|
|
|||||||
The 1873 Winchester is back in production by several firms with Winchester being one of them Good read about it in RIFLE SHOOTER.. Firms producing them again are Winchester, A Umberti and Navy Arms... One in 44-40 would be a joy to plink around with.. Ripp |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Uberti have been making them for a long time. (Navy arms? They dont actually manufacture anything, I thought they were an American importer) I didn't know that Winchester were doing the 1873 again. That IS news. (Well, you know what I mean, the current owners of the Winchester name...) A thought - are they actually made by Winchester/Browning or are they rebranded Uberti's? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Quote: From what I read last evening, Winchester is actually making them again. Navy arms is taking guns from Winchester and "upgrading" them with custom features, per the article. Found this on the web so it appears to be legit.. http://www.winchesterguns.com/products/catalog/category.asp?family=027c Ripp |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
These rifles are being re-made due to the rise in popularity of Cowboy action shooting. M76's are also being made and in those, the Uberti's are the best. In other's like the Colt Lightning, the Pedersoli's are better, I've been told. My brother has been working on loads for his Uberti 1876 in .45/60 as well as the Pedersoli Colt Lightning in .45 Colt. Here's the '76, at the range, this last spring. It is nice! Chiappa or Chiapa is another mfgr of these rifles. There are other models. Henry's and 1866's as well as all these guns come in a variety of ctgs. The '76's for instance also come in .45/75 and .59/95- both based, I think, on the .348 case for easy brass availability. I would check on that. to be sure, though. ![]() |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
i have a 76 but a 73 in 44-40 would be nice greenshoots |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
A nice 1873 is on my "some day" list. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
There is some problem - or problems when loading .44/40's due to shoulder placement. I don't thing the .38/40 shares those same shoulder placement problems and might be a better consideration in a historically correct chambering. The .44-40 has such a short neck area in modern chambers, that proper neck tension is not possible and I suspect alignment with the case and bore might also suffer. Mike Venturino (Handloader or Rifle) write an excellent article on this very aspect of the .44/40 a few month's back. Mike's solution was to shove the shoulder on the cases WAY back to produce a longer neck - I do not agree with that remedy, however, due to the excessive space between the case shoulder and the chamber's shoulder, which promotes case head separations with anything other than REALLY light loads. Some of the M73 Winchester, makers do chamber the rifle in .45 Colt, while not being historically correct, it would make for much better function without the loading, and brass longevity problems. I've shot a couple elk with a .45 Colt rifle, a Model 94 Trapper model, many years back. Worked a treat both times! Close proximity and decent shot placement were paramount with the 300gr. Hp's I used. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I have a 76 in 45-75 a real tack driver. Also a 73 in 44-40 both well made guns (Italian). Also several originals. I like lever guns. Al |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Quote: Hey Daryl Just an FYI, but the article I read last night stated that Winchester had made a change to the feeding on the new rifle to deal with the issue you mentioned above. It stated that the gun feeds more reliably now due to the rounds being pushed by the bolt straight from the lifter into the chamber rather than entering on an angle .. Per he article, the 44/40's feed well in the new model Winchester---that is actually manufactured by Miroku of Japan Ripp |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
The problem wasn't really feeding as I remember the aricle, but more with shot to shot variations in speed due to poor neck tension on the bullet. Poor neck tension translates to inconsistent ignition which means large variations in pressure and speed. Nothing dangerous, just not conductive to what I would consider as good performance. Mike altered his ammo to a long - original type neck, from the new short neck design that has been chambered in the new rifles. He did this to increase the shot to shot uniformity of his ammo. He never complained about poor feeding that I remember. There are also custom dies now made for handloaders to re-introduce the long neck when reloading these cases, from the short neck that is fire formed into the brass. They seemed to feed just fine. I think Winchester's advertizing bunch are blowing smoke. I just don't like the idea of producing a lot of slop between the rifle's chamber and the case. Slop - or looseness in that area promotes case head stretching, which leads to case head separations early in life. I can see the point about straight line feeding, however that might only be with the M92's, feeding off an angled loading ramp, (also making 92's), as the 73's and 66's feed off the lifter platform which is aligned lined well with the chamber. Even if the ctg. was tilted, the nose should still enter quite easily, into the chamber due to the ogive. I cannot see how feeding would be effected with the parent case at all in those earlier designs. I say this while considering that the old original rifles never seemed to be criticized for being poor feeders yet they were used with the originally shaped, quite tapered cases with long neck. The round and the preceding .44 Rimfire were wonderful inventions for those people having to use them for protection. Had there been feeding problems with the tapered,longer necked cases, we'd have heard about it. I wonder if Winchester fixed a here-to-for non-existent problem. Did the chamber dimension change 'happen' through a screw-up in reamer mfg'r so now with thousands of rifles produced, they've had to developa excuse for the change? That would not be the first time this sort of 'event' happened, leaving it up to the advertizing/propoganda department to come spin a positive on a screw-up. I can think of a number of other examples of that, both commercial and political. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dang it Daryl, now I have to go back and read the article again.. ![]() Thanks for the info.. As to other examples of screw-ups leading to propaganda..I know of one happening now.. Not so much a screw up but a bs story of a item being promoted by a manufacturer. They are promoting a new variation of their earlier product--(product A)..when all it is, is they come out with a better product (product B) but had all this inventory left over from the previous product (product A)..so put a new skin on it {product A) and gave it a new name and promotion..whala..selling like the next best thing to sliced bread...heard about this at a trade show I attended earlier this year..interesting... There had to be an easier way to say the above..my head hurts. ![]() ![]() Ripp |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Read the article again Daryl, there was no mention of the problem of neck tension. Perhaps you should have written the article as it seems you have more information and knowledge on the subject ??? ![]() Take care Ripp |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
The article I refer to was by Mike Venturino. The article I'm referring to, talked about custom dies being made to shove the fireformed shoulder back to pre-fire formed position thus increasing the neck tension. I'm just relating what was noted in his article. I do not agree with shoving the shoulder back at all, but rather going with a slightly undersized neck expander and a good crimp of course, possibly taper then roll. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Quote: I am sure Mike would know--all I have read of him he certainly knows his stuff.. Ripp |