11 Nov. 1988, a doe antelope taken on a hunt
north of
Alamogordo, New Mexico shot with an original Sharps carbine. This
rifle was built late 1864 and used in the Civil War by Union Cavalry
troops. At that time it shot paper cartridges and used percussion
primers. After the war, in 1867, it was converted to fire the new
metallic cartridge that was simply known by the Army as the "U.S.
Regulation Centre-Fire Cartridge". Later the cartridge became
known by the names of ".50 Government", ".50-70 Government", and
finally the simple "50-70" that it is known by today. It was
used by cavalry troops in the West for a short while before the
government standardized on the Trapdoor Springfield rifle and
carbine. These guns were then either relegated to back-water
units or sold off into the civilian world. This critter was shot
at a range of 186 yards with open sights while the animal was angling
away at a medium walk. The round was loaded with a 500 grain
paper-patched bullet and of course pushed by Goex black powder.
9 October 2001, a Mule deer taken on a hunt
south of
Alamogordo, NM (on the McGregor Range complex) with a scoped
Browning Model 78. The Model 78 is a sem-u-loid reproduction
attempt of the historic Winchester high wall single shot. Like
the Sharps above,
it is a single shot falling block action. The deer was shot while
standing broadside at a range of about 200 yards. The rifle is
chambered for the classic, efficient, & very effective 300 H&H
Magnum - the granddaddy of all of the .300 Magnums. It was loaded
with a 180 grain Barnes X-Bullet. The deer dropped like he had
been pole-axed.
4 February 2005, a nice Corsican Ram
taken on a sheep hunt
at Thompson Temple's Ranch in Barksdale, Texas with an 1898
Springfield Infantry rifle. This is the type of rifle (though
this particular rifle was made a few years later) that charged up San
Juan Hill beside Teddy Roosevelt. The rifle is charged via a door
that opens on the right side of the receiver. The bullets then
feed underneath the chamber and up the left side where they are
captured by the bolt and fed into the chamber. These rifles have
one of the smoothest operating bolts ever designed. This is the
U.S. military's first smokeless powder firearm and is chambered for the
".30 U.S. Army" round, nowadays known as the "30-40 Krag". Like
the Sharps carbine above, the bore on this rifle shows that it was used
hard in a prior life. Even though, with the original load it
still turns out groups that are acceptable. This ram is an old
fella, he has gray muzzle and a very nice right horn while his left
horn had recently been broken (presumably while fighting over the
ladies). This ram was taken at 30 to 40 yards while at a mid-trot
as he was heading 90 degrees to my line-of-fire. The load I used,
like the original military loading, is a 220 grain Round Nose bullet
pushed at 2,000 fps.
These are some of my cartridges, some of
which I've already talked about above. From right to left (yeah I
know, I know, it's a backwards way to do it) they are: a .45 Colt case
(from the Colt Single Action Army I carried into combat during the
first Gulf War), a .30-06 cartridge with an 180
grain Nosler Ballistic Tip (I used this on a Javelina), the above
mentioned .50-70 cartridge, the above mentioned .300 H&H Magnum,
the above mentioned .30-40 Krag, and finally a .50 - 2½” Sharps
cartridge with a 650 grain Round Nose cast bullet (looking forward to
hunting with this one).
This is my youngest daughter Anna
holding my Shiloh Long Range Express rifle. It is chambered for
the .50 - 2½” Sharps cartridge that is pictured above. The
scope on it is a period reproduction scope by RHO that is a fixed
six-power with external windage and elevation adjustments. It
weighs in right at twelve pounds and is a real beauty. I have not
had a chance to hunt with it yet, but I am hoping it won't be too
long. If you want the best Sharps pattern rifle available, a
Shiloh is it!
Here are the old and the new side by
side. Each has it's own wonderful qualities. The new Shiloh
Sharps Long Range Express rifle is big, has a 34" #1 heavy weight half
round - half octagonal barrel, is fitted with a period scope, and fires
the humongous .50 - 2½” Sharps cartridge. What's not to
like? The original Sharps carbine is handy in size, points
quickly, and fires the venerable .50 Government cartridge. Plus
you can't count out the "been there, done that" (two wars plus probably
a buffalo or two) aura that surrounds it. Which to hunt with
next? How to choose,
how to choose . . . .
