As I published in my article (Winter 2021 Collector magazine), this is what I surveyed in the factory ledger records;

As you may recall, there has been no finality in positively identifying what .50 caliber cartridge the Camp .50 took.  No one has ever seen a box of cartridges.  The cartridges in the group below all fit the chamber of my Camp 50. They are, 50-70 shot, 50-95 shot, 50-110 shot and regular 50-110 cartridge.  I'm not saying they all feed through the action.  But given they all fit the chamber, I wonder if the .50-140 cartridge would fit the chamber?!  I'm sure I'd have to take the barrel off to try.

View post on imgur.com

The shot of the rifle with a cartridge sitting on top of the magazine follower - the cartridge is a .50-110 shot cartridge.  Sorry about my poor job of adding photos.

View post on imgur.com

steve004 said
Tony -
All very interesting.  All these .50's make for quite the confusing/intriguing topic. Thanks for outlining the information from various sources as well as including your thoughts.  
I'll insert, there's also my Standard Arms Camp .50
  

Steve,

I left myself wide open as intended, to not only learn more but to enhance the knowledge here, as I could sure use the expanding!

If I remember correctly, the "Camp 50", took a 50-95 cartridge. Am I wrong in my memory of that, as I do remember some discussion about it, but not the finality of the cartridge.

Tony

All very interesting.  All these .50's make for quite the confusing/intriguing topic. Thanks for outlining the information from various sources as well as including your thoughts.  

I'll insert, there's also my Standard Arms Camp .50

Bert H. said

Chuck said

Bert H. said
In answer to your question, Winchester manufactured just (2) high-wall rifles chambered for the Sharps 50 3-1/4 cartridge.
Bert
  

Sharps went out of business in 1881.  There are no records stating that Sharps ever manufactured this cartridge.  In my opinion, unless someone can produce a Sharps document saying otherwise, this is a Winchester cartridge. 
  

It is not a "Winchester" cartridge... they never claimed it, or even catalogued it.
  

I am no authority on this and won't pretend to know any more about this than both you gentlemen, as I feel you're both correct in you're statements. Most of this information that I have in my notes from over the years are acquired from Frank Barnes, "Cartridges of the World", and a few other sources from the internet, over the last few years. It's something that I enjoy updating.

Sharps never cataloged the 50-140 cartridge in any of their firearms. They did however experiment with the 50-140 cartridge for their Sharps/Borchardt rifle,(1878). Winchester never manufactured the 50-140 cartridge on a commercial basis either, but did load the 50-140 cartridge with a 473 grain bullet.

UMC, was known to have Brass cartridges for the 50-140 cartridge, and manufactured them as an available item for re loaders on the commercial market, as hand loaders of the day would load a paper patched, 700 grain bullet in the cartridge case for the mighty Buffalo herd that was dwindling rapidly. 

With the Sharps Rifle company going defunct in 1881, as Chuck stated, and this cartridge never advertised by Sharps or documented in print, and the Buffalo herd almost gone by 1880, and Winchester doing they're own 50-140 cartridge experimenting, never documented the 50-140 cartridge in they're catalogues either, as Bert stated. We know that only a couple Winchester rifles were known to be made in the model 1886, (3, 50-100-450, according to John Madl research). 

So the timeline between the 1880/1881 to 1886/1888, (approximate years of the mystery behind the 50-140 cartridge), isn't very well documented.

To my point, the 50-140 cartridge, (originally believed to be loaded from the 50-90 cases),  was never officially documented, as their are many similarities, (this is where I get in trouble), with the various closely related cartridges as the, 50-90, 50-100, 50-105, 50-110, 50 EX. all have dimensional similarities besides the length being the difference. Because of these cartridge length dimensions, each stands alone. Madl states over 5000, m-1886's we're manufactured in these various .50 caliber Rifles.

Bert, states in his research survey and printed in the WACA Collector Winter 2021, that approximately under 500 we're mfg. in the few various .50 caliber cartridges, including the 2 in the Sharps .50 3-1/4. 

The 50-140, (3 1/2-inch long), will always be refereed to as the 50-140 Sharps,(50-140 Express), until proven otherwise.

In some of my information statements here, there is some apple and oranges comparisons, from my notes as I tried to explain this the way I view this, as I do find this interesting. Sorry for the confusion. The quest goes on!

