Trapdoor vs. Rolling Block

[jon_norstog]

It was a shootout in the Coeur d'Alene National Forest! My wife and I went up to Sandpoint ID to visit family, including my baby granddaughter. I usually take a gun with me so my brother Paul and I can go out shooting. This time I took the new 1884 trapdoor Al Frasca sold me last year plus all the BP ammo I could scrounge up. Paul has his old rolling block, Modelo Argentino 1879.

bp_3..jpg

We were both shooting similar weight bullets, mine was a 385 gr. RN and his was the Lyman 390 gr. RN, .439 diameter. Paul was using a stiff load of 4895 that chrono-ed well over 1500 fps. We were shooting in snowy woods along a closed USFS road maybe 60 yds.

bp_6..jpg
bp_8..jpg bp_1..jpg

We both shot both rifles. The RB was much the stronger shooter and really cracked when it went off. And sometimes it shot point of aim, but mostly it sprayed. What happens when you combine smokeless powder with undersize lead bullets. The trapdoor was an easy shoot. 70 gr. of Goex doesn't have the sap of the old government load, but it does shoot consistent. Consistently a foot high.

About the sight picture: What Dick and 5MF say about the Buffington sight. You can really get a fine hold with those sights on a target range. In a noisy visual environment the sight picture is confused and takes concentration to sort it out. The Remington sights by contrast are big and crude and a snap to line up.

Here's the target. I think two of those holes may have been from the .43. My point of aim was the bottom of the target board right under the bull.
bp_4..jpg

The rolling block is pretty accurate if you use BP, or use a .446 bullet with smokeless. It's trigger pull is at least twice that of the trapdoor. One other advantage of the RB is you can clean it by sticking the muzzle into a bucket of hot soapy water and pump it up the barrel using a shotgun mop from the breech.

As a battle rifle I would choose the rolling block because of its sights, a slightly less-likely-to-jam bottleneck case, its lug-mounted knife type bayonet, and a buttstock that won't snap at the wrist. But for pure class in a rifle for shooting, I would choose the trapdoor.

There you have it. An absolutely meaningless "test" - but we had a good time and didn't bother anyone except animals.

jn

[Tkacook]

Thanks for the fun post! I have three trapdoors, but I would love to have a 50-70 Rolling Block!

TK

[joem]

I don't have a trapdoor but I do have a 11.75 Danish RB. As near as I can figure it is close to a 45-80 and a slight bottle neck cartridge. I don't load it to full potential as the thing is from 1882. It is very accurate with laser cast match 405 gr bullets but they are expensive so I don't but them. If I still hunted I'd make up a box of them.

[11mm]

I don't have a trapdoor but I do have a 11.75 Danish RB. As near as I can figure it is close to a 45-80 and a slight bottle neck cartridge. I don't load it to full potential as the thing is from 1882. It is very accurate with laser cast match 405 gr bullets but they are expensive so I don't but them. If I still hunted I'd make up a box of them.

That's interesting. I use exactly that bullet in my Danish rolling block. I bought 500 some years ago when they were reasonably cheap. I use smokeless with it. They are not so good in my trapdoors, but The Danish rifle shoots as well as my best shooting trapdoor (an M1888) with that bullet.

[13Echo]

For a battle rifle the Remington sights are better, the action is faster to use, and the Remington can be cleaned from the breech. The Springfield does have some real pluses though: it is much safer if there is a cartridge rupture as it vents gas away from your face - the rolling block vents it rather poorly: The trapdoor can cam a stubborn case into the chamber and has a strong cam action for extraction - the rolling block has almost no cam type action and will stick a case the Trapdoor will easily extract. There are other details but those are the major ones to me.

Jerry Liles

[jon_norstog]

Jerry,

That's why I used to take a hammer handle with me when shooting my 7mm rolling block - to knock open the block if a case sticks. And you definitely want to resize your cases and crimp down the mouth on any BP shells you are going to run through the old #1 model.

jn

jn

[Dick Hosmer]

FWIW, recall that the OD, during the 1868-72 period when they produced thousands, had ample opportunity to adopt the RRB, and while the answer is partly practical and partly political, they didn't.

As to extraction, as soon as the case material changed, the problem disappeared in the TD, while the very last RB made is not much, if any, better in that regard than the very first.

People say the RB is "stronger" (and the smokeless powder M1902 probably is) but I'm not completely convinced, with the earlier ones. TD blocks pretty much tend to stay in place or fly up and away - if an RB lets go, the shooter is going to get a face full.

[13Echo]

I've been asking myself which rifle would I rather have had for a battle rifle if I were a soldier in 1873 with the early copper cased, folded head cartridges.

Both rifles are well made and simple to maintain, almost soldier proof in fact, and both handle well. I prefer the sights on the RB, the relatively quick to operate action, and it is nice to be able to clean from the breech, however I do not like the possibility of a stuck case (reminds me of the early M16) or the effects of a ruptured case with all the gas in the face a RB would allow. The sights on the TD are too fine, at least for my eyes and the action is slower to operate, however, it will seat and eject cases a RB would choke on and a ruptured case will vent gases well away from the face. I guess I come down on the side of the Springfield for reliability. Just ask any GI that had the early M16 how important that is.

Jerry Liles

[45govt]

I've been asking myself which rifle would I rather have had for a battle rifle if I were a soldier in 1873 with the early copper cased, folded head cartridges.

Both rifles are well made and simple to maintain, almost soldier proof in fact, and both handle well. I prefer the sights on the RB, the relatively quick to operate action, and it is nice to be able to clean from the breech, however I do not like the possibility of a stuck case (reminds me of the early M16) or the effects of a ruptured case with all the gas in the face a RB would allow. The sights on the TD are too fine, at least for my eyes and the action is slower to operate, however, it will seat and eject cases a RB would choke on and a ruptured case will vent gases well away from the face. I guess I come down on the side of the Springfield for reliability. Just ask any GI that had the early M16 how important that is.

Jerry Liles

Jerry
If you were a soldier in 1873 you would have the far superior 73 sight and not that thing they put on them later!

[sdkrag]

I own both. I have put thousands of rounds through the Trapdoor (all black powder) and several hundred through the Rolling Block (50-70). after 50 to 75 rapid fire competition rounds they both stink to clean. Love them both. Trapdoor was the first rifle I bought after I got out of college. I LEARNED a lot of lessons from that farm auction. The Rolling Block was My Great Grandfathers. It even has the original bayonet and scabbard. Wouldn't trade it for the world.

[13Echo]

Dick I agree with your assessment of relative merits of the two actions. I'd much rather have a Trapdoor if something lets loose. I also agree the Trapdoor is a lot stronger than usually thought, after all the OD did use them to develop the .30-40 cartridge using smokeless powder. The Old Soldier gets a lot of criticism and bad press but it was and is a damn good rifle.

Jerry Liles

[joem]

In the April 1st issue of Shotgun News there is a story about the arms of the Netherlands and RB rifles. The pics of the 11X51 for the Danish looks close to what I make for my RB.

[jon_norstog]

Well, I have seen some pretty gruesome pictures of blown rolling blocks. On the internet. Before the internet I just bought the Remington propaganda that the rolling block was virtually indestructible. Not the case, apparently. But that was the rifle I learned to shoot with. So I'm a little biased.

jn