runningiron wrote on Nov 16
th, 2010 at 7:52am:
Some very interesting comment since my last post.
Harry, the Ruger #1 was / is offered primarily in modern chamberings, while the #3 was offered in the more traditional calibers. The #1 is still going strong while the #3 bit the dust. I'm not sure I completely agree with your assessment, but I am oepn to being convinced.
Hello Runningiron,
Well, when the Colt Sharps first emerged there were very few newly manufactured single shot rifles available on the US market.
The few single shot enthusiasts did have a choice of several original actions as the demand for them was relatively small. However, with the revival of Creedmoor Long Range Shooting Competitions, BPCR Sillhouette shooting, and competitions like 'The Quigley', the Wasserburg 'Mile' and Cowboy Action shooting, original period single shot rifles became more expensive and much harder to find. The Shiloh Sharps Co., and several other manufacturers were formed to cater for the demand and foreign manufacturers from Italy and Japan jumped on the bandwaggon, all making copies of 19th.C. single shot rifles.
Hunters of American big game wanted to emulate the Buffalo Hunters of the 1860's and 70's and take a 'Buff' with a Sharps Rifle, some even took these single shot replica's with BP cartridges to Africa, and were successful, on all but the most dangerous of game.
After the film 'Quigley Down Under' came out, Shiloh Sharps, the maker of the rifle featured in the film, had a four to five year backlog of orders. Many a Firearms Manufacturer would love to have that problem.
Some companies prospered, a few fell by the wayside because of poor quality or financing.
It seems to me that Colt came in at about the end of the 'Varmint Rifle' era with their single shot, and although offered in larger calibres it was also too expensive for the average 'Joe' to afford.
Just my opinion of course.
Harry