OK. It's been so long I didn't remember what the box said. I just did a quick internet search.
Trapdoor Ammunition issues?
- Thread starter Clockwork
- Start date
Since this seems to have continued long after i got several good responses, i think i should clarify something that has been lost after the first few posts. I was not asking about legacy trapdoor guns from the 1800s i was asking exclusively about modern reproductions of those guns which are made from greatly superior materials and processes.
A simple youtube query will show that many of these guns such as reproductions of the later sharps rifles can reliably shoot anything that the lever action guns can. That is why i initially asked this. Its also why i posted tests which show them being tested well above trapdoor specs. I was curious to dispel some of these myths or misrepresentations as so much conflicting data was out there regarding the trapdoor specifically.
There have been many many good responses here but because of the slow regression away from the modern guns to the ones made in the 1800s i felt i needed to clarify that those were never part of the question. In the end I will likely go with the 1874's sharps. Better accuracy but slower to load and moreover a much stronger mechanism.
A simple youtube query will show that many of these guns such as reproductions of the later sharps rifles can reliably shoot anything that the lever action guns can. That is why i initially asked this. Its also why i posted tests which show them being tested well above trapdoor specs. I was curious to dispel some of these myths or misrepresentations as so much conflicting data was out there regarding the trapdoor specifically.
There have been many many good responses here but because of the slow regression away from the modern guns to the ones made in the 1800s i felt i needed to clarify that those were never part of the question. In the end I will likely go with the 1874's sharps. Better accuracy but slower to load and moreover a much stronger mechanism.
"In the end I will likely go with the 1874's sharps. Better accuracy but slower to load and moreover a much stronger mechanism."
I have to ask, why would the Sharp's be much slower to load? I've played with a Springfield replica carbine and Sharp's rifle, both belonging to a friend plus Ruger numbers 1 and 3 which were at the time rifles of mine. Still have the Number one as a matter of fact. I've also shot the Browning B78 in 45-70 and like it as well. That one was also a friend's rifle. The bullets I tried were Lyman's 300,330 and 400 gr. types plus an RCBS 405 gr. bullet and last of all the Lee 500 gr. bullet. Take my word on this, you do not want to shoot that in a Springfield or Ruger #3 carbine even as black powder level. Well maybe, if you're inclined to be masochistic in nature. They flat hurt. Not so bad in a #1 or browning but you still notice it.
Just my personal preference would be for the Ruger #1 with the Browning B78 or 1885 or the current Winchester 1885 if wanting to go with the more traditional style. My preference for the Ruger is more because I've been hunting and collecting them since 1975. Nothing wrong with the Browning or Winchester models as I do have one B78 but it's a 30-06. It's very accurate too, as were the Brownings I shot in 45-70.
Paul B.
I have to ask, why would the Sharp's be much slower to load? I've played with a Springfield replica carbine and Sharp's rifle, both belonging to a friend plus Ruger numbers 1 and 3 which were at the time rifles of mine. Still have the Number one as a matter of fact. I've also shot the Browning B78 in 45-70 and like it as well. That one was also a friend's rifle. The bullets I tried were Lyman's 300,330 and 400 gr. types plus an RCBS 405 gr. bullet and last of all the Lee 500 gr. bullet. Take my word on this, you do not want to shoot that in a Springfield or Ruger #3 carbine even as black powder level. Well maybe, if you're inclined to be masochistic in nature. They flat hurt. Not so bad in a #1 or browning but you still notice it.
Just my personal preference would be for the Ruger #1 with the Browning B78 or 1885 or the current Winchester 1885 if wanting to go with the more traditional style. My preference for the Ruger is more because I've been hunting and collecting them since 1975. Nothing wrong with the Browning or Winchester models as I do have one B78 but it's a 30-06. It's very accurate too, as were the Brownings I shot in 45-70.
Paul B.
Jim Watson
New member
You value rate of fire and strength of design + "modern materials."
I like the Winchester 1885 Single Shot "Highwall."
Unfortunately the Uberti copy does not self cock like my real Winchester or my Browning/Miroku. You would have to look for a Miroku - which might be branded either Browning or Winchester - or pay for an authentic reproduction from C. Sharps.
