lyman 1878?

[marlinman93]

By the way. Here's a Pedersoli with shotgun butt, and set triggers for under $1300. Still need to get sights, but the BIN price isn't bad at all. And another about $20 higher. Better than paying more with Pedersoli sights, and then replacing them with better quality sights.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/763051663

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/765583125

[rfd]

both are listed as new and both are good buys, indeed - go get 'em, OP.

[marlinman93]

both are listed as new and both are good buys, indeed - go get 'em, OP.

I'd personally go with the pistol gripped version myself. But I just like that look and feel better.

[Don McDowell]

I personally would steer clear of the CSA 1875 model. They aren't a bad gun at all, but they seem to have very little following or interest. The 1874 Model Sharps is a much better choice and will hold it's value much better. Not that you're going to ever sell whatever you buy, but it's worth considering when you look.

There are quite a few of those rifles out and about, pretty common amongst the gong circuit in Montana and other places in the high plains.

[marlinman93]

it's their version of the 1877 sharps. it should be a very good gun. what will matter most is the price tag and what will be its primary use.

Finally watched the review videos just because I wanted to see where the "Creedmoor" part was. As usual somebody is being liberal with the use of the "Creedmoor" name, as it's obvious this gun has nothing in common with a Creedmoor rifle. But I noticed something in the video that did disturb me, and that was his use of the set triggers, or actually his not using them. There have been numerous cases of double set trigger gun's triggers being broken by shooting them without setting the triggers. Normally not using set triggers can and will eventually damage them. So my question is does anyone know how these rifle's triggers function, and whether they can be fired just using the front trigger and not eventually break the triggers?

edit-I found my answer! Located a Pedersoli manual online and it states their triggers can be used set or unset. So looks like it's just fine either way!

[rfd]

yes, the pistol grip version.

the "creedmoor" name has been slung about too often for various rifles, and too often it's just wrong.

[sharpsguy]

That Pedersoli "Business" rifle on GB is their Hunter's rifle by another name. It does not have the ladder rear barrel sight that will let you reach 1200 yards if you know how to use it, AND the receiver is sand blasted and left rough before case hardening. The finish on the barrel is rough as well. This is a rifle Pedersoli cut every corner possible in finishing to save a few bucks so they could sell it cheap.

The Cimmaron rifle is a standard Pedersoli Silhouette rifle, and a much better finished firearm. It has the proper barrel rear sight. This rifle is a much better buy.

Having said that, I prefer Shilohs and have several that I shoot. I will also add that I have three Pedersolis and they will shoot with the Shilohs.

[rfd]

the pedi '74 silhouette model is good one that's $1200 in .40-65 and $1650 in .45-70, from DGW. same exact gun, just different caliber/cartridge. i've been shooting the .40-65 with ppb's in its greaser chamber and it's far more accurate than i am. plus, due to the heavier near taperless barrel and smaller bore, the .40-65 is a heavier gun. i'm drop tubing 65.5 grains of swiss 1-1/2f, one .025" card wad, under a BACO Jim393425e slick that drops at 422 grains with 1:20 alloy, seated ,115" into the fire formed starline brass. with the gun's 12lb 5ozs weight, recoil is not an issue. if you could accept the .40 instead of the .45, perhaps this is the gun to get if money is an issue - or even if it ain't.

[sharpsguy]

The 40-65 has a LOT going for it. It's one of the best kept secrets in the BPCR arena. One of my Pedersolis is this model in 40-65, and it is my favorite walking around gun. The caliber is MUCH more effective as a hunting round than I ever expected, easily giving complete pass through penetration on a shoulder shot on a buffalo.

[rfd]

sharpsguy is on the money - that pedi .40-65 has changed my mind about converting it to .45-70 ... she's a Shooter.

[marlinman93]

I'm a big fan of the .40 caliber rifles, and not any I own in old .40 caliber chamberings I don't like! I was without a .40-65 for years, but recently rebarreled an engraved Ballard I own in .40-65 with a Douglas half octagon 30" barrel. I'm also building a rolling Block in the same caliber as I enjoy the .40-65 a lot. I think it's the perfect combination of enough cartridge for longrange shooting, but a little less felt recoil.

[rfd]

plus, you can cram in a lot of powder into the .40-65 case if you paper patch. i can easily get in 68 grains, prolly 70 if need be, currently testing out 66.2 grains.

[Don McDowell]

[QUOTE]Finally watched the review videos just because I wanted to see where the "Creedmoor" part was. As usual somebody is being liberal with the use of the "Creedmoor" name, as it's obvious this gun has nothing in common with a Creedmoor rifle/QUOTE]
I am curious as to what you think a Creedmoor rifle looked like.

