Accuracy of rifles question

[wade]

I'm interested in learning the accuracy of the springfield vs sharps rifle for civil war sniper shooting.

How accurate are each one and why pros and cons

[Tyler Underwood]

Re: Accuracy of rifles question

To be honest Wade I think this question would be suited for a NSSA forum.
The reason I say this is because there are variables to consider when answering your question.
An out of the box Euroarms, might shoot differently from a Armisport or a custom Hoyt barrel.
Something to consider is that manufacturers of reproduction firearms have the "It's good enough" mentality. If they desired perfection there wouldn't be a need for defarbs.
Ultimately, if you are legitimately looking for a rifle to shoot competitively you would be best suited to have a custom barrel made for whatever rifle you please.

Others milage may vary.

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Accuracy of rifles question

It's hard to answer that question, unless you have the exact weapons, AND the exact ammo used also.

My experience is only with repro, and original rifled muskets, I know nothing much of shooting the Sharps weapons.

The reproductions on the market today (excepting the Parker Hale made Enfield's) are not rifled like the originals. The originals were progressive depth rifled, the groove depth was 14 thousandth's inch deep, at the breech end, progressively getting shallower, to only 5 thousandth's inch deep at the muzzle. Repro's have shallow groove depths on around 4 thousandth's of an inch all the way thru the bore.

That rifling difference is significant. Shooting today's repro's, your Minnie bullet has to be 1-2 thousandth's of an inch under your bore size. I tried to get a .575" Minnie to shoot accurately in a ArmiSport Enfield, with a .581" bore. Terrible accuracy!

When I got a mold that cast a .580" Minnie, then accuracy was very good.

We had the pleasure of shooting live ammo at a metal silhouette of a full size buffalo at 475 yards, (a tiny target at that range) from an original 1863 Springfield.
A friend supplied the rifle, I made up the ammo. We were standing up, off hand shooting at that target, and more times than not, we hit it! That original's rifling design worked wonderfully with the ammo provided. Next to us was a bench set up with a heavy 45-70 Sharps rifle with a long tube scope, and the guys shooting that were mighty impressed with our weapons ability!

The originals could be quite accurate, in the hands of a competent shooter.

Kevin Dally

[LeftCoastYank]

Re: Accuracy of rifles question

Messrs. Underwood and Dally both hit the nail on the head regarding reproductions, particularity the non-apparent differences with originals such as rifling twist, rifling depth and considerations like ball-to-barrel sizing.

Ergonomically speaking, the advantages of a breech loader are almost immeasurable as compared to a muzzle loader when fighting from a kneeling or prone position. I'm sure most reenactors are aware of this from practical experience, but having loaded from the kneeling and prone positions while live firing I cannot stress enough how exponentially more difficult it is to seat the ball. My personal experience is that it's very awkward, uncomfortable, difficult and above all slow - especially while prone - to ram the ball. So even if the difference in accuracy is negligible, the ability to quickly and easily load from a concealed (i.e.,prone) position is an enormous advantage for troops functioning in skirmish or sharpshooting role.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Accuracy of rifles question

Hallo!

"Ideally..."

One really should not look to standard infantry weapons and mix in modern "sniping."

Being really brief and somewhat over-generalizng...

Sharpshooters by function and not just using of the name "sharpshooter" to sound cool when added to a unit's name... were specialists typically armed with special rifles (often heavy target "bench" rifles weighing 15-30 pounds.

One example is Berdan's Sharpshooters who were eventually armed with Berdan Contract Sharps NM1859 Rifles. Even though their initial recruiting (false) propaganda was a $60 bonus for bringing their own target rifles to qualify with and use in service. For, to use the more current term, "sniping," the two best shots in each company had cased target rifles back in the supply train to use when needed.

Cased or boxed sets contained all of the kit needed to use one (patched round ball), and protect the fragile brass telescopic sights. They could weigh a total of 30-40-50 pounds depending on the rifle. I once had an 1865 dated target rifle. It's telescopic sight was 2X. I have seen some that were 1.5X, 1X, and even 0.5X so they did not do a lot. :)

It has been years, but the old Visitors' Center in G-Burg used to have a 36 pound (IIRC) target rifle on display.

The only other I can think of is the limited numbers of the Whitworth hexagonal bore rifle.

IMHO we do get misled if not spoiled, when we see Enfield sights graduated out to 900 or 1,000 yards. Or the M1855 Rifle's. Or even the RM's 500 yard leaf.

One really needs to actually shoot at those distances to get a "fair appreciation" and approximation.

Which makes me cringe as I recall the public talk at Antietam 135 by Berdan Sharpshooters telling visitors that the Sharps M1859 used a six inch long bullet and they would hit targets at a mile or mile and a half with them.

One such use that comes to mind was with the 2nd U.S.S.S. at Gettysburg where a Confederate sharpshooter was up in a tree near the Emmittsburg Road (down by the Codori barn, IIRC without looking it up) on the federal "middle." The call went out, the "target rifle" was brought up, and the Confederate dealt with. Another was at Hare's Farm, VA, where a 1st U.S.S.S. lad scared off a CS sharpshooter at 300 yards.

Curt