Browning .40-65 vs. Shiloh Sharps .40-65

[TexasMac]

I just completed a rough analysis of match scores from 89 matches while shooting a Browning 1885 .40-65 & Shiloh Sharps 1874 .40-65 using 6 different bullets & various loads.

Browning 1885 BPCR:
I started shooting BPCR silhouette using various commercial soft-cast BPCR bullets. I then bought a Paul Jones 40001 Creedmoor mould but could never get the bullet to shoot well, averaging only 15.4/40 over 12 matches. Moving to the BACO 409400M5 “money bullet” upped the average to 22.9/40 over 26 matches. I then tried the BACO 409400M3 money bullet, averaging 22.3/40 over 24 matches. The next bullet was the BACO 410410M1 money bullet, which resulted in an average of 23.6/40 over 5 matches. BTW, the trigger sear on my rifle has been worked on to reduce the pull weight to approximately 1.5lbs.

Shiloh Sharps 1874 BPCR:
Using the BACO 209400M5 resulted in an average of 24.5/40 over 9 matches. Next is the BACO 409420M2 money bullet which I’m currently shooting. So far it’s averaging 26.3/40 over 13 matches.

It’s my opinion that the overall lower average of the Browning is due to the chamber & throat design. It has a “generous” chamber (excessive neck diameter) & an extended over-bore diameter throat (freebore diameter of 0.411” & effective freebore length of 0.190”). The Sharps has a tight chamber & short throat (effective freebore of 0.038”). As reported from the results of an earlier analysis (http://www.shilohrifle.com/forums/viewt ... =2&t=27409), the Sharps set trigger does add about 1 point to the total scores due to a slight advantage when shooting the chickens.

FWIW, the Browning .45-70 BPCR does not share the chamber & throat characteristics of the .40-65. The 45-70 has a tight chamber & no freebore. Hence, other than the set-trigger advantage on the chickens, I doubt a Sharps .45-70 will have an advantage over a Browning .45-70 assuming the Browning trigger has been modified to reduce the factory pull weight.

Wayne

[jackrabbit]

Wayne, I love you buddy, but I find your post ridiculous. The single biggest variable is the shooter, and there is no way to put hard numbers on that. Your skill level should be improving with more shooting and more experience. Somedays one is just clearer and shoots better than others. Did you put that in your formula? How about the spotter? Did you have the same one the whole time? There is no doubt a good spotter will make you several points over an average one and many points over a poor one. Is that info in the formula? Do you see my point? Just because your average scores are slightly higher with the new rifle doesn't mean much.

I would say group size would be a better indicator of the rifle's performance. Have you ever shot a midrange match? That is where you really find what your rifle is capable of. Tell me this, which rifle performs better. The one that kills 10 out of 10 rams with shots spread horn to foot to tail or the one that kills 9/10 with 9 in a small group in the middle and one just barely dropping through the window? I will always believe that shooter skill is more important than an ultra accurate rifle in silhouette, and vice versa in mid-range.

Just my thoughts, Cody

[rdnck]

Good post. Shoot straight, rdnck.

[TexasMac]

Wayne, I love you buddy, but I find your post ridiculous. The single biggest variable is the shooter, and there is no way to put hard numbers on that. Your skill level should be improving with more shooting and more experience. Somedays one is just clearer and shoots better than others. Did you put that in your formula? How about the spotter? Did you have the same one the whole time? There is no doubt a good spotter will make you several points over an average one and many points over a poor one. Is that info in the formula? Do you see my point? Just because your average scores are slightly higher with the new rifle doesn't mean much.

I would say group size would be a better indicator of the rifle's performance. Have you ever shot a midrange match? That is where you really find what your rifle is capable of. Tell me this, which rifle performs better. The one that kills 10 out of 10 rams with shots spread horn to foot to tail or the one that kills 9/10 with 9 in a small group in the middle and one just barely dropping through the window? I will always believe that shooter skill is more important than an ultra accurate rifle in silhouette, and vice versa in mid-range.
Just my thoughts, Cody

Yup, as you pointed out there are lots and lots of variables, but over lots of matches with various spotters, various shooting conditions, various bullets, etc. things tend to even out and the general trend tells the story. What is not included in my initial post is the many other bullets I tried including the SAECO 740, Lyman Postell, Lyman Snover, and others. As was noted with the BACO 209400M5, several of these were shot in both rifles & the sharps always resulted in a better grouping on paper and a few points better in a match. So you may find my post ridiculous but I'm firm in my opinion as to the noted trend and the reason for the difference.

