Accuracy of the sharps rifles and skill of the hunters in 1874

[MichaelR]

Missionary
Yes, he shot at a group of 7 mounted warriors. I also read an account that there’s a rock outcrop on the bluff that they shot at betting who could hit it, which accounts for having an elevation setting for the sights. Still a very lucky shot even for a skilled shooter.

[Lead pot]

TNX. John. I will check the mould but I will most likely never shoot a GG in this rifle.
hope to take some shots at Homer at Ridgeway with you some time.

[Lead pot]

John.

That is a good bullet design.
I use the 457-121 that is just like it for the 95 Marlin .45-70. I had tom clone it so it's the proper size for the .45-70 diameter.

I hope someday Tom will make an elliptical with a ball nose. I have several of his moulds in brass and iron for the lever rifles.
Very good quality moulds.

[Rany A]

The buffalo hunters cast their bullets over an open fire often from pure lead. Not a recipe for match grade bullets. Most of the sharps hunting bullets were about 1.1” long and very blunt. They did not weigh their powder charges, they scooped them with a measure out of a keg of powder. They they used tallow hardened in the bottom of a frying pan to make lube wads to allow multiple shots to be fired without fouling control. Their loading tools were very limited and crude compared to todays tools. My research indicates that they probably got about 4 MOA accuracy. Plenty good to be reliable to 400 yards and maybe more on buffalo. I have shot man sized targets at 1200 yards, measured. To think that a hunter using a dirty rifle to engage a man at an unknown distance around 1300 yards distance is laughable. Yes, Billy Dixon made the shot. Used a borrowed rifle that had a blade front and a rear ladder sight on the barrel. By luck he got the elevation correct but he had some help of the wind drift/spin drift problem. He shot at seven warriors seated on horses in a line giving him a lot of latitude on windage. Billy Dixon himself says it was just a lucky shot.

I would have to disagree with some of this. First off none of this is rocket science. Black powder cartridge rifles are very forgiving about varying bullet weights and powder charges with little or no effects on “very good” accuracy. You can’t compare them side to side with smokeless. For example you can take a batch of bullets with a 3 grain spread, use a homemade powder scoop (which is more accurate than you give credit), load 10 rounds and have them shoots 10 shot 3/4” group at 100yds. I know because I’ve seen it done.

Now I shoot 40-65 and 38-55 mostly but load quite a bit of 45-70 for friends. I prefer better quality control than that, but I do know a couple folks that are regularly in the winner circles who do not waste much time with those details. I think the big difference is people like us do this for fun, Buffalo hunters did it to make a living, they learned what worked and what didn’t.

[MichaelR]

Randy
If it’s your assertion that even ammunition loaded under such primitive conditions should be more accurate than 4 MOA, I would have to agree. But even quality ammunition is only part of the equation for good accuracy. The vast majority of BPCR shooters today are target shooters and if you shot the buffalo hunters ammunition using fouling management for each shot, I am sure that the accuracy would be closer to 2 MOA. But the buffalo hunters did not use blow tubes or wipe for each shot. I do not know how many shots they expected to be able make before accuracy suffered enough to warrant cleaning the bore but my experience with modern powders is about 17 before the barrel fouls out. Starting with a clean barrel, the first 3 to 5 shots are normally under 2 MOA but start to open up after that. I expect my hunting loads to make 2 1/2 MOA at 350 yards for 10 shots but if I try to fire more from the fouled bore the groups open up.

[sharps4590]

Yes, 1 mile is 1760 yards.

I have a Shiloh, #1 Sporter in cal. 40-70. I have, on very good days when all the red gods were smiling on me and my eyes were working good, shot MOA out to 600 yards with it. That isn't every group but that rifle is quite consistent...if only the shooter were, day to day.

It's great fun and a great education to shoot those distances with those rifles. Just wish I still had my two 500 yard ranges out my back door....

[John in PA]

I just gotta say, that highly-figured buttstock looks good enough to eat!! Absolutely gorgeous!!

[Lead pot]

John,

If your talking about the rifle on post 11, thank you, it's my favorite rifle and caliber.

Kurt

[indian joe]

Yes, 1 mile is 1760 yards.

I have a Shiloh, #1 Sporter in cal. 40-70. I have, on very good days when all the red gods were smiling on me and my eyes were working good, shot MOA out to 600 yards with it. That isn't every group but that rifle is quite consistent...if only the shooter were, day to day.

It's great fun and a great education to shoot those distances with those rifles. Just wish I still had my two 500 yard ranges out my back door....

I dont think the rifle's ability to group at long range is the primary problem - these ultra long range shots are lob shots - kinda like calling in mortar fire - you fellers have done the math - without the ability to accurately estimate range down to ten yards or so - a first shot hit is gonna be an absolute fluke at 1550 yards - and if you cant see the fall of shot to walk it in good luck gettin there at all.

