Military Carbine questions

Talk with other Shiloh Sharps shooters.

Moderators: Kirk, Lucinda

Post Reply
User avatar
Tasmanian Rebel
Posts: 2117
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 3:39 pm
Location: Bay Springs, MS

Military Carbine questions

Post by Tasmanian Rebel »

I've been intrigued for several years on these rifles. They're now being offered again by Shiloh. They appear to be a perfect hunting rifle. I got a Sporter #1 a couple of years ago with intents on making it a dedicated hunting rifle but the darn thing shot so well I HAD to make it a match rifle. Am considering getting one with a 24" barrel as opposed to the standard 22 incher. The 7 1/2 lb weight makes it appealing as a carry rifle. Standard one comes with a military buttstock. I know these can be uncomfortable to shoot but I won't be shooting long strings with this gun. Does anyone out here have one of these guns and would you comment on how you like them.
Keith Lay
George Babits
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:53 am

Re: Military Carbine questions

Post by George Babits »

Keith,

A lot depends on your recoil tolerance. I've had a couple, both in 45-70. With a full load and a 420 grain bullet you get a pretty good kick. That was with a duplex load at about 1350 fps if I remember right. Last one I had, I loading mostly with smokless powders and it was more recoil than I wanted. After a couple of years I sold it. Definitely a handy rifle for the woods. I have an original in 50-70 and with straight black powder, it isn't quite as bad. If I ever find time I will try some 250 grain bullets in that original and see how they work. I think if i were to get another one it would be in a 40 caliber and a slow twist for a light bullet.

George
User avatar
Tasmanian Rebel
Posts: 2117
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 3:39 pm
Location: Bay Springs, MS

Re: Military Carbine questions

Post by Tasmanian Rebel »

Thanks for the comments George. Having shot a 45-110 for several years, sometimes long strings in competition, I don't THINK I'm recoil sensitive(but you know how that can be deceiving). I do remember shooting a nephews Handi rifle which weighed a little less than this rifle in 45-70 and after one shot handed back to him saying something like that's all the fun I care to have for the day. I don't think that particular gun weighed more than 5-6 lbs though. This carbine would seem to be a good gun for plinking or hunting using straight black.
Keith Lay
bobw
Posts: 3841
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:52 pm

Re: Military Carbine questions

Post by bobw »

Keith originally Sharps made a model called the Hunter model these mostly had the military rifle butt, single trigger, and a std round barrel from 24 to 28". They are in the 7-8.5 lb range pretty simple really. I think if a guy spec'ed out a # 3 you would be dang close. When you look at any sizable collection of originals you see a whole lot more std barrels than ones put on buffalo guns. Bobw
bobw
George Babits
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:53 am

Re: Military Carbine questions

Post by George Babits »

It was fairly easy for me to let go of the Shiloh carbine. Maybe that was because I have an original 50-70, and percussion original carbine as well. I have a real fondness for carbines. Have a couple of Peabody carbines also and they don't seem to kick as hard. Perhaps because there is less drop in the stock. My "go-to" Sharps is an original that was re-barreled before Shiloh came along. I think it weighs about 8.5 pounds and I can shoot it all day long with the same load that was belting me with the carbine. I do feel that the a carbine in 50-70 fed with straight black powder has less recoil than the 45-70.

Yes, the "Hunter" and there was a civilian "carbine" that was very similar to the the Hunter's model. I don't know if Shiloh would make a lighter weight round barrel or not though. A phone call would answer that question.

George
User avatar
Tasmanian Rebel
Posts: 2117
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 3:39 pm
Location: Bay Springs, MS

Re: Military Carbine questions

Post by Tasmanian Rebel »

Good idea Bob. These guns are so accurate I feel like I just HAVE to make them lightweight to keep them off the competition range Lol. Good idea too George , I tried to get Kirk or Lucinda earlier today but both were out.
Keith
User avatar
Tasmanian Rebel
Posts: 2117
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 3:39 pm
Location: Bay Springs, MS

Re: Military Carbine questions

Post by Tasmanian Rebel »

George, does your go-to Sharps have a #1 or #3 Shiloh configuration ?.
Keith
User avatar
Tasmanian Rebel
Posts: 2117
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 3:39 pm
Location: Bay Springs, MS

Re: Military Carbine questions

Post by Tasmanian Rebel »

You two guys have sent me to the Sellers book pages 236-238. :D
Keith
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2002 12:26 pm
Location: Central Missouri

Re: Military Carbine questions

Post by Luke »

I have a .50-70 carbine (CHiappa) and have used it several times in combat match's, often 3 stages of 20 rounds each. Off hand recoil is very tolerable IMHO. .50-70-450 load. It's also devastating on the armadillos trying to move onto our farm. My favorite truck gun. It runs around 8 lbs.

I can't imagine a better woods rifle than a .50-70 carbine. In fact, as soon as Shiloh put them back in the catalog, I ordered one, stone stock, .50-70, but with the 24" barrel. Be a Chiappa available sometime next year I'm thinking.

I've got a .50-70 Shiloh Buisness rifle, love that rifle, gets out most every week to punch paper on our 200 yard range back of the farm, but when I go walk armadillo town I get the Carbine out of the truck. I've got a bucket sling for it. I'm really jonesing for that Shiloh carbine though!
Limber Up!
George Babits
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:53 am

Re: Military Carbine questions

Post by George Babits »

Keith,

My "go-to" Sharps is not a Shiloh. It is an original 1874 action that was rebarreled to 45-100 back in the early 1970s as a business rifle and I must have got it about 1973 or so. When I got it I had the barrel set back an inch and rechambered to 45-70 and then milled octagonal and turned half round. A year or so later I got it restocked with a pistol grip stock. Don't know who made the barrel, maybe Hart. Added sling swivels and have used that rifle for years for both target and hunting. Shot just about everything from gophers to buffalo with it, but no armadillos. Once hit a 40" gong at 1000yards twice in a row with it offhand with my hunting load. Doubt I could ever do that again. If there was a way to post a picture or two I'd be happy to try.

George
Amigo
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2003 8:44 am
Location: nova scotia canada

Re: Military Carbine questions

Post by Amigo »

I would get the carbine with the shotgun butt and checkered steel buttplate which should help a bit with the recoil
Always aim to be careful and always be careful
to aim
Woody
Posts: 6060
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:02 am
Location: Freetown, Indiana

Re: Military Carbine questions

Post by Woody »

Doc.,

I have an original Sharps conversion carbine in 50-70 Govt. I have owned two original percussion carbines over the years. They have the military style butt plate. Light enough to carry all day and heavy enough to tame the 50-70. For a short time, I owned and shot a Shiloh military two band rifle in 45-70. It too had the military butt stock. Sitting or off-hand the military butt is not a problem. Prone is out of the equation though without a thick "sissy pad". How many shots are you planning on shooting in a day of hunting? My $.02 worth.

Woody
Richard A. Wood
If you are surrounded. You are in a target rich environment.
User avatar
Tasmanian Rebel
Posts: 2117
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 3:39 pm
Location: Bay Springs, MS

Re: Military Carbine questions

Post by Tasmanian Rebel »

Woody, the most I'll be shooting this gun on a hunt would be once a day and frankly that would be an uncommon occurence as some years don't fire a shot at a deer on my place unless he's a bigun. It's not unusual for me to stay on stand 11-12 hrs though so I do spend many hours in the woods and enjoy watching the deer and wildlife when I'm not in clinic.
Keith
Post Reply