General GunTuber thread

man why are rolling block rifles so fucking expensive.
 
JJLiautaud said:
man why are rolling block rifles so fucking expensive.
Click to expand...
People think old = gold even though most of them have been treated like shit and over half of them are chambered for rounds that are a hassle to make brass for.
You can find them cheaper at auction, though, or get a Danish/Swedish one from Simpson LTD.
 
WhoBusTank69 said:
People think old = gold even though most of them have been treated like shit and over half of them are chambered for rounds that are a hassle to make brass for.
You can find them cheaper at auction, though, or get a Danish/Swedish one from Simpson LTD.
Click to expand...
Im talking about modern single shots in modern calibers theyre a 1000 bucks.
 
JJLiautaud said:
Im talking about modern single shots in modern calibers theyre a 1000 bucks.
Click to expand...
Henry makes some for around $500 msrp. The way they work is the whole barrel is on a pivot, and moves down when you want to load a round, then back down when you want to fire. Probably not as nice as a falling block or other kind of action, but it works and is cheap.
 
August Levasseur said:
Henry makes some for around $500 msrp. The way they work is the whole barrel is on a pivot, and moves down when you want to load a round, then back down when you want to fire. Probably not as nice as a falling block or other kind of action, but it works and is cheap.
Click to expand...
Break actions are a fair bit different than rolling blocks.
 
August Levasseur said:
I thought he was talking generically about single shots. I didn’t think anyone still made rolling blocks.
Click to expand...
Pedersoli, Uberti and I believe Pietta make them. The rolling block isn't held in as high esteem as the Sharps, Winchester, Ballard, Ruger or the various Euro actions for some reason.

This lack of reputation is unfortunate, because the humble rolling block of 1867 is immensely strong (I've seen them re-chambered into the nitro express cartridges) and in the early days of long range precision shooting in the USA in the late 1860s and early 1870s was one of the more popular actions to build because of it's light weight compared to the sharps. The rules at the time mandated a 10 pound maximum weight. The sharps action was so heavy that mounting a bull barrel would put the rifle over the limit necessitating a lighter barrel. the rolling block's light weight allowed these heavy barrels.

the sharps 1877 and Borchardt were much lighter and would have been very popular had the company not failed soon after their debut.
 
Romulus augustulus said:
This lack of reputation is unfortunate, because the humble rolling block of 1867 is immensely strong
Click to expand...
And really odd it's probably the best possible single shot design ever conceived as shown by its massive adoption every where that didn't really have political considerations (read their own firearm industries or rank stupidity t. America) to worry about.
 
Last edited:
Romulus augustulus said:
the humble rolling block of 1867 is immensely strong (I've seen them re-chambered into the nitro express cartridges)
Click to expand...
We may be wandering off into Gun Thread territory, I'll fix that by posting a favorite channel of mine
there we go.
While I'm hearing this from the same people who say, assume and guess the Trapdoor Springfield is a weak action I've read that while the rolling block has a solid and affirmative lockup the actual breechblock itself is liable to shear off above the roller due to the geometry. I haven't seen it(and hope I never do), but the same boomers claim it's common enough that theoretically you could find busted rifles without trying.

I hate talking about old guns.
 

This is good video I think. I've long thought that M250 should be a good solid high vel/punch through APC armor. M855 A1 should be 300m rounds, just standard 5.56mm for sub 300m antipersonnel is fine. As he says, now the whole thing end up being a bunch of drones sent off to kill targets and marksmanship will be less of a deal. The one thing I really liked about the M7 is that insanely expensive optic that should've been only used on the M7 instead of new fancy rounds.
 
mlanguishi said:

