Sure shot wrote on Feb 4
th, 2024 at 7:40pm:
Do the #5's have a larger threaded barrel shank than the #1's? I believe the #5 1897 actions have a sliding extractor do they not?
Barrel shank #1 is .975", #5 is 1.055". Yes, the 1897 patent rifles have a sliding extractor.
Don't make too much about the #5 being stronger because of larger barrel and thicker receiver.
In reality, the original barrel size of .975" is more than adequate with modern barrel steel. And, the receiver thickness around the barrel tenon isn't all that relevant; it's there to hold the barrel, not to hold in the pressure; that's the barrels job. The #5 is also not symetrically thicker, so with hoop stress, a lot of the thicker receiver ring doesn't count anyway.
The weak point of the rolling block is twofold: One, it springs because of play and give in the breechblock/hammer assembly, and causes brass to stretch and give. Two, it doesn't handle leaking gases well; which is particularly a problem with an action that allows brass to stretch and separate. It routes leaking gases back into the shooters face, and if the primer ruptures, it can also blow the firing pin back and out, and/or blow the hammer back and allow the block to open; blowing gases and the ejected cartridge into the shooters face.
It's a perfectly safe and acceptable action, but needs to be held to less than about 35,000 psi in 30-30 size head cases, and 28,000 psi in .45-70 size cases.
There's a lot of people that have chambered high pressure rounds in one, and lived to tell about it. The worst one I've seen was in 7mm mag. But, it's not smart to do so. It is literally an accident waiting to happen.