Got some reloading done the other day, for both of the above rifles. I want to try out some new loads for each with varying powder levels, just to see which the rifles like the best. For those not familiar with blackpowder cartridge firearms, a fair amount of experimenting is normally required to find the load that a weapons "likes" the best. This is true even with apparently similar weapons from the same manufacturer.
We went shooting the other day, and after Anna (my youngest) had warmed up with a .22 rifle she tried shooting the old Springfield. She did pretty well too!
Of course, what's a day at the range without putting a few rounds through the pistol. We even took the family cat shooting too, she also seemed to be having fun!
Down at the local gunship there was a rifle that looked liked it needed a good home and being a sucker for rifles with a story to tell, it has ended up at my home. It is a model 1891/30 Mosin-Nagant made in 1942 at the Izhevsk Armoury in the then Soviet Union. This is the rifle (in both it's basic and sniper versions) that was the star of the movie "Enemy at the Gates". The construction is really rough, it looks like it was made with a Dremel, a hand file, and a wood rasp.
The thing to remember is that this period (late 1942 to early 1943) is when the Germans were really pressing home their attack in Russia. This was when the Battle for Stalingrad was taking place, the Soviet Union was fighting for it's life. So their emphasis was on functionality and not aesthetics. Hence many steps were deleted in the construction process, especially if they didn't relate directly to functionality. This explains the ugly exterior.
But functionally it shoots well. It pushes a 180 grain bullet along at around 2600 fps, which gives a bit of kick considering the poor stock design. The bore looks horrible, so I'll hold off judging the accuracy until I get it cleaned up. They are a neat rifle. Standard version ones can shoot to a couple of inches at 100 yards.
My rifle is one such ex-sniper. I bought it from a nice individual over on the Mosin-Nagant forum on SurplusRifle.com (via the local FFL dealer). Here is a picture of the beast:
Not to bad considering the crude infantry battle sights and the need
for a new prescription for my glasses. This rifle shows definite
promise and I am looking forward to the day when I can restore it with
the proper scope and mount. Of course I mainly buy old rifles,
but this is one of the more accurate one that I have gotten. With
a little love & care . . . . .
Another recent acquisition.
It's a current Norinco reproduction of the (WWI / WWII / Vietnam vintage) Model '97 Winchester Trench Shotgun (I passed up on an original years ago and have been kicking myself ever since). I've accessorized it with a proper reproduction Model 1905 sling and an original WWI Model 1913 bayonet.
The shotgun by itself definitely has a "business only" look to it. Adding a nearly two foot bayonet to it gives the weapon a grizzly, mean look to say the least. It would probably look better with a reproduction bayonet as it would match the weapon's finish. But they cost five times as much and it's kinda cool to know that this particular bayonet was there in the trenches (it was made in Sept 1917 by Remington).
Depending on whether your using paper or plastic shot shells, it'll hold either five or six in the tube. When this repro was made, the makers exactly reproduced an original weapon (of course without the trademarked Winchester logos). As a result it doesn't have all of the geek lawyer inspired safeties, just the half-cock safety that I prefer anyway. Another original function it has is the ability to slam fire. What this means is that if you hold the trigger down and cycle the slide it'll fire when the action reaches full closed. It's amazing how fast you can shoot the six to seven rounds this thing will hold.
The barrel is a 20" cylinder bore. It amazed me how tight the pattern out of this thing is. With either 00 Buck, #4 bird shot, or #7 bird shot the pattern at 25 yards was no more than chest width. I really expected a much wider spread from such an open bore. As a matter of fact, it was almost too tight. Other than at really close quarters you would definitely need to aim to hit your target. It shot to point of aim both with and without the bayonet fixed. Just to make sure that it'd work, after emptying the weapon I did a bayonet charge on the target silhouette. It worked great!!!!
Back in WWI the Germans really feared these weapons and threatened to execute any U.S. solider captured with either one of these shotguns or even just shotgun shells on them. They also tried to get them declared illegal weapons of war (interesting coming from people who were using mustard gas on their opponents). I can see why they hated them though, I'd really hate to be staring down the business of this thing.