[omgb]

Kenny is correct, the author is spinning fiction. I am a history teacher with an emphasis on mid to late 18th century American west. I'm also the owner of a Sharps and several of the big 1886 lever gun. There were no Sharps chambered for .50 cal using 125 grain charges in use during the buffalo hunting periods. Maybe a 50-70 Trapdoor or two, but certainly no big 50s. My research tells me the buffalo hunters were good shots but not necessarily "marksmen" as the term is used today. Any man who uses the same gun every day for any long period of time, will get to know that gun quite well. As a result, his accuracy will go up but given the guns, the cartridges and the sights available to men out west in the time period in question... well, they might not make the qualifying rounds at Quiggly. Billy Dixon made one heck of a shot that day at Adobe Walls, but it was not the calculated shot of a schooled sniper but the luck shot fired in defiant frustration by a man with excellent shooting skills. Even Dixon himself said it was a lucky shot. So, the book is historically inaccurate and uses melodramatic myth to spin a good yarn.

[FLINTNFIRE]

In reading on it I have seen where Sharps loaded 100 grains of powder in what is referred to as the 50-90 , but some of those men and women of that era were quite the shots , as to those hunters being whatever a marksman is today , in the trade they were in they did a lot of shooting and probably were better then some who pride themselves on their abilities today .

The one shooting feat that tends to put some things in perspective is the Farr story with the open sights on a 1903 .

And remember there were those long range teams that were still shooting the muzzle loaders remember Creedmoor .

[Don McDowell]

Interesting that when the NY Rifle Club answered the challenge from the Irish and British Rifle teams, there was no shooters on the east coast that had much of any experience in long range shooting. They and the NRA came west and tried their best to recruit shooters from the Hide trade, not a one of them was interested and stayed on the plains until they either went broke or quit to go on to do something else.
Remington and Sharps pooled together, built special rifles and ammunition and started outfitting and training shooters for the match. The teams from across the Atlantic showed up with their muzzleloaders, some took the US made rifles home with them that time, and by the end of the "Creedmoor" era very few were shooting muzzle loaders, and gun builders such as Rigby were franticly trying to replicate the rifles of the American team that were so handily winning the matches.
In todays world of shooting it's amazing how few shooters are taught to shoot with irons, and now there's a multimillion dollar industry built around a shooting venue, where actual field positions are not used, and the rifles are equipped with telescopic sights that do about 90% of the work for the shooter. When is the last time one of the "hunters" on the cable infomercial channels actually shot a game animal with a hand carried adjustable tripod, instead of from the sitting, kneeling or prone postition, or using a field position?
A lot of myth's just seem to live on and on and on.....

[Lead pot]

Heck Don. I was watching the outdoor channel and they even use a lead sled hunting.

[Don McDowell]

Yup they even have lead sled type things mounted on a swiveling seat..

[dverna]

I dont think the rifle's ability to group at long range is the primary problem - these ultra long range shots are lob shots - kinda like calling in mortar fire - you fellers have done the math - without the ability to accurately estimate range down to ten yards or so - a first shot hit is gonna be an absolute fluke at 1550 yards - and if you cant see the fall of shot to walk it in good luck gettin there at all.

Shame on you!!! Letting "the science and data" get in the way of a good story.

[Cosmic_Charlie]

These reproduction rifles you serious BP shooters prefer have a steep buy in. The league of distinguished gentleman and their rifles....
Would love to attend a match and watch the goings on.

[Don McDowell]

These reproduction rifles you serious BP shooters prefer have a steep buy in. The league of distinguished gentleman and their rifles....
Would love to attend a match and watch the goings on.

I sort of chuckle when some one says something like this. For less than the cost of the scopes PRC shooters are putting on 4000$ rifles you can have a Shiloh or CSA ready to go.

[Gunlaker]

I sort of chuckle when some one says something like this. For less than the cost of the scopes PRC shooters are putting on 4000$ rifles you can have a Shiloh or CSA ready to go.

It's not cheap to shoot BPTR/BPCR but you are right, some of the modern competition is very spendy. I've talked to PRC guys who swap out those super expensive scopes every year just in case the tracking has a little wear. And not to mention the constant rebarreling.

I think that most competition is pretty expensive, but you can definitely buy a super competitive Shiloh with sights for a lot less than what some of these bolt gun setups go for. And that rifle will probably last the rest of your life while only costing a few firing pins and maybe a lever spring.

For me the cost of BPTR actually comes down to traveling money. The big American matches I've been to have cost be between $1000 to $2000 apiece depending on distance. That's not too cheap!

Chris.

[sharps4590]

As a late friend of mine said 40 some years ago, "There isn't a match that can't be bought." It should be obvious that isn't 100% true, 100% of the time but, it ain't far from the truth.

It was fun while it lasted but I'm glad my match days are over.

[dverna]

I sort of chuckle when some one says something like this. For less than the cost of the scopes PRC shooters are putting on 4000$ rifles you can have a Shiloh or CSA ready to go.

I cannot think of a cheap way to compete in any shooting sport. Maybe Air Rifle/Pistol. $5000 should get you the very best in those games. RWS R-10 Match Plus pellets about $50/500.

Then there is the travel to matches...food, lodging, fuel. Match fees. Travel gets expensive.

When I shot Trap I had over $20k in guns. A day of 300 targets was about $100 for match fees and add 12 boxes of shells...another $60 even if with reloads.

Shooting leagues at least keeps you local and fees are minimal.