Wayne

[desert deuce]

Thanks to Mr. Richard Wood, AKA Woody, I have on my shooters hat a Perfect Chicken Pin score 0. Costs the same as a 10 pin in U.S. Dollars. (Woody did not, at that time, accept Pesos.) He had a lot of 5 &10 Pins left, I got the last 0 Pin.

As an aside: Was at Tucson Rifle Club one day to check some loads on paper at 200 yards. Another shooter that shoots silhouette there was present practicing shooting at chickens with his BPCR rifle. He asked me to spot for him. After a few shots offhand we got his scope adjusted and he hit five chickens in a row. Quite pleased with himself he decided to shoot his load on paper to see how it was grouping. We did not measure the 200 yard ten shot group but I would estimate it to have been about 18-20 inches in diameter with one or two approaching the bullseye.

We both got a good laugh out of the episode and neither could logically explain the five hit chickens in a row.

[jackrabbit]

Yup, as you pointed out there are lots and lots of variables, but over lots of matches with various spotters, various shooting conditions, various bullets, etc. things tend to even out and the general trend tells the story.

No, not true. If you are actually going to make a scientific analysis of what is going on, you have to control the variables so you test one variable at a time. You have numerous variables, but you are claiming a small increase in average score is due to one of them? It's your story, Wayne, and you can tell it how you want, but if you are actually interested in testing your rifle, you need to shoot paper and change only one variable. Anything else is just another bullshit story.
take care, Cody

[Glen Ring]

Interesting find Wayne..thanks for posting. Jeanne has two 40-65 highwalls. One shoots better than the other with just about any load..but one is a pound heavier and is steadier in my hands than in hers. Jeanne ordered a new highwall and after 10 months it arrived. Good gun, VERY pretty...but I'll take my mirouku 45-70..it just fits me somehow better. Posting finds in reloading and shooting procedures is the only way we all can learn. Like Don told me when I bought my first BPCR rifle a couple of years ago ..he said " everyone in Black powder is full of shit, even me ! ..so find what works for YOU.' I think that was good advice for me. Keep on Posting . I STILL refer to your book when i get into WTF land with my rifle.

[beltfed]

Wayne,
You mention the Shiloh chamber is tighter.
It would be interesting to take a chamber cast of your Shiloh 40-65 , measure and publish here
the same dimensions on the Brg 40-65 you did for your book.
I know several interested parties for this info.
Thanks,
beltfed/arnie

[hepburnman]

Not sure if a "tight chamber" is really something that is definitive of one chamber to the next. I think what makes a tight chamber is how the bullet fits it. I have a chamber on a custom highwall that appears to be very similar to the Browning chamber Wayne mentions. I designed my reamer and it produces a chamber with 0.200" of freebore and is 4.11" in diameter. I also designed a bullet to fit this chamber and had Paul Jones make the mold. My chamber can be thought of as a "tight chamber" only because the bullet fits it and the groove diameter. My chamber/bullet/groove fit produces very good accuracy.
Certainly purchasing a production mold may not fit your chamber well and to give you a "tight chamber" fit.

[desert deuce]

I have seen Doug Gazaway and Eron Ahmer do some very impressive shooting with Browning 40-65's.

[TexasMac]

Wayne,
You mention the Shiloh chamber is tighter.
It would be interesting to take a chamber cast of your Shiloh 40-65 , measure and publish here
the same dimensions on the Brg 40-65 you did for your book.
I know several interested parties for this info.
Thanks,
beltfed/arnie

Arnie,
Your wish is my command. Here you go.
Working from the chamber breech to the throat:
Rim seat depth (aka rim recess): 0.070”
Rim seat dia: 0.607”
Headspace (aka rimspace): 0.071”
Chamber base (web) dia. (in front of case rim): 0.502”
Chamber length (from front of case rim to case mouth): 2.040”
Overall case length: 2.111” (chamber length + headspace)
Chamber mouth diameter: 0.4325” (see note 1 below)
Chamber transition length: 0.013”
Chamber transition angle: 45.0 degrees
Freebore length: 0.025”
Freebore diameter: 0.4090”
Leade length: approximately 0.075”
Leade angle: approximately 2.5 degrees
Bore (land) diameter: 0.4005”
Groove diameter: 0.4070”
Land height” 0.0033”
Note:
1) There’s no evidence of a well-defined neck. I.e. the chamber has a uniform taper from the breech to the chamber mouth.