So in keeping with my military theme, I figured what assemblage of firearms would be complete without the greatest battle implement ever devised (General George S. Patton). I am of course talking / typing about the M-1 Garand. I have liked them ever since my brother got one in the early '80s. I wanted one as they are truly a piece of history, but I also wanted one I could learn on, accurize, shoot, and play around with without destroying something a G.I. had slogged up a beach in WWII. So I purchased a put together shooter with an after market receiver. These are generally pretty poorly thought of so I figured I could hurt anything important. So here is what it looked like when I bought it (minus the sling):
Not exactly a thing off beauty. The worst off all was the ugly brown plastic stock. It was also brand spanking new, so it functioned poorly at first. This is not unheard of though as new Garands do need to be broken in. So I disassembled, sanded, smoothed, fit, and greased things. It started to work better and maybe show a little promise. A few good books on the subject really helped out a lot. I also put in new springs and other wearable parts as I felt like mine were probably refinished "worn out" stuff. I decided I'd dress it up a little as long as I was playing around with it. I ordered a nice wood laminate stock for it, a flash hider, and various accessories & cleaning supplies. I also wanted to try putting a scope mount on it. As far as old military weapons go, there are no finer "no gunsmith" mounts than those made by S&K. My brother happened to have one that he wasn't going to use so I put it on to try it out:
Got some reloading done the other day, for both of the above rifles. I want to try out some new loads for each with varying powder levels, just to see which the rifles like the best. For those not familiar with blackpowder cartridge firearms, a fair amount of experimenting is normally required to find the load that a weapons "likes" the best. This is true even with apparently similar weapons from the same manufacturer.
Here are some of the .50 Government
cases for the Sharps carbine. They are loaded with three
different loads of powder - 75, 80, and 85 grains of Goex Cartridge
blackpowder. The powder columns have a fiber .030" Walter's Wad
hand seated on top of the powder. The different powder levels
will now be compressed through a powder compression die to the same
depth. The yet to be loaded bullets are in the background.
A 19th-century bison galloping - set to
motion using photos, by Eadweard Muybridge
Just so that you don't think bufflers are slow and meek . . .
Here are the completed reloads on my
reloading bench (this is about the cleanest the area has ever
been). I can't wait to see how these new rounds shoot!
It'll be the first time that I've used the original style government
bullets (Lyman # 515141) in the smaller cases. The bore on the
little Sharps is way over-sized by today's standards so it'll be
interesting to see how it shoots.
Well, here are the results! This first photo is the best hundred yard group for the .50 - 2½” Sharps cartridge (50-90). I was testing three different powder levels: 95, 100, and 105 grains behind the 650 grain Steve Brooks custom made bullet. Generally each individual firearm will prefer a different amount of powder and the only way to find it is experimentation. I the case of my particular Shiloh rifle, it seemed to like a loading of 100 grains of Goex Cartridge black powder with a compression of .138 inches. There's a little more experimenting to do (primers, neck tension, seating depth, etc.) but it's looking pretty promising. Anyhoo, here's the group of ten shots at 100 yards.
(much elapsed time goes by . . . . )
Well, here are the results! This first photo is the best hundred yard group for the .50 - 2½” Sharps cartridge (50-90). I was testing three different powder levels: 95, 100, and 105 grains behind the 650 grain Steve Brooks custom made bullet. Generally each individual firearm will prefer a different amount of powder and the only way to find it is experimentation. I the case of my particular Shiloh rifle, it seemed to like a loading of 100 grains of Goex Cartridge black powder with a compression of .138 inches. There's a little more experimenting to do (primers, neck tension, seating depth, etc.) but it's looking pretty promising. Anyhoo, here's the group of ten shots at 100 yards.
As far as the .50 Government cartridges
for the Sharps carbine, as I mentioned above I was trying 75, 80, and
85 grains of powder behind the original government bullet. As you
can see, the group isn't as good as with the new Shiloh rifle (the
cartridge that's next to the group isn't what I was shooting this day,
it just happened to be the only loaded round I had left).
