IAB Sharps

[cpt dan blodgett]

IE Howdy!

As I've stated befor, I'm NOT a BPCR reloading expert.  The chamber cast seems to me to be the best way to find out a LOT of information.  I believe that by seating the bullet so that it is just shy of touching the beginning of the rifling - say, .005" - .010" at the most, you'll minimize the bullet "jump" and it won't "free-bore."  I believe that some also advocate just touching the rifling, but I tend to think that might cause an unwanted pressure spike, so when I did my loading COL experiment, I ended up with about .010" from the rifling.  With all the other "issues" I've had I don't know if it really made a difference or not.  Factory smokeyless rounds shoot fine, just not BP so much.  I didn't have any Cerrosafe, so my method was simply slip-fitting a bullet in the neck and letting the rifling push the bullet into the case, then working from there.  As others have mentioned about some of the Italian rifles, especially the Armi Sports, my rifle might well accept a 45-90 round because of excess space!  I've never found a properly loaded-to-specs 45-90 to try, however - but ... maybe someday!  As I recommended to YOU, a chamber cast would tell the tale!
 
Have fun, pard.

Conventional wisdom states Armi Sports have a sloppy chamber and are unduly long.  Well I did cast mine and it is 2.125 vs 2.130 factory spec for Pedersoli.

Additionally the Pedersoli uses a 45 degree taper down to something like .460 - .462.  The army sports use a much sharper angle that is about 1/2 as long as the Pedersoli spec.  Posted dimensions of my Armi Sports Sharps and Navy Arms Pedersoli RB on another thread.

[IE300]

Well I just opened my digital caliper to .005 to get a visual, and I have to say that it is a pretty small dimension. Admitedly this is new stuff to me but I am surprised to see that the dimensions we are talking about are as fine as they are, and would not have thought that .005 would make much of a difference one way or the other. So how critical are these overall lengths when they vary by .005? And how much variation would I find in factory ammo?

[cpt dan blodgett]

Hard to tell.  Still have not figured out BP, but back in my High power days.  Some folks swore their rifles got much tiighter groups on the lands .002, 005, .010 off the lands.  My Remington 40x7.62 had a pretty genrouse lead and would shoot about 3/4 min with 190, 175 or 155 grain sierras.  Those bullets are about 1/4 inch different in length.

Do know with sierra match hollow points there is not a constant bullet length forming the hollow point can be out by about .010 or so, but the distance to a specific diameter not really close to the hollow point say bore diameter on the Ogive is very precise and repeatable.

[IE300]

Spent the last week reading about and playing with my Lee Anniversery Reloading set. Got a set of 45-70 dies and the crimp die as well. I had a Harbor Freight rotory tumbler that I actually got to remove rust from small gun parts, so I figured I'd give it a try for my used brass. It doesn't have much capacity and I didn't have any polish media, but I got about 50 shells into it with a container of BB's I had laying around and it actually gave the shells a pretty good cleaning (after washing them with hot water and soap). They weren't really polished, but certainly more than clean enough for reloading.
I had a can of Pyrodex RS (FFG Equivilant) and also got a can of IMR 3031 smokeless, 200 cast lead 405 grain RNFP bullets from Missouri Bullet Company. I also have a box of 50 Hornady 300 grain JHP .45 cal. (.458) bullets, but for my first run I just used the cast lead 405's since the Hornady's were a lot more expensive.
With a total of 95 empties cleaned and primed, I made up 4 batches of 20 rounds each with the IMR powder. I started out with a load of 45.5 grains, than dropped to 36.4 grains, 31.8 grains, and finished up with 27.3 grains. So basically it was starting load, than minus 20%, minus 30%, and minus 40%.  I'm assuming that by the time I got to the minus 40% I am approaching squib load status. I wish I had a chronograph to see how these reductions in powder translated to muzzle velocity, but I guess that will be my next equipment purchase. The starting load with 45.5 grains is supposed to give me about 1597 FPS, which while not a buffalo killer is still above Cowboy Action velocity. The most enjoyable factory loaded round I've shot so far was the UltraMax 405 grain, but I have no idea what the velocity of that round was. I might hazard a guess of around 1,100 FPS or so. Maybe one of you know and could share that recipe with me. It was accurate and enjoyable to shoot, and would certainly be along the lines of what I would like to load for my own target shooting.
My last 15 rounds were loaded with the same bullet and 50 grains of the Pyrodex. I arrived at that load just by seeing how much powder I could get in the shell while leaving just enough space to have the bullet give the pyrodex a good crunch. I know that volume for volume Pyrodex is a little more powerful than black powder, but I think the 50 grains would still be substantially below the 70 grains that was supposidly the original 45-70 loading. I've also read that people who have tried haven't been able to get close to 70 grains in that case and still have enough room to seat the bullet. I get the impression that the 45-70 was originally more like a 45-65 or a 45-60. And I have read that you can't load enough black or substitute in a 45-70 shell to even come close to exceeding the safe pressure that a rifle in good condition can take.
So now I will once again invite any comments or suggestions from all of you who know more than me, which means all of you. If it sounds like I have done anything unsafe or potentially dangerous, please let me know. In closing I will say that although I have no experience with other reloading equipment, this Lee stuff sure seems like it is well thought out and engineered. Several simple and very clever devices which seem to work like a charm and be as strong as they need to be, without being overbuilt where they don't need to be. I showed my wife the Safty Primer Feed setup and demonstrated it for her, and the first thing she said was that it reminded he of her first job at Davis Aircraft Company. She, myself, and most other people I grew up with all had their first job at that factory, and those first jobs really were a lot like reloading. That company is no longer in our town, but next time you get on a commercial airliner, look at the bottom of the seat belt buckle. Odds are it will say Davis Aircraft Company.
Anyway, I digress as usual. I'll pray for shooting weather this weekend, try out my first reloads, keep detailed notes, and let you all know how my loads work out. Haven't broken that IAB Sharps rifle yet, but now that I can reload my ammo at 1/4 the price of what I was paying, I'm gonna give it my best. I mean, I can't break it if I don't shoot it, right?
BONY NOTCHES AND BIEN FRIJOLES!
BY THE WAY...I forgot to mention that I set my bullet seating so that the ogive is just touching the lands of the rifling. In fact, if you were to chamber a round and eject it without firing it, you would see the tinyest little dots around the ogive where it contacted the lands. I hope that's a good thing.

