I’ve always liked the percussion Sharps. I have an original’63 carbine and a Shiloh rifle and carbine. I have found that they all shoot quite well with original loads. I did do a little polishing on the Shilohs.
Cleaning them isn’t as much trouble as some people make it out to be.
Making cartridges does take time, but so do metallic cartridges.
Now days with shortages of reloading components it seems easier to get a ‘63 shooting than a’74.
1863’s were good rifles then and still are.
-
Horse Soldier
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2022 2:18 pm
-
bohemianway
- Posts: 161
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:58 pm
Re: 1863’s were good rifles then and still are.
With Sharp's 59 Carbine, 59 Rifle, three 63 Rifles, Shiloh 63 Carbine and Rifle, Pedersoli 63 Rifle and a .44 1863 Hartford being built right now I don't know if I agree with you (Sarcasm, the bug has bitten me pretty hard). They go bang and within 200 yards plenty accurate for gobs of fun. I just need to design and build an appropriate .44 caliber mold and paper cartridge set-up. The 1853 is not so much fun though.
Charles
Charles
-
James
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 8:42 am
- Location: Colorado
Re: 1863’s were good rifles then and still are.
My Shiloh 63 infantry rifle even shoots round ball and loose powder well at fifty yards.
383D6502-C1B1-43A3-8F7B-FFEC3DAC92E5 by Oliver Sudden, on Flickr
383D6502-C1B1-43A3-8F7B-FFEC3DAC92E5 by Oliver Sudden, on FlickrThere’s no horse so dead it can’t be beat a bit more.