Big Caliber Sharps Inaccurate?

[willdixon]

Hi guys -

I've been a life-long hunter, target shooter, and plinker since my dad gave me my first rifle - a Stevens Favorite - back when I was four. When I went through Parris Island as a Marine Recruit during the Korean War, my scores on the rifle range were so high they offered to permanently assign me to the US Marine Corps Rifle team, which - being a gung ho moron - I turned down for grunt work.

But I'm brand new and dumb about Sharps. Haven't even held one in my hands. So please forgive my stupidity.

But I'm fixin to buy one, primarily for long range target competition and plinking, and I'm reading everything I can to help me make an informed decision on WHICH Sharps model to buy.

And I just bumped into this quote on the Axtell web site, "The big calibers such as 45/110, 120 and 140 are not recommended. They are not very accurate. . . ."

Now to question any Sharps MANUFACTURER is like questioning GOD - and I ain't gonna' do that!

But do you 45/110 guys out there think your rifles are not accurate? 50/90?

Are you gonna' shatter my dream, and tell me Quigly was a dummy with his 45/110?

Any really first-hand input would be greatly appreciated!

[MT Chambers]

Billy Dixon...you of all people should know about the accuracy of a 50/90 Sharps...I've never used a 45/110 but my C. Sharps '74 in 50/90 is deadly accurate, as is my C. Sharps '85, I believe it is the Badger Barrel they come with and the work I put into reloading the ammo.

[wonderwolf]

If I remember right from some reading also there is little gain in velocity with the bigger cartridges as well. I want to say it is one of Paul Matthews books but I'm not 100% sure on that.

I've only shot with my 45-70 though sorry :Fire:

[45 2.1]

Call Buffalo Arms and talk to Dave Gullo, the owner and U.S. team member in the world BP long range matches. A 45-90 would be a good choice.

[Boz330]

The only problem that might prompt that sort of responce might be the extra fouling that goes along with shooting that much powder. There are ways of taking care of that though. They shoot those things out to 1200yd so they can't be that inaccurate.

Bob

[HABCAN]

My Shiloh .50-140, when I had it, was as deadly as I was capable of shooting it, and my pal's .45-120 would shoot MOA off the bench with his special loads.

P.I. taught well, didn't they Bill? 'Course, back then, they issued us real rifles, LOL!

[e15cap]

I think that you will find that most everyone will advise you to get your first BPCR in 45-70. When I was looking I asked Steve Garbe and Carmen Axtel, and both said that the 45-70 was the easiest to start with. The larger calibers will shoot very well, but, are a little more fussy and have no advantage at siloheutte ranges.
In my opinion, Axtel makes the finest Sharps rifles on the market. Mine is very accurate and a joy to look at. Best Roger

[405]

Don't know the exact quote you were referring to but may have something to do with either "shooter" accuracy with the heavier recoil of the bigger cartridges or something to do with "long charge column" cartridge internal ballistics.

I've found the larger the bore diameter the easier it is to produce an accurate lead bullet load... may have something to do with the ratio between the surface area and the mass of the projectile. Generally the ratio increases as diameter decreases.

My ideas anyway..... the Molly caveat/test :confused:

[Freightman]

Lets see with a name like Will (Billy) Dixon I think it would be totally appropriate for you to have a "BIG 50" that name is "Legend" in the Texas Panhandle, in fact a very large number of his descendants and perceived descendants still live in Borger 18 miles SW of Adobe Walls where he made the shot that discouraged the Comanche and opened the Panhandle up for settlement.

[Gussy]

Any sharps cal can be made to shoot well. The larger ones are much harder. It is not good to start with one. I did. Big mistake. Way to much fouling to easily control, much recoil. Unless you are lucky, a lot harder to work up a load for. Looking back, I should have gotten a 45-90. I know most will say 45-70 and there are a lot of good points in that. I like long range shooting and I only shoot black powder.

If you are going to shoot only black powder, I still say 45-90. It will do anything a 45-70 will do and better at longer ranges. If you are going to shoot short range and/or use smokeless, buy a 45-70. If you are going to shoot short range and/or smokeless and are recoil sensitive a 38-55 is a really great choice.