There are some reasons for the lesser accuracy of the old carbine (besides the obvious fact that it's around 130 years old). After the Civil War the government was looking for breech loading firearms, so they tested numerous firearms. Some of those were converted Civil War weapons, such as this little Sharps. Since this was one of the first attempts at a breech loader by the government there are areas of the weapon that weren't accomplished too well. One of the most glaring is the bore. It has three really wide grooves & lands (which causes huge fins of lead to be displaced on the bases of the fired bullets) and an unbelievably slow twist rate of one turn in 45 inches. Between the slow twist rate and the slow velocity of black powder, the bullets must be kept really light to maintain stabilization. The 450 grain government bullet is about the limit. Lighter bullets would stabilize better but would also be less aerodynamic. I'll have to play around with that trade off. Secondly the chamber is way, way over-sized. This is so cartridges would still chamber in fouled chambers during battle field conditions. It is so large that I am using cartridge cases that are a tenth of an inch longer than normal in an attempt to fill up the chamber. That's helping but there is more experimenting to be done.
Surprisingly enough though, this group is still better than what was expected of an average group out of the next generation of carbine - the .45-70 Trapdoor Springfield (according to period arsenal records). So I guess I'm not too far off the mark. Also it's interesting in the two above groups is that you can tell the fouling shot (the first shot out of a clean barrel) just by looking. The fouling shots for some reason have darker rings around the bullet holes. Cool huh?!?
By the way, don't think that black powder weapons are good only at short ranges. Here is an article based on a report from the late 1870s of extreme long range testing of the military (blackpowder) rifles of the times. It's good reading.
There are some reasons for the lesser accuracy of the old carbine (besides the obvious fact that it's around 130 years old). After the Civil War the government was looking for breech loading firearms, so they tested numerous firearms. Some of those were converted Civil War weapons, such as this little Sharps. Since this was one of the first attempts at a breech loader by the government there are areas of the weapon that weren't accomplished too well. One of the most glaring is the bore. It has three really wide grooves & lands (which causes huge fins of lead to be displaced on the bases of the fired bullets) and an unbelievably slow twist rate of one turn in 45 inches. Between the slow twist rate and the slow velocity of black powder, the bullets must be kept really light to maintain stabilization. The 450 grain government bullet is about the limit. Lighter bullets would stabilize better but would also be less aerodynamic. I'll have to play around with that trade off. Secondly the chamber is way, way over-sized. This is so cartridges would still chamber in fouled chambers during battle field conditions. It is so large that I am using cartridge cases that are a tenth of an inch longer than normal in an attempt to fill up the chamber. That's helping but there is more experimenting to be done.
Surprisingly enough though, this group is still better than what was expected of an average group out of the next generation of carbine - the .45-70 Trapdoor Springfield (according to period arsenal records). So I guess I'm not too far off the mark. Also it's interesting in the two above groups is that you can tell the fouling shot (the first shot out of a clean barrel) just by looking. The fouling shots for some reason have darker rings around the bullet holes. Cool huh?!?
By the way, don't think that black powder weapons are good only at short ranges. Here is an article based on a report from the late 1870s of extreme long range testing of the military (blackpowder) rifles of the times. It's good reading.
A 19th-century bison galloping - set to
motion using photos, by Eadweard Muybridge
Just so that you don't think bufflers are slow and meek . . .
We went shooting the other day, and after Anna (my youngest) had warmed up with a .22 rifle she tried shooting the old Springfield. She did pretty well too!
Of course, what's a day at the range without putting a few rounds through the pistol. We even took the family cat shooting too, she also seemed to be having fun!
Down at the local gunship there was a rifle that looked liked it needed a good home and being a sucker for rifles with a story to tell, it has ended up at my home. It is a model 1891/30 Mosin-Nagant made in 1942 at the Izhevsk Armoury in the then Soviet Union. This is the rifle (in both it's basic and sniper versions) that was the star of the movie "Enemy at the Gates". The construction is really rough, it looks like it was made with a Dremel, a hand file, and a wood rasp.
The thing to remember is that this period (late 1942 to early 1943) is when the Germans were really pressing home their attack in Russia. This was when the Battle for Stalingrad was taking place, the Soviet Union was fighting for it's life. So their emphasis was on functionality and not aesthetics. Hence many steps were deleted in the construction process, especially if they didn't relate directly to functionality. This explains the ugly exterior.
