I've never heard of anyone using one for very long. They kick very hard.  My .55 slug gun has a 24 inch twist and shoots the 700 grain bullets extremely accurate.  
Good luck.

              Joe.

I happen to have one of those monsters (although it's likely going to be rebarreled and chambered with a .45-90 paper patch chamber.).

Mine won't hold 1 moa, closer to 2+. Although the flinching might have something to do with it .  It recoils a lot harder than my .45-110.  

I shoot a 650gr Saeco bullet and a 700gr BACO. The rifle is an older C. Sharps 1874 with a 34" heavy barrel. It has a 1:26 twist which is probably a little loose for the big bullet, but I haven't shot it long range.

The main issues with the .50-140, other than the nasty recoil, is the fact that it really eats into the lead and powder reserves. And quality brass is hard to find.

Chris.

15 sounds way to fast to me.  This twist calculator comes in handy. 

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

I dont know what the length of a .50 700 - 1000 grain bullet is.

There was a fella came on here a couple years ago wanting to do the same thing you're thinking about.  He was real sure of himself and we couldnt convince him not to do it.  Havent heard from that ruffian since.  Maybe he's been out looking for his atlas. 

                Joe.   

             

After reading Sellers book i think the sharps company recommended a 1-20 twist for the 50-70 & 50-90.By the way, the sharps company NEVER made a 50-140, as they throught it had far too much recoil.They also said that any 45-100 would outshoot any 50 caliber at any range.Ive fired a 577/450 with 100 grqins of BP, that was enough for me, in fact i sold it because it kicked too much.A 45/70 is my limit.All existing 50-140's were made by Winchester, not  sharps.

I mean no disrespect, Mr. Pickup, but I'm not worried about whether or not the 50-140 was an original Sharps caliber.  In fact, I don't understand that argument against it at all (other than respecting the Sharps Co's opinion).  There have been wildcats from the first days of center fires.  We accept today's wildcats, so what is wrong with a 19th century one?  If anything, that makes it a little more intriguing.  Like I say, I mean no disrespect, and I really appreciate your quote from Sharps recommending a 1 in 20 twist.  My 45-100 has a 1 in 20 twist.  When you say "outshoot", what do you mean?  In power or accuracy or what?  

My thoughts on a 1 in 15 twist are based on those listed in Cartridges of the World for the 500 ASquare (1 in 10) the 50 Peackeeper (1 in 15) the 50 Alaskan (1 in 15--20) and so on.  These generate a lot more velocity (and recoil) than the 140, so it stands to reason that the 140 would need a faster twist--not a slower one.  I will look at that link you gave, Westerner.  Thank you very much for it.  

I'm "real sure" of myself with a flintlock (or at least more at  home) but this breach loading thing is not something I understand as well as you fellas.   I hope I do not seem to be bulling my way forward like that other poor guy you described.  Please be patient with my stupidity.  Like I said, I am not set on a 140, and I very well may choose another cartridge.

Quote:


That does make sense to me too, but sometimes it seems that firearms manufacturers use a different set of rules.  I'm not sure why that is. 

For instance I understand that the .458 Win Mag generally has a 1:14 twist yet modern .45 cal BPCR rifles that usually shoot longer, heavier, bullets at lower speeds usually run at 1:18 twist.

I do know that there has been a fair bit of discussion on .50 cal twist rates on the Shiloh board.  You might want to check out those discussions.  IIRC they considered 1:22" fast. I know that Badger's standard twist for .50 BPCR is 1:26", and I know that a lot of the earlier Sharps replicas used 1:36" twists but they were limited to "original" weight/length bullets in the .50-70 and .50-90.

Good luck on your rifle build. 

Chris.

You fellows are very convincing. Of all the responses to this question, no one has said, "That'll make a great gun--you're gonna love it!"  Hmmm. Since I try to listen to people who know more than I do on a subject, I think I will heed the common advice and go with a lighter round.  

I really appreciate your advice, ssdave, as well as your offers on the reamer and your rifle.  I will give it some serious thought.  My 45-100 has a 36" barrel by RA Hoyt.  I soldered an underib and ram pipes onto it and restocked it to look and feel like a muzzle loader.  I have heard the term "gemmerized" for when that is done, but I don't know if that is a real term or not.  Something about when the old Hawken shop was bought out and after the muzzle loader days were over, the shop began turning cartridge guns into rifles that would hold more like men were used to.  I intend to do that with this action too, no matter what round it ends up eating.  I don't mean to ramble; this does have a point. For a rifle like this to hold like I like, I require a lot of drop. This would compound the whollup that you're all warning me about.

The best fitting gun I have was made by a relative in the 1860s. It is a 38 caliber percussion with a 4 1/2" drop and a 12 1/4" pull. That is what I try to imitate in all my rifles. For this configuration, I think it might be better to go with a lighter cartridge, even though I have not noticed any adverse effects with it on the 45-100.  (Then again, I do come away with bumps and bruises.)

I am now thinking of a 40-70 and will probably begin a thread opening discussion on that round.  Thank you all very much for the help you have been in this decision.

ssdave, that is very interesting about the greater twists for the dangerous game cartridges.  It also explains why similar twists are used for boat tailed spitzers and round nosed slugs of the same caliber. I had not considered terminal performance.  Thank you.