I have shot a 45-70 and a 38-55 to 1000 yds with black powder. They will both do very well with the right powder and bullet. I still like a 90 better, mainly because I don't have to put 3 pounds in a 2 pound bag.
Gus

[Don McDowell]

No those big cartridges are not inaccurate. They are expensive to get set up with.
They can be finicky, but not to hard to overcome, the recoil can be really punishing, but inaccuracy isn't one of the problems with them.
They are not for folks that can't bring themselves to load with blackpowder. Smokeless in those big cases is just a horrific incident waiting to happen.
Watch for the results from the American Cup Creedmore in Phoenix the end of this week. You can bet folks like Wasserburger, Terry and others will turn up some pretty good scores at 1000 yds with their 45-110's.

[freedom475]

Had a 45-120, fouling was a major issue! You could here the boolits tumbling to the target. It took some work, but finally figured out a couple loads for it.
One was to use a softer boolit and to reduce the case capacity with a few felt wads.
The other way was to bump the BP with 10gr. of Unique, this load was amazing, you could cover 5 rounds with a dime at 100yrds. The barrel would stay clean without fouling, and I think for the long range paper matches they still allow the duplex loads.

Recoil was never an issue with the heavy Quigley.

[kirb]

If you are not recoil shy I think the big guns are great. Components are more costly but the brass seems to have a pretty good life lead, will be the same in the .45 cal. just more powder.

Kirb

[waksupi]

I've known Carmen Axtell, for more years than she would care for me to mention. I'd listen to her, as she is a real competitive shooter.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b59f573156

If the above link is still active, it shows Dave Gullo doing a bit of target practice.

I really wouldn't go over .45-90, with .45-70 being my choice, because I'm cheap, and so is the brass. Keep in mind if you go to a long weekend shoot, you may fire 300+ rounds. Bigger chamberings can wear on you.

[EDK]

The logical choice is a 45/70. I have a 50/90 SHILOH SHARPS. I'll buy the 45/70 in a year or two.

Go over to shilohrifle.com/forums and read for a couple of days. The super long range guys like Kenny Wasserberger (the one mile shoot!) are using 45/90s, etc. They will cheerfully tell you everything you need to know...and a whole lot more!

The 45/70 has the most available boolit moulds, wads, casings, etc. It will work well and has a better re-sale value when you decide to get something bigger...or have other interests.

YOU NEED a copy of Mike Venturino's SHOOTING BUFFALO RIFLES OF THE OLD WEST. Another good one is Randolph Wright's LOADING AND SHOOTING PAPER PATCH BULLLETS, A BEGINNERS GUIDE. Wright has a lot of info on reloading that also applies to grease groove boolits.

My take on manufacturers is strictly from my experience in looking at the guns and talking to the manufacturers...all good people! SHILOH has an extensive web site, rabid fans and an excellent product. C. SHARPS needs to do better public relations with their prospective clients and web site. AXTELL makes a great 1877 SHARPS, but they're high end price....and worth every nickle! The imports have their own following. There are horror stories on any make, domestic or imported. I'll buy another SHILOH and maybe Santa will bring me an AXTELL, but I ain't holding my breath....An MVA telescope in addition to the long range sights please.

And last, my take is that all the calibers can be accurate in a well made gun with equally good ammunition. The "big boys" will knock you around some. AND we all know what heavy recoil causes. "It's the nut behind the butt" flinching!

:cbpour::redneck:

[Don McDowell]

To be on the firing line and watch what folks like Wasserburger, Terry, Sage, Youngberg , etal can do with those 45110's is sometimes just simply amazing, and certainly puts the end to any doubt about whether or not those big cartridges can be accurate. Just watch those guys shoot groups at 1000 yds that folks with their smokeless loaded 45-70 handi rifles would die for at a 1/4 the distance.
The 45120 I messed around with 30 years ago was accurate enough, but the recoil was heavy and would sure wear on you after a few rounds. I fired a 50140 once and that's all I wanted of that.
Starting out in BPCR a 45-70 makes alot of sense, but if a person is dedicated enought theres certainly nothing wrong with jumping in with the longer cases either.