But functionally it shoots well. It pushes a 180 grain bullet along at around 2600 fps, which gives a bit of kick considering the poor stock design. The bore looks horrible, so I'll hold off judging the accuracy until I get it cleaned up. They are a neat rifle. Standard version ones can shoot to a couple of inches at 100 yards.
The best group so far, about five inches
at 100 yards. If you throw out the pretty obvious flyer (#5) the
group size is about three and a half inches. I think that this
rifle can do a bunch better, something to keep playing with. More
work on the stock and handloads should help.
*************
Well, I was having so much fun playing
around with this rifle that I bought another one. It is a 1939
model built in the Tula Armoury. Being as it was pre-WWII the fit
and finish is much better. It was produced as a sniper rifle, the
PEM version with a side scope mount. This was the type of rifle
used by
the famous Soviet sniper Vassili Zaitsev as can be seen in these
pictures
(not the PU style rifle used in the movie "Enemy At The Gates", you'll
have to excuse Hollywood it's errors):
After the war
years, the Soviets had way more sniper rifles than they needed and to
maintain & store a sniper rifle is more expensive than a standard
military rifle of that day. So many of these rifles were
refurbished at the armoury and were de-snipered into standard infantry
rifles and then stored for future military needs. This
de-snipering involved patching or replacing the stock, removing the
scope & mount, plugging/welding shut the mounting holes for the
scope mount in the receiver, as well as performing any required
maintenance. |
 |
| Vassili
Zaitsev with his PEM side-mount sniper rifle |
Vassili and
other snipers in winter camouflage, again with his PEM sniper |
My rifle is one such ex-sniper. I bought it from a nice individual over on the Mosin-Nagant forum on SurplusRifle.com (via the local FFL dealer). Here is a picture of the beast:
Like most Mosin's, the bore on this
rifle is a bit bigger than it's 7.62 x 54r cartridge would make you
think it is. Both of my rifles measure a little bigger than .312"
in the grooves so I hand load my own cartridges for them for best
performance. The Hornady .312" bullet for the .303 British
cartridge seem to work well. Here is the first group that I had
fired through the rifle at the local 100 yard range:
Another recent acquisition.
It's a current Norinco reproduction of the (WWI / WWII / Vietnam vintage) Model '97 Winchester Trench Shotgun (I passed up on an original years ago and have been kicking myself ever since). I've accessorized it with a proper reproduction Model 1905 sling and an original WWI Model 1913 bayonet.
The shotgun by itself definitely has a "business only" look to it. Adding a nearly two foot bayonet to it gives the weapon a grizzly, mean look to say the least. It would probably look better with a reproduction bayonet as it would match the weapon's finish. But they cost five times as much and it's kinda cool to know that this particular bayonet was there in the trenches (it was made in Sept 1917 by Remington).
Depending on whether your using paper or plastic shot shells, it'll hold either five or six in the tube. When this repro was made, the makers exactly reproduced an original weapon (of course without the trademarked Winchester logos). As a result it doesn't have all of the geek lawyer inspired safeties, just the half-cock safety that I prefer anyway. Another original function it has is the ability to slam fire. What this means is that if you hold the trigger down and cycle the slide it'll fire when the action reaches full closed. It's amazing how fast you can shoot the six to seven rounds this thing will hold.
The barrel is a 20" cylinder bore. It amazed me how tight the pattern out of this thing is. With either 00 Buck, #4 bird shot, or #7 bird shot the pattern at 25 yards was no more than chest width. I really expected a much wider spread from such an open bore. As a matter of fact, it was almost too tight. Other than at really close quarters you would definitely need to aim to hit your target. It shot to point of aim both with and without the bayonet fixed. Just to make sure that it'd work, after emptying the weapon I did a bayonet charge on the target silhouette. It worked great!!!!
Back in WWI the Germans really feared these weapons and threatened to execute any U.S. solider captured with either one of these shotguns or even just shotgun shells on them. They also tried to get them declared illegal weapons of war (interesting coming from people who were using mustard gas on their opponents). I can see why they hated them though, I'd really hate to be staring down the business of this thing.
