...strong enough for black powder .38-55 loads?

Nope,....the original factory .32-40s were a bust,....stretched their links quickly, and developed lever droop almost immediately.

They QUIT building the 44 in that caliber.

GTC

well...scratch that idea, then

Is the Model 50 stronger? There's a fancy original Model 50 on GB, in .38-55.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=480196299

I would ask the Fine folk over at CPA Stevens about that one,...

from here it looks like a 44 action, but is perhaps an early
44 1/2 ?

If 44,....Fancy don't make it stronger.

GTC

These are strong enough!

Parlorguns by Sharps45 2 7/8, on Flickr

yep little heavy for a .38-55, though

This 44-1/2 .44-75 Ballard chamber will handle what you want. I load 82 gr of 3FG with a 505 gr bullet and it handles it just fine.

That is lovely.

I have two .45-90's, one an original High Wall, and a Shiloh #1. The Shiloh is a gem, and the High Wall is pretty cool, too.

But I should explain, it just seems silly to shoot a 150 lb deer with 500 grain bullets. Hence the .38-55.

I wonder what a 1877 with 26" std 1/2 octagon barrel would weigh, in .38-55. 8 lbs, maybe? Not a traditional use of the 1877, but I'm liking the idea for a light hunting BPCR.

The weight of a 77 would be something closer to 11 lbs in a 38-55.
Actually a 77 in a hunting rifle is a traditional use for it. After the Sharps co, introduced what turned out to be an absolute miserable failure, they took the bulk of the reaming stock off the shelves, installed express sights, and offered the express load with a 285 gr grease groove bullet as a new improved hunting combo.... The balance of the rifles were firesale priced and sold thru Homer Fisher for 65$.

huh. My Shiloh #1 with 30" std full octagon weighs 10lbs 3 oz7 oz, IIRC. With a bunch of burly wood on it. (I'll double check tonight)

I understood the 77 action is about a pound lighter than the 74. A shorter, 1/2 round barrel oughta weigh a good bit less, even though the smaller bore adds weight to any given barrel.

When I asked the question in the past, the story I heard on the 77's was that for a given overall weight of rifle (limited by competition rules), the lighter action allowed a heavier barrel, to benefit accuracy.

It's pretty easy to find Model 94's in .38-55, but I really don't care to shoot BP in one of them. It's also easy to find the mini-Sharps in .38-55, too, but except for the Dakotas, they are poorly proportioned. And the Dakotas cost as much (or more) than Shilohs.

Tex.

The rifle with the crescent butplate is my hunting rifle. It weighs 10# 6oz. With the thin crescent butplate stock and the standard light weight Shiloh 30" barrel chambered for the .44-77 and single trigger you wont get a Sharps in the .38 caliber much lighter even with the 28" barrel with the bore difference between a .38 and .44. You will loose some weight with out the pewter nose cap. That rifle with a shot gun butplate would be heavier.
What is over kill???????? You hit then and they go down on the spot as fast as possible.

It did allow for a heavier barrel, not for accuracy, but for recoil management.
Smaller hole down the middle of a steel tube , leaves more steel in that tube than a bigger one. More steel = more weight.
C Sharps has a 74 hunters carbine in 40-70 on the rack and ready to go..

I've built more than a few .38s, mostly in the 38-50 Remington Hepburn chambering. ( a WAY better BP cartridge than .38-55).

That bore size is ALWAYS a problem , weight wise.

There's a Shilo '74 on consignment over at my LGS, standard 30, maybe 32" # 1 heavy bbl profile.....in .38-55.

Pretty rifle, .... but STUPID heavy, that one.

GTC

This one would scratch that 38-55 itch http://csharpsarms.com/catalog-detail/362/1875-CLASSIC-38-55.html

I don't know much about the 75 action. I always thought they looked kinda funny, FWIW.

Take the side hammer off and it's damn near a spittin image of the famed 1885 Winchester action...

I hadn't noticed that before

BTW here is a a handy reference:

http://www.gunneyg.info/html/BarrelWeights.htm

I ran some numbers today and found that for every inch of barrel, a barrel with .377 bore weighs .015 lb more than a .458 bore, if the profiles are otherwise the same, and chambers are ignored. So approximately .45 lbs for a 30".

The '75 is a red headed step child,....mostly unrecognized as being LIGHT years ahead of the '74, in all respects,....the DEEP receiver ring, lighter hammer (faster lock time), and less stressful firing pin path/ geometry being among it's better attributes.

GTC

Thanks, I'll have to give the 75's another look.

As to the original question, I guess I'll keep working with the Model 44 in .25-20 Win. It has a relined barrel and so far has not shot terribly well, which is what had me thinking about a rebarrel to a bigger caliber. That's clearly out now.

For a reasonably light BPCR rifle, to hunt game no larger than deer, what would you guys pick, in rifle and chambering?

There are no "reasonably light" bpcr rifles. That's why the Winchester model 94 and Marlin 93 in 30 wcf made all the bpcr stuff obscolete overnight.

7 lbs, 6 oz, according to my scales:



It is a .45-90, and of course a smaller caliber would mean more weight in the barrel.

Little cheese with that WhINE?

"little cheese"...I like that!

Might not be a bad idea to try and track down a Husqvarna 33 in one of the euro 9.3 BP chamberings,....one of those basically IS a .38-55.

They are bout as light and svelte as it gets.

GTC

I like that idea, not familiar with the 33, but I Googled them and they do look pretty neat!

I also handled an original Trapdoor carbine yesterday. Not bad for weight but would require some care before I go that route.

I'd start and end at CPA Rifles with the 44 1/2 in .38-55. Countless options to order exactly what you want and heirloom-quality rifles.

That sounds like a pretty good plan, too. I have not seen one of the CPA's in person but I had an original 44½ years ago. (Wasn't smart enough to keep it ) They are an elegant rifle, too.

tex...Simply elegant.