Sharps Rifles, inline or Traditional-?

[bavarialand]

what are Sharps rifles concidered, inline or traditional-?

no, not the metal cartridge guns.

Dave

 

[jim gray]

The Sharps is classified as a breech-loading rifle, it loaded the same way as a typical breech-loader but instead of a self-contained metallic cartridge it used a paper cartridge and required separate priming. I know that it could be loaded with a minie-ball and loose powder, but that was not the way it was intended to be used.

While it is not an inline, because that is a term that is applied to muzzleloaders, it is traditional. It's just not a traditional muzzleloader.

 

[paulvallandigham]

The 1859 Model Sharps rifle is a traditional Breech loading, Black powder, paper cartridge, rifle(carbine). It is not an inline. It does use a percussion ignition system, employing musket caps, usually.

 

Are you asking because of the definitions of guns legal for muzzleloader hunting, or just because you are curious? For example, whereas the Sharps is a traditional BP rifle, I don't think it fits the definition for the MLing seasons in most places? We use them in Civil War reenactments because they are PC for that, along side of true muzzleloaders--no inlines allowed.

 

[bouldersmith]

Dont tell anyone, but I built a inline on an original remington roller action, converted it to a side lever too! I still shoot my round ball sidelock, but this is a neat lil rig. Conicals and Axtel sights....should reach out and touch em for being a smoke pole.
Steve

 

[Slamfire]

It is just another early suppository rifle. :wink:

 

[bavarialand]

Are you asking because of the definitions of guns legal for muzzleloader hunting, or just because you are curious? For example, whereas the Sharps is a traditional BP rifle, I don't think it fits the definition for the MLing seasons in most places? We use them in Civil War reenactments because they are PC for that, along side of true muzzleloaders--no inlines allowed.

i am asking what YOU fellow traditional M.L. shooters would concider it to be. i my self would concider it to be traditional since it/they were designed/built back in the 1850's to today and therfore are not a recent invention like the traditions or CVA or other recently thought up contraptions. did i say that right-?

thanks, Dave

 

[Claude Mathis]

i am asking what YOU fellow traditional M.L. shooters would concider it to be. i my self would concider it to be traditional since it/they were designed/built back in the 1850's to today and therfore are not a recent invention like the traditions or CVA or other recently thought up contraptions.

I don't know anything about the Sharps, except what I've seen in photos.

Anything is "traditional" in some sense, but is the Sharps a "muzzleloader"? That's what's relevant to this Forum.

If it loads down the muzzle and was made prior to the end of the Civil War, then it meets our definition for this Forum. If however, it loads through the breech, then it may be traditional, but it is not a muzzleloader.

Does that make sense? I'm open to suggestions.

 

[bavarialand]

i am asking what YOU fellow traditional M.L. shooters would concider it to be. i my self would concider it to be traditional since it/they were designed/built back in the 1850's to today and therfore are not a recent invention like the traditions or CVA or other recently thought up contraptions.

I don't know anything about the Sharps, except what I've seen in photos.

Anything is "traditional" in some sense, but is the Sharps a "muzzleloader"? That's what's relevant to this Forum.

If it loads down the muzzle and was made prior to the end of the Civil War, then it meets our definition for this Forum. If however, it loads through the breech, then it may be traditional, but it is not a muzzleloader.

Does that make sense? I'm open to suggestions.

good enough.
Dave

 

[faw3]

Haveing had 2 of those I'd say it's about as close to a ML as you can get, I loaded mine fom the front because it got better grps that way,and the leaking around the breech block sure did blacken the face with powder. Last little thing I've always thought funny...the American win at Creedmore was won by a shot on a wrong target maybe , but the best American shooter loaded his Sharp's by the muzzle. :hmm: think about that..... a in :cursing: NO! Fred :hatsoff:

 

[shmrck1]

Claude,
I would guess we are on the fence here.The Sharps
is definately an early antique.Maybe because it
was ahead of its time,we as traditionalist can't
accept[url] it.In[/url] my mind it was and is not a
traditional muzzleloader. That being said I would
still consider it as much as Americana as the
muzzleloader,just not appropriate to the
MLF.Just my opinion
snake-eyes :hmm:

 

[BrownBear]

I own and admire Sharpes cartridge guns, and therefore looked pretty closely at picking one up. But practical matters stopped me in my tracks. The state of Alaska doesn't consider them muzzleloaders or allow them in their special primitive weapon seasons. I haven't checked, but if more states feel the same way it would be a strong argument against picking one up as your primary hunting gun.