[kodiak1]

EDK I"m a thinking Kenny totes a 45-110 and has a lot of practice with it.
The hardest part with the bigger cartridges is the patients it takes to find out what works and it can be one roller coaster of a mind game. There are so many variables with the black powder. Just changing primers can throw your whole system into a tail spin or make something bad become pretty decent.
What I have found is the 45-70 and the 50-90 seem to be alot more forgiving when loading them, the longer that brass gets the more finicky the loads get.
It is a lot more fun once the gun is shooting good and consistent for you.

Good luck and have fun Ken

[Nardoo]

I have a 45/70 and a 45/90 and they are dead easy to load for. The Sharps 45/90 will shoot the Saeco 485 grain slug into ridiculously small groups using a full case of FFg. The 45/70 will too and I would love to try something bigger.

Just get a Sharps and try it. You will be so happy shooting it, it will take 12 months before you even start thinking about accuracy.

Nardoo

[45 2.1]

Just watch those guys shoot groups at 1000 yds that folks with their smokeless loaded 45-70 handi rifles would die for at a 1/4 the distance.

Now smokeless isn't that inaccurate, that is if you know what your doing. Just what kind of thousand yard groups do these guys shoot? It had better be between 3" to 6" for your statement to be good.

[StrawHat]

First off, welcome to the forum, a whole bunch of knowledge is available here.

I use several cartridges for plinking, shooting and hunting.

I don't compete anymore, not enough time to do it properly.

What I have found is with black powder, the 45-70 is not that hard a cartridge to load for to get acceptable hunting accuracy.

But an even easier cartridge to load for, again with black powder, is the 50-70. It seems no matter what I do with the load, minute of bucket is easily attainable out to +/- 200 yards.

But for really long range work, check out this write up

http://www.researchpress.co.uk/targets/ballistics/sandyhook.htm

I understand that hunting accuracy and what the competitors are seeking are galaxies apart, but you will determine what is acceptable to you.

I would suggest you consider either one of the __-70 loads.

I would also add that the smaller I go, caliber wise, the harder it is for me to work up usable loads with black powder. My 22 WCF is killing me!

Good luck

[DonH]

I have a friend who is a life long hunter, and High Power rifle competitor including time spent on both USMC and Army teams. He had two .45-120 Shiloh rifles he bought for hunting. A couple of years back he got involved in silhouette shooting. His rifles were plenty accurate but recoil would wear him out before the end of a match. Both big .45s are now gone, replaced with a .45-70 Shiloh.
I once was spotter for a gent shooting a .45-100 at silhouette. That rifle with his load was AMAZINGLY accurate but by the end of the match he really DID NOT want to pull the trigger. Neitherr of these shooters are recoil sensitive, nor am I, but the level of recoil which is OK for a few shots is quite another thing over 60-70 shots. My 12 pound .45-70 with 500-540 gr bullets is tiring enough over that many shots. In the end it is how long can you can shoot the rifle accurately. For huntinf, not a problem but for match shooting...?

A big struggle I have seen guys have with the big cases is that it is difficult to load them down. With BP you have to use a filler over the powder to avoid having airspace in the case. With smokeless it is a matter of inding the right powder for that big case and powder positioning in the case. Both scenarios present problems in finding realy accurate loads. If you are new to this game buy whatever you want but life will be easier if you start with a smaller case like 2.4" max.

[Don McDowell]

Now smokeless isn't that inaccurate, that is if you know what your doing. Just what kind of thousand yard groups do these guys shoot? It had better be between 3" to 6" for your statement to be good.

:roll:Never said smokeless wasn't accurate.[smilie=1: Shoot some of the stuff my self.
Most of those guys that end up winning those long range matches are shooting moa type groups at ranges from 6-1000 yds. Many of them shoot 45-90's,100's, and 110's, so the bit about big ones being inaccurate just simply is flat wrong.
If you can't get a 12 inch group on a regular basis at 1000 then its best you don't count on winning the big prize when you get into the long range stuff. Because those boys that win those matches have built the loads that are capable of it, and practice enough to be able to put those loads to good use.
Most of the time when you see folks braggin on this bullet or that they're shooting smokeless loads in their 4570 handirifles with won't stay stable much past 500 yds, let alone 1000.

