Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) No.2 Roller strength? (Read 610 times)
Marlene
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 182
Joined: Oct 30th, 2015
No.2 Roller strength?
Feb 10th, 2019 at 12:29pm
Print Post  
Is there a general consensus on the strength of the No.2 sporting rifle action? I know the Uberti copies are chambered up to hair-raising calibers, as the modern low walls are. That doesn't change the materials of the older guns.

Obviously there is a size limitation. A friend suggested that a No.2 in 30-30 Wesson might be an excellent piece, but I'm unsure of the safety of such a chambering.

Thanks for your thoughts
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
marlinguy
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


Ballards may be weaker,
but they sure are neater!

Posts: 11275
Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 2nd, 2009
Re: No.2 Roller strength?
Reply #1 - Feb 10th, 2019 at 1:06pm
Print Post  
Lots of calibers the #2 can withstand, and much of it depends on the person loading the ammo. Can't compare the new clones to the original, but originals are very strong actions. They were listed in .38-40 Win. so a fairly strong action. Not sure the .30-30 Wesson is any more pressure than the .38-40? And no fear it will get some factory hot load in that caliber.
  

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BP
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 7968
Location: Westside
Joined: Aug 27th, 2006
Re: No.2 Roller strength?
Reply #2 - Feb 10th, 2019 at 5:34pm
Print Post  
Something I've found curious about the original #2, who's production ended around 1913, is that Remington never offered it factory chambered in the 25-20 Repeater cartridge that was introduced in the mid-1890'S.
Perhaps the engineers at Remington didn't want to take the chance that someone would use the higher pressure smokeless Model 1892 Winchester High Velocity cartridges in the #2.

  

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading, the few who learn by observation, and the rest who have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves.
Proud Noodlehead
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
marlinguy
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


Ballards may be weaker,
but they sure are neater!

Posts: 11275
Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 2nd, 2009
Re: No.2 Roller strength?
Reply #3 - Feb 10th, 2019 at 7:38pm
Print Post  
BP wrote on Feb 10th, 2019 at 5:34pm:
Something I've found curious about the original #2, who's production ended around 1913, is that Remington never offered it factory chambered in the 25-20 Repeater cartridge that was introduced in the mid-1890'S.
Perhaps the engineers at Remington didn't want to take the chance that someone would use the higher pressure smokeless Model 1892 Winchester High Velocity cartridges in the #2.

 


But they did chamber it for the .32-20WCF which had some pretty toasty factory loads. So not sure why they avoided the .25-20WCF, but not the .32-20WCF?
  

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Marlene
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 182
Joined: Oct 30th, 2015
Re: No.2 Roller strength?
Reply #4 - Feb 10th, 2019 at 9:00pm
Print Post  
DeHaas does list both flavors of 25-20 as offered by the factory. I'm not really familiar with other sources of definitive lists, so take it for what it's worth.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
svartkruttgris#369
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2931
Location: Colorado, USA
Joined: Oct 28th, 2014
Re: No.2 Roller strength?
Reply #5 - Feb 10th, 2019 at 10:24pm
Print Post  
marlinguy wrote on Feb 10th, 2019 at 7:38pm:
BP wrote on Feb 10th, 2019 at 5:34pm:
Something I've found curious about the original #2, who's production ended around 1913, is that Remington never offered it factory chambered in the 25-20 Repeater cartridge that was introduced in the mid-1890'S.
Perhaps the engineers at Remington didn't want to take the chance that someone would use the higher pressure smokeless Model 1892 Winchester High Velocity cartridges in the #2.

 


But they did chamber it for the .32-20WCF which had some pretty toasty factory loads. So not sure why they avoided the .25-20WCF, but not the .32-20WCF?


From my experience with the numbers of old rifles chambered for 25-20 WCF vs 32-20, the 32-20 was far more popular. Rather like 44-40 vs 38-40. Lots and lots of old 32-20s and 44-40s in diverse rifles, most of them well used and often abused. They were and remain very useful cartridges for hunting diverse critters. Every deer I killed could have died about as quickly from an original 44-40 bullet in the same place.

Here in Colorado, 44-40 and 45-70 cases are far more common in old hunting camp locations than any other, save for 30-30 many decades later.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TheGimp
Junior Forum Member
**
Offline



Posts: 35
Joined: Jan 28th, 2019
Re: No.2 Roller strength?
Reply #6 - Feb 10th, 2019 at 10:42pm
Print Post  
Two factors need to be considered, Breach Thrust and Hoop Stress.

They loaded it in 38-40 and 44-40 which have a very large web compared to the action width. I would expect the hoop stress in these cartridges pushed the limits of the action.

In addition, these cartridges with large webs produce large breach thrust.

I looked at chambering one in 32-40 and came to the conclusion that it would be necessary to machine away the top of the breach block partially exposing the rim of the cartridge, so I abandoned the idea.

