sharps vs rolling block

[trevj]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A lot of us think the '74 Sharps is an elegant rifle, the Borchardt not.

"Quigley Down Under" sold a lot of Sharps rifles, but not necessarily that particular model. Shiloh will try and talk a customer out of ordering the true "Quigley" model in 45-110 with straight grip and military crescent butt plate. It hurts! I'm not talking about a couple of shots to prove your manhood, I mean a lengthy string of rounds as per a silhouette match.

I'm not sure you are correct about the number of Sharps that were telescopic sight equipped. The gear of buffalo hunters need to be rugged to survive horse drawn transport.
I've rarely seen pics of rifles so equipped. I think most were likely shot with the factory barrel sights not even tang mounted verniers.

"Sharps - the rifle that made the West safe for Winchester"

Re: Telescopic sights from the factory, this was supposedly in accordance with Sharps' factory records. Pretty sure I read it in one of Venturino's books, so take that as you may. I don't think much of him or his work, but if he was full of poo, I figure there would be some say on the subject being made.

It must be remembered that these were educated and often monied people, out to make as much money as they were able, with the best gear they could get.

They suffered no fantasies about "How it was done in the good old days", they were living in their equivalent of "Modern Times" and bought the tools that were best suited to their needs.
As they were not shooting under restrictions of Rules, as the target competitors were, they were free to use what best suited them.

And, being rugged enough to withstand horse drawn transport? Did ya think that they didn't have a clue about that in that day and age? Think on it. Horse drawn transport was NORMAL! They understood it very well indeed, and accounted for that in their packing. They were neither stupid or primitive, they simply had a different world than we are accustomed to.

It is fairly well accepted that the Quigley movie pretty much served to make the Sharps replica industry. And yeah, I know what you are talking about, as far as the beating one takes from a crescent butt plate. Those were never meant to be shot they way we shoot off the shoulder in the prone position anyway, rather off the arm and from a "hind legs" shooting position. Dunno how many Sharps rifle left the plant with more useful plates on them, but I suspect it was rather more than the fantasy says. Y'know, the "Them that olden days folk dun it like..." one.

One only need look at the various contortions folks went through to get an advantage in long range target shooting to see the many ways that they used to seek out the be-all position. The current status of Sillywet and BPCR rules is a total fabrication, based on ideas that seem to me to have had more to do with dime novel versions of the 'olden days' rather than reality. YMMV.

Cheers
Trev

 

[gunlaker]

The best source of information for most of us these days, with respect to Sharps configurations and sales numbers, is probably Marcott's new book on the Sharps cartridge rifles. It has a ton of detail in it. Much more than Seller's book, at least as far as the history of the 1874 is concerned. It's definitely worth checking out, but is a bit pricey.

Silhouette isn't really related to original style target shooting in any real way. It's pretty much an adaptation of an old Mexican shooting sport that had nothing to do with black powder. Even the modern NRA mid and long range matches are pretty far from the original version, although they are closer to being "authentic" than silhouette. I think for most of us though, the original long range match format would be pretty tough to shoot. Regardless, I think that the new style black powder shooting events are a lot of fun.


Chris.

 

[Sharps '74]

It would be nice if you could make your point without the snide, condescending tone of your remarks.

What is your problem with Mike Venturino? I have shot with him in CAS before he went into BPCR and have a high regard for him. His writings on the various aspects of loading and shooting both CAS and BPCR guns is both prolific and definitive. He has proven his ability in both hunting and on the range with his Sharps rifles. I suggest that you contact him on either the Shiloh forum or through his publisher to express your displeasure with his writings.

There may have been some "educated and often monied people" involved in the buffalo hide business, but it is more likely that the majority were ex-soldiers and pioneers looking to make a living during the post Civil War western expansion. Nor did I imply that I think that they were 'stupid or primitive". Billy Dixon's famous "scratch shot" was done without the use of scope, I believe.

And no, I don't think think they "didn't have a clue a clue" about the fragility of scopes in the era. You don't see many scoped BPCR's in the field even today for the same reasons of impracticality and fragility. While two of my seven Shiloh rifles have fine micrometer tang and globe sights, my Sharps 'hunting' rifle is either my 50-70 Military Rifle or 50-70 carbine, both with factory barrel sights. Several head of big game and even grouse have been taken with them.