[marlinman93]

[QUOTE=Don McDowell;4354714]

Finally watched the review videos just because I wanted to see where the "Creedmoor" part was. As usual somebody is being liberal with the use of the "Creedmoor" name, as it's obvious this gun has nothing in common with a Creedmoor rifle/QUOTE]
I am curious as to what you think a Creedmoor rifle looked like.

It isn't really based on what I think, vs. what the rules said. Creedmoor rifles don't have a specific look, but they do have very specific rules, so guns not fitting within those rules should not be called "Creedmoor" rifles. Set triggers immediately eliminate a gun, as they weren't allowed in Creedmoor longrange matches. Barrels could be shorter than 32", but 32" was the limit, and every gun ever used in recorded matches used that 32" length. Weight could not be over the 10 lb. limit, so guns with a 32" heavy barrel could never be considered a Creedmoor rifle. Most common I've seen or owned were half octagon, but a fair number were full round also. I have only seen one full octagon, and it was extremely light to make the 10 lb. limit. Calibers were originally a .44-77SBN that had the 525 gr. bullet seated way out to stuff 90 grs. of powder in the case. But other calibers were also used as long as they were large bore like .44 or .45 caliber, and high capacity of around 90 grs. or more. My Ballard #7 is a .44-100, but later Marlin changed them to .45-100.
There is no "set" stock type, but obviously a crescent, or schuetzen stock wouldn't work. Too much recoil, and OAL of the guns needed too fit in a box that wouldn't allow a Swiss buttplate, or deep crescent. All I've seen had hard steel or hard rubber shotgun style buttplates.
There were a number of military style Creedmoor rifles made also, as there were specific categories for military matches. A military Creedmoor looked like the run of the mill military rifle, but limited to the same 32" barrel. Most had the addition of a heel base to relocate the tang sight to either tang or heel position, and that was common to both civilian or military Creedmoor models.
This is a true Creedmoor rifle, and meets all the parameters of the rules.


The biggest issue with misuse of the Creedmoor name is people attaching it to what they "think" one should look like, vs. actually knowing the history and rules, so they use the name correctly. Kinda irritates me to see the Creedmoor name attached to calibers like thee newer 6.5 Creedmoor too! It may certainly shoot 800-1000 yds., but it isn't a Creedmoor caliber. It's become a sales gimmick these days.

[Don McDowell]

The thoughts behind Sharps' 1877 model was to lighten the action so more weight could be put into the barrel.
The recoil from those light rifles was the main reason for shooting from the back position. Except for Bodine always preferred the face forward prone.
One of the things I find interesting is the belief of the time,that if you fired a Creedmoor rifle from the left shoulder it would stop the shooters heart. And maybe they had good reason for that, as a 10 lb rifle loaded with 100+ gr of powder and hurling a 500ish grain bullet is something that has to be felt to be truly appreciated.

[marlinman93]

I know my #7 Ballard pictured above is abusive with the factory 535 gr. bullet recommended in the .44-100 case. From what I've been able to find, and glean from talking with John Dutcher, the .44-100 and .45-100 Ballard cartridges were never offered as complete factory loaded rounds. They were sold as unprimed brass only, as shooters of these calibers wanted to load to their own requirements.
I personally load all my old guns with smokeless, but this .44-100 is the exception as the case capacity is so large I just couldn't imagine using smokeless powder in it. So I used 90 grs. of Swiss 1 1/2 and a thick wad with the PP 535 I cast from the mold that came with this rifle. It didn't take more than one shot fired to understand why the writers of the 1870's referred to the .44-100 Ballard as an "abusive caliber"! I did eventually fire about 10 of the 20 rounds I had loaded, but then I simply quit.
John Dutcher told me that all #7 Ballard Longrange rifles had both tang and heel sight bases, but mine is an exception. It was special ordered without the heel base, so the shooter must have not liked the back position that some used. I wish it had the heel base myself, as I'd like to try it. But I wont alter an original gun, so I guess I need to figure out how to reduce the recoil with lighter bullets, and maybe a thicker wad or some safe filler.

[Don McDowell]

As odd as it might sound , paper patch loads will be a bit less felt recoil , than the same load with grease groove when shooting black.

[marlinman93]

As odd as it might sound , paper patch loads will be a bit less felt recoil , than the same load with grease groove when shooting black.

Not odd at all considering paper patch should have less resistance going down the bore.