Tony

Nevada Paul said
"The point being made by me and I think others, is that over the years, many loading manuals have reduced their maximum loads due primarily or exclusively to liability concerns, and not necessarily because someone blew up a firearm from the previously posted loads.  Think of Zeb's quote 'corporate house counsel have the imagination of a frightened child alone in the dark'.  Those corporate attorneys are afraid of what may happen, and not necessarily reacting to anything which has actually happened"
  

Paul, my point was not that corporate counsel for our powder manufacturers suffer from paranoia or cowardice, but rather that their fear of a large tort verdict is because they are peculiarly exposed personally to its consequences, unlike most other senior management. 

A major cause of the reduction in maximum loads and the attendant lowering of predicted velocities, was a change by the industry from Copper crusher estimates of breech pressure to the precise measurement by piezzo crystal technology of the rise and fall of breech pressure over time, producing a much more useful profile, not just a single number.

In many cases when this newer technology was put in practice,  it became apparent that the maximum published charge of a certain powder that produced the velocities published did so at at breech pressures that were actually imprudent, which is a matter of engineering science, not a legal issue for lawyers to debate. 

Modern American firearms can withstand proof loads that exceed commercial ammunition by several orders of magnitude, but not continuously without consequence. One function of S.A.A.M.I. is to publish a set of breech pressure numbers to which commercial ammunition should conform, or at least not exceed.

The American tobacco cases and the resulting massive settlements inspired generations of tort lawyers to replicate the phenomenon in other Industries. For a variety of reasons, some people do get hurt handloading and shooting their handloads.  

Not every handloader is smart or reasonable. If one gets hurt, he may convince himself the powder mysteriously became an overload. He lost an eye. He hires Jim Striver, an ambitious tort lawyer. What Jim really wants is not one hurt client but enough of them to prosecute a class action. Class actions are peculiarly lawyer made lawsuits that primarily benefit the lawyers who prosecute and settle them. Manufacturers are usually inclined to settle them on terms that grease the plaintiffs' lawyers but don't cost the company so much the shareholders want blood. At worst, replacing corporation counsel and some sacrificial vice president is usually an acceptable amount of blood.

The powder manufacturers do not like to publish a load that is going to exceed the S.A.A.M.I. breech pressure profile.  Even the most unimaginative CEO can see himself in a depositiom room trying to justify publishing a load that produced breech pressures in excess of the S.A.A.M.I. profile. Not a good look. The plaintiff still has to prove excessive breech pressure was a producing cause of the injury but not necessarily by direct evidence. 

Chuck said

Bert H. said
In answer to your question, Winchester manufactured just (2) high-wall rifles chambered for the Sharps 50 3-1/4 cartridge.
Bert
  

Sharps went out of business in 1881.  There are no records stating that Sharps ever manufactured this cartridge.  In my opinion, unless someone can produce a Sharps document saying otherwise, this is a Winchester cartridge. 
  

It is not a "Winchester" cartridge... they never claimed it, or even catalogued it.

Like many of you I love shooting old guns. One possibility we need to always consider is that with rare exceptions none of our guns came to us unfired. Some have undoubtedly endured some rather stout loads over the years. We'll never know until we fire the load that crosses a threshold we can't see. Max loads are for guns in good condition and even then they could have a cumulative adverse effect. I'm no attorney but I suspect a shooter injured while shooting a 120-year-old rifle will need the Devil himself as counsel to win against the publisher of a reloading manual. Gotta cut these old guns some slack!

Mike

The only people seemingly free of this risk are the Weatherby addicts. I have never heard of a Mark V action being damaged or damaging its shooter, as long as you don't count cuts and concussions caused by recoil. There are two possible reasons for  this. First, the breech of the action resembles that of a 16" gun in a main battery of New Jersey (BB 62). Second, the published velocities of Norma ammunition for the .378, .416, and .460 Weatherby cartridges, whether completely accurate or not, together with the actual horrendous  recoil they produce, is so intimidating nobody is inclined to say, "That's too slow."  After their head clears. 

The other was a 1000 yard rifle built specifically for the long range event in over-the-course matches. It was built on a 7mm Rem Mag, and with the Sierra 168 gr Target Master Boat tail bullet and IMR 4831, it got tighter groups as I approached and passed all the catalog loads. I finally settled on a load which allows me only 2 or 3 firings before the primers fall out of the pockets.  I was OK with replacing brass frequently as a trade off for match accuracy, but only because there were so few 1000 yard matches.  I wouldn't have done that with my 'over-the-course- match rifle.

