Remington rolling block headspace?

[Ranchero]

I'm new here so here we go. I have a Rem. rolling block I got from an uncle after he died. It was one somebody sometime made into a target rifle with a 1 3/16" bull barrel in Rem 22-250 and a wood target stock with a high cheek pad. It was cool looking but needed some (a lot) attention. So silly me, before I even knew if it worked or not. I tore it apart & started working on it. Sent the receiver & barrel out to Turnbull, refinished the wood & polished a bunch of small things. Got it put all together & shot it. First shot everything fine, second shot the hammer pulled back kind of hard after shooting, I seen the shell moved back out of the chamber. Third shot locked it right up.. Had to take it apart to get the shell out. Then looking at it closer, when I put a round in it, it would stick out about .008. Shouldn't there be some head space in there? And how much? And what stops the shell from moving backwards & tightening up the action?

[fourbore]

If you watch this video you can see the relationship between the hammer and block. Block should close up flush against the breach. nothing sticking out. Tight hammer pull means the block was pushed out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GadzX6vPl8Y

Something sounds seriously wrong. it does not sound like simply headspace. I guess that this is getting worse as you shoot.But yes, you should have some clearance. I dont know much, you can google chamber specs probably 3/1000 anyway as a WAG. Chamber obstruction. Loads too hot? Bullet seated out to far? Improper resize? Your best best is to take some meaningful photos, not beauty contest shots. The fired brass and what it looks like when you try and chamber a round. If you know how, use dykem blue on a round and shove it in - see where it bottoms out. Email those pics to turnbull and then follow up with a phone call. You can post those pics here too.

The above video shows how to teardown the rifle. That is good to know. Look in the chamber, check extractor, check the big rolling pin, etc... I would not fire that gun again, until. They are simple, that much is in your favor.

You can try to measure shoulder to rim on the two rounds fired and some unfired rounds.

[6.5swedeforelk]

Something is certainly not right.
What would worry me is the apparent changing condition.

If the cartridge is not seating properly, the breach block body should prevent the hammer from falling.

This picture may help.

With a sized case loaded and .004" gauge between case head & block, on pulling the trigger, the hammer did not fall.

Good luck with it.

[Slamfire]

If you watch this video you can see the relationship between the hammer and block. Block should close up flush against the breach. nothing sticking out. Tight hammer pull means the block was pushed out.

That was a very interesting video!

It was one somebody sometime made into a target rifle with a 1 3/16" bull barrel in Rem 22-250 and a wood target stock with a high cheek pad. It was cool looking but needed some (a lot) attention.

I have spend just a little bit of time researching Rolling Blocks and it is my decided opinion that historical actions are 100% unsuited to any smokeless centerfire conversions. Yes I know of the 7mm conversions, but the cartridges of the day were not pushing 60,000 psia, and I still think the conversions were marginal. All of these actions were made prior to WW1 and were made of the metals of the day. People today do not appreciate just how primitive was the metallurgy of the period. These were made out of plain carbon steels whose properties varied wildly because of the primitive process controls of the period. The process controls were basically human eyeballs. Steels of that period have way too much slag and impurities and even the same steels made today, which are much cleaner, are used for rebar and rail road ties, because they are so cheap and low grade.

It is quite possible that you have a black powder era frame, which was probably not even heat treated, or heat treatable. Black powder firearms had dead soft steels, I have read reports of Sharp Borchardt actions that could be shaved with a knife blade. The surfaces were case hardened for wear resistance, that case made hardly any difference in the basic yield properties of the part. It is my opinion that the frame has stretched between hammer and breech block pins.

I would not fire any more rounds in that rifle till someone who is very knowledgeable about these things has gaged and looked at it.

[Scorch]

If you fire that RRB again, you will likely be injured. The RRB was never intended to be used with high pressure smokeless powder cartridges. BP cartridges top out around 20,000 psi, 22-250 develops around 65,000 psi. To continue to fire it is asking for serious injury.

[Jim Watson]

Agreed, .22-250 in a rolling block is just nuts.
Even a No 5 which was factory made in .30-30, .30-40, and 8mm Lebel, probably other 1900 smokeless rounds, is not stout enough.

Everybody talks about how strong the rolling block is, but that is by black powder standards. I had an article showing some wrecked rolling blocks, due to reloading error and poor gunsmithing, and if you manage to blow a case head in one, it will HURT you. The technically weaker Trapdoor is less dangerous when it lets go.

[Slamfire]

Here are some interesting pictures of a catastrophic failure of a rolling block.

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

It does not take much effort to do a search on rolling block failures. There are plenty of them, for such a rare rifle.



Rolling Block strenght

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...strenght/page2

"The Remington catalog of 1875 is the first that lists barrels of decarbonized steel for rifle barrels. This is what we call mild steel today. This steel is soft like Damascus, but more ductile. You'll see a lot more repairable dents or gouges in these steels than in a more modern steel. The barrels were rolled from solid metal , without weld or seam. They were rolled to size bored out, then turned and ground proved with a heavy charge of powder and a solid slug of lead. "

"The April 1897 Remington Arms Co. catalogue introduced “Remington steel” barrels on the Remington Hammerless Doubles. Prior to that date shotguns were only offered with Damascus barrels of varying qualities by grade. Two types of steel barrels were introduced at that time: “Remington Steel” and “Ordnance Steel”"

"Remington Steel was the lower grade and was sold for the same price as the ordinary Damascus barrels on A-grade shotguns. It was made “in-house” at the Remington factory."

