>Be Remington.>Invent the Rolling Block Rifle.>Simple, Robust, Reliable.>Everyone loves it and finds it easy to use.>Becomes the god tier small arm of the 1870s-1880s.>Arms fucking everyone from the Armies of Imperial China & Japan to Argentina.>AK 47 of the late 19th century basically.>The US military doesn't use it.>Prefers the Jank-ass Trapdoor Rifle as its standard issue rifle well into the Spanish-American War.What the fuck. Can someone explain why the US Government doesn't want the most effective firearm in the world at the time (invented by an American even)?
>>65540170Because they thought the Trapdoor could be manufactured using existant muskets, which would be cheaper than a new rifle outright.
The trapdoor project started before the 1871 came out>>65515573In the future simple questions may be answered in the general above which can be searched in the catalog
You massively underestimate just how retarded late 19th early 20th century US arms procurement, trials and adherence to archaic doctrine was.
>>65540170The American military wasn’t always the budget juggernaut we think of it as today. If you pitched them an idea, any idea at all, prior to WW1, the general staff would pursue the absolute cheapest variation of it possible. New rifles? Convert the old ones to accept metallic cartridges. Having supply issues on the frontier? Train your men to conserve ammo and build a doctrine out of it that persists to this very day. It was Russian levels of graft and penny pinching back in those days. It didn’t really matter if the cost for a newer, better rifle was about the same as converting old ones turned out to be. So long as you could pitch it as a cheaper alternative, that was all the decision makers cared about.
>>65540170The US Army is single handedly the WORST organization to adopt rifles, bar none. They either are too conservative (Civil War, Spanish American War) or push too far (SALVO/ACR program).
The trapdoor had a half cock safety and didn't vent hot gas back into the shooter's face when a case ruptured.
>>65540170They were brokies and they already had a ton of springfields in inventory.
>>65540170>why the US Government doesn't want the most effective firearm in the worldBecause the half asleep Civil War veteran in charge of that decision has a personal grudge against Remington and his favorite horse budget is about to get cut unless he finds savings by denying new contracts.Also James Paris Lee got him drunk on good whiskey last night so he promised he wouldn't accept the rifle either.
>>65540194congress always gave the peacetime army a shoestring budget up until the cold war. kinda based really.
>>65540170Because the Ordinance Board knew it would piss off faggots like you someday
The Springfield Trapdoor was a better rifle.
>>65540170Idk much about 1800s-1900s arms procurement but it appears it was highly jewish and basically exclusive to colt or springfield regardless of what their contemporaries offered. Sort of like sig today
>>65540237>armyYeah.>navyFuck no the US Navy was for the longest time the 2nd or 3rd largest in the world.
>>65540328At least Springfield was our national armory. That's way less gay than writing a blank check to SIG for literally everything
>>65540237You're goddamn right, that money belongs in our pockets. Old America was fucking cool, modern America is like if you made some corporate slop HR department in charge of a country.
>>65540340I thought the m7 could be cool if it and the ammo was as cheap or cheaper than m16s/m4s but no we're literally getting them for thousands of dollars each. 0 discount
>>65540358Did you know those optics, that regularly don't work, also cost $16,000 each?
>>65540369Getting fleeced by israeli nationals
>>65540336only in the late 19th to 20th century. for much of the 1800s the navy is just completely unfunded with a brief exception of the civil war.
>>65540371Shy of ending up in prison for eternity, I don't know what to do about it. Our Euro friends probably feel similar feelings
>>65540336Before Teddy Roosevelt being secretary of the navy, the US Navy was a joke. Like another anon said, the US Navy was miniscule until the Great White Fleet, except during the Civil War
>>65540170Why does everyone suck the rolling blocks dick, when it died out almost instantly to the superior and stronger falling block?And then most of falling blocks achievements are credited to the rolling block
>>65540184This.Hence why the 1911 has 2 manual safeties.
>>65540395Because of its on-paper stats. That's what keyboard warriors care about most
>>65540395Media exposure IMO.
>>65540358Army should've just copied the USMC and adopted the M27, but no. We have to bring the perfect weapon for the previous war.And we once again fell for the meme that every infantryman can be a marksman. They have to be since they can't carry as much ammo in the same number of mags or given volume of space.
>>65540177Pretty much this. The government should have just sold off all the musket blocks and the designs for the retro fit to some other company and just went with the rolling block.