The Sharps '74 which you so vehemently disparage was the successful conversion of the '59 and '63 percussion fired rifles and carbines used successfully in the Civil War by Berdan's Sharpshooters and Cavalry units. They were highly regarded for both their accuracy, efficiency and rapidity of reloading compared to the issue rifled muskets of the era. The oddly "H" shaped firing pin was the obvious solution to the problem of striking the centre of a cartridge primer.

I assure you that the "Sharps replica industry" was thriving long before "Quigley Down Under". Some of us have owned them since they were made at Farmingdale, New York where three of mine were made.

It isn't the crescent military butt plate that is the problem with the Shiloh "Quigley" model, it is the 45-110 calibre. That coupled with the recoil from a 550 gr 45-110 load becomes unpleasant in quick order. My Military Rifle, my carbines and my Business Rifle all have crescent butt plates and I shoot them prone from x-sticks. So does my Browning '86 for that matter.

The sport of BPCR Silhouette shooting is not an attempt at replicating "Them that olden days folks dun it like ....". It is rather a test or rifles, loads and abilities of the shooters to engage in the established sport of Silhouette shooting using lead bullets, 100% black powder in the technology and rifles of the 1800's. The only portion of it done off hand being the 200m string on the "chickens", a severe test of one's ability with ANY rifle, modern or historic.

For what it's worth, as published in the Black Powder Cartridge News, the match scores using iron sights are generally higher than those shot with scopes, including those fired by Mike Venturino.

I think that we've established that you are prejudiced against a sport and the rifles used in said sport without having the first hand knowledge and experience to back up your biased opinions.

 

[trevj]

It would be nice if you could make your point without the snide, condescending tone of your remarks.

What is your problem with Mike Venturino? I have shot with him in CAS before he went into BPCR and have a high regard for him. His writings on the various aspects of loading and shooting both CAS and BPCR guns is both prolific and definitive. He has proven his ability in both hunting and on the range with his Sharps rifles. I suggest that you contact him on either the Shiloh forum or through his publisher to express your displeasure with his writings.

There may have been some "educated and often monied people" involved in the buffalo hide business, but it is more likely that the majority were ex-soldiers and pioneers looking to make a living during the post Civil War western expansion. Nor did I imply that I think that they were 'stupid or primitive". Billy Dixon's famous "scratch shot" was done without the use of scope, I believe.

And no, I don't think think they "didn't have a clue a clue" about the fragility of scopes in the era. You don't see many scoped BPCR's in the field even today for the same reasons of impracticality and fragility. While two of my seven Shiloh rifles have fine micrometer tang and globe sights, my Sharps 'hunting' rifle is either my 50-70 Military Rifle or 50-70 carbine, both with factory barrel sights. Several head of big game and even grouse have been taken with them.

The Sharps '74 which you so vehemently disparage was the successful conversion of the '59 and '63 percussion fired rifles and carbines used successfully in the Civil War by Berdan's Sharpshooters and Cavalry units. They were highly regarded for both their accuracy, efficiency and rapidity of reloading compared to the issue rifled muskets of the era. The oddly "H" shaped firing pin was the obvious solution to the problem of striking the centre of a cartridge primer.

I assure you that the "Sharps replica industry" was thriving long before "Quigley Down Under". Some of us have owned them since they were made at Farmingdale, New York where three of mine were made.

It isn't the crescent military butt plate that is the problem with the Shiloh "Quigley" model, it is the 45-110 calibre. That coupled with the recoil from a 550 gr 45-110 load becomes unpleasant in quick order. My Military Rifle, my carbines and my Business Rifle all have crescent butt plates and I shoot them prone from x-sticks. So does my Browning '86 for that matter.

The sport of BPCR Silhouette shooting is not an attempt at replicating "Them that olden days folks dun it like ....". It is rather a test or rifles, loads and abilities of the shooters to engage in the established sport of Silhouette shooting using lead bullets, 100% black powder in the technology and rifles of the 1800's. The only portion of it done off hand being the 200m string on the "chickens", a severe test of one's ability with ANY rifle, modern or historic.