[LIMPINGJ]

I bought a Shiloh 45-110 for my first Sharps. After reading the Shiloh forum for several weeks and talking with Bill Bagwell the Goex public relations guy I went ahead and got the 45-110. With Bill being only a couple hours drive from me he invited me over to get me started. Kenny on the Shiloh site has been generous with his experience also. Short story is with their help I have a rifle that is more accurate than I will ever be at my age, does not lead, is easy to clean, and will kill anything I will ever be able to afford to hunt very dead.

[Bullshop]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/bullshop/Binder1.jpg

[Freightman]

Don't need expansion on a .50 already expanded!

[Ammohouse]

I went with the 45-70 and have enjoyed it for years!
I don't have a Shiloh yet...YET!
I went with a Pedersoli, I haven't been let down either. Its very good shooting gun and the round doesn't kill you from alot of shooting.
All that being said........I WANT A BIG 50!!!!!!!!
I'm not sure how much I would shoot it....but I WANT ONE!!!

[NickSS]

I have owned sharps rifles in about six different calibers. I started with a 45-70 then went to a 45-90. I played with a 45-2 7/8" (45-110) and a 45-3 1/4" (45-120) The later two calibers are good hunting rounds and you can get them to shoot well but for long strings of shots you shoot in competition they will wear you out. That is why buffallo hunters bought rifles weighing 15 to 18 pounds so their shoulders could stand up to the punishment. The smaller 40 calibers and 38 calibers are much less punishing but you really need a minimum of a 40-65 for metalic silhouettes and they rund out of gas at 600 yards. The best all around using round is the 45-70 however, the 45-90 offers an edge for longer ranges. The extra 10 to 15 gr of powder you can fit into them gives you about 100 to 150 fps more velocity which works a bit better at ranges over 600 yards. Howver, I have shot one match at 1200 yards and several at 1000 yards with a 45-70 and did quite well. Remember one thing just about all the long range target rifles made in the late 1800s were chambered for either the 44-100, 45-90, or the 45-100. None were chambered for longer cartridges.

[EDK]

As I said, I have a 50/90. There are good reasons for a 45/70 for general useage, all listed previously. The 45/90, etc. are somewhat more specialized, but good for their intended purposes.

I bought a 50/90 because I've always wanted a BIG 50. There are some drawbacks compared to the 45/70, but the 50 is what I wanted for my first SHARPS. I don't compete except for going to the QUIGLEY SHOOT...I drive 1600+ miles to shoot some long range and enjoy like minded folks and some of the prettiest country on God's green earth....and then wait for next year. Any one living within driving distance ought to go there at least once.

You need a heavy rifle for the heavy recoil calibers. What I read in GETTING A STAND, etc. mentions a lot of 16 pound 50s and other calibers. BUT there's a weight limit for formal silhouette competition; there isn't at QUIGLEY, but you do have to shoot it off-hand for one stage.

Just my opinion....See you in Forsyth the week before Fathers Day

:cbpour::redneck::Fire:

[Bullshop]

EDK
I am a BIG fan of the 50/90 for hunting. I have had several and have seen its effectiveness on animals the size of moose. Dont have one right now but always seem to be looking for one. I do have a 50/110 on an 1886 though.
What I thought was interesting in that book was the records kept by the hunters showing # of shots per # of kills per stand. Old white Jim showed nearly a 1 to 1 ratio with the big 50 and nothing else was even close. Very impresive!
BIC/BS

[WBH]

I have 45-70, 45-90, 50-70 and 50-90. Some in RB's and some in Sharps. The longer cartridges can be a bit more finicky, but still enjoyable to shoot once mastered.

My Big Fifty weighs 16 pounds and is as pleasurable to shoot as the smaller ones.

I would start off with a 45-70 and learn the BP game and master that caliber first. It will never let you down from 405-550 grain pills, it's hard to beat. Cheap brass, dies, and powder consumption.

They all can be MOA guns.........but I would start there.

[Don McDowell]

Haven't seen all the scores etc from the Creedmore shoot in Phoenix this past weekend, but preliminary reports indicate , one class one by a 45-90, one by 45110 and one by 45100.[smilie=1: So much for the big cartridges being inaccurate.:roll::mrgreen:

[willdixon]

Hi e1cap -

I wasn't notified of your reply to me, and many of the others, so I apologize for not answering sooner.

But, yes, I agree about the 45/70. But I bought and loaded my first one in 1948, and think it's time now for me to move up a bit.

Thank you very much.
Gene

[willdixon]

Hi WBH -

You recommended I start with a 45/70, and I KNOW that's good advice. And I thank you for it. But I bought and loaded my first 45/70 back in 1946 or 1947. So I think I deserve to move up a notch now. Anyway, I just plain WANT A BIG 50 RIGHT OR WRONG, so I'm gonna' get one.

Thanks again for your help.

Gene

[xtimberman]

Some caliber/powder charge combinations just seem to work better than others. Look at results of some of the 19th century matches and the cartridges fired by the fellows who won time-after-time. Certain cartridges stand out as being favored by the target shooters of the day, and I don't recall any of the 3 1/2" rounds in .45 or .50 as being consistent winners. Target shooters are a finicky lot and gravitate to all things that increase accuracy. That being said, most any rifle with a perfect bore can be made to shoot well with enough fiddling.

When talk comes up about the Big 50, the humble .50-70 Govt. is rarely mentioned. Most talk is about the .50-90 and .50-140. I have had several .50-70s over the years, and all were wonderfully accurate - a Trapdoor, a Rolling Block, and an early NY-made Shiloh Sharps. Once I determined the approximate range, I could always quickly get the rainbow trajectory figured out and put the bullet on target.

Also, the .50-70 kicks plenty hard in a 10-11# rifle and will satisfy the heavy-recoiling ordnance need.

xtm

[45nut]

Hi e1cap -

I wasn't notified of your reply to me, and many of the others, so I apologize for not answering sooner.

But, yes, I agree about the 45/70. But I bought and loaded my first one in 1948, and think it's time now for me to move up a bit.

Thank you very much.
Gene

Gene, if you aren't getting notifications you have two possibilities:
A: Your email address here does not match the one you are checking.

B: Your email is filtered to your junk mail or spam folder by your software or that of your ISP.

:coffee:

[willdixon]

WOW, WOW, WOW! Have you guys read the report BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR IN 1880 about the government marksman shooting a SIX FOOT DIAMETER BULLS EYE AT TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED YARDS?! WITH A "45-70 Allin-Springfield Model 1873 Army rifle"?

THEN HE WENT ON FOR ANOTHER BULLS EYE AT 3,200 TARDS!

HERE'S PART OF THE SECRETARY'S REPORT:

"The firing was done by Mr. R.T. Hare of Springfield Armory who has the enviable distinction, so far as is known, of being the only person in the world who has hit the 'Bull's-Eye' six feet in diameter at 2,500 yards with three different rifles, and who has ever fired at and hit so small a target as that described in this report at 3,200 yards.

In comparison with this, all other so-called 'long range firing' pales into insignificance. The gun was held under the arm, a muzzle rest only being used."

READ IT! http://www.researchpress.co.uk/targets/ballistics/sandyhook.htm

Gene

[windwalker]

I have a 45/70 and a 45/90 and they are dead easy to load for. The Sharps 45/90 will shoot the Saeco 485 grain slug into ridiculously small groups using a full case of FFg. The 45/70 will too and I would love to try something bigger.

Just get a Sharps and try it. You will be so happy shooting it, it will take 12 months before you even start thinking about accuracy.

Nardoo
Nardoo why dont you try the lee 5003r bullet, i shoot it in my h&r buff classic it is a very accurate bullet i even fit a gascheck to them,mine cast out at .459 and 512 grn with a 20 to 1 mix.heres some pics.
bernie:-D
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y236/windwalker_au/101_0138.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y236/windwalker_au/101_0133.jpg

[hydraulic]

I read somewhere that a bullseye at 1000 yds at Creedmore, .44-77 & .44-90 cartridges, would be a clean miss if the target was moved 10 feet forward or backward. Wasn't the soldier who made those long range trapdoor scores Feeman Bull?

[hydraulic]

I mean Freeman Bull.

[405]

WOW, WOW, WOW! Have you guys read the report BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR IN 1880 about the government marksman shooting a SIX FOOT DIAMETER BULLS EYE AT TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED YARDS?! WITH A "45-70 Allin-Springfield Model 1873 Army rifle"?