 

[Claude Mathis]

Just to help me understand exactly what we're talking about...

Again, I know nothing of theses rifles except what I've been able to gather in the last few days. Is the one pictured below what we're talking about. It is dated to 1859.

If this is the rifle in question, I believe it is a breech-loader and was not designed to load through the muzzle. Notice the lack of a ramrod.

If this is the case, then it is not a muzzleloader for the purposes of this forum, regardless of how one can load it today.

 

[BrownBear]

Bingo.

 

[54mountain]

That's it, I've always wanted one but as was stated earlier they are not considered as MLs by most states and none of the clubs around allow them in competition. The KMLA does allow them to be used for long range cartridge shoots same as the later 45/70 version.

 

[jasontn]

here in tennessee they arent legal for use in our primitve bp season. same reason cited by others, altho a black powder rifle they load from the wrong end. i have seen 2 with "loading" rods, one an officers model, which is actually a cleaning rod, the other was in muzzleloader magazine i think in an article by mike nesbit and it was a gimmer and demmick sharps, made to resemble a hawken. this one had a real laoding rod. the nesbit gun article may have been in dixie gun works annual, not sure where i saw it. i bought one of these and a cartrdge version. wound up selling it because it falls a few years short of what we do here.

 

[Zonie]

In the past, I've permitted discussion of the Sharps Civil War rifle, the Burnside, Gallager and the Smith because all of them were used in the Civil War and all of them used a Musket Cap to fire them.

I also felt that although some of these rifles used very primitive "cartridges" made of paper, cloth, rubber or metal (depending on which rifle we are speaking of) because the "cartridge" was not a self contained device (which would include the primer) it would be acceptable to discuss here.

Based on Claude's comments, I guess I was in error but before totally abolishing these rifles from acceptable discussion we should remember that
although they were "breech loading rifles", so was the Fergesen Flintlock and no one would consider calling it unacceptable for discussion.

zonie :hmm:

 

Since we have a Civil War section on this forum, I would think that breechloading BP guns of several types should be allowed--and we have had numerous discussions of cap/ball revolvers in the pistol section without raising anyone's hackles-- clearly also not muzzleloaders. I thought we had only outlawed modern "nontraditional" arms such as modern inlines and their accoutrements.

 

[Zonie]

"...I thought we had only outlawed modern "nontraditional" arms such as modern inlines and their accoutrements. "
_________________________
That has been pretty much my criteria.

Although during the Civil War there were true cartridge arms in use which fired self contained cartridges , I would not permit discussions about them as they are not muzzleloaders and were never intended to be used as such.

The Henry and the Spencer for instance are true "cartridge" guns that are beyond the scope of this Forum even though they were used by Union Troops and those Confederate troops who happened to find one. (Yes, I know about Confederate copies).

zonie

 

[Claude Mathis]

"...I thought we had only outlawed modern "nontraditional" arms such as modern inlines and their accoutrements. "
_________________________
That has been pretty much my criteria.

Although during the Civil War there were true cartridge arms in use which fired self contained cartridges , I would not permit discussions about them as they are not muzzleloaders and were never intended to be used as such.

The Henry and the Spencer for instance are true "cartridge" guns that are beyond the scope of this Forum even though they were used by Union Troops and those Confederate troops who happened to find one. (Yes, I know about Confederate copies).

Well, there's the dilemma. Do we allow everything up until the end of the Civil War? If we do, then we have allow cartridge guns.

Or, do we only allow muzzleloaders and breech-loaders, until 1865? If we allow paper cartridge breech-loaders, why not metal cartridge breech-loaders? If it's only about the date, then anything goes.

My feeling is, we are called the "Muzzleloading" forum and we should draw the line there - as our name defines us. I never envisioned the "Muzzleloading and Breech-loading Forum".