For what it's worth, as published in the Black Powder Cartridge News, the match scores using iron sights are generally higher than those shot with scopes, including those fired by Mike Venturino.

I think that we've established that you are prejudiced against a sport and the rifles used in said sport without having the first hand knowledge and experience to back up your biased opinions.

Meh. Sorry you feel that way.

I don't much care for Venturino's writing. That is all. I don't need any better reason. I should contact him and say so? No. I will simply refrain from buying or otherwise paying to read what he writes. Definitive? Nope, not so much. He has changed directions too many times as his own theories changed to be that. The definitive guy is going to be the guy in the future that cross checks all the opinion and facts and sorts them from each other. Prolific, yep, can't argue that. So was Sunray. Prolific as heck! Reading his book on the Buffalo Hunters, I tended to skip over his opinions, and his blither about what rifle he owned and when, and paid particular attention to the historical documents he referenced and their contents. They painted the Buffalo Hunters a little differently than the dime novel version. They also painted a rather different picture of the rifles used, and how they were equipped, esp when referencing Sharps' own records.

I don't vehemently disparage the 1874, it was really more of an indifferent disparagement. Which you more or less vehemently reacted to as if I had spit in your soup or something. I just think it's ugly, and has ungraceful lines. And that I don't aspire to own one. It is not alone in that, by any means.

And it WAS you that was discussing the rigors of Horse Drawn Transport, as if it was somehow an unknown to them.

I'll file away your advice about the crescent plate only being uncomfortable to shoot, if the caliber is over a certain size. Interesting. Flies in the face of all the other folks that were not comfortable shooting lesser weight bullets and smaller cartridges, either prone or off the bench, while trying to shoot them like a modern rifle, which they found, they can't.

Sorry if I spilled a little sand in your quiff by not bowing down to your man crush. I don't care if you don't like my opinion, I didn't ask if you did.

I bolded the two conflicting statements in your diatribe above. Can you understand why? It's mainly to thank you for proving my point.

I'll thank you to note also, that at no time have I suggested your Sharps rifles were not accurate or effective at what they were designed to do, I simply stated that I thought they were ugly.



Cheers
Trev

 

[Sharps '74]

You're just another internet troll, beaking off on topics on which you have no personal hands on experience. Instead, you inflict your unfounded opinions on us from the safety of your keyboard.

Pity you don't have what it takes to take your issues with Venturino to the source. I'm sure he hears from detractors like you on a regular basis and would be interested to hear from you. Instead, you indulge in the usual CGN default of personal attack when you can't refute an opposing view point in an adult manner.

Why would anyone want to shoot an historic rifle (with or without a crescent butt plate) from a position for which it was not intended? It's OK to have an opinion, but they carry more weight if they are backed up by some personal knowledge and experience, both of which you admit to lacking.

One has to wonder why you even bother to post on this particular list since you are not into the rifles of the era.

BTW - there is a nice looking Pedersoli "Quigley" model for sale on the EE right now at a good price. It's got the military crescent butt and it's in the more sedate calibre of 45-70, not the punishing 45-110. You'd be able to get some first hand, evidence based experience on which to base your opinions.

 

[303EppsFan]

My son brought our '74 Sharps to the range yesterday. It's a C. Sharps from Big Timber in 45-120. Spirit level front sight, long range vernier rear. I bought this used so I got the caliber available, so neither my calibre or my load would please a "purist".
Loaded with a RCBS 405 gr gas checked bullet over AA5744, my son and his buddy were able to easily ring the 10", 8" and 6" gongs at our 200 yard range.
There was another member's guest there who was fascinated by the rifle and jumped at the chance to fire a shot. After explaining the aperture sights to him and showing him how to employ the double set trigger, he too was able to clang the 10' plate first shot.
These are a very well made rifle and to some are very eye catching.

 

[Sharps '74]

How nice - an opinion from someone who actually owns and shoots his '74 Sharps! I've owned a '75 Business Rifle made by C.Sharps. Great shooter, a rifle I regret having sold.

