The American Sharps Shooters, 2015-3

[Bob McDowell]

Courtesy of C. Sharps Arms, attached is an edition of The American Sharps Shooters, 2015-3.

Table of Contents:

My Next Choice For Quigley by Mike Nesbitt
Old West Centerfires by Bob Gietz
Outstanding Products
Distant Thunder Mid-Range Sight by Dangerous Don McDowell

[Tom Herman]

Bob! Thanks for posting! I'll go through the back issues. Little Rock is just about a stone's throw (pun intended!) from me... Don't know if I'd be welcome with my Danish Remington (I've been saving 20 years for a Sharps, still don't have one!), but I'd love to show up.

-Tom

[Mike]

Bob! Thanks for posting! I'll go through the back issues. Little Rock is just about a stone's throw (pun intended!) from me... Don't know if I'd be welcome with my Danish Remington (I've been saving 20 years for a Sharps, still don't have one!), but I'd love to show up.

-Tom

Tom, If you're just a stone's throw from Littlerock, Washington, and you've got black powder loads for that Danish Remington, by all means show up. Our next shoot is on August 1st. Let me know if you need more info. Shoot sharp, Mike

[Tom Herman]

[/quote]
Tom, If you're just a stone's throw from Littlerock, Washington, and you've got black powder loads for that Danish Remington, by all means show up. Our next shoot is on August 1st. Let me know if you need more info. Shoot sharp, Mike
[/quote]

Mike,

Thanks for the invitation! I talked with Bob Gietz for about 15 minutes tonight.
I will put the shoot onto my schedule, but with the way work is going (Wildland Fire Fighter, in addition to the rest of my "normal" insane summer job duties), it's a 50-50 crap shoot if I'll even be here to partake!
That being said, I'd love to be able to fire a .45-70, .44-77, .44-90, or whatever people are willing to let me try.
I've only fired a .45-70 once in my life, but it was from a light weight rifle, and I swore I'd never fire the caliber again.
If I find the experience enjoyable, I'll accelerate my plans to purchase something in .45-70 (Remington Rolling Block, Springfield Trapdoor, Sharps 1874).
As far as the shoot goes, I will probably show up with the 1881 Danish Remington (I'm fire forming cases from .45-70 shells), loaded "Nagant" style with 265 grain Webley bullets and about 35 grains of 4198 (no FFg available). I can put that together in short order.
Ramping up to real production involves case trimming, buying proper dies, and a Lee 405 grain, HB bullet mould, so that will be a while.
A Dark Horse candidate is my 1869 vintage Model 1868 Springfield in .50-70: I have the dies, cases are only $1.37 from Buffalo Arms, but I still need to purchase a mould: I'm torn between the standard .50-70 I believe 435 grain mould, and a 340 grainer intended for the Spencer rifle (might be easier on the rifle).
Bob said that folks might cut me some slack on using the 4198 first time out, I'll eventually find some FFg...

-Tom

[Mike]

Tom, Gietz said we might cut you some slack, huh? We'll do better than that. How about coming out for the shoot and using my '74 Hartford in .45/70 with carbine loads? Those will make you a real believer in how much fun it is to shoot a .45/70. It's on me, I'll load the ammo and I'll even clean the gun afterwards. And if that is too tame for you, how about using an 11 pound '74 in .50/70 shooting 450 grain bullets? Whatever, we'll get you fixed up. And if you can make a practice day before the match you can try those guns to see what you want to use. I'll supply the X-sticks too. Shoot sharp, Mike

[Tom Herman]

Tom, Gietz said we might cut you some slack, huh? We'll do better than that. How about coming out for the shoot and using my '74 Hartford in .45/70 with carbine loads? Those will make you a real believer in how much fun it is to shoot a .45/70. It's on me, I'll load the ammo and I'll even clean the gun afterwards. And if that is too tame for you, how about using an 11 pound '74 in .50/70 shooting 450 grain bullets? Whatever, we'll get you fixed up. And if you can make a practice day before the match you can try those guns to see what you want to use. I'll supply the X-sticks too. Shoot sharp, Mike

Mike, I am simply speechless! I appreciate your kindness and generosity. I look forward to your invitation and will gladly take you up on it!
I think I'll be able to handle the Carbine loads just fine, and probably the Rifle loads as well... I wonder if there is appreciable difference in recoil? I'm assuming the .50/70 is slightly heavier than the .45-70 Hartford.
This begs the question: All things being equal (bullet weight/powder charge/rifle weight), would the recoil be the same irregardless if one is firing a .45-70 or a .50-70 rifle?
Many Thanks!

-Tom

[Mike]

Tom, Let me try to answer you; first, nothing is ever equal or the same between a .45/70 and a .50/70. The rifles won't weigh the same unless it is a strange coincidence. The bullets won't weigh the same because the .45/70 shoots bullets either lighter or heavier than the 435 ti 450 grain weight of the .50/70. And, actually a bigger difference, the .50/70 operates at a lower pressure than the ..45/70 simply because of the larger bore. Most of those things contribute to making the .50/70 just a bit more comfortable to shoot and that's one reason why I like it so much. Shoot sharp, Mike

[Tom Herman]

Tom, Let me try to answer you; first, nothing is ever equal or the same between a .45/70 and a .50/70. The rifles won't weigh the same unless it is a strange coincidence. The bullets won't weigh the same because the .45/70 shoots bullets either lighter or heavier than the 435 ti 450 grain weight of the .50/70. And, actually a bigger difference, the .50/70 operates at a lower pressure than the ..45/70 simply because of the larger bore. Most of those things contribute to making the .50/70 just a bit more comfortable to shoot and that's one reason why I like it so much. Shoot sharp, Mike

Mike,

Thanks again for the reasoned response! What you said makes perfect sense... I've always liked the allure of the .50-70. With lower pressure and perceived recoil, I will like it even more!
I'm tempted to see how the old girl (1869) works with the Cadet loadings (.50-45?), and start from there... It ought to really be sedate. I'm also leaning towards the 340 grain Spencer bullet...

-Tom

[Mike]

    Tom, That old original might do well with the Spencer bullet. The old Springfields often had a 1 in 42 inch rate of twist which really wasn't quite fast enough for the 450 grain bullets. And try those light loads with spacers so you don't have an air gap between powder and bullet. That shouldn't be any problem because I'm compressing powder quite a bit to get 65 or 70 grains under the standard grease groove bullets. Also, you shouldn't need to worry about the recoil. Try those light or carbine loads but then you'll probably graduate up to rifle loads rather quickly. I like the carbine loads in the .45/70, especially in my lightweight from C. Sharps Arms, but for my .50/70 rifles the more standard load is more than fine.
Here's a picture of a group fired with my .50/70 at just 50 yards, 10 shots with a 450 grain bullets from a Lee mold over 65 grains of Olde Eynsford 2F. Shoot sharp, Mike

[Tom Herman]

Tom, That old original might do well with the Spencer bullet. The old Springfields often had a 1 in 42 inch rate of twist which really wasn't quite fast enough for the 450 grain bullets. Shoot sharp, Mike

Mike, I am leaning towards the Spencer bullet: I believe it has a larger diameter than the standard 435 grain bullet mould, and I'm aware of the slow twist rate not stabilizing the Government bullet at distance.
So, the Spencer should be a winner on all fronts: Lighter, thus less pressure, better stabilization, and easier on the nearly 150 year old gun!
Thanks for posting pictures of your 50 yard target: That is some fine shooting, and an even finer gun!

-Tom