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Don't forget pard.  "Cowboy Action loads" are talking about pistol caliber loads, NOT 45-70.  Personally, I wouldn't load any rounds at "lower than starting" loads!  You're asking for trouble.  Now, I am talking about 45-70 loads for trapdoors and reproductions (which tend to act like BP loads of yesteryear.  NOT the loads for 45-70s to be shot out of Ruger #1 rifles and the like.  EVERY load book I own (I have 4 or 5 from Speer, Hornady, Lyman, Lee, Sierra, and numerous loads I've printed from the Hodgdon site) have a different section for 45-70 loads in Trapdoors & repro Sharps, RBs, etc.  So make sure you're using the right charts.

The reason I'm emphasizing this is because of what you printed about 40% reduced from starting loads, as you put it.  That's pretty dangerous without a chrono and pressure testing, pal!  5 to 10% lower than starting is one thing, 40% is quite another ... and you're talking about 3031, which is a very good powder.

Be safe ... be careful making up your own loads.  I'm just a dumb old ex-tanker, but you're playin' with fire, pard!  Fill those cases up to where you'll have about 1/16"-1/8" compression with that FFG equivalent Pyrodex or real Gunpowder, and if you need smokeyless loads, use safe, published starting to maximum loads, and you'll still keep yer eyes, and all your fingers.

your mileage may vary ....

[cpt dan blodgett]

Good advice from a DAT.  Who knows Steel horse may have ridden M60A3s or M1s could be a C-DAT

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

I agree with Steel Horse Bailey's comment.  For some reason I never 'took" to 3031.  In necked military calibers that I used it in it required top-end loads to give power with accuracy.  It does have its uses but in my life I have only gone through most of one can. Those loads IE300 wants to try might not be dangerous, but the results will likely be dissapointing.  I checked the starting load, and IE300 was using the trapdoor table as a guide.

I do use 4895 for reduced (NOT gallery level - just reduced) loads.  I followed the suggestions of the experts in the NRA from the RIFLEMAN.  A 60% load of 4895 gave brilliant accuracy at 200 yards in .30-06 and .308.  I tried it in a Rem 700 vartmitter in 7 - 08 and voila, 1/2 inch groups right off the bat.  That was years ago now.

In my '86 Browning SRC I wanted to used smokeless.  I used a load of 4895 just two grains less than shown on the Hodgdon tables for starting loads for the trapdoor. Still pretty skookum, but close to BP velocities.  Accurate as well.  Since then better powders have evolved and now I'd probably try 4198 or Trailboss. I won't, cause now, most of my loads are with BP.

IE300;  Its a good idea to start by loading just a few test loads until you know it works.  Having to disassemble a bunch of 'em is a pain and wasteful of components.  And, ask the questions before starting

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Good advice from a DAT.  Who knows Steel horse may have ridden M60A3s or M1s could be a C-DAT

Thanks for the clarification, pard.  Most don't realize that DAT means Dumb A$$ Tanker, and the C adds "Computerized"
 

 Of course, every former Infantryman knows what a DAT is.  We called them "Grunts" (when being polite) and "Track Grease" when not.
 

I went like this: M60A1, M48A5, M60A3, HIMAG & HSTVL (Experimental Test-Beds), M1, M1A1, then M1-M1A1-M1A2 Master Gunner; (1st class of M1A2 MGs), and finally M1A1 Heavy.

[cpt dan blodgett]

I am quite sure we could both agree to good naturedly chide the cannon cockers or more politely red legs

Once during an FTX I had the honor of commanding a Tank Heavy team.  My Company was cross attached to one of the tank battalions.  The Tank Bn Commander further task organized by sending two of my Mech Platoons out to two of the tank companies and gave me a platoon from each one.  This was back in the 5 tanks to a platoon days.  I was really concerned about my guys (myself included) becoming track grease with all those M60 A3s running around in the FT Polk woods.

