Mike

After I measure the thickness of the new buffer, i can calculate how wide the gap should be with it installed. Measuring the existing gap should give me an estimate of what's left. 

I watched the same two videos again and one of them showed the gap with a new buffer installed -- it didn't look much different than what mine looks like now. 

All in all, it looks like a Rube Goldberg design for mounting a buffer. I wonder how much of the design was because of the Browning patents. 

Zebulon said
What I'm trying to do is determine whether I can take the 07 to the range and fire twenty rounds this weekend before tackling buffer replscement.  If I can find my thickness gauge set and measure the visible gap, that should tell me indirectly  how much buffer is left. I presume the washer's counter is in contact with the upper face of the buffer and the larger diameter of the washer is being held off the rim of the buffer housing by the remaining thickness of the buffer. 
The unanswered question is how much gap is necessary to keep steel off steel on the recoil stroke? 
I take it from your measurements that the upper surface of the compressed buffer was .600 below the rim of the cup.  The counterbore of the washer being only .097 thick, it could not reach far enough down to contact the buffer before the larger diameter of the washer interfered with the rim of the cup. Ergo, there was .504 airspace between the washer and the buffer, which meant the buffer received none of the transmitted force. The cup and connected bolt extension absorbed the entire blow. 
  

Yes you are correct. But it’s .060.  If you know the length of a factory buffer, then you can determine how much you have left and apply a % of life.  It doesn’t answer your question of how much is needed to keep the washer from hitting the socket.  Looking at the condition of my rifle, I would say you’ll be fine.  Hard telling how many rounds mine saw with no buffer.  If you have 25% of your buffer left.  I’d think you’ll be ok for 20 rounds.  

The unanswered question is how much gap is necessary to keep steel off steel on the recoil stroke? 

I take it from your measurements that the upper surface of the compressed buffer was .600 below the rim of the cup.  The counterbore of the washer being only .097 thick, it could not reach far enough down to contact the buffer before the larger diameter of the washer interfered with the rim of the cup. Ergo, there was .504 airspace between the washer and the buffer, which meant the buffer received none of the transmitted force. The cup and connected bolt extension absorbed the entire blow. 

the thickness of the buffer washer is only the smaller radius that fits into the buffer socket.  Not the whole thing.  

In your opinion, is the presently installed buffer still thick and functional enough to permit firing 20 rounds of standard velocity ammunition without battering or peening the steel parts? 

You'll surely get your reward in Heaven for helping me. if you're right.....

Nice score on both rifles, I can't imagine having one and being able to pass on the other. I like the story idea, would like to hear more about them. We all have different likes, this collector hobby would be a boring mess if we all liked the same stuff. Enjoy, that's the whole point!

Mike

win4575 said
I'm not sure which side of the fence I'm on.  Sounds like most politicians, doesn't it?  I have collected Winchesters for 60 plus years.  I've never cared for restored guns, simply because until the past 25 years or so, no one knew how to restore a gun to it's factory condition.  Honestly, I have seen very few representations of factory quality, knowing full well some of these guys are very good, but NOT correct.  We all know, nothing will replace a FACTORY original fit and finish.  Having said that, I bought my very first restored gun.  I bought this rifle for two reasons, (1) it was in the collection of a dear friend and (2) it is rare.  This gun letters as an 1886, 26" "EXTRA HEAVY" barrel, full mag, with set trigger.  All other features are standard.  I knew it was a Turnbull gun, simply by the case color.  I email them with the serial number and find that this gun was restored by them in 2005.  They actually gave an accurate rundown on the restoration.  Wood, mag tube, mag tube retaining band and mag tube cap were items they replaced.  They made specific mention that the barrel HAD NOT been replaced during the restoration.  This is very clear, as the bore is well worn, having hundreds of rounds fired through it.  I am sure however, that it will still shoot accurately with some fancy reloading.  This is an early gun, shipped in 1888, so I doubt it was used to any extent if at all, for buffalo.  It was not ordered with target sights, so long range shooting was probably not what this gun was intended for.  The only thing I can think of is maybe a seal gun on the coast.  At any rate, it is a dandy, but restored.  The previous owner had it restored back in 2005, simply to save it from the parts bin.
  

Pictures??

Pete Hynard said

Anthony said
Buck,
I also like it. I enjoyed how you put the article together, showing the comparisons of the two.
It's certainly Collector Magazine worthy, besides the post here. IMO!
Thanks for sharing, as it goes well with extending this already good thread.
 
Tony
  

Bill, I'm so glad that your restoration made it home. I was lucky to hold one of these rifles in my hands.  You're so lucky to have them both.
I think Anthony has a great idea: an article for Winchester Collector magazine.  You've got the photos.  All you need is the text.  Talk to our editor, Brad Dunbar, about this.  Brad is a great guy.  Always looking for interesting topics and always willing to help.  You can reach him at Brad@WinchesterCollector.org.
There are two angles to this story.  One is the restoration debate but the other is the historical angle.  These two rifles sat together in the same barracks.  The story of the Northwest Mounted Police is a compelling story.  How the NWMP brought law and order to the Canadian West and then later to the Klondike gold rush.  Both of these rifles were there.
Did your book Red Coats on the Prairies arrive too?  It was written by two RCMP historians.  There's lots of information in it.
I hope you take this up.  If I can be of help, send me a PM.  I'd be glad to.
Pete Hynard, Ontario, Canada

Thanks Pete! I’ll reach out to Brad to see if this is of any interest to him. Appreciate your tip and comments and agree I got very lucky to reunite these 2! 

if any for sale

thank you

Randy 

Anthony said
Buck,
I also like it. I enjoyed how you put the article together, showing the comparisons of the two.
It's certainly Collector Magazine worthy, besides the post here. IMO!
Thanks for sharing, as it goes well with extending this already good thread.
 
Tony
  

Bill, I'm so glad that your restoration made it home. I was lucky to hold one of these rifles in my hands.  You're so lucky to have them both.

I think Anthony has a great idea: an article for Winchester Collector magazine.  You've got the photos.  All you need is the text.  Talk to our editor, Brad Dunbar, about this.  Brad is a great guy.  Always looking for interesting topics and always willing to help.  You can reach him at Brad@WinchesterCollector.org.

There are two angles to this story.  One is the restoration debate but the other is the historical angle.  These two rifles sat together in the same barracks.  The story of the Northwest Mounted Police is a compelling story.  How the NWMP brought law and order to the Canadian West and then later to the Klondike gold rush.  Both of these rifles were there.

Did your book Red Coats on the Prairies arrive too?  It was written by two RCMP historians.  There's lots of information in it.

I hope you take this up.  If I can be of help, send me a PM.  I'd be glad to.

Pete Hynard, Ontario, Canada