I know everyone likes Sharps rifles, BUT I stopped in Montana at two of the Sharps manufacturers because I was curious about the rifles. My first reaction to the rifles was - LARGE, and UGLY. The workmanship was great but I couldn't get over my negative reaction to their UGLYness. Now I don't know zip about historical single shots. I have seen the Ballards, the Baynards (sp?), the Stevens, and my favorite based soley on appearance, the Winchester High Wall. To get over the UGLYness of the Sharps, I would like to know if they are the best mechanically of the historical single shots?????

The simplist mechanically would be a rolling block and is what I prefer as a hunting rifle i.e very fast reloads and straight line ignition.
The Sharps has that 90 degree firing pin; a design flaw that concerns me in a hunting rifle.
The John Bodine replica with double set triggers is a reasonable comprimise between the excellent target triggers of the Sharps and the reliable ignition of the rolling block

It's nice to know I'm not the only one who finds them bulky and ugly. If you can get past the ugly, there is an outfit selling scaled down versions of the beast. As for mechanical aspects of the Sharps, they are primitive, a transition from paper cartridges to metallic. That funky firing pin bothers me, and the outside hammer is hopelessly dated.

My favorite from the standpoint of appearance is the Browning/Winchest single shots, esp. the Low Wall. It's a right sound mechanical design as well.

I do, though, prefer fully enclosed actions, feeling they are a bit safer, from the standpoint of escaping gases and from accidental firing. From the 1800's, the Borchardt is about the only option from the US side of the Atlantic. From Europe, there were several fine designs.

So what do I own? : a Contender Carbine plus a rolling block on order.

Beauty is a strange thing, but I can see where some folks might find the looks of a Sharps objectionable. The history of the action and it's functionality, however, more than compensate. Among beautiful Sharps, such that they might be, you can look at the 1877 Sharps as the ultimate.

Which are made by Axtel (www.riflesmith.com). But that may not do it for you.

So, the Highwall is a pretty action indeed. Far stronger than the low-wall. Never minding the horrendous mistakes that tne modern Browning/Winchester conglomerate call "walls". Those are truly ugly fakes. But the originals are definitely beautiful.

A Pacific or Montana Ballard looks pretty nice, are quite fast in action and have great triggers. You might look at them too.

Then there are the Wesson actions - very few being made but lots of folks think they look pretty sweet indeed.

Stevens, Rem/Hepburns, trapdoors all fall in the pretty damn ugly column for me. Contender rifles and Rugers don't even make it on the bottom of the chart however.

Awww, now I think the Ruger isn't so bad looking. My only complaint is the zillion parts needed to make one. One thing I like about the single shots is their (general) simplicity of construction.

That is a decent looking Sharps there. I also like the ones with the flat sided receiver; I think C. Sharps makes it. Still, an outside hammer seems to offer no advantages.

The Borchardts are in production again, and while they have nice enough lines, they are Big. The funky Heeren's are available from Europe (for a Price). Ballards are sweet, if not very strong. The cartridge Maynard is rumored to be on the verge of production again (but there is that ugly duckling issue).

Looks aren't everything. I chose a rolling block, after all.

asdf-
As sharps go, the 75 that c.sharps makes is the ugliest to me. Also, only two were ever made originally.

The Borchardt is not a big action - not the real ones. They are hell for stout, but not especially large. Shiloh is gearing up to make them.

A Ruger is okay? What the hell do you do with your thumb? Gotta have a hammer - just gotta, unless you had a bad moment with a hand axe and lost your's.

Brent

I'm glad to hear Shiloh is jumping into the Borchardt business, and I'll keep an eye on their site.

As for exposed hammers, I like them well enough, and were they as safe as internal hammers, I'd prefer them, but they are not as safe. (Still, I do have that rolling block on order.)

Your picture of the Axtell tempted me to their site, where I found this (emphasis mine):

quote:

Axtell Rifles are made with only a few minor changes to the original design. We have reduced the one-piece firing pin's diameter, which has just about eliminated the problem of a broken pin. We also use a more durable barrel-blueing solution and use a small amount of Acraglas Resin to strengthen the traditionally weak areas of the stock.

No wonder Sharps couldn't stay in business. If they'd only put emphasis on their 1875 and their Borchardts, they'd have had a chance. And just how can you call the 1875 ugly?:



They'll make it in .30-40, but don't dare do so with the 1874. I'm almost ready to reach for the checkbook...

I forgot to mention in the last post, I think you're pessimistic about the strength of those lovely Low Walls. Both Browning and Ballard have offered them in .308 class cartridges. (I'm not sure I'd care to put my face behind the breech, though. )

Karl

Karl,
Original highwalls were made in .30-06 for production rifles. And higher calibers for the Winchester testing labs. See Campbell's book on the Winchester single shot. He is also is very skeptical of anything as large as a .38-55 in a low wall. A browning/winchester "low wall" is a different beast with different geometry so heavier rounds will work. I've thought about one in .243 for my wife, but it's so darn ugly and I so hate smokeless ammo.

