Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2]  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Help re a Colt-Sharps with an extraction problem (Read 14305 times)
BrianJ
Participating Member
*
Offline



Posts: 34
Joined: Nov 29th, 2007
Re: Help re a Colt-Sharps with an extraction problem
Reply #15 - Nov 15th, 2010 at 5:30pm
Print Post  
runningiron,
Concerning your checkering pattern, there were two models (grades) of the CS, the Presentation grade, which you have and the standard grade that was really never offered publicly. In the standard the buttstock varied in that it was not drilled for or had a ctg. trap and the simpler checkering pattern, some no cheek piece. The standard forearm was shorter and the same checkering as the standard buttstock. Many of the stocks of both styles were purchased in the original deal from the Sharps Arms Co. of Salt Lake City. The beavertail forearm came with both checkering patterns.
Point is there are two styles for two different grades.

The rifle was made in more than "white powder" and whether anyone  likes it or not its a very interesting and unique rifle. It was supposed to be a  modern version of the Sharps 78. The entire story is quite interesting.

bjm
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
runningiron
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 129
Location: Texas
Joined: Jun 12th, 2007
Re: Help re a Colt-Sharps with an extraction problem
Reply #16 - Nov 16th, 2010 at 7:52am
Print Post  
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.
  

Murphy was an optimist
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
harry_eales
Ex Member


Re: Help re a Colt-Sharps with an extraction problem
Reply #17 - Nov 16th, 2010 at 9:40am
Print Post  
runningiron wrote on Nov 16th, 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
« Last Edit: Nov 16th, 2010 at 10:43am by »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
40_Rod
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


Extremism in the persuit
of accuracy is not a
vice

Posts: 4285
Location: Knoxville, TN
Joined: Apr 20th, 2004
Re: Help re a Colt-Sharps with an extraction problem
Reply #18 - Nov 16th, 2010 at 10:13am
Print Post  
I have to agree with you Harry, especially when you couple that with the fact that there were at least were at least two companies that would make you a 1878 to your specs. Colt offered a rifle that you had to settle for a modern chambering and a thin whippy modern barrel for the same money. It's no wonder that they didn't sell well.

40 Rod
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BrianJ
Participating Member
*
Offline



Posts: 34
Joined: Nov 29th, 2007
Re: Help re a Colt-Sharps with an extraction problem
Reply #19 - Nov 16th, 2010 at 4:58pm
Print Post  
Very Interesting link and rifle. 
I might suggest that it possibly was late Salt Lake City Sharps made up as presentation rifles with that particular wood, but its really hard to say.
Salt Lake City offered barrel sizes 1 - 6 but I wasn't aware Colt ever did. Colt did make up some specials and standard grades (#2) for writer evaluation but nearly all were #2 barrels or barrels obtained from SLC as far as I know. If I'm not mistaken all the receivers Colt built were serialed with CS prefix. Very nice example.
Two Colt reps were sent to SLC and did pick up a dozen completed unmarked presentation rifles from Swanson after the sale.
I worked on one of those a couple years ago that also was a HB. They were special and one may have been kept by Colt all these years. 


bjm
« Last Edit: Nov 16th, 2010 at 5:07pm by BrianJ »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BrianJ
Participating Member
*
Offline



Posts: 34
Joined: Nov 29th, 2007
Re: Help re a Colt-Sharps with an extraction problem
Reply #20 - Nov 16th, 2010 at 6:51pm
Print Post  
Vollemaan,

I think we're on the same page. Sounds like a SLC action. By adjustable trigger, not Canjar set do you mean Canjar non-setting single stage or a trigger built in the block? 
The late SLC Sharps I worked on had a non setting adjustable Canjar and safety as you describe. It did have a safety cut-off switch though. However, I have a breech block casting made for an integral trigger. I'll send you a pic of the block when I get home in a couple days if you will PM me your email address.
Does your rifle have the safety cut off switch? The SLC and early Colts did have that.
The Sharps seemed to differ the entire run as changes continued.
IS your right receiver wall cut down for easier loading?

bjm
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
runningiron
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 129
Location: Texas
Joined: Jun 12th, 2007
Re: Help re a Colt-Sharps with an extraction problem
Reply #21 - Nov 18th, 2010 at 5:15pm
Print Post  
There have been a few mentions of a safety cutoff switch.  My rifle is numbered CS1xx and has a screw in the bottom of the receiver immediately to rear of the breech block.  The screw will only turn about 90 degrees.  However, it does not deactivate the automatic safety when I turn it.  Do I have something else wrong with the rifle, as well?
  

Murphy was an optimist
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
runningiron
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 129
Location: Texas
Joined: Jun 12th, 2007
Re: Help re a Colt-Sharps with an extraction problem
Reply #22 - Nov 18th, 2010 at 9:55pm
Print Post  
vollemaan, I think you're right.  There really isn't a standard production model Cold Sharps, there are 501 or so hand made prototypes Wink
  

Murphy was an optimist
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
runningiron
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 129
Location: Texas
Joined: Jun 12th, 2007
Re: Help re a Colt-Sharps with an extraction problem
Reply #23 - Nov 18th, 2010 at 9:57pm
Print Post  
But I am going to get this one shooting.  It's too good looking a gun to be a display piece.
  

Murphy was an optimist
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BrianJ
Participating Member
*
Offline



Posts: 34
Joined: Nov 29th, 2007
Re: Help re a Colt-Sharps with an extraction problem
Reply #24 - Nov 18th, 2010 at 11:13pm
Print Post  
Rod,

The "screw" is the switch and should work. Off hand I can think of two reasons.
If it ever came out or was taken out it may have been put in incorrectly, by 180 degrees.
It works by an "ear" on the safety lever hitting or missing the cutoff as the block is lowered. If yours will not disengage it hits all the time.
The cutoff is held in place by a spring and plunger held in a hole in the receiver by the butt stock bolting up tight. If that stock was removed and the the spring and plunger put in backwards it may keep the cut-off from turning far enough.
When you have the block out check out placement (direction) of the cut-off and ear.
Caution: If you take the stock off be careful of the spring and plunger and the cutoff. Without pressure the cutoff can fall IN, not out. If forgotten on assembly it can happen at a later date.


bjm
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BrianJ
Participating Member
*
Offline



Posts: 34
Joined: Nov 29th, 2007
Re: Help re a Colt-Sharps with an extraction problem
Reply #25 - Nov 19th, 2010 at 5:52pm
Print Post  
Rod,

I got home today and looked into the cutoff. 90 degrees is all they turn. Colt shows early ones held in by a screw and no spring. This I believe is incorrect as you would find it necessary to remove the stock to loosen the screw to turn it on or off. If you turn yours 90 degrees its in correctly, and if it doesn't change things the alignment of the ear on the safety lever is off enough (bent) that it hits the switch screw when it should clear it.
The safety levers are assembled rather loosely and sloppy. though it could be bent slightly. When you have the block out check for correct position of the cut off and see where the "ear" hits it and bend the ear accordingly to clear.
As a point of interest I have two triggers, one SLC one Colt and both have different length of safety levers.

bjm
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
runningiron
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 129
Location: Texas
Joined: Jun 12th, 2007
Re: Help re a Colt-Sharps with an extraction problem
Reply #26 - Nov 21st, 2010 at 9:30am
Print Post  
I'll give it a shot.  Thanks, Brian.
  

Murphy was an optimist
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 
Send TopicPrint