C. Sharps Blunder

[ColColt]

A few pics...

[Don McDowell]

Looks pretty good. Now we need to see some shooting results.

[ColColt]

One more to know the caliber...



Way too cold for shooting. Snow and ice still on the ground now a week.

[country gent]

Very nice rifle there ColColt. JUst curious but what barrel length?

[ColColt]

32"...my favorite.

[ColColt]

The set trigger was way too light for me so, I backed it out several turns and is not as touchy but now I've introduced some creep into it. I'll have to work on that.

[StrawHat]

The set trigger was way too light for me so, I backed it out several turns and is not as touchy but now I've introduced some creep into it. I'll have to work on that.

As Rosanna would say "...It's always something!... " The good thing is you have the ability to remedy it. Some folks don't. Like you, I find light triggers very vexing and prefer something that requires more than a look to set it off. I really prefer two stage triggers but they are hard to find on a set up like yours.

Kevin

[oldred]

Crisp lines and excellent metal to wood fit! That's the kind of thing we like to see! The fit&finish of newer production guns these days (of course that one is not exactly a "production" gun!) has reached the point of simply appalling and it's nice to see real quality for a change, certainly worth every penny.

[Gunlaker]

C. Sharps does a really nice job fitting the wood. Your rifle looks a lot like the first CSA 1874 rifle I bought. Mine is a .45-110 and works quite well with paper patched bullets.

Chris.

[fouronesix]

Yes, ColColt, that is a fine looking rifle. Don't know what all the hand wringing and OMG posts were about from other posters about the front sight mistake. Somehow I don't think that the same panic and remarks would have been made if it were a Shiloh. Wasn't rocket science to get ahold of C Sharps to correct the error nor was it rocket science to install one- huh.

I've had M1874 Shiloh, M1874 C Sharps and original M1874 Sharps rifles. I have looked into and inspected them very closely and have shot them all. IMO, the C Sharps comes the closest to the real thing (in many ways).

FWIW, I've kept two…. the original and the C Sharps.

[Don McDowell]

I am curios as to why the choice of the MVA sight over C Sharps front sight. Outside of the MVA level permenantly mounted to the sight, it looks like it will raise your sight setting 20 minutes or there about, just as the C Sharps sight does.
I have bubble level fronts from CSA, Baldwin, Shaver and Distant Thunder midrange, and am really partial to the Distant thunder as it sits a lot closer to the top of the barrel, allowing for less elevation on the tang.

[Boz330]

Thanks Don. I was just getting ready to order that exact sight and was wondering if it was a little closer to the barrel than the one I'm using now.

Bob

[Don McDowell]

Bob I believe it's about as close as a fella is going to get it and still have a bubble level. Thinking about ordering the octagon shaped one, with a couple of the special order inserts thrown in for kicks and grins.

[Don McDowell]

Boz the Baldwin sit very low as well, I only need a flat 200 on the staff of the CPA 45-90 to be spot on a 1000 yds.

[Boz330]

I like the idea of the angled mount for the longer ranges and that I can order the annulus and aperture size to suit my eyes. I already have the Distant Thunder rear. No problem reading the numbers on that thing. I was also going to try his rectangular aperture for the Ram and pig and see how that does.
I was using an MVA scope for the last several years for silhouettes but since I got a pair of amber seeing glasses I seem to be able to get by with irons again. Not only getting by but my scores at the last couple matches have been the best that they have been in quite some time. Not sure why but I like it.

Bob

[Don McDowell]

I have not shot the big sillouettes but once, and I did find that open centered crosshair to be favorable for me. I can't see the 22bpcr turkeys well enough to do much more than fire the allotted rounds for that relay, so I shoot scope for those lil buggers.

[paul s]

Curious, why a C. Sharps and not a Shiloh ?

[Gunlaker]

I am curios as to why the choice of the MVA sight over C Sharps front sight. Outside of the MVA level permenantly mounted to the sight, it looks like it will raise your sight setting 20 minutes or there about, just as the C Sharps sight does. I have bubble level fronts from CSA, Baldwin, Shaver and Distant Thunder midrange, and am really partial to the Distant thunder as it sits a lot closer to the top of the barrel, allowing for less elevation on the tang.

That sight is definitely a bit taller than the ones on my C. Sharps rifles. For silhouette I like the Shaver large diameter globe. It helps me see a larger area around the largest.

Last year at Kamloops I hit five chickens in one relay, but only got two points because I hit three out of order! That was with an MVA low profile sight ( which is also a great site ). That was embarassing, and obviously three dumb mistakes, but the bigger diameter globe makes this mistake a tiny bit harder to make.

The only thing I don't like about the larger diameter Shaver globe is that the inserts aren't quite ideal for me and I don't believe anyone else makes inserts compatible with it. I like the way the insert is held in place as I'm not a bit fan of the flat spring used in the MVA and CSA sights.

I still have a CSA front sight on my .45-90. I've been waffling over ordering the Distant Thunder front as I might just go for the DZ scope instead. Gotta make up my mind soon on that one.

Chris.

[Don McDowell]

Chris, Distant Thunder makes inserts that will fit the shaver. I think Ron Snovers lollipops will fit that sight as well, but don't hold me to that.

[Grump]

Off topic:

fouronesix:

The system here says I can't send you a PM. I have a BP related question for you but prefer to not start a thread and hope you reply to it. PRB, a flask that was used after a certain rifle was adopted and the charge it throws...

Please LMK how to contact you.

Thanks!