The '74 as made by C.Sharps is also a winner. It's a toss up which is better. One difference is that Shiloh makes their barrels in house. C.Sharps gets to mark their rifles with the [Old Reliable] label which Shiloh cannot for copyright reasons.

I met a guy at the range with three 38-55's - two lever actions and one single shot Sharps. He saw my 45-70 Sharps and asked if I'd be interested in a Shiloh he had for sale. Sure, says I, what calibre? He tells me it's in 45-120 and I pass, but I referred him to someone I knew looking for a Sharps who did buy it. I often wonder if he still has it and if he shoots it .....

5744 is a great powder for the big boomers. I shoot it when I don't feel like the labour intensive process of BP loading. Highly recommended by Mike Venturino, not that trevj would care.

 

[trevj]

You're just another internet troll, beaking off on topics on which you have no personal hands on experience. Instead, you inflict your unfounded opinions on us from the safety of your keyboard.

Pity you don't have what it takes to take your issues with Venturino to the source. I'm sure he hears from detractors like you on a regular basis and would be interested to hear from you. Instead, you indulge in the usual CGN default of personal attack when you can't refute an opposing view point in an adult manner.

Why would anyone want to shoot an historic rifle (with or without a crescent butt plate) from a position for which it was not intended? It's OK to have an opinion, but they carry more weight if they are backed up by some personal knowledge and experience, both of which you admit to lacking.

One has to wonder why you even bother to post on this particular list since you are not into the rifles of the era.

BTW - there is a nice looking Pedersoli "Quigley" model for sale on the EE right now at a good price. It's got the military crescent butt and it's in the more sedate calibre of 45-70, not the punishing 45-110. You'd be able to get some first hand, evidence based experience on which to base your opinions.

Oooooh! Methinks the lady doth protest overmuch!

I don't actually really give a pinch if you forward the whole thing to him, but he seems to be successful enough to suit his needs, so why, exactly, do you think I should be suggesting he change to suit me, again? Your theory seems, well, particularly thick headed to me. Now, if you go back and read what I actually said about him in my initial post about his work, I said you could take it or leave it as you chose, at which point you rushed to his defence, and began to question my motives and such. Meh.

My opinions are far from unfounded! I find the Sharps rifles to be butt ugly, which is in fact, my opinion of them and as much as you dislike what I have to say, is not going to change any time soon. I am very well acquainted with my own opinions, I carry them around with me, and well, despite that you disagree with what I find attractive, I still find the Sharps unattractive. OK. Ugly, actually. Can you wrap your head around that. Apparently not, from what you have posted so far.
Maybe you ought look up in a dictionary, exactly what "opinion" means. Yours is allowed to be different than mine, but saying mine is wrong, doesn't make that so.

You feel differently. Goody. Claiming I don't know what I am talking about, because I don't like what you do, just seems...dumb.

I think you may have somewhat of a reading comprehension problem, in that you are suggesting that I buy a rifle that I have already made it clear, I have no interest in owning. That makes you look...kind of , well, still dumb, to me.
And you question my interests, without actually having any idea what rifles I DO own, or why I bothered to learn what I have about them. But hey, you are so busy having your hissy fit over that I don't like what you do, that you never bothered.

I have shot crescent butt plate rifles, though not Sharps. I am well enough aware of their limitations, these are not just second-hand ideas.
I know well enough that the crescent plate rifles are not to be shot the same as modern ones, but many have learned that painfully. I much prefer a shotgun style plate, thanks.

Honestly, you sure are not giving me much to suggest that I might ever wish to hang around with you and yours, even though you seem to insist that I should like what you do, despite my having been pretty clear already that I don't.

And, as I have said to others better equipped to carry on a battle of wits, I am much less polite in person, to those that seem deserving.



Cheers
Trev

 

[Sharps '74]

Why would I forward your uninformed, unfounded, biased opinions to Venturino? It's your opinion, not mine.

Again with the insults and personal attacks which totally undermines your position. Juvenile, pathetic.

You admit to having no first hand experience with handling or shooting a Sharps rifle. That makes your opinions invalid.