30-30 Wesson is shorter and will  require less clearance.

As long as you stick to BP or powders that limit you to BP pressures I don't see an issue.
  

Steven

Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they Aren't out to get me!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BP
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 7968
Location: Westside
Joined: Aug 27th, 2006
Re: No.2 Roller strength?
Reply #7 - Feb 11th, 2019 at 12:36am
Print Post  
marlinguy wrote on Feb 10th, 2019 at 7:38pm:
BP wrote on Feb 10th, 2019 at 5:34pm:
Something I've found curious about the original #2, who's production ended around 1913, is that Remington never offered it factory chambered in the 25-20 Repeater cartridge that was introduced in the mid-1890'S.
Perhaps the engineers at Remington didn't want to take the chance that someone would use the higher pressure smokeless Model 1892 Winchester High Velocity cartridges in the #2.

 


But they did chamber it for the .32-20WCF which had some pretty toasty factory loads. So not sure why they avoided the .25-20WCF, but not the .32-20WCF?

The 32-20 was introduced by WRA around 1882, but the first time that I see the Hi-Vel 32-20 version mentioned is in the 1903 WRA catalog, some 21 years later.
    Note: This same 1903 catalog is the first time I see mention of the Hi-Vel 25-20 Repeater, 38WCF and 44WCF loadings as well.
So Remington had two decades to run with the black powder equivalent 32-20 load in the #2, before they might have been required to address concerns about the higher pressure levels introduced by the production of the WRA Hi-Vel smokeless loading.
I've always been curious if the introduction of the WRA Hi-Vel loadings prompted Remington to decide to curtail future plans for continuing long term production of the #2, give themselves a decade to assemble the remaining parts inventory into saleable rifles prior to discontinuing the #2, and also sped up development and introduction of the new Remington Model 25, which was designed to handle the pressures developed by the Hi-Vel 25-20 Repeater and Hi-Vel 32-20 cartridges.
  

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading, the few who learn by observation, and the rest who have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves.
Proud Noodlehead
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
marlinguy
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


Ballards may be weaker,
but they sure are neater!

Posts: 11275
Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 2nd, 2009
Re: No.2 Roller strength?
Reply #8 - Feb 11th, 2019 at 11:13am
Print Post  
It appears that Remington wasn't concerned about those hi velocity cartridges in the #2 in .32-20 since a number of them I've examined in .32-20 were post 1909 rollstamps on their barrels. So I'd expect if the advent of hi velocity ammo was a concern they'd have stopped offering that caliber, or modified the design. Since they did neither, I'd say they were comfortable with status quo.

TheGimp,

I've seen no catalogs or advertisements showing the .44-40 as ever being offered in the #2? The .44 Long RF was offered in it, as was the .44 Long Colt CF.
  

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Chuckster
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 1660
Location: Colorado
Joined: May 15th, 2008
Re: No.2 Roller strength?
Reply #9 - Feb 11th, 2019 at 1:03pm
Print Post  
Not familiar with the No. 2 Roller, but do know Uberti and others redesigned the low-wall for higher pressures.
Don't know what they did to the No. 2 Roller, but suspect more than a material change.
Chuck
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TheGimp
Junior Forum Member
**
Offline



Posts: 35
Joined: Jan 28th, 2019
Re: No.2 Roller strength?
Reply #10 - Feb 11th, 2019 at 9:04pm
Print Post  
Marlinguy,

Yes you are correct I went back and looked and the 38WCF was chambered, but the 44 was not the 44WCF.

Since the base, web and head are the same for the 38WCF and 44WCF, the breach force and hoop stress would still be pretty much the same, no?
  

Steven

Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they Aren't out to get me!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
John Taylor
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 1321
Location: Puyallup, WA
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2006
Re: No.2 Roller strength?
Reply #11 - Feb 12th, 2019 at 10:45am
Print Post  
I have always thought that the #2 would be strong enough for any cartridge that started life as a black powder pistol cartridge.The 50 cal. rimfire navy pistol is a #2 frame The army pistol had a little different grip frame but was still the same size.
  

John Taylor   Machinist/gunsmith
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
marlinguy
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


Ballards may be weaker,
but they sure are neater!

Posts: 11275
Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 2nd, 2009
Re: No.2 Roller strength?
Reply #12 - Feb 12th, 2019 at 10:50am
Print Post  
TheGimp wrote on Feb 11th, 2019 at 9:04pm:
Marlinguy,

Yes you are correct I went back and looked and the 38WCF was chambered, but the 44 was not the 44WCF.

Since the base, web and head are the same for the 38WCF and 44WCF, the breach force and hoop stress would still be pretty much the same, no?


Would guess they would be in equal loads. I think the problem is the .44-40 saw some hotter factory loads once smokeless became popular.
  

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send TopicPrint