Author Topic: New "Old" Guy Introduction  (Read 453 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jeff H

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 258
New "Old" Guy Introduction
« on: September 10, 2008, 06:34:31 AM »
Hey, Folks,
I am not "new" to firearms, H&R or Muzzle-Loading but got the bug again to look into a Handi-Rifle based on conversations on another forum.  I have wanted to start a collection of an SB-2 and an assortment of barrels for a long time and just got too caught up in trying to scrounge what Mausers I could after they "dried up" in the early eighties and then became quite available again.  Sort of a "get-'em-while-you-can" mentality took me and I ignored the Handi-Rifle, possibly too long, from the looks of a few threads here.

I was not even aware that the Handi-Rifle was again available in "front-stuffer" form until I checked here for what was going on with the old Huntsman.  I NEVER see these at shows and figure there must be some choice specimens holed up in closets across the country.  My understanding was that it was originally available in .45 and .58, niether of which fit my hunting needs (preferences) but I see that the new ons are available in .50.  BINGO!  THAT's what I have always wanted!  Ah, the caveat - the "fast" twist.

I am a "round-ball" hunter and enjoy the economy, accuracy and effectiveness therefo such that Ih ave not become interested in the sabot'd rounds and, being miserly in my metals, do not own a mould for a conical of any sort.

I have always admired the Huntsman and have considerd it the ultimate development of the muzzle-loader.  I realize that this is an opinionated idea, but the Huntsman, in my mind has always been the "ideal."

I will be lurking here a while, trying to learn a few things in particular, upon which any comments are welcome.  What I will be trying to determine is whether there is a 1:66 twist barrel out there that a fella could use with lead balls and the nature of the numerous prining methods now available or being made for "upgrade."  No. 11 percussion caps were once a very economical means of ignition when DGW sold a tight-fitting Italian cap under the DGW name but I am very intrigued by the .25 ACP. conversion.  I am a hand-loader as well so there are few limitations.

I would also be interested to learn whether someone does re-barrelling of the Huntsman or the current version.  I would like to someday have the choice of taking my .50 cal. out for Whitetail - after having spent a season "practicing" while bagging squirrel with a .36 cal. barrel on the same reciever.

So, all that said, I am pleased to have found you folks and have been enjoying your words.  I hope I am not seen as another "threat" to compete with for finite commodities.  I "play nice" and treat people well and am encouraged at the civility I have seen among the posts that I have read so far.  I am not asking anyone to do all my research by mentioning those things I am interested in learning but welcome any thoughts should anyone have the same interest or have any warnings about stalking unicorns.

Thanks.

Jeff H

Offline whiffelball

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: New "Old" Guy Introduction
« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2008, 11:17:25 AM »
I know that Chase Mountain Custom re-barrels H&R's using the stub method.  I don't think he could do a new 50 cal stub, but the 36 cal stub might be possible.  He is stubbing a rimfire for me soon.

Offline Jeff H

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 258
Re: New "Old" Guy Introduction
« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2008, 02:38:53 PM »
I know that (censored word) re-barrels H&R's using the stub method.  I don't think he could do a new 50 cal stub, but the 36 cal stub might be possible.  He is stubbing a rimfire for me soon.

Thanks, Whiffleball.  I have been turning that one over in my mind.  I even thought a sleeved rebore could work.  I know "sleeved" can be as bad a word as "retread" but I know it's been done sucessfully.  Stubbing sounds even better.

Jeff H