Please - do take offence and spare us further uniformed blatherings. Inflict yourself on another list. I'm sure the black rifle and Milsurp guys would enjoy your opinions, whether or not you own applicable guns.

If one is going to engage in a battle of wits, it is best to be suitably armed. You're only half prepared.

In view of the recent mass shooting in Las Vegas, we all have greater concerns at the moment that require our thoughtful time and energies. There will be a severe anti-gun backlash affecting all legitimate gun owners. Dealing with the likes of you is a waste of time and energy.

Oooooh! Methinks the lady doth protest overmuch!

I don't actually really give a pinch if you forward the whole thing to him, but he seems to be successful enough to suit his needs, so why, exactly, do you think I should be suggesting he change to suit me, again? Your theory seems, well, particularly thick headed to me. Now, if you go back and read what I actually said about him in my initial post about his work, I said you could take it or leave it as you chose, at which point you rushed to his defence, and began to question my motives and such. Meh.

My opinions are far from unfounded! I find the Sharps rifles to be butt ugly, which is in fact, my opinion of them and as much as you dislike what I have to say, is not going to change any time soon. I am very well acquainted with my own opinions, I carry them around with me, and well, despite that you disagree with what I find attractive, I still find the Sharps unattractive. OK. Ugly, actually. Can you wrap your head around that. Apparently not, from what you have posted so far.
Maybe you ought look up in a dictionary, exactly what "opinion" means. Yours is allowed to be different than mine, but saying mine is wrong, doesn't make that so.

You feel differently. Goody. Claiming I don't know what I am talking about, because I don't like what you do, just seems...dumb.

I think you may have somewhat of a reading comprehension problem, in that you are suggesting that I buy a rifle that I have already made it clear, I have no interest in owning. That makes you look...kind of , well, still dumb, to me.
And you question my interests, without actually having any idea what rifles I DO own, or why I bothered to learn what I have about them. But hey, you are so busy having your hissy fit over that I don't like what you do, that you never bothered.

I have shot crescent butt plate rifles, though not Sharps. I am well enough aware of their limitations, these are not just second-hand ideas.
I know well enough that the crescent plate rifles are not to be shot the same as modern ones, but many have learned that painfully. I much prefer a shotgun style plate, thanks.

Honestly, you sure are not giving me much to suggest that I might ever wish to hang around with you and yours, even though you seem to insist that I should like what you do, despite my having been pretty clear already that I don't.

And, as I have said to others better equipped to carry on a battle of wits, I am much less polite in person, to those that seem deserving.



Cheers
Trev

 

[trevj]

Why would I forward your uninformed, unfounded, biased opinions to Venturino? It's your opinion, not mine.

Again with the insults and personal attacks which totally undermines your position. Juvenile, pathetic.

You admit to having no first hand experience with handling or shooting a Sharps rifle. That makes your opinions invalid.

Please - do take offence and spare us further uniformed blatherings. Inflict yourself on another list. I'm sure the black rifle and Milsurp guys would enjoy your opinions, whether or not you own applicable guns.

If one is going to engage in a battle of wits, it is best to be suitably armed. You're only half prepared.

In view of the recent mass shooting in Las Vegas, we all have greater concerns at the moment that require our thoughtful time and energies. There will be a severe anti-gun backlash affecting all legitimate gun owners. Dealing with the likes of you is a waste of time and energy.

No it does not make my opinions invalid. It makes my opinions, well, my opinions.

I have handled a fair few Sharps, both replicas and originals, and despite your assertions to the contrary, None of what I saw made me think that they were any less unattractive. Something you just do not seem able to muckle on to.

Now, if you go back and look at this conversation, you will find that it was in fact, you , who started in with the name calling and attacks. Poor you, I don't like what you like, so you jumped on me for it.

But I have no real problem with continuing to point it out, that despite that you feel my opinions are invalid, they are still my opinions.

Now, I didn't attack you for wanting to assume a tin star 'cowboy' name and play dress-up while you were out shooting, nor did I attack Venturino other than to say that I don't actually like his writing. But you started in on me. Go read Venturino's book yourself, and feel free to correct me if I misremembered what he put in there, but otherwise, you saying I have no valid opinion because I do not own one, is like telling me I should like fat ugly chicks unless I have already been married to one.

