Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Bill Hockett said
An interesting topic. The Model 1876 action was plenty strong enough for any factory cartridge that Winchester loaded for it back in its heyday. The experimental Model 1878 used the .45-70-405 government cartridge and was strong enough for it. The Model 1878 was a lengthened Model 1876 action used for 1878 military trials.I don’t know exactly when Winchester changed from wrought iron to steel for the Model 1876 receiver. Probably about the same time they changed the Model 1873. The catalog of September 1, 1884 is the first one I can find where the Model 1873 says the receiver is made of steel. Gordon says it was around SN 40,000. Probably the catalogs were the behind the time noting the change. We know that Winchester didn’t like to waste parts so they would have used up the iron receivers.
Probably the Model 1876 changed to steel receivers in the 1882-83 time period when they went to third model style receivers.
Neither Madis or Pirkle in their books notes any change that I can find.
I learn something new here every day. I had never heard of this experimental rifle. It would be very interesting to examine one. Are there any known examples such as in the Cody museum? Maybe a past WACA magazine article?
Steve, the Model 1878 military trial rifle musket was an attempt to gain the elusive government contracts the Winchester always wanted. Houze’s 1876 book has an appendix that covers the Model 1878 musket and the military trials. The trials ended with the Hotchkiss being accepted for limited use in field trials by regular army cavalry and infantry units.
The Cody Firearms Museum has the receiver from the trial Model 1878 musket. If you didn’t know any better you would think it was a standard 1876 receiver. It’s a wee bit longer. There are a couple of photos in the Houze book.
The old chestnut about the Model 1876 action being too “weak” for the .45-70-405 black powder cartridge is just nonsense. Pirkle even repeated it in his book on the Models 1866, 1873 & 1876.
I call myself a collector as it sounds better than hoarder
The very early production Single Shot receiver frames were still iron, and did not change until serial numbers were in the 8,000 range.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
When I stated loading these old rifles one of the first things I bought was a chronograph. You really shouldn’t be loading these old guns with smokeless without one. Keeping the speed down does lower the pressure but smokeless has a much steeper peak in pressure. You really need to stay safe.
Bill Hockett said
Steve, the Model 1878 military trial rifle musket was an attempt to gain the elusive government contracts the Winchester always wanted. Houze’s 1876 book has an appendix that covers the Model 1878 musket and the military trials. The trials ended with the Hotchkiss being accepted for limited use in field trials by regular army cavalry and infantry units.The Cody Firearms Museum has the receiver from the trial Model 1878 musket. If you didn’t know any better you would think it was a standard 1876 receiver. It’s a wee bit longer. There are a couple of photos in the Houze book.
The old chestnut about the Model 1876 action being too “weak” for the .45-70-405 black powder cartridge is just nonsense. Pirkle even repeated it in his book on the Models 1866, 1873 & 1876.
Interesting. I’ve always heard Winchester wanted a lever action repeater that would handle the .45-70 but the M1876 action would end up being unfeasibly long. I would enjoy handling a full size M1878 rifle to get a sense of just how unwieldy it handled.
Beg pardon for my ignorance, I’m a new student here.
But I thought it was only the earliest 1873 that had an iron receiver and they switched to steel before the 1876 came out? I have not heard of iron framed 1876 before, interesting.
One day I would like to own a genuine Winchester ’76. But for now I’m really enjoying my Uberti clone in 45-60. I do use smokeless in it but I keep velocity to the old spec using AA5744. It’s a lot of fun and a pleasure to shoot. No fillers needed with 5744
Shrapnel said
I was just reading in my 1876 Winchester book about the history of the 1876. There have been many stories spread about how weak the 1876 Winchester action is and I find it interesting to see what the actual field test was to determine just how weak/strong that action is. Everyone parrots the same old saying about how weak it is and yet this study seems to nullify that rumor.Here is a picture of a blown up 1876 that the action held and yet the barrel was blown completely off the action…
I had never read a report of this testing before. Quite interesting. Very impressive. I had no idea the 1876 would withstand the level of stress that it did. I suppose I’ve simply been a reader of parroted material all these years.
steve004 said
Shrapnel said
I was just reading in my 1876 Winchester book about the history of the 1876. There have been many stories spread about how weak the 1876 Winchester action is and I find it interesting to see what the actual field test was to determine just how weak/strong that action is. Everyone parrots the same old saying about how weak it is and yet this study seems to nullify that rumor.
