50-90 Sharps CIP vs current fad(s) moved from support

Talk with other Shiloh Sharps shooters.

Moderators: Kirk, Lucinda

Post Reply
bohemianway
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:58 pm

50-90 Sharps CIP vs current fad(s) moved from support

Post by bohemianway »

I am going to rebarrel a Saddle rifle (light 26" 45-90 why?) with a 50 cal. 1.25" octagon and am wondering the pro's/con's of a CIP reamer vs Shiloh vs whatever? I will most likely stick to Grease Groove bullets. I am a Shuetzen shooter so it would be nice to get reasonable accuracy (potential). I am not going to use it for Schuetzen but gongs and targets out to 500 yards. And, probably run all three (smokeless, black, and Duplex).

My real question is the differences between CIP reamer vs Shiloh's factory chamber and if the CIP would be provide an adequate result.

Please enlighten me.

THank you,
Charles

And just to answer back on a comment that Shuetzen is a "accuracy game" is not true. It is a offhand proficiency game with reading conditions. Lately it has been perverted to mostly bench rest due to aging of the participants. Accuracy was only a means to an end. Sorry for the rant.
Dennis Armistead
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:09 pm
Location: Payson Arizona
Contact:

Re: 50-90 Sharps CIP vs current fad(s) moved from support

Post by Dennis Armistead »

Charles, I think the Shiloh chamber is the way to go. What do you plan on using the 50 2 1/2" for? Are you thinking of having a "bull barrel"? If so, it wouldn't make a very good off hand shooter. Too heavy. I have one and its not ideal unless you have the strength for it. Also what twist are you considering? Shiloh uses a 1:22" unless you request a slower twist. That means a longer heaver bullet. My "bull barrel" 50 is manageable across sticks shooting heavy 695 gr. rounds but my 50-70 with 1:36" twist shooting 450 gr. rounds is great off hand.
Dennis
Experience trumps intelligence every time.
Michael Johnson

Re: 50-90 Sharps CIP vs current fad(s) moved from support

Post by Michael Johnson »

I shoot a Remington Rolling Block rifle by Dave Higginbotham (Lonestar Rifle). It is a 50-90 with a straight 1.125 diameter octagon barrel 28 inches in length. It is a Green Mountain barrel 28 inches long with a tight chamber by Dave Manson. The rifle weighs 10.5 pounds and handles very well offhand. I use it as a hunting rifle with 550 grain greasers. I have shot deer, elk, and bison out to 260 yards with it.I believe the Shiloh chamber would be good as well. I personally think that a 1.25 diameter octagon barrel will be too heavy for offhand work.
User avatar
J.B.
Posts: 644
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 10:31 pm
Location: Australia

Re: 50-90 Sharps CIP vs current fad(s) moved from support

Post by J.B. »

As is usually the case when asking opinions... what you want or prefer...is ultimately the decider. I ordered a Shiloh some years back in 50/70. It was the standard octagon bbl at 28". I requested the 1/36" twist in this Saddle rifle and it was a very capable field gun. I've since sold it to fund another Shiloh in another cartridge but I've a serious hankering to get a similar rifle again, although my preference would now be to run a #1 heavy octagonal bbl or a round bbl in the dimensions seen on their Business rifle. I'd likely run the same length at 28" as, for me at least, the configuration balanced very well both in the carrying and during off hand. The weight of my 50/70 was hovering around 9.5 lbs with semi fancy timber and no tip on the forend. I always wanted to try it for silhouette shooting but didnt get the chance. For plate shoots out to 800 yds it was more than adequate. The reamer / chambering question is one possibly best directed to Kirk in a pm..or even give him a call. I had no complaints with my Shiloh chambers in both 50/70 & the 50/90 I also have.. shooting both pp and gg. They will likely have a pp chamber reamer for the 2 1/2" case although I dont know if that option exists for the shorter shell.

J.B.
"an experimental weapon..with experimental ammunition ? ...Lets experiment "
Post Reply