Help with 1863 Cartridge Conversion

Ask Shiloh questions about your Shiloh Sharps Rifle.

Moderators: Kirk, Lucinda

BP-Jay
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:49 am

Help with 1863 Cartridge Conversion

Post by BP-Jay »

Hello Everyone,

I am a long-time lurker and finally have a good reason to post. This forum has been a great source of information. I have a Shiloh Hartford in 45/70, a 1863 .54 Sporter, a 1877 in 40-50ss and a #3 40-70ss currently in production. I am addicted for sure!

I just picked up this 1863 conversion. It has a 29 1/2” octagon barrel and I believe it is in 44-77. I don’t have this caliber but I have a cartridge on the way to test. I really like this rifle, unfortunately the bore is probably a 1 or 2 out of 10. Is this something I could have relined? The barrel is also a little loose on the frame. I was thinking I might be able to get everything fixed at once?

Any recommendations on a good gunsmith for this? I love the idea of having an original gun in 44-77(if that is what it turns out to be).

I appreciate the help. I have been meaning to post something on the 1863 thread as I have been enjoying learning my percussion Shiloh and plan to take it deer hunting this year.

Thank you,
Jay
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
BP-Jay
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:49 am

Re: Help with 1863 Cartridge Conversion

Post by BP-Jay »

One more picture of this old gal next to my Shiloh Hartford.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
George Babits
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:53 am

Re: Help with 1863 Cartridge Conversion

Post by George Babits »

My first Sharps was a Hartford rifle in 44-77. Cost me $120 way back in the late 1960s. The bore wasn't bery good so I never shot it as a 44-77. On the advice of Elmer Keith, I had Ward Koozer sleeve the chamber and rebore it to 45-70. I ended up with a great shooting rifle. Reboring a 44-77 to 45-70 may leave a little pitting on the top of the lands but it was never an issue with this rifle. A better bet these days might be a re-bore to 50-70. Sleeving is also an option, but I have always preferred to re-bore rather than sleeve in the larger calibers.

George
bobw
Posts: 3841
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:52 pm

Re: Help with 1863 Cartridge Conversion

Post by bobw »

It's value as an antique is worth more than anything that it will be worth as a shooter. you will pay plenty to restore into shooting condition. Relined , rebored , rebarrel and a new breech block + what you paid for it will cost you more than a new Shiloh. Figure it out a new Shiloh or an antique that has been devalued by all your mods. Your gun your decision...bobw
bobw
BP-Jay
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:49 am

Re: Help with 1863 Cartridge Conversion

Post by BP-Jay »

I probably should have mentioned that I shoot a lot of antique guns, including an original 1863 .52 Sharps carbine, a trapdoor, damascus sxs shotguns and various original muzzleloading rifles and shotguns. I love getting these old guns shooting again. I have heard that the 44-77 can be a challenge to get shooting right. I do reload for 45-70. I would be open to 50-70 as well if it was a possibility.

I could always try shooting it as is and see how it does. I don't want to restore it, instead I want to get it back to shooting condition. I would leave the original finish/patina. Is there a gunsmith that specializes in this kind of work?

Thank you,
Jay
George Babits
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:53 am

Re: Help with 1863 Cartridge Conversion

Post by George Babits »

Right on Jay!!!

I too would much prefer shooting original rifles. I haven't a clue as to why "bobw" thinks the breech block would have to be replaced. I have a Meacham conversion in 45-70 and a Sharps "assembled" rifle in 40-70 SS, both with the original firing pins. They both shoot great, although I wouldn't consider them as rifles for a 1000 yard match. I also shoot an original 50-70 carbine and an original 54 caliber percussion carbine. I also have a 45-70 "Creedmoore" style Sharps built on an origial 1874 action that was made when there were no modern made Sharps rifles. I did have the firing pin bushed on that rifle. I've shot thousands of rounds through that rifle over the last 50 years. Broke the firing pin once and had it repaired. There is something extra special about shooting original rifles.

George
BP-Jay
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:49 am

Re: Help with 1863 Cartridge Conversion

Post by BP-Jay »

George,

I ran across Redman's Relining and Reboring from searching online. The website mentions he trained through Ward Koozer(thanks for listing that in your post as when I searched for that name this company came up!)

I will give them a call this week and see what my options are. I am optimistic that I can get this gun back in proper working order. The gun weighs 10 pounds even. You can't help but smile when you hold and shoulder it.

Thanks for the encouragement!

Jay
George Babits
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:53 am

Re: Help with 1863 Cartridge Conversion

Post by George Babits »

Hi Jay,

Ward Koozer was a real master at re-boring/re-rifling. He retired quite a while back. He was an incredible example of someone rizing above a handicap as he was wheelchair bound when I met him. That was probably 1969 or '70. Rooster Redman (Omak Washington if I remember right) may have also retired. There are several excellent people doing reboring now. The last one I had done was by High Plains Reboring in North Dakota. The othe one that comes to mind is JES Reboring, I have heard he is good, but haven't any experience with him. I know there are others as well.

If it was me, I would think seriously about the 50-70 as a good re-bore from 44-77. That would be period correct and pleasent to shoot if you go with the original twist of 1 in 36. That would work well with the standard government 450 grain bullet. A lot would depend on your intended use of the rifle, but that would be what I would do. People these days want daster twists and much heavier bullets. but I prefer to keep things as traditional as possible.