So in keeping with my military theme, I figured what assemblage of firearms would be complete without the greatest battle implement ever devised (General George S. Patton). I am of course talking / typing about the M-1 Garand. I have liked them ever since my brother got one in the early '80s. I wanted one as they are truly a piece of history, but I also wanted one I could learn on, accurize, shoot, and play around with without destroying something a G.I. had slogged up a beach in WWII. So I purchased a put together shooter with an after market receiver. These are generally pretty poorly thought of so I figured I could hurt anything important. So here is what it looked like when I bought it (minus the sling):
Not exactly a thing off beauty. The worst off all was the ugly brown plastic stock. It was also brand spanking new, so it functioned poorly at first. This is not unheard of though as new Garands do need to be broken in. So I disassembled, sanded, smoothed, fit, and greased things. It started to work better and maybe show a little promise. A few good books on the subject really helped out a lot. I also put in new springs and other wearable parts as I felt like mine were probably refinished "worn out" stuff. I decided I'd dress it up a little as long as I was playing around with it. I ordered a nice wood laminate stock for it, a flash hider, and various accessories & cleaning supplies. I also wanted to try putting a scope mount on it. As far as old military weapons go, there are no finer "no gunsmith" mounts than those made by S&K. My brother happened to have one that he wasn't going to use so I put it on to try it out:
These mounts are as tough as tanks and
absolutely will not shift (I have also bought them for a Krag and an
'03 Springfield). So more tinkering went on and time was spent on
the range. It was starting to shoot okay but there were still
some failures to function properly and accuracy wasn't were I hoped it
would be. I had done most of the accurizing things I dared to do
so figured it was time to try something more extreme. First, this
is how the rifle looked at this point:
I figured that there were a couple of
things holding me back. First was the stock. The plastic
(the seller had called it fiberglass but I think he was corn-fused)
stock wasn't what I would call really stable. You can hold the
front
& back ends and physically twist it with your hands. Not a
good thing on a rifle that uses the stock to pre-tension the
barrel. Luckily I had ordered the above mentioned stock and it
finally arrived about this point. The second thing I needed to
take care of was the receiver. As I have mentioned it is a later
production after-market receiver, not a true G.I. one. These
things DO NOT have a good reputation. I felt is was the culprit
in the intermittent failures to feed as well as some of the accuracy
problems. So I ordered a stripped receiver through the good folks
at the CMP
(Civilian Marksmanship Program - a great place to get surplus rifles,
ammo, & gear at great prices). They sent me a nice one that
was made in early June 1943. Now I had a good G.I. receiver (one
that probably saw action in WWII as well). So I bundled up the
rifle, receiver, and stock and sent them off to Tony Giacobbe, The Garand Guy, to work on.
He removed the Piece-O-Junk receiver and swapped in the G.I. receiver,
reparkerized all of the metal so that the finish matched, and fit the
new stock. The best thing is that he had it done and winging it's
way back to me in about two days. Great service, I highly
recommend him. So here's what it looks like now:
I think it is absolutely
beautiful. In the first trip to the range with it, it functioned
flawlessly. On top of that it was markedly more accurate despite
not having settled into it's new stock yet. Yep, this baby is
showing some promise now! Time to start working up some good
handloads and tuning the gas system . Much fun to be had!
The next project on deck you ask? To start working on a Indian Wars Remington Rolling Block that is actually a converted Civil War musket. It was an attempt to convert all of those old muzzle loaders into useful breech loaders. The Trapdoor Springfields were adopted instead of these Rolling Blocks, but it is an interesting military arm none the less. It's chambered for the .58 Berdan cartridge.
The tough thing will be coming up with the correct bullets for it. I plan on using a custom mould based on measurements from an original cartridge I purchased along with the rifle. I see some serious time and effort involved in this project.
The next project on deck you ask? To start working on a Indian Wars Remington Rolling Block that is actually a converted Civil War musket. It was an attempt to convert all of those old muzzle loaders into useful breech loaders. The Trapdoor Springfields were adopted instead of these Rolling Blocks, but it is an interesting military arm none the less. It's chambered for the .58 Berdan cartridge.
The tough thing will be coming up with the correct bullets for it. I plan on using a custom mould based on measurements from an original cartridge I purchased along with the rifle. I see some serious time and effort involved in this project.
Go take a look at my Homepage