I believe Shiloh does make the 74 in .30-40. I know they used to. Why anyone would want one though is hard to imagine.

As for the 75 - well it's notorious for breaking firing pins. My Shiloh 74 with the original style pin is 20 yrs and many thousands of rounds old and it has yet to break even one. My stock is sound as well, and it's been used hard hard. I don't know about the 77 stocks. But it's a fine looking rifle.

Hammerless is safer eh? Well, I suppose slingshots and ballpoint pens are safer yet. Personally, I think a hammer gun is safer than a hammerless. Wouldn't have anything else. But indubitably there will be an argument that can be made for whatever turns your crank.

Yep, that 75 is still as ugly as ever.

Brent

quote:

A browning/winchester "low wall" is a different beast with different geometry

That could explain a lot. I haven't had a chance to compare an original and a B/W side by side.

I'm curious, why would a '75 Sharps be more likely to break pins than the '74? Is the breech thinner, requiring a steeper angle?

My browser doesn't have the extension required to view the Shiloh site. My shooting notebook records many favorable comments on their quality I've seen over the years.

About the biggest drawback to the Sharps (in my mind) is that one must draw the hammer back to half-cock before lowering the breech. A rebounding hammer would have been nice (but creates a few safety issues of it's own), requiring fewer motions to reload.

Do all the Sharp's replicas (the '75 included) use the dovetailed plate behind the firing pin that de Haas describes in his big book? (Yeh, this whole discussion got me to open that chapter again.) He said the plate keeps any gases that might escape out of your face.

(My, those '75s are nice looking.)

Karl

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:
I'm curious, why would a '75 Sharps be more likely to break pins than the '74? Is the breech thinner, requiring a steeper angle?

I don't know why they break more. Might be that CSharps just doesn't make them or harden them right. I've never taken them apart either. But that's their reputation.

quote:

My browser doesn't have the extension required to view the Shiloh site. My shooting notebook records many favorable comments on their quality I've seen over the years.

Indeed, most consider them the creme' de la creme of the Sharps builders. I certainly like mine.

quote:

About the biggest drawback to the Sharps (in my mind) is that one must draw the hammer back to half-cock before lowering the breech. A rebounding hammer would have been nice (but creates a few safety issues of it's own), requiring fewer motions to reload.

Well, that is mostly myth. There is a tit on the firing pin of the Sharps that pushes the pin back as the block comes down. I have opened my block countless times w/o half cocking, and like I said, I'm on my original pin (knock on wood please). That doesn't mean I make a habit of it, but certainly, I have done this a couple hundred times w/o trouble. I never bother with worrying about half cocking in the midst of a kill while hunting.

No rifle that I know of has rebounding hammers. Certainly not my Walls and not my Ballard (if you cock the Ballard before lowering the block you break the sear - just the opposite of the Sharps myth). Not sure about what you see as safety issues either way. But the standard Sharps falling block works pretty darn well for most of us and has a very good safety record so far as I know. If it does have one safety issue, it is with the block coming up on an exposed and protruding primer or if someone decides to pound a sticky loaded cartridge into the breech with a screw driver. Fruend was the famous smith of yesteryear that modified the Sharps for this issue. But still, just the smallest care when loading cartridges will avoid this problem. Using one's head or a seating assist tool when loading a sticky cartridge in the breech will avoid any and all problems so far as I'm concerned.

The most unsafe single shot - by my read of rumor and innuendo only - might be the single most highly produced. The Remington Roller. But even that has a pretty good track record.

quote:

Do all the Sharp's replicas (the '75 included) use the dovetailed plate behind the firing pin that de Haas describes in his big book? (Yeh, this whole discussion got me to open that chapter again.) He said the plate keeps any gases that might escape out of your face.

I am not entirely sure what you are talking about but there is a dovetailed plate behind my shiloh plate that does this. It also has a vent hole from the firing pin straight down through the block. Can't say about the 75. New 74's from Shiloh have an improved and modernized pin, different than the original and mine and presumably safter - done in part so that they can load things that have higher pressures like the .30-40K and use a smaller diameter pin. I have not dissected one of these.

quote:

(My, those '75s are nice looking.)

Looks like something that should be named Hillary to me.

Brent

First, thank you Brent for all the information.

Myths are interesting things. I've always read you must half-cock the hammer on a Sharps, but I also knew there was a ramp on the inside of the mortise which pushes the pin back, there being no retraction spring. As I understand it, the hammer shoves the right half of the pin into this ramped recess, and as the breech drops, the pin is pushed rearward. Still, the hammer has a heavy spring, and if care is not taken in fitting the pin to this recess, I can see there could be a problem dragging the pin out of the dimple in the primer. Apparently Shiloh takes care to see this is so, but do the lesser makes?

