Anyone loading 50-140 Sharps?

Hitzy said:
Throw a muzzle brake on it to tame it down if you plan on firing full house loads.
Click to expand...

That is almost certainly the best/most effective recoil reduction method for sure, but I really dislike brakes, they are so obnoxiously loud that I think I'd have to consider that a very last ditch effort.
 
Iron Sighted said:
That is almost certainly the best/most effective recoil reduction method for sure, but I really dislike brakes, they are so obnoxiously loud that I think I'd have to consider that a very last ditch effort.
Click to expand...
Something like a VIAS isn't offensive to the shooter, anything flat or rear facing is definately offensive.
VIAS actually don't even look bad on a hunting rifle.
 
Hitzy said:
Something like a VIAS isn't offensive to the shooter, anything flat or rear facing is definately offensive.
VIAS actually don't even look bad on a hunting rifle.
Click to expand...

I looked those up, they aren't too bad aesthetically but I'd still have to remove the front sight to thread the muzzle to install, same for any brake really I guess and I'd prefer not too. Going to leave that as the last resort option I think.
 
My 50 Alaska is close to the 50-110
Using 550 gr wheel weight cast out of my 12 barrel , 1886 chippa
50gr @H 4198 == 1600 fps
No pressure
51 ,52 gr where staring to CHE a bit. Still had easy ejections
Will be trying 53gr later with a chronie

This would be a good starting point +10% for that monster 50-140 case..
Should be a bruiser. YEE-- YEE
 
Big bore dinosaur said:
My 50 Alaska is close to the 50-110
Using 550 gr wheel weight cast out of my 12 barrel , 1886 chippa
50gr @H 4198 == 1600 fps
No pressure
51 ,52 gr where staring to CHE a bit. Still had easy ejections
Will be trying 53gr later with a chronie

This would be a good starting point +10% for that monster 50-140 case..
Should be a bruiser. YEE-- YEE
Click to expand...

Hodgdon shows 118gr and 112gr of H4831(I have IMR 4831 so I'll reduce that slightly as it's a bit faster burning) as starting loads for 425gr and 515gr cast bullets, these are shown as just over and under 2000 fps respectively out of a 24" barrel which is what I believe the barrel length of this No.1 is.

I'll have to see if I can find some 4198 to try out. I have seen data online as well for 4895 which I also have some of, off the top of my head I recall it being closer to ~90gr with a 500gr jacketed bullet.
 
This might give you a starting point, I’ve got a 45/120 but only use BP.
This is from the Lyman cast bullet handbook.
edit- guess I didn't need pic so large!

DC940B78-B3C6-42B2-80BD-B21225250A0D.jpg
 

Attachments

  • DC940B78-B3C6-42B2-80BD-B21225250A0D.jpg
    DC940B78-B3C6-42B2-80BD-B21225250A0D.jpg
    82.2 KB · Views: 30
Unfortunately no, my copy is 3rd edition (1986) so maybe we both need a new copy.
I did find some more info on heavier bullets in Obsolete Cartridges though.

A915A779-1518-41AD-B716-E51923AB3583.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • A915A779-1518-41AD-B716-E51923AB3583.jpeg
    A915A779-1518-41AD-B716-E51923AB3583.jpeg
    132.4 KB · Views: 32
Iron Sighted said:
RB = Ruger No.1B?

My No.1 has an after market Pachmeyer Decelerator butt pad on it which should be a decent step up from the stock one. Other than making the rifle weigh 20+ lbs I don't think there is any way to really reduce the recoil all that much with 450-700 gr bullets, perhaps felt recoil can be reduced a little but I think expecting anything other than a lot of recoil is unrealistic. I could fill the space in the butt stock where the action screw goes through with lead shot to add some weight pretty easily. Might try it after shooting it a few times just to see if I can notice any difference. Feels slightly barrel heavy as is so it might help the balance a little bit as well.....maybe I'll go do it now just to see how it balances after.
Actually meant rolling block (RB). The #1 has a larger butt area but still has a sharp recoil. I had a similar issue with a Model 550 in 416 Rigby. It was plain uncomfortable to shoot. Got it restocked with a stock that fits and it's fun to shoot now. I had a 458 Lott on a Mauser that was nice to shoot as well. Traded it for the 416. Take care, Mark
Click to expand...
 
358 said:
Iron Sighted said:
RB = Ruger No.1B?

Actually meant rolling block (RB). The #1 has a larger butt area but still has a sharp recoil. I had a similar issue with a Model 550 in 416 Rigby. It was plain uncomfortable to shoot. Got it restocked with a stock that fits and it's fun to shoot now. I had a 458 Lott on a Mauser that was nice to shoot as well. Traded it for the 416. Take care, Mark
Click to expand...

Duh, I should've gotten that, sorry. In reading posts about Ruger No.1's over the years I have noted a few different people saying that they found it to have that sharp recoil you mention, must be a stock design issue I guess, hopefully I'll find it to fit me ok.
Click to expand...
 
My brother has a #1 in .405wcf and had a 1895 also in .405, said the 95 was a lot more pleasant to shoot and blamed it on the straight stock style of the #1. Seems it came straight back into you while the 95 would 'roll' up and away.
 
450yukon said:
My brother has a #1 in .405wcf and had a 1895 also in .405, said the 95 was a lot more pleasant to shoot and blamed it on the straight stock style of the #1. Seems it came straight back into you while the 95 would 'roll' up and away.
Click to expand...

That aligns with what I've heard about the No.1's. Guess I'm going to just have to suck it up and expect some felt recoil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom