|
Post by Junior on Dec 9, 2020 21:30:01 GMT -7
Today, my wife had a doctors appointment. And I did what any good husband would do, I dropped her off and made my way down to the gun store.
Anyway, that was a mistake, since I found a Shiloh Sharps rifle there. 34” barrel, in 45/90. No sights, but the price of $1450 more then made up for that.
Unfortunately, I didn’t have 1450 bucks so I had to leave it. Gonna try to sell a couple revolvers and go back and see if it’s still there.
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 10, 2020 9:04:43 GMT -7
No sights ? Sights are expensive and quality sights very expensive. Top of the line sights for long range competition can set you back well over $1,000.00 for a set with precision movement windage adjustable front and rear with anti cant bubble level somewhere in the system. Even just a simple hunting rear sight styled after the original Lawrence type barrel sight with flip up staff and slider can run a couple hundred. Then you still have to decide on a front sight weather simple blade or some type of tunnel front sight with either fixed post or bead or using changeable inserts. A front sight type at each end of performance capability can run from maybe about $35.00 for a simple blade to perhaps about $500.00 for one at the opposite end of performance with inserts, level bubble, and Vernier scale windage adjustable. Then there are sights as from MVA that are dedicated copies of originals as well as new designs that did not exist before BPC competition became popular. Some of the original copies of long range target sights are too frail and too expensive to be used afield for hunting so if you want to hunt with it you end up wanting for two sight sets one for target work and another less expensive more robust set for hunting. I am saying these things in the second person but remembering them in the first. This is pretty much the circle of my own experience using these type rifles. Another point of personal preference through experience is of barrel length. I have come to prefer a barrel length of not over 30" and my current Sharps rifle has a 28" barrel that at first was not thrilled with but have grown to appreciate. The barrel length issue is a trade off so as such what you surrender at one performance end you gain at another. The single benefit of the longer barrel is sight radius. The effect of sight radius is powerfully demonstrated in the use of short barreled hand guns in that when that front sight wiggles just a little the POI shifts a lot. The longer the sight radius the lesser the shift in POI with an equal wiggle of the front sight. So in long range target shooting where a little wiggle of the front sight equates to a major shift in bullet impact at 1000 yards there is a benefit to the longer barrel. For other use the slightly shorter barrel has benefits also. One is in carry where an extremely long barrel is cumbersome to carry. There is also the issue of rear sight staff height and max range capability. Put simple for any given rear sight staff height the shorter the barrel length the longer the range capability of that rear sight. An extremely long barrel requires a much taller rear sight to get to any given long range than does a shorter barrel and the biggest problem with that is as was mentioned earlier on in that with such a long appendage hanging off the rifle it is all the more susceptible to damage in handling. That's why Quigley kept his rear sight in a pouch and not on the gun. Likely the best set up for general use is to have the Lawrence barrel sight on the barrel in conjunction with a Lyman/Marbles type hunting type sight on the tang and a very simple tunnel front with fixed post with bead. With this arraignment you have great durability against damage as well as some range flexibility in sight settings. You can cover out to about 300 yards without changing any sight settings. The idea is the set the barrel sight for center holds to about 125 to 150 yards and use it for all closer shots requiring speed in sight acquisition then have the flip up Lyman/Marbles sight sighted in for center holds to nearly 300 yards maybe not quite but nearly. That is a fast handling set up that will deliver good hunting accuracy and still be tough enough for field use. For target use you just add a large eye cup to block out light and you can do some fine group shooting. The difference between a target sight and a hunting sight is that the target sight has readable repeatable adjustments where as the hunting sight adjustments are not readable so not repeatable without trial and error adjustments. Once the trial and error is past and the hunting sight adjusted for any given range it is as accurate as any other type of hole to look through that could be called a sight as long as there is no looseness or movement to the staff. Well Son I have rambled on enough and if you have not noticed am excited for you. I am not trying to discourage at all but just trying to pass on some of my experience with these rifles that you may not have noticed growing up.
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 10, 2020 10:02:16 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Junior on Dec 10, 2020 14:05:52 GMT -7
The rifle did have a standard, non covered blade front, and a barrel mounted ladder sight. But nothing fancy.
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 10, 2020 16:10:28 GMT -7
Those sights served well in the extermination of the American bison. Most folks think that they use the target type sights we now comonly see in use one these rifles but for the same reason I earlier stated they were too frail for constant field use. The Lawrence type barrel sight with stand up slider can be used to to good effect for ranges to 500 or 600 yards with a bit of shooting practice learning where to set the slider for different ranges. You may not remember the model 75 I had in Alaska that was chambered in 50-90. That was what I used on that rifle and as it turned out with the 600gn paper patch bullets I use it well regulated to 100 yards in the laid down position and then at 200 and 300 yards with the first two index marks on the staff. I used that combo to take a fair size moose as well as a nice mule deer when we lived in Fairview MT. That mule deer was the one I shot through the Juniper tree to make a heart shot. In reality that is the sight used by most buffalo hunters that used Sharps rifles. Oh BTW I know you wont remember because you were only six months old when we took you on your first camping hunting trip and I carried you in a back pack. We were in the Big Hole out of Jackson up on the divide on the Bull road when I shot an elk with an original Sharps carbine 50-70 equipped with the same sight, the Lawrence rear barrel sight with simple blade front. I remember the load using Lyman # 515141 and a 60gn weight charge of Goex FG powder. The spike bull was trotting right toward me on the game trail I was sitting in. When he got close enough to scare me I fired. The shot hit dead center in the chest and exited the rear vent for several feet of penetration square through the heart, lungs , and a chewed up wet bail of hay, guts, and continued on in the direction of Wisdom. Somewhere I have a picture of a young me holding a young you with the Sharps rifle standing by the hanging elk. That picture is my trophy of a life time !
|
|
|
Post by missionary on Dec 11, 2020 5:29:40 GMT -7
Good morning Buffs We should also remember that the Buff shooters were not real concerned about how long it took for a Buff to bleed out. A hit was a hit. Just so it dropped within visible distance of the follow on skinners who could stand on top of the wagon to see the next beast to rip the hide off. Sure the shooters tried to hit in the lungs and shoulders but they were no better shots then any of us who practice. There were exceptional shooters (as today) who had unusual eye hand coordination but they were rare as they are today. If ever pure economics of movement and time was in effect it was when the Buff herds were shot to pieces. Now the Wimbelton and the east coast 1000 yards match rifleman were equipped with state of the art sights which cost equally top dollar prices as today.. Most of those riflemen shot for gun companies that supplied the goods to win matches... I think we all the companies "Sponsers" today.
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Dec 11, 2020 9:40:32 GMT -7
We have a friend residing in Anchorage Alaska his name is Leo Remiger . Leo is a history buff that has spent the greater part of his life studying the time period from the US uncivil war through the buffalo hunt. Leo has spent countless hours researching news paper archives and historical books on the subject. He has also written several books himself on the subject. Leo has for many years been a regular contributor to publications such as The Black Powder Cartridge News, and The American Sharps Shooter and others . I feel confident in saying Leo is an expert on the subject. Leo has sent me a couple of his books one of which was co-authored by Miles Gilbert called Getting A Stand and the other a two volume set called The Encyclopedia Of Buffalo Hunters. One entire volume of the encyclopedia are the copied records of hide buyers and record hunters names and the number of hides delivered over time. There are many inconsequential names that show up in singular entries with small numbers but there are also regular annual and bi-annual entries of names that produced the bulk of hides over a period of about ten years. Many of these main hunters kept their own records as well to keep track of their profit by keeping record of the ratio of shots fired to hides harvested. I was fascinated to learn that one of the top hunters a man named Jim White kept a tally that recorded a very near 1 to 1 ratio using a Big 50 Sharps, a 50-2 1/2" Sharps AK 50-90. Studying these records clearly shows that as caliber went down in size the shots per hide went up and as I recall the 40 caliber rounds averaged about 7 to 1. This is why the dedicated hide hunters kept a communication line open with the Sharps company and as the hunt progressed Sharps kept up the development of cartridges to fit the demand for the hunt. It would seem then by the records that in the 50-90 they about hit perfection for the purpose. It would be well also to point out that Jim White was indeed one of those exceptional shots. In a chapter of Leo's book he wrote about A man named Hanna partnering with Jim White to supply meat for the railroad. In this one incident the two men had spotted some antelope at what they estimated about 600 yards distant. They agreed they would try for these animals and Hanna began mounting his horse to get closer but White set to shooting. In Hanna's words the first shot went low just under the belly and White made a sight adjustment ( Lawrence barrel sight ) and then began killing antelope. There is another very interesting chapter about tenderfoot hunting and what was accepted practice for the hunters to deal with it and how Jim White came to be called OLd White Jim by the Mexican meat hunters encountered on the southern parries at the same time. Very interesting reading that I have read through several time and am still entertained with it.
|
|