Which Shiloh Sharps rifle would YOU choose?

[Wyatt Burp]

I bought three Shiloh Sharps rifles in the early 90s (see pics below) and kept one that I still have. I don’t buy long guns anymore but looking at this Shiloh web page I did pick one I would choose if I did. It would be a Hartford Model, .50-70, military butt stock, and straight heavy 28” 1/2 octagon barrel. EXCLUDING the more expensive Creedmore and Quigley models listed, what would you choose here that costs UNDER $3000?

Rifles :: 1874 SHARPS RIFLE

 

[Heinz]

I have a Shiloh in 45-110. It is a great gun and I am very happy with it. I I were buying new I think I would lean toward a 45-70. The ammunition is readily available. The 40 caliber Sharps may be more accurate and less fussy about powder charges and the 50 cal used to have a reputation as being very fussy about having the right charge.
And what is there on the North American continent that you cannot stop with any of those calibers at 200 yards?

 

[diyj98]

I I were buying new I think I would lean toward a 45-70. The ammunition is readily available.

I was just getting ready to type something similar. I've owned and still own a few obsolete calibers, but there's nothing like being able to easily find reloading components or even factory ammo fairly cheaply.

 

[Charlie Foxtrott]

I decided to go with a High Wall.

I think that they look nicer than the Sharps rifles.

 

[JohnRippert]

I would take the standard 1874 Military Carbine in .38-55

 

[Wyo]

I have a number of Shiloh rifles in calibers from 40-70 Necked to 50-90. Most recently, I bought a #3 Sporter, very plain, in 50-90. Some of mine are fancy but I wanted a working-type rifle that would have been of the type that actually saw use in the 1870's hunts, not one that would only have been used on the target ranges. Mine was under $3000 so that was nice too, and I laid in a good supply of brass at the time. Good thing 'cause you can't find it right now. I'll be using it on a buffalo hunt next month.

 

[rockquarry]

I've had a plain #1 Sporter in .45-70 for more than thirty years. If I was going to buy another, it would be the same rifle but maybe a different chambering only because I enjoy load development and working with something new but there is nothing wrong with the .45-70.

The #1 Sporter is light enough to carry easily, but heavy enough for bench shooting. I have no interest in cosmetic extras. The .45-70 is versatile and will do what many of the other cartridges will; brass is comparatively cheap and easy to find and there are many bullet moulds available in all the weights anyone might want.

Despite the above comments, I've lost just about all interest in the Shiloh Sharps and seldom shoot it, preferring my Miroku-produced Winchester 1885 reproductions, in .32-40, .38-55, and .405 Winchester.

 

[Shark Bait]

I ordered a military carbine in 38-55 after I bought a 45-70 Long Range Express at a gun show.

 

[CH4]

I like the one that Quigley used.

 

[crows]

I think that they look nicer than the Sharps rifles.

Since someone else went ahead and broke the chain of Shiloh Sharps in this discussion, I would go with an out of production Garrett Arms Mod. 1863 double set trigger infantry rifle. Conjuring images of Berdan's Sharpshooters.
The Garrett Arms was the only reproduction Sharps to have a functional Lawrence Patented priming system. Useless I know, but gotta love the exactness of the reproduction.

 

[Charlie Foxtrott]

Do you have a picture?

Since someone else went ahead and broke the chain of Shiloh Sharps in this discussion, I would go with an out of production Garrett Arms Mod. 1863 double set trigger infantry rifle. Conjuring images of Berdan's Sharpshooters.
The Garrett Arms was the only reproduction Sharps to have a functional Lawrence Patented priming system. Useless I know, but gotta love the exactness of the reproduction.

We would love to see it.

 

[colt_saa]

I always wanted one in 45-120, but I stumbled into a good deal for a used Sharp's Long Range chambered in 45-70 that I simply could not pass up

I am a hand loader so availability of ammunition is not really a concern of mine. I already have projectiles on hand for my other 45-70 firearms. As long as I have some brass to start with everything else is just easy.

I know you said to pick something from their website that was under $3000 but to me if I'm spending $3000 I would rather add some more money and get what I really want instead of compromising to save the difference

So if I were buying new today I would probably buy a Creedmoor or a Quigley chambered in 45-120 or 45-110 respectively

 

[.455_Hunter]

If I am a doing something like a nice Sharps, it's going to be in a fun caliber like 50-90. I already have enough .45-70 platforms.

 

[Muley Gil]

Let's go farther afield.

While I like the Quigley Sharps, I prefer the Remington Rolling Blocks.

 

[Wyatt Burp]

Since someone else went ahead and broke the chain of Shiloh Sharps in this discussion, I would go with an out of production Garrett Arms Mod. 1863 double set trigger infantry rifle. Conjuring images of Berdan's Sharpshooters.
The Garrett Arms was the only reproduction Sharps to have a functional Lawrence Patented priming system. Useless I know, but gotta love the exactness of the reproduction.

I recall Garrett Arms making an 1874 Sharps that had a heavy barrel and cleaning rod like a Hawken. Something I’m sure was done in the 1870s.
I really like the Cimarron Texas Ranger carbine in .50-70 made to look like the conversions they carried with the higher percussion hammer. I think it’s only .45-70 now.

 

[crows]

I recall Garrett Arms making an 1874 Sharps that had a heavy barrel and cleaning rod like a Hawken. Something I’m sure was done in the 1870s.
I really like the Cimarron Texas Ranger carbine in .50-70 made to look like the conversions they carried with the higher percussion hammer. I think it’s only .45-70 now.

I believe that was called a Gemmer Sharps. I read where that was an attempt for hawken-type plains rifle manufacturers to stay in business with the advent of breech loaders by performing their "conversion" of Sharps rifles. .

 

[TIMETRIPPER]

I'd go with one in 45-70, if only because ammo and components are easy to find and cheaper.
I've owned a Pendersoli 45-120 and that was not much fun to shoot. Plus smokeless powder loads were problematic. Also had a Garret 50-70 conversion carbine. It had the tape primer parts and the paper cartridge lever, unfortunately, which let the cases slip past the ejector when loading. Garret was a stickler for authenticity, but that was one detail he should have passed on.
A Shiloh sharps is out of my price range, but the newer Pendersoli and Uberti repros are up to snuff.

John

 

[6GUNSONLY]

I don't have a Shilih Sharps, but do have a Pedersoli/Dixie Gun Works in .40-65. For my purposes, im very happy with it. It has a 30" barrel, and I've thought a bit about having it cut back to about 26" for more of the "business rifle" style, as Shiloh calls it. So far I haven't done that. I've shot it out to 300 yards and it's pretty easy to hit a 12" gong at that distance. I'm shooting a 400 grain Postel style bullet.

 

[Abbynormal]

I'd buy the first one I could afford!

 

[dwh]

I’d get a #1 sporter or a Montana rough ride in 30-40krag with the lightest 26in round barrel they make. No fancy wood or silver fore tip. Strictly hunting rifle, rugged short staffed tang sight with a silver blade up front. Maybe a 3x scope. I would prefer this setup in a high wall if i really was building a rifle from scratch.