This is good video I think. I've long thought that M250 should be a good solid high vel/punch through APC armor. M855 A1 should be 300m rounds, just standard 5.56mm for sub 300m antipersonnel is fine. As he says, now the whole thing end up being a bunch of drones sent off to kill targets and marksmanship will be less of a deal. The one thing I really liked about the M7 is that insanely expensive optic that should've been only used on the M7 instead of new fancy rounds.
Click to expand...
It should've been painfully obvious from the begin with that the idea of a bigger cartridge is stupid. Continuing down this path when you have actual combat footage from Ukraine with near peer enemies, where you see approximately 0 footage of a rifleman engaging targets out to 600 meters, and instead you see plenty of footage with mag dumps inside 2 meters in a trench? Downright negligence. If this adoption is continuing forward, those responsible for it should sign up that they are liable for court marshal when the US Army inevitably finds out that less ammo = bad. And it cost American lives to learn that lesson.
 
Foley said:
It should've been painfully obvious from the begin with that the idea of a bigger cartridge is stupid. Continuing down this path when you have actual combat footage from Ukraine with near peer enemies, where you see approximately 0 footage of a rifleman engaging targets out to 600 meters, and instead you see plenty of footage with mag dumps inside 2 meters in a trench? Downright negligence. If this adoption is continuing forward, those responsible for it should sign up that they are liable for court marshal when the US Army inevitably finds out that less ammo = bad. And it cost American lives to learn that lesson.
Click to expand...
It does drive me crazy, for many reasons. One of the bitch fests I have is it would be a round that can't be civilian friendly cause the damn thing needs suppressor because even at the Spear 16" the blast is nuts with 277 fury.

The obvious military rifle is going to be sub 300m CQB and a possible M250 SAW that the 277 fury would be ok with. There's going to be drones and then drone destroyers for decades to come. Sig and these 'decision makers' are just bastard $$$ types. The friggin M7 and 20 round mags are wayyyy too heavy to mess with in infantry . Better optics and bullet dynamics are needed and the M855A1 is pretty optimal already
 

Screenshot 2025-12-06 164711.jpg
 
Foley said:
Continuing down this path when you have actual combat footage from Ukraine with near peer enemies, where you see approximately 0 footage of a rifleman engaging targets out to 600 meters, and instead you see plenty of footage with mag dumps inside 2 meters in a trench?
Click to expand...
Why is this surprisingly common across history? I know the US preferred the Krag entirely because they wanted to focus on marksmanship over firing speed making them outclassed against faster firing Mausers of the Spanish which lead to the 1903 adoption post war. Where is this “We need 600m range” coming from when combat has been up close or 200 yards usually
 
AncientPhosphur said:
Where is this “We need 600m range” coming from when combat has been up close or 200 yards usually
Click to expand...
The few times where people were taking potshots from that range inspired a desire to shoot back to kill. In fairness, an MG spraying from any distance is not an ideal foe.
Smoke Manmuscle said:
even a mediocre shot can be accurate out to 600m
Click to expand...
In relative comfort with an ideal position, maybe, but bulked up with gear and needing to invent a new shooting stance on the fly while compensating for someone dancing around shooting at you it's going to be shit.
Smoke Manmuscle said:
The million dollar question is if the optics will hold up in combat conditions.
Click to expand...
I find it easier to consider whether or not you can get it replaced when it breaks than consider if it is durable enough, because there are people who have had to suffer a broken ACOG without the slightest chance of a replacement. If we get into the situation where upon taking a fall you have to catch the rifle because a broken nose is less of a hassle I think we need a different perspective on an infantry arm.
 
Smoke Manmuscle said:
It’s coming from the not unreasonable idea that the new generation of combat optics have gotten to the point where even a mediocre shot can be accurate out to 600m. The million dollar question is if the optics will hold up in combat conditions.
Click to expand...
No, it is an unreasonable idea. Even the best of optics won't solve the fundamental problem of lack of marksmanship, as in grunts being able to hold the fucking rifle steady when pulling the trigger. Additionally, that optic still doesn't solve the issue of "we can't see enemies beyond 400M because they are inside a fucking trench".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom