A New Sharps - This One a Hunting Rifle

[Jeff Higgins]

You guys know by now my affinity for old firearms, both originals and quality reproductions. I've both hunted and won matches with a broad variety of 19th century single shots and lever guns. I even carry both 19th century and modern single actions by preference. I'm weird... Well, it occurred to me some time ago, that I really do not have any Sharps pattern rifles really all that suitable for hunting. All of mine are long range match or "buffalo" rifles, weighing 12-15 pounds or more. Yeah, I carried them a time or two when I was younger, but those days are behind me...

So I decided, a few of years ago, to put that right. So I phoned up the good folks at Shilo Sharps and had them start watering the tree in anticipation of building me another rifle. Yes, they take their time. But it's worth it. Boy, is it worth it... I took delivery, just before Christmas, of my new "hunting weight" '74 Sharps.

When I ordered it, Linda thought I was nuts and tried to talk me out of it. It was "too short, too light" and in "too big" of a caliber. She was sure I wouldn't like it. I assured her I had a bit of experience here, and had worked out just what I wanted. She reluctantly agreed...

So... a Model 1874 Sharps in .45-2.4" (.45-90) with a standard weight 26" half octagon, half round barrel. Produced as the early "Hartford" model, manufactured in said town in Connecticut, before the factory moved to Bridgeport. Distinctive features are the Hartford Collar, the unique way in which the octagon barrel is stepped down and then finished in a round collar where it meets the action, and the pewter forend tip as opposed to the wooden "schnabel" used on the later Bridgeport model.

Here it is, shown with a more traditional 14.5 pound long range match rifle chambered in .45-2.6" (.45-100). The match rifle features a 34" #1 heavy octagon barrel. It's a Bridgport model, with the "tulip" barrel end at the action and the schnabel forend tip.





The new rifle weighs right on ten pounds, a bit heavy by modern standards. But, it balances between the front of the trigger guard and the back of the rear sight - perfect for carrying. The "big" rifle, by way of contrast, balances all the way out on the schnabel, an impossible situation for hunting.

Linda thought the .45-2.4" chambering might be "too much" in such a "light" rifle. Well, I've only got 50 round through it, as I'm filing the sights in and working up a load. It seems to be entirely manageable. Right now it appears to be a dead heat between my two traditional old Lyman molds, my 500 grain round nose Government bullet and my 400 grain flat nose, both over 80 grains of Swiss 1.5 Fg black powder. Actually, it looks like it will shoot them both interchangeably. That would be great... I think I'm gonna like this rifle...

[fanaudical]

Very cool - congrats on the new acquisition.

[craigster59]

Beautiful and congratulations! Is the tang sight transferable to both guns and/or are you going to pick up a new sight?

[tabs]

Bought my 1st Farmingdale shiloh lr exp in early 80..50 140. Too much.yank on that one. Sold it Second Shiloh came a little later in the year..another Farmingdale this one a 54 cal 1863 nm military $275 still have. So i.have had my share of them.

[911 Rod]

Gorgeous

[Jeff Higgins]

The sights are interchangeable between the rifles. I think the "hunting" rifle will forever wear the simple open sights, though. It shoots quite well with them within the limits of range in which one would ethically hunt with such an arm.

These rifles are capable of astounding long range accuracy. They do, however, suffer enormously high trajectories out past about 150 yards. When shooting at fixed targets at known ranges, and allowed sighting shots, this is not an issue. When shooting at live game it is an insurmountable issue. So, the precision long range target sights are best left to the target range. They are kind of fragile as well, and just wouldn't hold up to rough handling in the field.

[Jeff Higgins]

A lot of thought went into configuring this rifle prior to ordering it two years ago. Of primary consideration was its intended use as a hunting rifle, of course. That drove both physical size and weight, determined through barrel length and contour along with stock configuration. The other primary consideration was, of course, a suitable hunting caliber.

Fortunately, I have a number of Sharps pattern rifles that are far too big and heavy, so I had ready examples of what I did not want. Additionally, however, I have an original Remington Hepburn of a configuration that carries and balances superbly. It served as the pattern for this rifle as far as barrel length and configuration. The only real deviation was where I chose to go with the more traditional straight grip stock for the Sharps:



I could not be happier in just how closely the Sharps mimics the handling characteristics of the old Hepburn. It came out exactly as I had hoped.

The other consideration was caliber. It was going to be a .45, the only question being that of case length. I firmly believe that the modern, solid head .45-70 case is under capacity as a hunting round when used with black powder. Great target round, but lacking punch for hunting. I've used the .45-2.6" (.45-100) in long range match shooting for over 20 years with great success, but have always found fouling control to be a challenge, even under the controlled conditions of a match.

The .45-2.4" (.45-90) neatly splits the two. Enough capacity to generate the punch required for our largest game, but not the copious fouling of the bigger dedicated match cartridges. Under field conditions, one can fire two or three accurate shots without having to stop and wipe the bore, which would be impossible with a larger case.

So .45-2.4" it was. Made even more attractive by the fact that the old Hepburn happened to be in the same chambering. I could even have ammunition commonality, always a good thing. Except, darn it, it didn't work out that way...

You see, 19th century cartridge rifles are notorious for big, sloppy chambers, and this Hepburn is no exception. Ammo fired in it comes out somewhat oversized. I'm loathe to full length size it, which only results in work hardening it and dramatically shortening the life of the brass. The Sharps has a modern, tight chamber. It will not chamber brass fired in the Hepburn unless it is full length sized.

To further complicate things, the front of the Hepburn chamber is undersized, and will not accept bullets over .457" diameter. The Sharps will accept bullets at .459" dia. Shooting undersized cast lead bullets generally results in poor accuracy and leading. In summary, cases big enough to suit the Hepburn won't chamber in the Sharps and bullets big enough to suit the Sharps won't chamber in the Hepburn. So they are, essentially, two different calibers requiring two different lots of brass and two different sizes of bullets. The best laid plans...

You can even see, visually, the bulge in the case that came out of the Hepburn (on the left). Not a big deal in the least, with black powder, if it keeps getting used in the same rifle and never gets sized. You'll get a hundred reloads out of it. Keep sizing it down so it looks like the one on the right, and it will split in less than ten:



How they don't fit in each other's rifles:



That's as far as they go into each other's chambers until the larger diameter bullet stops it in the Hepburn, and the case bulge stops it in the Sharps. The only "solution" would be the small bullet in the full length resized case, which would not be ideal in either. Thank God for hand loading, I guess. And retirement...

[911 Rod]

Your knowledge is outstanding

[herr_oberst]

Learned a new word today.

"schnabel"

[Superman]

We love reading your gun explanations, Jeff.

[fred cook]

Nice, very nice! I, too, have an affinity for the old boomers. Right now, the only thing I have in that category is a Rolling Block in 50/70. I do have a cartridge for the old Winchester double rifle that is in the 70/150/900 loading. Unfortunately, I was never able to find one of the 3-4 rifles that were built. Seems hard to believe that a 10 pounder is a "lightweight" but every ounce of that weight will help absorb the recoil some. What do you intend to hunt for first? Bear, elk, etc.?

[Jeff Higgins]

Yeah, "schnabels" are great - very old, traditional way to finish a forend tip. Here are some other examples, some perhaps unexpected:

Kind of hard to see, but my oldest son's Model 70 Featherweight in 6.5 Swede sporting a schnabel on the factory stock, right from Winchester. Oh, and this is somewhere outside Rawlins, WY, in the mid '90's, and he's all of 12 years old:



An early 1950's Savage 99 in 300 Savage:



A Ruger # 1 in .458 Winchester Magnum with an Alexander Henry (the 19th century Scottish gun maker) style schnabel:



A first year manufacture 1885 Winchester Highwall in .40-70 Sharps Straight:



So, yeah, these were/are quite common, and add kind of a nice touch.

So, Fred, the Rolling Block is one rifle I have never owned. I think a nice example in .50-70 would be a great addition to my collection. It was, after all, one General George Armstrong Custer's personal preference. I may have to start looking for one...

As far as what I plan to hunt, it will be mule deer, black bear, and elk. Our seasons are such here in Washington that it will be luck of the draw as far as which I get to pursue first. It will, of course, be adequate for any of those.

[Jeff Higgins]

One last photo. Here is the entire firearms outfit as it will be taken to the field, a very traditional collection of sidearm, holster, and gun belt. The sidearm, in keeping with the period, is, of course, a Colt Peacemaker. The gun belt and holster are where it gets to be fun.

The whole of the leather rig was hand made for me some 20 years ago by my good friend Cache Morse of Iron Creek Leather Works. It features a traditional one piece Mexican Loop Holster, of the single loop variety. Two loops were commonly used on holsters for guns with longer barrels, but we settled on just one for this holster, dedicated as it is to the 4 3/4" gun. The belt has ten each of "revolver" and "rifle" length cartridge loops, which is really kind of unnecessary, really, but why the hell not. It's kind of different.

The belt and the holster are, by the way, entirely separate pieces. They are not attached to one another, the holster just slips over the belt. You can slide it around to anywhere you would like it to be on the belt. You can even wear it on a normal belt on your jeans, or wear the belt separately as an ammo belt. Pretty versatile setup.