The plate I mentioned is shown in de Haas's drawing. After the pin is inserted from the rear of the breech, the plate is slid in its dovetail from the side. It's an attempt to insure any stray gases don't go straight rearward to your face. De Haas mentions some early Sharps were lax in this regard (and primers in the 1800's weren't as sturdy as those today). I'm curious just how different is this new Shiloh pin. I imagined all modern Sharps actions used a modern, narrow firing pin. I must look further into these Shilohs.

Back to myths, yes, the rollers are reputed to be able to unlock in the event of a serious gas escape. I can find no real record of this ever happening. The theory was that when gases came blowing down the firing pin hole, they'd act like rocket exhaust and blow back the hammer, unlocking the action.

This seems pretty far fetched, but some European rollers were built with a safety catch to try to stop this from ever happening. One source (I forget which) felt what always actually happened was the breech was snapped shut with a corroded firing pin sticking forward. Bang went the primer, and with the hammer back, out came the case: ouch. Remington responded to this with a lever inside the breech to shove back the firing pin each time the action was opened. With smokeless cartridges having far fewer problems with corrosion, this is no longer deemed necessary.

If the gases are properly dealt with, then the only concern on exposed hammer guns is accidentally dropping the gun with the chamber loaded. That big external hammer on the Sharps is far more like to break a sear than the internal hammer on the Ruger. One favorite is the Meacham (I wish I could afford one) High Walls. They use a Mann bushing to try to keep the gases in, and an inertia firing pin is offered, allowing one to keep the hammer all the way down until the shot is to be taken -- nice.

There were many rifles made with rebounding hammers. De Haas has several in his first, big volume. The best known is the Hepburn. Talk about ugly! I handled a modern one (from Oklahoma) last year, and was strangely drawn to the thing. It, too, has the rebounding hammer of the originals. Lots of little screws in that action. I got to work a Ballard for the first time then as well. Lovely gun, but I knew one day my absent minded habits would cause me to drop the breech with the hammer back.

I've never seen a '75 Sharps up close. Is the action any narrower than the '74s, which you must admit were rather bulky. And I must admit, I've always kind of wanted a Sharps, especially that spiffy '75.

Karl

Karl,
I understand what you mean now by dovetail door for the firing pin, and yes, my Shiloh has it. Again, mine is the early Shiloh, and I imagine it or something better is on the new ones.

As for the firing pin retraction spring. They come with these, but I took mine out and tossed it. Even old originals have provisions for this but more are missing the spring. I don't know how the new pins are sprung of even if they are, but I find this a nonissue. Yes, there can be a millimeter or two of pin drag when opening the block with the hammer down, but that is no problem so far as I can tell.

As for what the other makers do, I don't know. But I have watched dozens of Pedersoli owners forget to go to half cock in a match shoot where time is critical and none have broken. I believe they all have the dovetail shield for gas protection as well, though early ones may not have had this.

Yep, the roller liability is the stuck pin in the roller striking the primer when the hammer is cocked. If the european ones have some sort of protection against this, I don't know what it is. I have a Husqvarna roller in my safe right now, but have yet to do anything with it. Have to check it out.

And Heps have rebounding hammers? Interesting. I've only handled a few. Yes they are ugly, but somehow they grow on you. They are again being made. Now in Cody WY at Ballard Rifles. The guy that made the OK Hep has bought Ballard Rifles so they now make Rems, Wins, and Ballards of all types.

Well, I suppose if you like those 75's you can find them dirt cheap. They are skinny, but skinny isn't everything. If slim and trim is what you want, a Highwall is as good as it gets. Meanwhile, a bunch are for sale on Gun Broker - owners that want to upgrade to the 74...

Brent

Again, thanks for all the comments, and my notebook has some new entries. I went over to GunBroker.com to verify your "bunch are for sale" was a bit of an exaggeration. One fellow in NM sure has a lot of photos. For an outside hammer gun, it sure is nice looking.

The European rolling blocks I spoke of had a lever inside the hammer which kept the hammer from moving back until the thumb was in place. It was to prevent blow back from doing this (if it ever did do it). Ah, I just found it in de Haas's second volume, More.... It was made in Norway.

I visited the Hepburn shop in OKC, and that is where I was able to handle the various guns in the Ballard and DZ lines. Nice fellows, too.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. With that being said. Calling the '74 not beutiful, pleasing to the eyes, or heaven forbid ugly, sounds like treason or worse. I have a '74 working gun in 50-90 weighing in @ 13 1/2lbs, and I consider it quite beautiful.
Some of the reason for this is historical and some is not, but this is what a buffalo rifle should look like!
You should also remember the time period in which this rifle was designed, funcionality over looks, and these are transition designes from paper cartridge to metalic cartridge.