Here is a picture of a blown up 1876 that the action held and yet the barrel was blown completely off the action…
I had never read a report of this testing before. Quite interesting. Very impressive. I had no idea the 1876 would withstand the level of stress that it did. I suppose I’ve simply been a reader of parroted material all these years.
Steve,
Don’t feel too bad… many other so-called “knowledgeable” Winchester collectors and experts have done the same thing you did. Urban myths and wife’s tails are all too often retold over and over until they become Defacto truths.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Offline
Maybe when the 1886 came along chambered for the more powerful cartridges it was marketed as a stronger action and the 1876 was perceived as weak by comparison.
Mike
I have an1876 Winchester in 45/60 that letters to 1882. I love the looks and romance of this fine old rifle. The bore is bright with visible rifling, but it just would not shoot lead bullets. I tried several different styles of 300 grain including bullets cast from an original Winchester mold that I own, both hard and soft lead. Virtually all would keyhole at 50 yards, so I had about given up hope of finding a suitable lead bullet (it shoots jacketed bullets just fine). I recently acquired an original 1873 1st model trapdoor Springfield carbine and cast some 405 grain hollow base bullets from a Lee mold for this rifle and they shot very well. After reading this article I thought I would try some in this `76. I was a little reluctant to try heavier bullets since this rifle was designed to shoot 300 grain bullets. Voila!, They shoot just fine. I am sure now that the action is plenty strong to handle the additional weight and evidently the hollow base and the additional length of the bullet allows it to take the rifling sufficient to stabilize. They all hit nose on. Wormey
November 7, 2015
Offline
wayne spears said
I have an1876 Winchester in 45/60 that letters to 1882. I love the looks and romance of this fine old rifle. The bore is bright with visible rifling, but it just would not shoot lead bullets. I tried several different styles of 300 grain including bullets cast from an original Winchester mold that I own, both hard and soft lead. Virtually all would keyhole at 50 yards, so I had about given up hope of finding a suitable lead bullet (it shoots jacketed bullets just fine). I recently acquired an original 1873 1st model trapdoor Springfield carbine and cast some 405 grain hollow base bullets from a Lee mold for this rifle and they shot very well. After reading this article I thought I would try some in this `76. I was a little reluctant to try heavier bullets since this rifle was designed to shoot 300 grain bullets. Voila!, They shoot just fine. I am sure now that the action is plenty strong to handle the additional weight and evidently the hollow base and the additional length of the bullet allows it to take the rifling sufficient to stabilize. They all hit nose on. Wormey
Good job, Wayne. What constitutes a soft lead for you? As you may know today’s “soft” was “hard” 130 or 140 years ago. I may have to try that Lee bullet in my old 1873 (ca 1880) Springfield, it looks like it could probably shoot if I found a bullet it liked. I have some 20-1 lead stashed around here somewhere, pretty sure that’s what they fed it 140 or so years ago.
Mike
TXGunNut said
I have some 20-1 lead stashed around here somewhere, pretty sure that’s what they fed it 140 or so years ago.
1890 Ideal Handbook recommends 50-1 for average bullets.
clarence said
TXGunNut said
I have some 20-1 lead stashed around here somewhere, pretty sure that’s what they fed it 140 or so years ago.
1890 Ideal Handbook recommends 50-1 for average bullets.
That is surprisingly soft.
November 7, 2015
Offline
Brooksy said
clarence said
TXGunNut said
I have some 20-1 lead stashed around here somewhere, pretty sure that’s what they fed it 140 or so years ago.
1890 Ideal Handbook recommends 50-1 for average bullets.
That is surprisingly soft.
For today, yes. The amount of tin affects the size and performance of the bullet and is often overlooked when harder alloy bullets don’t perform as we expect in older guns and older moulds.
