Curious to know, What article are you talking about specifically?

Paging Rick Bachman Win4575 to a white courtesy phone…

For its day the Centennial rifle had a good reputation, sold better than its competition, and made Winchester money. 

Al Sieber, chief of scouts in some of General Crook’s Apache campaigns used a Model 1876 in .45-75 during the Battle of Big Dry Wash, July 17, 1882.  The battle report said he killed several Apaches.  Would you go into combat with a rifle that had poor accuracy?  

Battle of Big Dry Wash

Winchester published some Model 1876 accuracy and action strength reports in the May 1, 1879 catalog.  James E. Stetson used a prototype Model 1876 rifle in .45-75 for this competition.  See excerpts below. 

Also to be considered are the many sales of carbines to the North West Mounted Police over many years.  

Finally, if you read the late Mike Venturino’s book Shooting Lever Guns of the Old West, he quotes an un-named Winchester collector as saying that he “considered the Model 1876 to be the most inherently accurate of all lever action Winchesters.”  See page 52 for this quote.

I forgot to add Theodore Roosevelt to the list of contemporaries that liked and owned 1876 rifles.  

Bill and Mike,  I was going to pass by on this topic but just couldn’t.  I have shot a second model 1876 in .45-75 a fair amount (not near what John Hawke did!).  It shoots well enough to keep me happy.  I use a cast, bare 300 grain bullet of 0.458 diameter and keep it at about 1300fps.  I have also shot the .40-60 but find it under powered for silhouettes.  Its kind of a super .38-40 WCF if you ask me.  I have fired too few through my 50-95 to draw conclusions.  I have not shot the .45-60 as why do that when I have a .45-75?  My biggest limitation on the rifle is the vee sights as I no longer can draw a fine enough aim with them.  If I was serious I would use a tang sight and find out just what it can do.  I bet Shrapnel also thinks the .45-75 is adequately accurate!  Tim

I used to use black powder in my 76’s but a few years ago I developed smokeless loads.  The 76 is way stronger than most people think.  I can’t remember the article but this person took out 1 set of toggles and shot some pretty hot loads.  No problems.  My 45-75 and 50-95 shoot about the same groups as my other Winchesters with no real load development for accuracy.  Good bullets, finding the right seating depth and the best powder charge can really make a difference.  I just have not put in the time.

I’ve owned and shot three original 76’s. Two were rifles chambered in 45-60 and the one I still have is an original NWMP SRC 45-75. Here are photos of targets from all three. Please keep in mind that I’m an old geezer, 70 years old, and using open iron sights. You can bet that these old ones are capable of significantly better accuracy than what I pulled off. I’m still working on loads for the NWMP.

1. The photo with no information written on the target is the original NWMP 45-75 carbine, 6 shots at 100 yards (two shots made one elongated hole). The rear sight notch is really far too tiny for my old eyes, so it is awfully hard to get a sight picture. The 6 shots went into 4 3/4″ at 100 yds.
2. The photo with the squares on the target was my first ’76 rifle in 45-60, and I shot it mostly at 50 yards. Of the 13 shots, 8 of them went into a 2″ circle at 50 yards. If I recall, I was using a 330-grain Gould cast bullet here. Possibly, a proper-weight 300 grain would have given better results. Remember, I’m an old guy with old eyes shooting with open iron sights, so I’m sure the rifle is capable of better than this.
3. The final photo with the round target circles was shot with my other, round-barreled ’76 in 45-60. It put 5 rounds into 3 inches at 100 yards with a proper-weight 300-grain cast bullet. Notice that 4 of those bullets clustered to within about 2″ at 100 yards.

For #1 (the NWMP SRC) I think that with some practice, this coming summer, I can do better, but I really must emphasize that that rear sight notch is so tiny, it is completely filled with the front sight blade, so it is very difficult to figure out exactly where the tip of that front blade is. For #2, the bore was not the greatest, with a significant level of pitting, roughness, and fainter lands. For #3, the bore was good. For old eyes, open iron sights, a five-shot group at 100 yards of 3″ with an original ’76, I’d say the original ’76 was as accurate as the original 1886’s (and I’ve shot around 7 or 8 of those). Anyway, here’s the photos …

I’m late to this thread and have nothing really meaningful to contribute, chiefly because the only 1876 Winchester I’ve ever laid eyes on close enough to touch was Tim’s  — the one he displayed at Cody and wrote up for the Collector. But it’s certainly a fascinating old gun. 

I’m not sure how accurate fighting rifles had to be for the Indian Wars but considering that, if you could see your enemy at all he was going to be anything but still,  “minute of Apache” may have been adequate. Billy Dixon and his star-crossed Comanche to the contrary notwithstanding.

And the trajectories of 1300 fs big bore projectiles surely made connecting with an enemy further than an unmeasurable couple of hundred yards distant, just good luck. 

The good news had to have been, especially for those armed with the long magazine musket version, the shooter got more than a few tries and “stopping power” was not going to be a controversial issue if he got lucky at all. Of course, that could work both ways and did at Greasy Grass. 

Reading about cartridges for which the 1876 was chambered  illuminates (for me, anyway) just how amazing the .30 Winchester and .25/35 must have seemed at the time of their introduction.  They were surely the .243 of their day.