BTW, making a chamber cast is always was one of the 1st things I do after receiving a rifle that I intend to keep.

[TexasMac]

Not sure if a "tight chamber" is really something that is definitive of one chamber to the next. I think what makes a tight chamber is how the bullet fits it. I have a chamber on a custom highwall that appears to be very similar to the Browning chamber Wayne mentions. I designed my reamer and it produces a chamber with 0.200" of freebore and is 4.11" in diameter. I also designed a bullet to fit this chamber and had Paul Jones make the mold. My chamber can be thought of as a "tight chamber" only because the bullet fits it and the groove diameter. My chamber/bullet/groove fit produces very good accuracy.
Certainly purchasing a production mold may not fit your chamber well and to give you a "tight chamber" fit.

My definition of a tight chamber is when a bullet of 0.001 to 0.002" over groove diameter just barely slides into a fireformed unmodified case neck. As an example the Sharps neck (mouth) diameter is 0.4325. Since the case shrinks about 0.001" after firing, the result is a case mouth outside diameter 0.4315. My Remington case wall at the mouth are 0.011" thick (0.022" inclusive). Subtracting 0.022" from 0.4315" results in 0.4095". Therefore a 0.4090" to 0.4095" diameter bullet can be thumb seated without resizing or enlarging the case mouth. BTW, I'm using the term mouth because the Sharps chamber does not have a well-defined neck. So let's go through the same scenario with the Browning chamber.

The Browning chamber has a well defined (0.5" long neck) with a diameter of 0.436" Assuming the fireformed case neck is 0.345", subtracting the brass neck wall thickness (0.022" inclusive) results in an inside case neck diameter of 0.413" which is too large to hold a 0.409" to 0.410" bullet without resizing & then expanding the neck. Yes, I could have a custom mould made to drop a 0.413" bullet but it would be too large for the throat and bore. What I have been doing is resizing, then expanding the case neck and slightly flaring the lips to accept a thumb seated 0.410" diameter bullet. The flared lip is not removed to help center the case in the chamber. If the flared lip is remove the neck diameter of the loaded cartridge is 0.432", 0.004" less than the chamber neck. So the above constitutes my definition of a excessively loose chamber neck. I hope that all makes sense.

Wayne

[powderburnt]

I'm with Cody on this one. To many variables especially in silhouette. Paper targets not as much
Did your off hand score go up with the Shiloh?

HG

[TexasMac]

Hey there Cody,

With comments such as ..."I find your post ridiculous" and "Anything else is just another bullshit story", one might get the impression that you didn't like me, but I know better. Differing viewpoints are always good to identify possible errors in ones thought process.

BTW, going back as far as 2012 I've shot lots of paper with the Browning and posted many threads on this forum with photos of the targets. Well over 7000 rounds have been shot through my .40-65 Browning's with many bullets and many load combinations and none resulted in consistent acceptable accuracy out to 500 meters. During the lengthy process of selling over 200 Browning and Winchester BPCRs & writing a book on the rifles, I documented the chamber dimensions of many Browning .40-65 chambers and bores. So I had the opportunity to select & keep a couple with the best dimensions. It certainly could be my shooting ability but in that case I'd have the same problem with the Sharps .40-65 and my Browning .45-70, both of which I shoot measurably better.

Wayne

[TexasMac]

I'm with Cody on this one. To many variables especially in silhouette. Paper targets not as much
Did your off hand score go up with the Shiloh?
HG

Yes, on average I hit an additional chicken with the Shiloh, which I contribute to the the set trigger. See my post on the subject at http://www.shilohrifle.com/forums/viewt ... =2&t=27409 The scores shooting off the sticks average about the same with the Browning .45-70 as with the Sharps .40-65.

Wayne