So, to each his own.

I`d sure like to know what is needed to make the newer High Wall replicas[Uberti, etc] cock ALL the way on the downstroke of the lever? Wonder if an original hammer or something would work? I have seen a couple and they were really nice but you gotta cock the hammer every shot. Not like my old original 1885 Win. Sharps are not the prettiest candle on the altar to me either.

Aloha, Mark

Bohica, I recall the Ballard Rifles replica of the HW I tried would cock correctly. It should be just a matter of the location of the sear notch on the hammer. Too high and it won't pick up the sear.

Hey Sharps Shooter,
What loads do you use in that 50/90. I got one on order.

quote:

Originally posted by Brent:
asdf-
As sharps go, the 75 that c.sharps makes is the ugliest to me. Also, only two were ever made originally.

The Borchardt is not a big action - not the real ones. They are hell for stout, but not especially large. Shiloh is gearing up to make them.

A Ruger is okay? What the hell do you do with your thumb? Gotta have a hammer - just gotta, unless you had a bad moment with a hand axe and lost your's.

Brent

Begorra! It's the opposite for me! I've always thought that the New Model 1875 "Old Reliable" made by C. Sharps Arms was the best looking Sharps of the bunch!



I had one in .32/40. It was amazingly accurate, and had a GREAT trigger pull. However, they were only made with single-stage triggers, and no DST was avaliable.

Dang that thing hurts the eyes. If they win at all, it's because everyone else is wincing at the eyesore and missing. Even a trapdoor or a roller is more attractive

Brent

For WALLACE I use BeLL brass with a federal 215 primer, 100gn of elephant FF. on top of that I put a waxpaper peice then a 1/8" grease cookie followed by a juice carton wad, I push out a 550gn bullet 3 grease grooves and it has a nice flat nose. Punches 1 hole groups @100 yards. also shoot paperpatch but have to clean every shot with black to get any kind of accuracy. Did try some smokeless loads, 85gn of IMR4350 topped with 450gn barnes original accurate but non traditional, this had a M/V of 1912 with a 8fps deveation. I shoot only black now.

Old Elk Hunter...If you were to get a single shot what would you use it for?...Target shooting, hunting, plinking, black powder or competition or all of the above???.....What cal.are you interested in?...Kinda makes a differance what rifle you get depending on what you are going to use it for...I have a friend that likes to hunt with his big ole Pedersoli Rolling block in 45-70...would'nt catch me packing that big hunk around....I would prefer something lighter myself... maybe like one of the Uberti Low Walls in a 38-55... cut the barrel back to 24 or 26" and it would fit all my hunting needs as long as my eye's could see the sites........Have you found anything you like yet???....cheers..mic

asdf;

You need to do two things: read a little Sharps history and (2) talk to BPC target shooters who shoot Sharps repros because they shoot them far more than anyone else will.
It was the cost of manufacture and business practice which was mostly responsible for the demise of the Sharps rigfle company. That plus the investment in development and production of the Borchardt which didn't sell well due to being hammerless.
As to the durabillity of the 1874 (in my case a Shiloh) I have never broken a firing pin. It probably happens but I have not experienced it while Stevens shooters (for inatance) have to carry spare firing pins with them. The thing of breaking the firing pin tip if the hammer is not on half-cock before the block is lowered is true of original Sharps. Of the repros, the Italian made rifles are true to the original in that respect. I trend to use the half-cock with my Shiloh but have forgotten many times and have not broken the pin.
As to the stock being weak, so is a $20,000 side-lock shotgun but only if you drop it! Actually with the long lower tang on the 1874 it is strongly reinforced. Makes me wonder if the glass bedding isn't to make up for less than peerfect inletting.Also the dovetail plate behind the firing pin is not an issue at all with any load appropriate for the rifle. DeHass was certainly knowledgeable but was heavily into modeernizng and wildcatting.
Like what what you will and enjoy, but keep in mind the 1874 Sharps came into being as a percussion rifle and made the transition to breechloader very successfully. Use it for what it is - an 1850s design and it will outlast you.

Don

P.S. The Winchester is a semi automatic. It insists on cocking the hammer when the lever is worked for those who can't remembeer to do so.

quote:

the outside hammer is hopelessly dated

Since posting that comment I've had a change of heart on the side hammers. I like to ponder the question "were I to develop a single shot, what would it be?" With some attention to detail, the side hammer can allow you to make the rifle a bit trimmer, compared to the classic English actions.

As to the Sharp's history, I was just reading today the contributions of Lawrence. I was able to find his patent for the funky Sharps firing pin at the patent office site. I didn't know it was Sharps that patented (in the US at least) the idea to angle the breech mortise a bit, to help seat the cartridge. I thought Winchester was the first in the US to do that, on their modified Browning (ie. the 1885).