BP Cartridge Rifle Favorite

B

bighead46

New member
There is the trapdoor springfield, the sharps, remington rolling block, and the spencer- for early bp cartridge rifles.I think I'd want a carbine length versus a rifle length and I've been thinking about getting a rifle of this era but not sure what one to get. Any advice? Anything about any of these choices that would rule one of them out of consideration?
 
Hello, bighead46. For an early bp rifle, you negleted one very fine one...the Ballard. Some of the very earliest rimfire versions were made with a percussion nipple mounted in breech-block..by punching small hole in fired rimfire ctg. head, you could reload case with powder & bullet. The Ballard is one of the nicest looking rifles in my opinion... Much better ballanced and far more graceful than the old Sharps. Their double set triggers are second to none. This plus fast lock time, made them a favorite of target shooters, both in the 19th century, as well as a prefered action for .22 match rifles in the
20th.
 
In carbine length, a Sharps or a Trapdoor looks the best proportioned to me.
A Rolling block carbine looks stubby, the occasional short Winchester or Ballard just look odd.

There are more choices in REPRODUCTION Sharps; from Pedersoli to Shiloh or C. Sharps.
 
If price were no option, I'd want a Ballard Dropping Block rifle.

VERY nifty guns, and generally accurate as all hell.

But, not many made, and expensive.
 
I once met a fellow at the range with a Remington Rolling Block carbine in .50-70 which he was having a real hoot shooting out to 100 yards.
One of those could easily fill the bill for me without much fuss. :)
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking about this too, but being one who likes innovation the Spencer and Henry appeal the most to me. Both severely underpowered by civil war battlefield standards but the ability to shoot many more rounds per skirmish is a huge advantage, at least to my thinking. I always wondered what an entire army of Henry toting troops would have done to an opposite army stuck with single shot muzzle loaders.
The Henry with iron frame would be my choice I think, though the Spencer is available in 56-50 chambering that one could closely replicate the originals in every respect except the rimfire ignition.
 
Greetings
I have owned a Marlin Ballard 7xxx for 10+ years. It is an origonal 38-Long overstamped 38-50. With a .381 175 graimer it is one fine groundhog popper. A case holds right at 52 grains 2F and is very pleasant to haul around through the ditches & woods edges all day. Barrel is 24" I put an origonal Lyman tang sight on it sighted to 50 yards and use the origonal rear sight for under 30 yards.
 
Depends what you want it for. I shoot a modern 56-50 Spencer carbine for a main match CAS rifle once in awhile, and a Sharps for long range side matches. An 1860 Henry in .44-40 gets a turn every once in awhile, and I also have an original Trapdoor that is a fun medium range rifle.

Don't make me pick just one. ;)
 
HisSoldier wrote:
I always wondered what an entire army of Henry toting troops would have done to an opposite army stuck with single shot muzzle loaders.
Click to expand...

The answer is....They decimated (Latin for killed one in ten) them. Probably even killed more than one in ten. Devastatingly tore them up.

Although in 1877 the Russians were no longer using muzzle loaders, to partially answer your wondering, at least in regard to repeating Winchesters vs single shot rifles, look to the 1877 Russo-Turkish war battle of Plevna. The Turks used their Peabody-Martini's at long range and then used their lever action repeating Winchesters at closer ranges to devastating effect against the Russians. The Turks were vastly outnumbered but held up the Russians (who eventually won) for a long time and that was largely due to the repeating Winchesters.

Here's some excerpts regarding the Winchesters from this below link about that battle....

http://www.militaryrifles.com/turkey/Plevna/ThePlevnaDelay.html

"Russian reporters and military analysts later said that these troops began taking hits from the Peabody-Martinis at 3,000 yards, but this must be considered an exaggeration. What was really happening was a plunging high trajectory fire that was being accurately adjusted to keep pace with the oncoming infantry (see note below for a discussion of "plunging fire"). Men were falling in fair numbers at 2,000 yards, and the losses increased as they marched ever closer to their goal atop the hills of Plevna. The Russian infantry accepted these losses in their usual stoic manner, but by the time they were 600-700 yards from the Turks, they began to unravel and break up into clusters. Some groups lay down to avoid the hail of lead and were goaded to their feet by their officers who valiantly urged them onwards. The concussion of Turkish rifle fire was constant and was augmented by Turkish artillery firing shrapnel shells into the Russian line. As the Turk officers called out each new range change, the riflemen adjusted their sights and poured forth more bullets in the general direction of the Russian line. The Winchesters lay next to many of them, fully loaded with 14 rounds. A box of 500 rounds was placed next to each repeating rifle, and other ammunition reserves were close at hand." "

"The long-range Peabody-Martinis started their deadly plunging fire again, and Russians fell in large numbers as they worked their way uphill. closer to the second line. Once more the Winchesters took up the close-range fight, sending their wall of hot lead, decimating the oncoming infantry line."

"At noon, the Third Battle of Plevna started much the same way that the others had, except for one difference. The Peabody-Martinis started killing the allied reserves that were gathered a few hundred yards behind the actual line of attacking units, over 1,000 yards from the Turkish riflemen! Turkish artillery and long-ranging Peabody-Martinis cut down large numbers of allied infantry long before they managed to reach the first trench line of the Turks. As before, the Winchesters did their remarkable job at the closer ranges. It was a repeat of battles number one and two. Krudner and his ranking advisors had seemingly learned nothing from their earlier mistakes."



.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top