THEN HE WENT ON FOR ANOTHER BULLS EYE AT 3,200 TARDS!

HERE'S PART OF THE SECRETARY'S REPORT:

"The firing was done by Mr. R.T. Hare of Springfield Armory who has the enviable distinction, so far as is known, of being the only person in the world who has hit the 'Bull's-Eye' six feet in diameter at 2,500 yards with three different rifles, and who has ever fired at and hit so small a target as that described in this report at 3,200 yards.

In comparison with this, all other so-called 'long range firing' pales into insignificance. The gun was held under the arm, a muzzle rest only being used."



READ IT! http://www.researchpress.co.uk/targets/ballistics/sandyhook.htm

Gene

I don't know about the comparative accuracy of all the testing- the US was trying to increase the range and effectiveness of volley fire on the battlefield. That was one of the reasons the US service cart. in 45-70 phased from 405gr to 500gr bullets. But in any case you now know what folks are talking about when they quote or reference the "Sandy Hook Trials"

[willdixon]

You're talking about a different shooting contest, Hydraulic.

I was talking about Mr. H. T. Hare, shooting bulls' eyes at 2500 and 3200 yards, with his 45/70, at Sandy Hook in 1879. But you're apparently speaking of some bulls' eye at Creedmore, at 1000 yards in 1874.

One of the Irishmen at Creedmore, by the way, plugged FIFTEEN CONSECUTIVE BULLS' EYES IN FIFTEEN SHOTS, at a 1000 yards - with his .461 muzzle loader, and the bulls' eye was only 36" in diameter!

Wow! I need to practice more!

Gene

[Don McDowell]

Will, this will get you into a 5090 ready to go at a real reasonable price
http://www.bpcr.net/index-a.htm

[mcassill6933]

My one BPCR is a Shiloh #1 in 50-90, set up for hunting with plain open sights. Load with 1 1/2 Swiss (enough to get 1/4" compression with a .030 card wad) under a 650 grain flat-nosed cruise missile out of a Steve Brooks mold, lubed by hand with DGL. Primer I have settled on is the Federal 215. With that combo I am easily shooting 2 MOA; maybe better if I could get the light right on that silver front blade. :-/ Using a blow tube between shots it will stay on small gongs all day. Maybe someday I will take it to Montana; in the meantime it is a fun plinker/hunting rifle.
Mark

[willdixon]

Hi Mark -

We used to carbon our German silver front sight blades with the flame from a match or Zippo lighter. Plus, they used to make a tiny spray can of flat black gunk made just for silver front sights. You blacken the blade for bright sunlight, then wipe it off in the evening. Would any of these help your problem at all?

[John Boy]

Don't believe a 45-70 was the caliber that flew 3200yds at Sandy Hook ...
The rifles tested included a special "long range" Springfield chambered for a 2.4-inch shell instead of the standard 2.1-inch case. The 2.4-inch case held 80 grains of black powder behind the new prototype 500-grain lead bullet.

[willdixon]

Hi John Boy -

You're probably correct, John Boy, but who cares - you've got to read the rest of the government report.

The report is ambiguous, but it could be inferred shooter Hare ONLY hit the bullseye with the 45/70 out at 2,500 yards, and not at the 3,200 yards, but how many of us have hit six foot targets at 2,500 yards with a 45/70?.

There were THREE rifles fired in the tests. One was a "long range" Springfield 45/2.4 with 80 grains of powder and a 500 grain bullet. The second rifle was standard N-1873 Springfield 45/70, with a 405 bullet. The third rifle was a British Martini-Henry 45-85-480.

On the six-foot 2,500 yard target, Hare hit it five times with the 45/70 service load, once with the Martini-Henry and four times with the long range Springfield.

But - even if you are correct - HARE STILL HIT A SIX FOOT BULL'S EYE AT 2,500 YARDS - REPEATEDLY - WITH ALL THREE RIFLES, AND THAT IS NOTHING SHORT OF UTTERLY SPECTACULAR. YET HE ALSO DID HIT HIS TARGET OUT AT 3,200 YARDS WITH THE LONG RANGE SPRINGFIELD FOUR TIMES; MISSED WITH THE MARTINI, AND THE REPORT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY GIVE THE RESULTS OF THE 45/70 AT THAT RANGE.