that the front edge of the brace (the lower semi-circular part of the hammer) fits UNDER the lower back edge of the block. The block is locked closed just as firmly as if the hammer was fully down; it's not just by a friction fit. The hammer must be cocked again to open the breech, or to fire.

[Dick Hosmer]

Thanks for clarifying that - what I meant was that the hammer does not (seem to) fall into the "normal" half-cock notch, or, perhaps my 1871 (which is about 90% - so it wasn't used much) is broken/has a flaw. It is the only one I have ever handled, and I have not taken it apart, so, I may have misinterpreted what actually happens. My hammer does (appear to) drag on the block as opposed to slipping beneath it - but - the block cannot be opened, so, I guess something else is engaging? That is all very odd, because it is not as though one can slip the hammer into half-cock (or even a false half-cock) since one's thumb/finger is not normally restraining the spur when the hammer "falls" (is automatically tripped). Very strange, indeed.

[ehull]

I should have specified that I was describing the NYS Model. I do not have a Springfield Model 1871 for comparison.

[Challenger]

hello all,
gone again to verify and paying the greatest attention, in my gun the steps are the following:

1) hammer pulled back with two separate and sharp clicks; at this point, there is about 1/8" space between front edge of hammer's base and rear edge of block;
2) open breechblock sharply; as son as it touches the hammer, this latter goes forward a bit (perhaps less than 0.08");
3) close the block, and hammer's front edge really has some friction against block's rear part;
4) as block closes shut, hammer again clicks (extremely slight) forward; hammer's front edge is almost under block's rear edge, just seperated by a top thin space;
5) at this point block firmly closed, and trigger cannot be pulled;
6) pull hammer full back, again there is 1/8" space between the two parts. Ready to fire.

Franco.

[ehull]

From your description, your rifle does not function as a standard NYS Model. This is more indication that the hammer and breech block are substitute parts.

[Challenger]

Thanks Ed.
Perhaps could it be more similar (or maybe the same) to the action of a Springfield-made Mod. 1871 rifle (except for shapes of hammer and block)? Unless I've grossly misunderstood it's very similar to what Dick described above, of his rifle's action.

[Dick Hosmer]

This thread has taken an interesting and unexpected turn, not the least of which being Ed's last statement. If anyone had asked me - prior to this discussion - if the Springfield and NYS actions were identical in function my answer would have been an unhesitating "yes", but apparently that may not be correct.

It may take a couple of days, but I guess I'd better pull my 1871 out of the safe and REALLY go through the motions "by the numbers" as Franco did. At some point, I may even attempt to pull the buttstock and see if anything appears broken - but that joint looks to have never been apart so I am reluctant to do so. Perhaps another reader would care to chime in here?

Hard to believe that there would have been two parallel and essentially simultaneous designs on the same action meant to achieve the same result. Equally hard to believe that Ed (whom I look up to as "Mr. Rolling Block") does not have a US 1871 - they are not uncommon here in the States at all, and many are in near excellent condition, with presumably properly functioning actions.

[Challenger]

Thanks Dick if you can do it,

I would be glad to (hopefully) find out your gun's action might basically be mine's. Of course no problems at all if the opposite instance, simply it would mean the action is something unusual and strange and not the original one.
If so not a terrible thing, rifle is nice enough and I think nobody should have made a modern "repro" action in recent times - the whole looks OK in its own, and mainly it looks to be old a right amount. Plus those tiny letters stamped on block and hammer.

Plus the extractor at left side, so perfect and matching chamber's edge. Perfect shutting of chamber (I've not fired the gun, it's true), perfect extraction using a modern Starline 50-70 brass. Who knows who, what and when..
p.s., in the end we'll maybe find out my RB is one-of-a-kind gun on the whole planet... does anyone wish to list himself in advance for a buying?!! ah ah...

Regards, Franco.

[ehull]

Franco, can you remove your buttstock and take photos with the action closed and open?

[Challenger]

Yes I'll do. Just look for a correct screwdriver and doing no damages to screws.

[Challenger]

Sorry, just tried but it looks kind of absolutely glued! Impossible in any way to remove the screw with the 100% correct screwdriver, even by decidedly tapping on it before turning.
Screw head is perfect so I prefer not to mess anything.