I’m still very much in the planning stage, so please don’t spend a great deal of time with your answers—I’d feel bad if someone devoted a lot of time when I’m a long way away from this purchase.
I’m starting to save for a Sharps rifle. This may be several years away, but I’m trying to think through the caliber and configuration I’d like. I don’t plan to compete with this gun. This gun would be just for my own enjoyment. I’d like to have what would have been a “typical” buffalo gun of the era. I realize that “typical” may be hard to nail down since there were so many different types, but I’ve pretty much settled on an 1874 Sharps.
Imagine that you were called on to be a buffalo hunter re-enactor. For your rifle, you’d want to avoid some of the cartridges that were introduced after the buffalo hunting period, etc. You might not choose a rifle configuration that was mainly designed for and used in shooting competitions, even though such guns probably made their way onto the plains. You would probably avoid a gun that was too expensive, with lots of silver or fancy wood, etc. You would want to choose the type of gun the average hunter might have chosen—nothing special. That’s the gun I’m after.
As far as caliber, I’m drawn to the larger (.45 plus) bore, although I’m flexible on that if history dictates it. I reload and cast, so I don’t need to be able to pick up a box at the local Wal-Mart either. I’m kind of drawn to the .50-90 caliber because of its legendary status, but I’d like opinions. I know that .45-70 is very popular these days and I already cast and load that caliber, but it’s so…I don’t know, ordinary. If that was “typical”, though I’d be willing to go that route.
This is all speculative at this point, but I’d love to hear from the knowledgeable folks here. I also haven’t spent much time reading the books on the topic yet, since most of them are a significant investment on their own. I’ll get there, though. If there are some books that I should look for first, I’d love to hear about them. (Since I’m so early in the process, perhaps we can avoid the import vs. domestic argument that has been so thoroughly covered elsewhere.)
Thanks, ladies and gents.
CC Griff