Mike
TXGunNut said
Brooksy said
clarence said
TXGunNut said
I have some 20-1 lead stashed around here somewhere, pretty sure that’s what they fed it 140 or so years ago.
1890 Ideal Handbook recommends 50-1 for average bullets.
That is surprisingly soft.
For today, yes. The amount of tin affects the size and performance of the bullet and is often overlooked when harder alloy bullets don’t perform as we expect in older guns and older moulds.
Mike
Mike – excellent point.
We have reinvented the wheel many times since the 1890’s. But we always seem to “discover” what they already knew.
I am casting soft lead (sheeting) in a Lee mold designed to cast 405 grain hollow base bullets intended for the 45/55 `73 Springfield carbine. These molds are rather fragile, but with patience casts a nice bullet that with my lead come out at 385 grains. With the heave lube I`m sure that drives it up a little. The hollow base and generous lube grooves allow for different bore diameters encountered plus the wear and tear of the last 150 years or so. These same traits have adapted this bullet very well to my well worn `76. I love shooting this old gun and use black powder and sometimes 777 which I like a lot. 777 expands the case wall sufficient to seal it off and the cases come out nice and shiny unlike with black even though I use Swiss 1 1/2. By the way, I clean my cases with a Thumler`s Tumbler twice. The first time just to wash out the black powder or substitute fowling. I run them again using stainless pins with a little dish detergent and a little Lemmie Shine (citric acid) and they come out nice and shiny. I am satisfied that the additional 100 grains of the bullet are safe in this rifle. Shades of Johnny Ringo (he had a `76 Winchester in 45/60 propped up against the tree he was found dead leaning against.)Wormey
wayne spears said By the way, I clean my cases with a Thumler`s Tumbler twice. The first time just to wash out the black powder or substitute fowling. I run them again using stainless pins with a little dish detergent and a little Lemmie Shine (citric acid) and they come out nice and shiny.
You’ve just described why I eventually got tired of shooting BP. However, my cleaning method was more or less what was done in the BP period–hot water & a bottle brush. Back then, however, nickle plated cases were available, which made the job somewhat easier.
Clarence, you just have to love these things! Most of my guns are from the black powder era and I shoot them all. Can be a bit of a chore, but I just love the romance associated with them. Modern black guns and plastic don`t do anything for me. I go from pre revolutionary war to the time I was issued an M-14. They were made of wood and steel. Gotta stop somewhere I guess and that`s mine. I shoot all of mine and take care of them. They all have a history and that`s what I find interesting. I grew up with war movies and westerns and still watch them when I can. In fact, I have a nice original cartridge belt and holster that is stamped Republic Pictures, Hollywood, Calif. I like to think Gabby Hayes wore that rig. As for the `76, the serial number of the one Johnny Ringo had is known, but has disappeared and presumed lost in the great San Francisco earthquake. His Colt 45 with which he is supposed to have killed himself is in a private collection. Wayne
November 7, 2015
Offline
clarence said
wayne spears said By the way, I clean my cases with a Thumler`s Tumbler twice. The first time just to wash out the black powder or substitute fowling. I run them again using stainless pins with a little dish detergent and a little Lemmie Shine (citric acid) and they come out nice and shiny.
You’ve just described why I eventually got tired of shooting BP. However, my cleaning method was more or less what was done in the BP period–hot water & a bottle brush. Back then, however, nickle plated cases were available, which made the job somewhat easier.
I pre-wash my brass by letting them soak in a little dish soap and hot water. I run a brush inside each case for a stroke or two. Then I break with tradition and toss them in a heated ultrasonic cleaner after rinsing. After an hour or so of ultrasonic therapy I rinse them again and toss them on a kitchen towel on a baking sheet in a 250 degree oven or out in direct sunlight on a day like today in Texas. Then they go into a vibratory cleaner like any case fired with smokeless powder. Only difference is these washed and polished cases are almost as shiny on the inside as out! Awesome job on primer pockets and flash holes as well. Actually very little effort, just a little hand scrubbing and machines do the rest. Guns clean up very quickly using Windex with vinegar and a good wipe down.
Mike
1 Guest(s)