In the end, it depends on what you are looking for and what your priorities are. Yes, the modern reproductions of the old west designs will handle ammo levels above recommended Trapdoor levels, but are those going to be of any benefit for what you plan to do??
I've had some hands on experience with the Sharps repro guns, and some others, they are tremendous shooting machines, fine examples of the design era combined with modern steel alloys.
But, they're not what I consider good hunting rifles. Long barreled and generally heavy to very heavy, their great for extended shooting, much less so for being carried alot, and not well suited to stalking, or hunting in the close ranges of woods and brush.
If you want the old time look, its there, in spades, and they perform as well (and usually better) than the originals did or do today.
If you want a bench gun, or off shooting sticks and shoot all day without getting beat to death, the "Buffalo Rifles" are great.
If you want a gun you can carry for miles, up and down hills and mountains, shoot easily offhand at need and be handy in thick cover, the buffalo rifles are a poor choice.
I've had a Ruger No.3 carbine for a long time (will be 40 years next year). MY rifle was used (looing new still) when I got it, and the previous owner knew what they were about, and apparently liked heavy loads. Mine has a nice thick ventilated recoil pad and that makes a world of difference.
My carbine has a 22" barrel but the single shot design means the over all length is the same, or shorter than many rifles with 18" barrels. Its light (in the 6lb range) and easily scoped if that's what you want. It has a great trigger, and is accurate, enough that I've put 3 shots into two holes on more than one occassion. I think its a much better hunting rifle than a buffalo rifle, and I'm confident I could take a buffalo with it.
What i wouldn't want to do is shoot a couple dozen buffalo in a day the way the market hunters did. (also, will NOT shoot heavy loads from the prone position with that rifle, EVER!
)
So decide which things are most important for what you want to do, and choose what best suits your wants.
Oh, and btw, based on my experience with the Sharps repros, while it usually won't happen, it is possible to get a round into the chamber with the rim underneath the extractor. I've done it (unintentionally, of course). If this happens, the action will not close. Easily cured, not a deal breaker, just a quirk that can happen when the stars line up the "wrong" way.
operator error is the cause.
I've had some hands on experience with the Sharps repro guns, and some others, they are tremendous shooting machines, fine examples of the design era combined with modern steel alloys.
But, they're not what I consider good hunting rifles. Long barreled and generally heavy to very heavy, their great for extended shooting, much less so for being carried alot, and not well suited to stalking, or hunting in the close ranges of woods and brush.
If you want the old time look, its there, in spades, and they perform as well (and usually better) than the originals did or do today.
If you want a bench gun, or off shooting sticks and shoot all day without getting beat to death, the "Buffalo Rifles" are great.
If you want a gun you can carry for miles, up and down hills and mountains, shoot easily offhand at need and be handy in thick cover, the buffalo rifles are a poor choice.
I've had a Ruger No.3 carbine for a long time (will be 40 years next year). MY rifle was used (looing new still) when I got it, and the previous owner knew what they were about, and apparently liked heavy loads. Mine has a nice thick ventilated recoil pad and that makes a world of difference.
My carbine has a 22" barrel but the single shot design means the over all length is the same, or shorter than many rifles with 18" barrels. Its light (in the 6lb range) and easily scoped if that's what you want. It has a great trigger, and is accurate, enough that I've put 3 shots into two holes on more than one occassion. I think its a much better hunting rifle than a buffalo rifle, and I'm confident I could take a buffalo with it.
What i wouldn't want to do is shoot a couple dozen buffalo in a day the way the market hunters did. (also, will NOT shoot heavy loads from the prone position with that rifle, EVER!
)So decide which things are most important for what you want to do, and choose what best suits your wants.
Oh, and btw, based on my experience with the Sharps repros, while it usually won't happen, it is possible to get a round into the chamber with the rim underneath the extractor. I've done it (unintentionally, of course). If this happens, the action will not close. Easily cured, not a deal breaker, just a quirk that can happen when the stars line up the "wrong" way.
operator error is the cause.