But I think we've strayed from the original point here. The point being made by me and I think others, is that over the years, many loading manuals have reduced their maximum loads due primarily or exclusively to liability concerns, and not necessarily because someone blew up a firearm from the previously posted loads.  Think of Zeb's quote 'corporate house counsel have the imagination of a frightened child alone in the dark'.  Those corporate attorneys are afraid of what may happen, and not necessarily reacting to anything which has actually happened.

Paul

Mike

Bert H. said

In answer to your question, Winchester manufactured just (2) high-wall rifles chambered for the Sharps 50 3-1/4 cartridge.
Bert
  

Sharps went out of business in 1881.  There are no records stating that Sharps ever manufactured this cartridge.  In my opinion, unless someone can produce a Sharps document saying otherwise, this is a Winchester cartridge. 

Zebulon said
I've often said corporate house counsel have the imagination of a frightened child alone in the dark. 
There is a reason for this forced conservatism. If you bless a proposed action and nothing bad happens, you get no credit for being right. Bonuses and promotions go to the operations team.
But if you bless the action and the company gets gutshot by the  plaintiffs' bar -- you lose your seat on the Gulfstream and get replaced by Irving Brilliant, young Harvard lawyer and former member of the outside firm that lost the case after charging your company 6 million. Why? Because a senior partner of that firm, who went to private school with your CEO, whispered in his ear it was all your fault for blessing a bad idea. 
You have a house in Westchester County mortgaged to its chimney tops,  two kids in big name prep schools, a wife whose social calendar rivals that of a head of state. All of which, including your marriage, will go down the chute if you are so useless you get fired.
So, counsel, what do you think about our new powder, Dyno-Mite 86? 
  

So, counsel, what do you think about our new powder, Dyno-Mite 86? 

The answer, clearly will be, 'let's market it but reduce the suggested loading data by 3-5%' (or more).

There is a reason for this forced conservatism. If you bless a proposed action and nothing bad happens, you get no credit for being right. Bonuses and promotions go to the operations team.

But if you bless the action and the company gets gutshot by the  plaintiffs' bar -- you lose your seat on the Gulfstream and get replaced by Irving Brilliant, young Harvard lawyer and former member of the outside firm that lost the case after charging your company 6 million. Why? Because a senior partner of that firm, who went to private school with your CEO, whispered in his ear it was all your fault for blessing a bad idea. 

You have a house in Westchester County mortgaged to its chimney tops,  two kids in big name prep schools, a wife whose social calendar rivals that of a head of state. All of which, including your marriage, will go down the chute if you are so useless you get fired.

So, counsel, what do you think about our new powder, Dyno-Mite 86? 

Bert H. said

John D. said

TXGunNut said

Bert H. said

TXGunNut said
My new P365 is coming up on that 1000 round mark, guess I better have a recoil spring handy next time I clean it. It likes a full case of Unique but there are cleaner powders. I just happen to have lots of Unique.
 
Mike
  

Yes there is... I stopped loading with Unique because it is a dirty powder, and it takes significantly less Bullseye to get the same result as compared to loading with Unique.  You being the miser that you are can certainly relate to that
Bert
  

I use what I have, Bert. Not sure I can afford powder today. All kidding aside "Flaming Dirt" (Unique) is actually fairly clean in some of the loads I use it for. Unique is also a very versatile powder, it may not be ideal for every cartridge but it works for many of the cartridges I like. Many levergun cartridges can be loaded with 8-10 grains of Unique for fun plinking loads. Can't get much cheaper than that, especially when my bullets are recycled wheel weights. My EDC guns collect lint, sweat and grit so when I decide they need cleaning I'll go run a box of ammo through it to make sure it needs cleaning. 
 
Mike
  

I use 10gr of Unique with great success in Cowboy Lever-gun Silhouette, in my 38-55 1894.  Soft shooter, knocks the rams down at 200 yards.
  

I have not ever tried Unique for loading the 38-55.  What weight bullet are you using, and what velocity are you getting?
Bert
  

I use both a Bear Creek 240gr moly coated as well as a Montana 255gr cast lead bullet with the 10gr of Unique. I don't recall the velocity offhand, but seem to remember it was in the 1200-1300 range.