So, go slobber on your keyboard, and I will continue to respond in the faint hope that you eventually either give up, agree to disagree, or vapour-lock yourself trying, but I still and will always think that the Sharps designs are ugly.I will, once again, point out that I never did suggest that they were not capable or accurate, so, well, that's that. As to who attacked whom here, why are you down on the Black Rifle guys and gals and the Milsurps lot? Your condescending tone there makes it pretty obvious you hold them in lesser regard than you own interests. Maybe it's you that should step away. You seem pretty free with the insults for a guy that claims to be open minded.
Here's how this math works. You decided that I have been "inflicting' myself upon your precious corner of the interwebs. You feel I should go bother two other groups that you don't think highly of. Thus, it seems to me, you feel that they are beneath you. Here's the news. They are not. But guys like you sure are part of the problem!

Trying to weasel out of what you started, is making you look like a bit of a twot, but hey, I have time to waste if you do.

And yeah, I think the bullsh*t that went down in Vegas sucks a lot, and I await something resembling factual information as to who the git was, and why he chose to inflict himself upon the people he harmed.

I await your silence, or your next round of vitriolic spew, with about equal relish.

Cheers
Trev

 

[mooncoon]

Let's cut the crap and get back to discussing the merits and demerits of various black powder guns before I am tempted to lock this thread. I think whose opinion of which gun looks best has been more than adequately discussed.

cheers mooncoon

 

[BigUglyMan]

First rail of Rams that I ever ran was with a buddy's Remington Hepburn in 40-65. Such a sweet shooter, doesn't kick much and, with the help of an excellent spotter (the rifle's owner) the rams just kept tipping over. I wonder if it plays as nicely as a 550gr 45 caliber bullet when the wind starts to blow over the Bethune Pasture. Only one way to find out!

 

[sampson.d.ramm]

I had a 50-70 (Swedish) roller and now have a Shiloh sharps in 45-110.
IMO the roller with a full 70 Gr load of 2F kicked harder than the Sharps with a 90 Gr load.
I suspect the difference in kick was due to how light the Rolling block was, combined with the narrow stock.
While the rolling block is a fun shooter, easy to reload for and everything you need is available in Canada, I really enjoy shooting the Sharps and it is very accurate....something I could never seem to get (my fault or perhaps didnt work on the loads enough) out past 100 yards with the rolling block.
Not hacking on or promoting any particular brand, just my experience.

 

[anglia2]

I've owned and shot both . I would have a hard time choosing between them . If I had to choose , it would be an old Swede that I rebarreled to 45/70 . It isn't superior to the Sharps , it's the fact that I rebarreled and restocked it myself . It shot very well and was totally reliable , nothing fancy , just a good utilitarian rifle , just as it's original designer intended . IMHO , the Sharps is a more refined rifle , but wasn't directed at the same market as the RB . Either way , they're both great old designs .

 

[tacfoley]

Being way too poor to afford even a second-hand Shiloh Sharps, or even a C. Sharps rifle here in UK, and never having even clapped eyes on a 45-70 Govt RB - my choice fell down to a rifle that WAS available, as the owner gave up on it after firing just eighteen shots.

In my opinion it is very elegant in appearance, and even with the current iron sights, is accurate enough for me and short-range shooting out to a mere 500 yards. With its crescent stock it's not the most user-friendly, especially shooting the 405gr FN bullet over a decent load of 65gr 3Fg loaded via a long drop tube. Eventually it will have one of MVA's fine-looking replications of the Winchester Model 5 scope, but it's great fun, even without it.

It's a Uberti Winchester Model 1885, with a flawless barrel and woodwork, and it came with a medium-range tang sight [which I don't care for], and 82 rounds of RP factory ammunition, for what, over here in UK, was less than half price.

Elegance in wood and steel, IMO.

tac

 

[Sharps '74]

Nice rifle! A pal has one chambered in 45-110. Beats the snot out of him. He had off set sights installed due to the length of the cartridge. He now wishes he had bought a 45-70. The Uberti Hi-Walls come with pretty light barrel contours.