""Ordnance Steel" is a higher grade, and was especially recommended for heavy charges of nitro powder. The tensile strength of this steel is 110,000 lbs., and elastic limit 60,000 lbs., this being greatly in excess of any strain to which barrels are subjected with reasonable loads of nitro powders. It was available in some rifles and shotguns."


I did not know this until I looked as a response to your post. However, I have worked with Steel my entire professional career. I was the head of a Testing Lab in a steel manufacturing facility for 4+ years. During that time, I was provided a ferrule from a WW1 fighter airplane for testing. It was made from what was labeled "high strength steel" (the label was from WW1). I tested it and found that it was lower strength than the lowest strength steel that can be bought today. In addition, it had a lot more impurities than would be allowed today, particularly sulfer. (PS. "today" means from about 1975 to 1980). I know that steel has continued to increase since then in strength, ductility, and all the other desireable characteristics we use without thinking about it.

The early Remington rolling blocks were made from iron.

[Ranchero]

Here's some pics of the cases I fired, the last one I fired has black magic marker on it. With a factory load, which I was shooting. The case sticks out about .012 beyond the barrel, I don't know where I got the earlier measurement. I don't plan on shooting again, I'm going to take it to a local gunsmith. Times like these make me miss my father even more, he was a gunsmith. But thanks for the comments from everybody. I'll post updates. Reading those article's kinda makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck. Not sure what I'm going to do with it...

[Jim Watson]

If you want to keep shooting it, rebarrel in a caliber it can hold up to.
It would shoot all the standard smokeless .45-70 you liked.

[Ranchero]

I'd like to keep the barrel and was wondering about making it into either a 22 Hornet or a 218 Bee, something for varmints. That pressure should be alright for the receiver. What do you think?

[Jim Watson]

Set the barrel back and rechamber.
New extractor for smaller rimmed case.
Bush firing pin if not already done.

[kilimanjaro]

22 Hornet would be the better choice.

[Jim Watson]

I'd rather have the Bee if I could find brass.
Even a Zipper.

[James K]

FWIW, I doubt the early RB receivers were of steel at all. Most likely they, like most gun receivers of the time, were made of wrought iron. It was only when the need arose to accommodate smokeless powder cartridges that gun makers went to even low carbon steel.

The 7x57 was developed by Mauser for use in steel receiver rifles and even so ran only about 40k psi. Remington made a million or so of RBs in that caliber because that was what the customers wanted but it was marginal even with the later steel receivers.

The first failure pics show a split barrel, and I think a barrel flaw caused the barrel to split and it broke the receiver; whether the barrel failure was exacerbated by excessive pressure I do not know, but barrel splits of that type are not usually due to pressure but to a flaw in the material.

The pressure in a RB ultimately is borne by the two large pins, but in my experience they rarely fail; failure is in the receiver itself. As in similar failures in bolt action rifles, it is not always easy to determine if failure was due to pressure or to a failed case head allowing high pressure gas lose in the action, blowing it apart.

On the OP's fired cases, I see one serious problem. Whoever did the conversion did not bush the firing pin. With a high pressure round, that allows the primer to flow back into the large firing pin hole and creates a condition that could ultimately result in a blown primer and release of gas with unpredictable results. No matter what change may be made in caliber, I strongly recommend bushing that firing pin.

Jim

[HiBC]

Take what I will tell you with a grain of salt.I'm not the one who will get hurt.You are.You make your own choices about what happens to your face.
The cautions about old steel/iron are worthy of consideration.
we assume our own risks.
I choose to feel comfortable shooting Rolling Blocks.Thats not data,its opinion.
A black powder action,I would load a 45-70 or equiv to blackpowder pressures...caveat:The receiver is sound and well fitted.
Guessing,your rimless 22-250 likely had a rimless rotary extractor.Probably that means a smokeless rimless cartridge action,such as the #5 in 7x57.
If it is,and if no one cut the bridge to octagon to simulate a sporting rifle....
For myself,I'd trust it to the low 40's kpsi.I'd be OK with a 30-40 Krag ,loaded with the same consideration I'd give a 119 year old single locking lug Krag.
enjoy with respect,no hotrodding.
I'm pretty sure necking 30-30 down will get you pretty much 219 zipper.
Load for reasonable pressure/velocity.Its howYOU load it.Its not so different from the 22-250,if YOU hotrod it.
Agreed,bushing the firing pin is a good idea.
And the Rolling Block is poor at handling gas in a failure.You look at the breech and firing pin.Firing pin blowing back can knock the hammer back,unlocking it.
Some drill vent holes.
My concern might be that your original parts have been stressed,and may have yielded

I'd check it out very carefully.It may be it already gave itself up for you.You still have a face.