>>65540396and mag cutoffs on Springfield 03s
>>65540395>when it died out almost instantly to the superior and stronger falling block?It didn't, though. The only really commercially successful falling-block was the Sharps and even then the Remington ate its lunch with the poors because the Sharps was much more expensive and then bolt actions came along and obsoleted breech-loading rifles as a whole.>inb4 muh martini-henryA tilting block is not a falling block.
>>65540328>Idk much about 1800s-1900s arms procurement but it appears it was highly jewish That's because Jews were quite literally everywhere. If you think it's bad now, it was just as bad back then. Heck, the reason why a lot of older US food safety laws discriminated against pork (and some still do) is because they were written by Jew councilmen, using the kashrut as inspiration.
>>65540810>any of this Fucking wrong.
>>65540178>In the future simple questions may be answered in the general aboveHow do I do that?
>>65540170The navy used it to bully korea tho
>>65540170I have one and while I appreciate the mechanism like any /k/ommando I much prefer the swiss vetterli, Italian vetterli, dutch beaumont, gras and mauser 71 to be honest with you I even like the humble snider better, the cavalry carbine snider is a beautiful little weapon. The main reason I like the rolling block is because it reminds me of Gordons epic fight at Khartom
>>65540311It was just ok.
>>65540177Which it was (at first anyway) But you could also re use the tooling since the lock and stock and other small parts are essentially identical to the 1861 springfield Good enough for the frontier backwater that was the post civil war united states
>>65540769Winchester 1885 was hugely popular
>>65541164>Winchester 1885 was hugely popular~140,000 made.>Remington rolling block~1.5 million made.There are levels to this.
>>65540184>late 19th early 20th century
>>65540196You forgot their ever-popular 'Sigger era,' still ongoing.
>>65541010>dutch beaumontI cannot forgive it for using a fucking leaf spring for the firing pin
>>65540810>Heck, the reason why a lot of older US food safety laws discriminated against pork (and some still do) is because they were written by Jew councilmen, using the kashrut as inspiration.had more to do with trichinella being basically endemic to the US domestic pig population
>>65540395This, I dont get glazing of the rolling block, its an inherently weak action, and actually slower than an 1885In sheer numbers it was the most popular but thats mostly inflated by military sales where a mediocre weapon is fine as long as its cheap For falling blocks you have the sharps, ballard, farquharson, borschardt, winchester, stevens, ruger, and probably many many others I haven't mentionedThe only people to ever do a rolling block was remington and people doing replicas of the remington
>>65544612>This, I dont get glazing of the rolling block, its an inherently weak actionWrong straight off the bat
>>65544612>its an inherently weak actionHow?
>>65545364Look at your pic:the asymmetrical locking surface is outside the path of the bolt thrust, and to boot is almost parallel to the path of the bolt thrust. This means the entire mechanism is getting a lot of torque with each shot as the breechblock acts like a lever against the hammer block. Whereas something like a falling block the locking surfaces are within the axis of the bolt thrust and perpendicular to the bolt thrust.
>>65545381Seems like it's not a very significant difference for the era of blackpowder rifles, you can get away with a single locking lug for those.I'm sure though that you could just beef it up further to make a .50BMG rolling block action.
>>65545699you could beef up a trapdoor to handle .50 bmg. this doesn't make it a strong action.
>>65545364Theoretically it's not great. In practice it's fine. In the real world, the metallurgy is far more of a deciding factor in the ultimate strength of the action when comparing falling blocks and rolling blocks. It's the sort of thing that trips up nogunz and autists because they don't understand context. Both worked fine with the cartridges they were designed for. (Remington specifically disallowed the 45-90 in the rolling block and wouldn't chamber them for it, but given that the Italians do it today, it's safe to assume that this was a metallurgical issue, not a design one.) Both made the jump to smokeless. Both will blow the fuck up if you take an original built for BP and run a hot smokeless load through it. I'd imagine that a falling block would fail much more gracefully but honestly, the stories about either action failing are so few on the internet that it's hard to tell.Way back in the day you used to see the usual suspects arguing the same thing about the M1/M14's action because in theory, locking a bolt into a receiver with two lugs is not a great design in terms of strength. Had they been better read, they would have known that Garand himself had tested the M1 up to 120,000 PSI before a lug cracked and the gun went another 5,000 rounds with service ammunition afterwards. On paper it's weak, and for certain people only the paper matters.
>>65545773>In the real world, the metallurgy is far more of a deciding factor in the ultimate strength of the action when comparing falling blocks and rolling blocks.falling block has many more times the bearing surface area over a rolling block with its double pin design unless the difference is so drastic that the pin is that much stronger.a tilting block is a more close comparison because it's also got a pressure bearing pin but the pin is further back, is more aligned with the breech and doesn't need to rotate as much so it can be more beefy and stoutly made compared to the two pins of the rolling block.
