Remington No 1 Creedmoor

[Kurt]

I would use mine for matches in a heartbeat, but that is not what I had it build for. It is set up as a hunting rifle.
Someday I will maybe put a set of sights on it and shoot some silhouette of long range matches with it. I know it shoots very-very well with barrel sights as it is.
Kurt

[Don McDowell]

There's quite a number of them out there, but the only folks that shoot them regularly in matches are Chip Mate and myself, that I'm aware of.

[Fogman01]

I would shoot the rolling block at matches if accuracy from an original barrel permits. One rolling block I am looking at is a 44-77 BN (44 S stamped on the barrel) and the other is supposed to be a 44-100 according to the dealer. Does anyone know about brass for a 44-100 2 7/16? This is a bottleneck cartridge as shown in Roy Marcot's book Remington Rolling Block p. 155. I would chamber cast of course. Yes, the book arrived today and it is very helpful.

[desert deuce]

You can spend many hours pouring over Roy's book on Rollers. Great photography and descriptions.

Now, Bruce-Don-Kurt.........let me offer a little something as you wax poetic over the 44-77 cartridge for long range target applications.

Louis Lobdel Hepburn was both a long range target shooter and a Remington employee. He was instrumental in providing accurate rolling block 44 S rifles for the U.S. Team and for other prominent shooters of the day including those that shot for Remington, as in Rolling Block Rifles in lighter calibers for target work.

In those combined pursuits he designed and developed a rifle primarily for long range target work in the #3 Remington also called by his name Hepburn. For this rifle that bore his name Remington and Hepburn developed improved long range cartridges for the #3 designated as 44 2.4 44-90 Remington Straight and 44 2.6 44-100 Remington Straight. These were specifically designed for Long Range Target Competition.

Is it reasonable to assume that those two improved cartridges were developed to improve the performance of existing chamberings IE the 44 S series? And, if so that they proved to be superior to their predecessors? And, this was determined approximately 130 years ago?

OK, so the 44 S series loaded cartridge appeals esthetically. Do you go to a rifle match to look cool or to shoot? Check the performance while you are making your selection for the rifle & cartridge you take to a long range match to do well.

[Kurt]

Zack.

The shooters back 130 years ago are doing the same thing shooters have been doing now days going back 30 years or so developing what works best in the BP matches since the interest started again. When you get right down to it, looking at the shot placement on the targets back in the 1870's and what you have seen in the last few years I think the shooters now days are doing better then they did back then.
No I don't go to matches shooting the calibers I shoot to look cool, I shoot what works to win the match. I don't care if it is in the .22 caliber through the .50-90-2.5. I reach for the rifle to match the conditions of the match.
I shoot different .44 calibers and I have done OK using them at long range shooting. I don't have a .44-2.4 straight but I do shoot the .44-2.5 Ballard and the .44-2.6 straight, not in a Remington but in the 74 Sharps and .44-1/2 Stevens and they have placed me pretty high at the matches out to 1000 yards. But like I mentioned, I would use the .44-77 because it works.
But when you get right down to it, my .44-90/2-5/8 Bn does not take the back seat to any I mentioned.
Kurt

[Old Jim]

Very informative postings, about the rollers and other actions.

As one of my favorite actions , my 45 caliber roller with a 1 x 18 Badger, 30" long has grown to be very reliable rifle.
Keep the posts comin',

Jim

[Don McDowell]

You can spend many hours pouring over Roy's book on Rollers. Great photography and descriptions.

Now, Bruce-Don-Kurt.........let me offer a little something as you wax poetic over the 44-77 cartridge for long range target applications.

Louis Lobdel Hepburn was both a long range target shooter and a Remington employee. He was instrumental in providing accurate rolling block 44 S rifles for the U.S. Team and for other prominent shooters of the day including those that shot for Remington, as in Rolling Block Rifles in lighter calibers for target work.

In those combined pursuits he designed and developed a rifle primarily for long range target work in the #3 Remington also called by his name Hepburn. For this rifle that bore his name Remington and Hepburn developed improved long range cartridges for the #3 designated as 44 2.4 44-90 Remington Straight and 44 2.6 44-100 Remington Straight. These were specifically designed for Long Range Target Competition.

Is it reasonable to assume that those two improved cartridges were developed to improve the performance of existing chamberings IE the 44 S series? And, if so that they proved to be superior to their predecessors? And, this was determined approximately 130 years ago?

OK, so the 44 S series loaded cartridge appeals esthetically. Do you go to a rifle match to look cool or to shoot? Check the performance while you are making your selection for the rifle & cartridge you take to a long range match to do well.

They surely started out with the 44-77, then like today, while the lowly 30-06 will do anything needing done with a rifle ( well actually a 30-30 will too) there are some that just absolutely feel the need for more horsepower, or they just simply think more testosterone oozes out when the close their eyes, and yank the trigger...
Any how it seems as tho the bottlenecks get a bad rap from heavy recoil... I've not found that to be a problem. Then I'm reminded of a modern shooter that had a 44-90 bn, complained it kicked to much, rebarreled the rifle and chambered to 44-77, then decided Jamison brass was cheap crap, because he was splitting cases trying to triple compress so he could get 90 gr. of powder in the case....
Match the bullet length to the rifling twist, go forth and shoot good scores..

[desert deuce]

I'll let Rockslinger and Sir Bruce chime in.

[Kurt]

Zack,

What bullet do you use in your 16 and 17 ROT .44's?

[bruce moulds]

sir bruce de moulds chiming in.
I have no experience with 44s or bottleneck cartridges.
I find the 40/90 bn most attractive to look at and the 44/77 even more so.
my first bpcr which I still own was a 45/2.4" on a flatspring highwall.
with no knowledge at all of this discipline, that seemed a good compromise for sil and long range.
it proved to be a very accurate rifle, but would have been more suited as a 15 lb rifle rather than the sil wt that it is, and used purely for long range.
having graduated to pp bullets, it would also be better with a tight pp chamber and a 4 degree transition.
it just shoots lights out with a 0.446 bullet patched to 0.451 and breech seated, so the 45 degree transition is not really a problem.
however the crunch is that many years shooting hard kicking light rifles has left me with an inherent flich that I need to constantly fight to subdue.
I have found that a fast twist 40 using 83 to 85 gns of powder and a long slippery bullet comes close to matching the 45 for long range and I can shoot it better for prolonged periods.
call it an old man's whim.
however there is always the call to try the impossible, and that is shoot a bn cartridge well. some of us just need a challenge because we are nutcases.
I just wondered if the 44/77 might have long range capability, as you do being an old man dreaming.
in the real world, the 44/2.6 or 2.5 straight is the way to go with pp bullets seated 1/10" in the case or breech seated.
if you can afford lots of rifles to try things might be different.
it would also require a fastish twist to deliver a min wt bullet of 520 gns.
back to plan A and pursue a 40/85 ballard with a 12" twist weighing 15 lb and a 32" barrel so the sight radius will allow a point to equal an actual moa.
keep safe,
bruce.