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

Who ya callin' a REDLEG

6 pounder anti-tank gun, 155mm M114 howitzer, 105mm M1 howitzer, 105mm L5 Pack Howitzer, 155mm M109 SP

M577 and M113 CPs, M113 and LAV forward observer vehicles. 

Qualified as an "IG" (Instructor in Gunnery - a year long professional mass murder course which covered theory and practice on all aspects of gunnery, from serving a field gun, to Corps level fire support planning , up to Nuclear Target Analysis, and training individuals and units in the same.

Forward Air Controller.

[cpt dan blodgett]

Dang, if we only got a "Zoomie" involved we would have a Bi-National Combinded Arms Team.

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Indeed!

[Pitspitr]

Since then better powders have evolved and now I'd probably try 4198 or Trailboss. I won't, cause now, most of my loads are with BP.

Trailboss is fine in .45/70 out to about 100 yards but past that accuracy is poor...very poor, at least with 2 of my rifles.

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

Trailboss is fine in .45/70 out to about 100 yards but past that accuracy is poor...very poor, at least with 2 of my rifles.

I havn't tried it, and I know the numbers in the data are not very impressive.  I mentioned it as I have seen it written up a lot.

For what IE300 wants, I suggest 4895 or 4198 might be better choices.

[Steel Horse Bailey]

I had good luck with IMR4198 and Meister 405 gr. bullets in my Sharps. I  don't remember the load exactly, but it was in the 21 - 25 gr range.  It was a very good reduced load.  I had good results with it to 200 yds.  What I didn't like was the immense empty space because of the small volume of powder.  I would load the round, then elevate the barrel to 90 deg. vertical, then carefully lower it to take aim, cock the hammer  and shoot.  I ended up putting some toilet paper loosely stuffed into the case - it helped keep the powder down at the primer end, at least that was the theory ... I don't know if that actually helped, I couldn't tell by shooting.

Like I've said, I had no luck with BP in MY Sharps, but with smokeyless and hard-cast bullets it does fine.

[Trooper Bill]

Guys, I'm enjoying  the heck out of your valient efforts to make big bore black powder ctgs shoot smokeless powder. It reminds me of my DCM Highpower days, now long in the past.
I to have a IAB Sharps, in .50 govt. It's the carbine and and I load exactly what  was made to shoot in it. A 450 gr. soft lead bullet, SPG or simular lube, pre compressed 70 grs. of Goex Ctg grade, large rifle (FED) primer, roll crimped. I replaced the front sight with a higher blade and the carbine shoots a consistant 3" group at 100 yds. As good or maybe better than the original I had many years ago. With the new front sight filed to "0" at 100, the round's trajectory follows the sights out to 300 yds. Thats as far as I shoot it,so I really haven't checked it out beyond that range. Like the originals, I get about five to seven shots between bore wipes. This is OK with me, as I accept this as a fact of life with all b/p guns shooting original loads.  This carbine has taken several coyotes and a number of jackrabbits over the last few years. No, for being totally "original" in design, it's close enough but not exactly an perfect duplicate to the m-1870 conversion Sharps. It shoots very well for what it reresents and it helped me get somewhat past my IAB fobia.

[Two-Step]

Being a cheap Bass turd myself, I often find myself seeing and feeling the sneers of the ultra elitist, what with their fancy and high dollar gear. But, I love the look on their face when I take my $235.00 (used) Winchester Mod 70, and get 1/4 inch groupings at 100 yards. It tickles me to no end.

I am just getting started in buffalo rifles ( not counting my BP rifle) and am in the process of seeing what is out there... and there seems to be a lot. So, other than the IAB (Creedmoor type) being 1/3 the price of a Shiloh, what is supposed to be wrong with it?

[Trooper Bill]

Two Step...I stayed away for IAB's for years. Early on they were very poor copies of sharps actions, it seemed at the time the Italian gun builders made many cost curbing shortcuts to develope a one size fits all action that they could use on all of the Sharps repo lines, percussion or ctg. And the metal was really soft in some cases and brittle elsewhere. The IAB folks just couldn't get heat treating down worth a darn.  Some of the early b/p percussion pistols had simular problems and they wern't just limated to IAB. And the trigger pulls were always bad, and correcting them led to other problems. This is where the soft metal issues really bit you. Once those sears were ajusted by releaving extra metal, the hardness, if there ever was any to start with was gone, and the trigger sears wore down to bad or unsafe again quickly. The barrels varied in quality from fair to worthless. That was why the low end makers had a bad rep for many years. I still would not buy any older IAB, and didn't intend to buy the one that I have now except it was the only gun that I could find in .50 Govt. I really wanted to get a Sharps in that cal. and that didn't cost an arm and a leg. It still is not a letter perfect copy of the gun it represents but it's now well made, shoots fine and seems to be holding up to daily use just fine. I had trigger work done and that seems to be holding up well too. I personally believe that cowboy action shooting as a sport forced some of the also ran makers to really compete for market share and clean up their quality and workmanship alot.