>>65544644Do explain
>>65540311>>65540196>>65540177They should have adapted the needlefire rifle (a German early bolt-action), which used a mechanism holding 3–4 rounds.>>65540980It was used alongside the muzzle-loading M1861 musket too.
>>65545979>They should have adapted the needlefire rifle (a German early bolt-action), which used a mechanism holding 3–4 rounds.Not only were the Germans not exporting the gun, countries were aware of it and still didn't want it.Feuertaktik vs Stosstaktik decided the fate between rifle musket and the dreyse, not a technological gap between the arms themselves.
>>65545979>>65546017>which used a mechanism holding 3–4 rounds.Also, holding 3 to 4 rounds? Just shut the fuck up you braindead retard, dear God
>>65546027Hey, watch your language. Why is the US military department being lazy?https://www.alloutdoor.com/2025/08/18/potd-springfield-1882-chaffee-reece/
>>65546049>Why is the US military department being lazy?I'll give you an answer when you've reeducated yourself enough to not consider the Dreyse to be a "3-4" shot repeater.Just as I won't talk about politics with a child, I don't talk guns with actual retards.
>>65540170>>The US military doesn't use it.I thought the Marines used the rolling block.
>>65545381>asymmetrical locking surface is outside the path of the bolt thrustThis is true for almost all handguns and a bunch of early bolt actions, remove the asymmetrical part and it's true for the rest of the bolt action or really anything with a rotating bolt. Acting like a lever doesn't mean anything if the ratio is 1:1. Please use some common sense.
>>65546081>I don't talk guns with actual retardsGo back.
>>65546392Reddit IS where idiocy is coddled, retard.
>>65546017Someone has been watching Paper Cartridges I see. But I think that anon was mistaken, the needle rifle did not have a magazine, he might have meant one of the early gewehrs which makes more sense since they were contemporary with the rolling block.
>>65546081>>65546049With 1860s industrialize capable and the interchangeable parts, Springfield needlefire rifle with 3-4 round can work in theory.
I wish someone made a rolling block in 5.56. I think it would be a very fun plinker.
>>65540170>Japan to ArgentinaThe Murata rifle used a mixed design from Austrian, Portuguese, and some Argentine Miku influences.Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20180125013951/http://www.%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E3%81%AE%E6%AD%A6%E5%99%A8%E5%85%B5%E5%99%A8.jp/part1/archives/344
>>65546087>I thought the Marines used the rolling block.The US Navy purchased a couple thousand Rolling Block carbines in 1868 (some of these were loaned to US Marines going ashore during the Korean Expedition), and later adopted the .50-70 Gov't caliber Rolling Block in 1870. 22,000+ were made for the Navy at Springfield Armory. However at the same time the USMC had officially adopted the Springfield Model 1868 Trapdoor in .50-70, and they later adopted the M1873 Trapdoor in .45-70. The Rolling Block and Trapdoor would often serve alongside one another on ships with Marine detachments. The Navy then got really into magazine repeaters purchasing Remington-Keene, Remington-Lee, and Winchester-Hotchkiss rifles in .45-70 (but never enough to totally standardize on one pattern to equip all ships and shore installations) and it's possible that Marines on ships equipped with these rifles may have used them rather than their "official" Trapdoor rifles. Shortages of rifles for the Navy in the 1880s led to requests for loans of Trapdoors to the Navy but IDK how many that may have been. The Navy-contract Remington-Lee rifles came with four spare detachable magazines apiece for rapid reloading, probably making it the most advanced military rifle in any military service at the time.
>>65547070There a Mexican among them
>>65547070>>65540980>cute Korean girlJapanese so lucky
>>65547138Latino and Hispanic service members have fought in every major american war.
>>65547138pretty sure thats a negro
>>65545809>autist detectedNone of that changes what I posted, and we're not talking about tilting blocks. Then as now, the metallurgy is more important than the design and any actual differences in action strength were irrelevant. Shooters understand this. You do not, and I think I know why.
>>65540177Wasn't this basically the logic behind the M14 as well before realizing "actually no you retard, you can't just use Garand machining, literally every part is different"?
>>65541246>late 1800's to early 1900'sYes, what's the issue? Or are you just a retard who don't know how centuries work?