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

Re: Help with 1863 Cartridge Conversion

Post by bohemianway »

I had a nice SST RB rebored by Ward and it was excellent work. The only draw back was that the now 45-70 chamber did not fully clean up so the fired cases had a slight neck about an inch from the breach. As far as collector value it already is a mix of parts so you may as well rebore and 50-70 is fun to shoot.

Charles
bobw
Posts: 3841
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:52 pm

Re: Help with 1863 Cartridge Conversion

Post by bobw »

I guess that I have my doubts.
That it is a 44-77, you'll note that that the barrel has a Bridgeport address and has the tulip chamber end. 45's have a rim dia. Of .598-99" and 44's .625" ( Jamison). So measure yours ( rim cut on barrel face). Or cerrosafe the chamber. Very very few 44 caliber bridgeport barrels known of as Sharps dropped the 44's when they moved from Hartford to bridgeport. I said a new breechblock for several reasons.1. They are safer, new breechblocks all have small diameter 2 piece firing pins (you break one and replacement cost is< than 50 bucks. )More importantly they are readily availible while the original large dia 1 piece horseshoe shaped firing pin are over $250 if you can find one. The main reason of course is that new style breechblocks all have the dovetailed gas check plate over the back of the firing pin preventing ejecta and hot gas from hitting you in the eye in the event of a pierced primer. That event has been well documented from the 1870's. The freund bros. argued for this change and notables such as Elmer Keith experienced it. Find out what it is chambered for first. Check the back side of the existing breecblock for the plate. Next drop the breechblock and remove, depress the firing pin at the anvil( where the hammer hits it) to see if the pin tip protrudes from the block if it doesn't that's another 250 bucks ( the last 74 original I purchased had a broken pin). It is not as simple or inexpensive as you and George surmise. Bob W
bobw
George Babits
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:53 am

Re: Help with 1863 Cartridge Conversion

Post by George Babits »

With the original firing pin, it is not that difficult to drill the broken pin and insert a new pin. Not a simple as replacing the 2 piece pin of the Shiloh, but works very well. I was shown how to do that by a good gunsmith and have done it on a couple of Peabody rifles as well as a Low Wall. Takes time and patience. Anyone with a drill press can do it. The original poster said it was a 44-77.

George
bobw
Posts: 3841
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:52 pm

Re: Help with 1863 Cartridge Conversion

Post by bobw »

No George. He said he believed it to be and then said if it turns out to be. Just cleaning the barrel and chamber should show chambering for straight wall or bn. Take nothing for sure until you know. Bobw
bobw
BP-Jay
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:49 am

Re: Help with 1863 Cartridge Conversion

Post by BP-Jay »

I really appreciate the advice Bob and George. I am still learning a lot and I think my best course of action would be to get this gun in the hands of a good gunsmith who has done this type of work for a Sharps before and can help me put it back in working order. It is definitely chambered for a bottle neck cartridge, however the 44-77 cartridges I bought from Buffalos Arms(and chambered for Shilohs) were delivered yesterday and did not fit. I am not sure what the difference is the original and Shiloh chambers?

I did clean and scrub the barrel and chamber very well in my opinion, but I couldn't honestly say if there is corrosion in the chamber to prevent the cartridge from fitting. It doesn't go very far into the chamber.

I am sure you can see from my comments that I am very new to an antique cartridge Sharps. There is gunsmith not to far from me a friend reminded me of over the weekend that I am going to talk to tomorrow and hopefully meet with this week(I believe he will know how to help). I will share what I find out.

It would be nice to get this gun back together. I don't mind spending some money to do that.

Thanks,
Jay
George Babits
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:53 am

Re: Help with 1863 Cartridge Conversion

Post by George Babits »

Jay,

On my 40-70 conversion by Sharps, the caliber is marked in the middle of the left flat above the wood, about 1.75 inches in front of the receiver. The numbers are pretty smallm but a little work with steel wool in that area may reveal the caliber. One question I have is what does the rifling look like? Is it conventional rifling with more or less flat lands and grooves; or is it English, Henry, style rifling? The former would indicate a Sharps conversion with 6 groove rifling. The latter would indicate a Meacham conversion. On my Meacham, the word "CALIBER" is on the top flat but no caliber is given (it's a 45-70).

In the time period of the conversions, the usual bottle necked cartridges for a Sharps would have been the 40-50 BN, 40-70 BN, 44-60 BN, 44-77, and 44-90 BN. If you have some calipers you should be able to tell if it is a 40 or 44 caliber by measuring at the muzzle. If it is a 40 caliber, reboring to 45-70 would also be a good choice.

George
BP-Jay
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:49 am

Re: Help with 1863 Cartridge Conversion

Post by BP-Jay »

Thanks George, yes the caliber was on the side of the barrel see picture. It's 45 2 1/10, so 45-70. That is in line with what Bob said about the barrel being made in Bridgeport. I can't believed I missed that! Where I bought the gun they had it as a .44 so that got my off on a wrong path.

I did slug the bore and it's around .460 so that was a big clue as well. A 45-70 cartridge will not chamber all the way, even empty brass(both starline). I did some measuring, is it possible that the chamber is just 2"? I did not know if the original 45-70 cartridges are a bit shorter? The rifling looks to start at 2 inches. I measured with a .410 chamber gauge and lightly taped an empty case in the chamber, both made me think that it is a 2"chamber.

Glad to be making some progress. Thanks for the help!

Jay
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Post Reply