>>65547371well the sights and most of the trigger pack are identical, along with some small parts like sling swivels,early buttplates, extractor, etc. why they didnt just put their money where their mouth was and just re use most of the garand parts like the italians did with the BM59 i will never understand. wasnt that the whole fukken point?
>>65547377i think hes >implying that that retardation continued onwards to this very day.
>>65547371>>65541159
>>65541159Same as the Snider. Originally made as a way to convert muskets. As the source of suitable ones dried up they just started making whole rifles using existing lines.
>>65540196M1903/M1917/M1 was a good era. Also, shoutout to M1941 Johnson Rifle which was adopted as substitute standard. The also-ran from the US in WW2 was better than pretty much everybody else's service rifle.I won't excuse the late 1800's US Army procurement though. They got outgunned by Injuns carrying Winchesters a couple times and should have known better. They just didn't care. The half-starved Irishmen falling off the boat would take what was issued and use it. Fuck 'em. The goddamn Navy had better guns throughout the whole era and it shows. Lee > Krag.
>>65547358PM Mussolini is honorable black while Ethiopian Emperor is honorable white
>>65547848>M1941 Johnson Rifle which was adopted as substitute standardBe nice if Australian-Hungarian adapted it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3fvtRaoe8A
>>65546017>>65545979>US military adopt it in 1852, later used by Union and ConfederateWhat could have been?
>>65540170the martini-henry is better than this, rollingblock is marginally better than a trapdoor springfield
the trapdoor is my favorite rifle, I just think they're really neat
>>65549941they definitely have the most dramatic cartridge ejection of all the breach loaders
>>65549941based >>65549935cringe>>6554017019th century AK is shit
>>65547367>Then as now, the metallurgy is more important than the designyou don't understand what this is supposed to mean>and any actual differences in action strength were irrelevantyes as long as the action is designed to not explode it won't, no matter if it was made from brass, wrought iron or hardened steel.
>>65546616>>65546392
>>65547138>>65547353>>65547358He's just covered in powder soot.
>>65540170The rolling block wasn't a primary rifle for other nations, it was a short order for the colonial administrations of those nations. Many of the users of the rolling block were also previous European colonies. The rolling block wasn't ordered again after better and domestic rifles were made.
>>65549941>>65548512>>65546992I love the needle rifle, like the Model 1865 Springfield.
>>65551973>The rolling block wasn't a primary rifle for other nationsIt was for Spain, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. They all used it until replacing them with smokeless charger-loading repeaters.
>>65550522>you don't understand what this is supposed to meanThen explain it, if you can.>>65550522>yes as long as the action is designed to not explode it won't, no matter if it was made from brass, wrought iron or hardened steel.Explain that word salad too. If you're ESL, admitting so will count as explaining.>>65551973>rolling block wasn't ordered again after better Yes, service rifles are in fact eventually replaced after better models come to market. You are aware that the US no longer uses the trapdoor Springfield these days, right? The rolling block was arguably the best rifle around in 1870. When the Winchester 1885 dropped, the armies of the world didn't suddenly throw out their Remingtons and adopt the next best thing. In 1898...well, that's another story.
>>65545809>tilting block is a more close comparison because it's also got a pressure bearing pinIf you mean the Peabody/Martini family of actions, no, it hasn't.The pin only serves to control the breechblock as the action is opened; when closed, the rear of the breechblock bears against the back wall of the receiver to handle the thrust of firing.
>>65552522>Then explain it"muh metallurgy" is retard drivel and no super metal can save a bad design.>Explain that word salad tooit's perfectly legible if you weren't a total retard.>You are aware that the US no longer uses the trapdoor Springfield these days, right?is this supposed to be an own?>The rolling block was arguably the best rifle around in 1870>it just is, because i said so!
>>65552973you're kind of right, the breech isn't rested on the pin but the through pin housing around which it rotates, so the foces are still concentrated in a smaller area around it.
>>65553025>"muh metallurgy" is retard drivel and no super metal can save a bad designAnon, the rolling block made the jump to smokeless specifically because the metallurgy improved. Remington didn't change the design, just the metal. (And don't tell anyone, but the same is true for the Winchester 1885.)>perfectly legibleI *think* what you're trying to say is that a good action is one that won't explode, which is no gun ever made, not then and not now. Implying otherwise is kind of silly.>is this supposed to be an own?No. Proudly stating that the rolling block wasn't ordered again after better alternatives were available, as if this hasn't been true for basically every military rifle ever produced, like it was some kind of argument-winning gotcha was a self-own. Someone arguing like that either isn't too good at English, is retarded, and/or is going through autistic sperg rage.
