Saw four 1885's on a table at the Texas Gun Collector's Assn show in Waco today. All very nice, all more than I had with me. Never was much interested in the 1885 until I read JMB's biography. There's something about the 1885, not sure what it is but I'm kicking myself already.
Endowment Life Member NRA, Life Member TSRA, Member WACA, NRA Whittington Center, BBHC
Smokeless powder is a passing fad! -Steve Garbe
I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it. -Woodrow F. Call, Lonesome Dove
Some of my favorite recipes start out with a handful of depleted counterbalance devices.
What calibers did you find?
I have owned several originals..
The best one I had was a .32/40
It was close to perfect in every way.
I should have kept that one, but I found an 86 I wanted more.
Just sold these last two 1885 Winchesters at the Nov. 2015 Reno gun show. Down to just two Stevens Walnut Hill schuetzen rifles to sell now, which will leave my collection strictly Ballard and Remington single shots.
As a JMB geek, I find the '85 significant in a few ways.Originally Posted by TXGunNut
#1. It was his debut.
#2. Like many of his other designs, it made an impressive entry, as if to look at everything else that was out there in the same category and say "Well, OK. Nice effort and all, but THIS is how you do it". It wasn't exactly like dropping the 1911 on the revolver world or the Garand on the bolt action world, but it was in that same kind of ballpark. I think its main "flaw" was showing up about a decade too late to properly participate in the buffalo annihilation.
The classic single shots are each so cool in their own way, and have so much historical mystique along as baggage that I can't really apply the word "best" to any of them, but John "got" what a gun needs to do probably better than any man before or since. It would truly suck to play the "if you can only have one" game with single shots, but yeah. . .the '85 has to be pretty high on that list.
My Dad & I did a road trip back east last summer for a cousin's wedding and we did the museum two-fer of both Ogden and Cody. There are High Walls in both places that haven't released their grip on my brain yet. . .
WWJMBD?
In the Land of Oz, we cast with wheel weight and 2% Tin, Man.
I have three 1885s. Two Winder muskets, one 22 short with flaming bomb, the other 22 long rifle, not so marked, and a 32-40 Schuetzen rifle. I love them all dearly. To this day they all shoot very well indeed.
I remember reading of a 32-40 or maybe it was 33-40 back in the day that had shot over 10,000 cast bullets, and they measures less than ½ of .001" wear at the muzzle on that barrel. These things will just run forever.
Last edited by stubbicatt; 04-27-2016 at 08:45 AM.
Hate is a poison which one consumes expecting another to die.
John Browning was a firearms genius! But he and his brothers were also firearms dealers, and thus he saw a lot of different guns come through their shop to sell. The fact they also did repairs, and custom guns, gave him a very good insight into what others made, prior to him designing the original gun that Winchester eventually called the 1885. Yes, it's a wonderful design, but not unique when you look at what else was already on the market, and what features are part of the 1885, and shared by other guns in existence at that time. The Sharps '74, Hepburn, and Ballard were already around, and the 1885's falling block action is basically a copy of the Sharps and Hepburn's falling block design. The lever isn't anything unique, nor is the trigger assembly. I guess the one part that might be unique was the main spring mounted off the bottom of the barrel.
And remember also that the 1885 is significantly different than the rifles and design Winchester bought from Browning! Looking at Browning's patent drawings, and examples of the early guns he built; it almost looks like a different gun than the 1885 Winchester. Winchester engineers did a lot of work to make Browning's original gun easier to mass produce. The result was a beautiful rifle design that we call the 1885.
I agree wholeheartedly and the 1885 is my all time favorite, JMB is also my all time hero! Having said that however we need to remember that the model 1885 is actually a Winchester design based on Browning's ingenious falling block/integral hammer principle. There were significant differences and some big improvements between the basic design idea that Browning originally built and sold as the Browning single shot rifle and eventually sold to Winchester who redesigned it into the model 1885 we so love today. Not trying to belittle JMB but the Winchester engineers deserve a lot of the credit for the success of this fine rifle, as originally built by Browning it suffered some shortcomings and it is very possible that in it's original configuration it might never have become the icon it is even if it had been marketed by Winchester had it not been for the changes. However for a first design Browning's original idea was nothing short of ingenious for the time and Winchester simply built upon that idea.
Statistics show that criminals commit fewer crimes after they have been shot
Lets be fair here, the changes they made were significant improvements and were done for that reason, it hardly had anything to do with making them easier to manufacture! Quite the contrary in fact since the Winchester version was somewhat more refined to include even more parts to make and fit thus requiring even more time and expense to mass produce the rifle, not make it easier.
When I started my first Highwall project my original plan was to do something different and attempt to replicate JMB's original design but not only was finding the correct dimensions and details proving to be difficult but I found the original to be sort of crude and lacking in several ways compared to the Winchester model 1885. The angled breechblock was a big improvement making it MUCH easier to obtain and maintain correct breechblock lockup and headspacing as was the completely redesigned and much improved trigger/sear/hammer assembly. I won't go so far as to call the rifle a totally different design but other than the very similar outward appearance and basic operating principle there are significant differences and I honestly can't see how any of those differences would be related to easing the manufacturing process.
Last edited by oldred; 04-27-2016 at 11:45 AM.
Statistics show that criminals commit fewer crimes after they have been shot
I just have a couple or repos now.
Both are .38/55
One a Browning Traditional hunter, and the other made by the now defunct Ballard Rifle co in Cody ,Wy.
I had it built to the exact specifications of my original Win 85 I once had, and loved.
Magnificent rifles and among my favorite single shots.
I would guess you've read John Campbell's two volume set on Winchester 1885, since your reply is nearly verbatim from his book on page 31. If you read further you'll see that his research (and other's research!) shows that many of the changes done to Browning's original design were indeed done to make the Browning easier to produce with modern machinery! Browning's original gun had an awful lot of hand fitting, and hand work to build it. If they had copied it directly as Browning built it, the workers in the Winchester factory would have had huge amounts of hand fitting to do, and the cost would have been higher than most buyers would spend.
A good example of how well engineered Winchester's version was, and how well it was manufactured; is the fact that so many parts (including barrels) are interchangeable, with no fitting. That doesn't happen by accident, but is the result of the factory improvements to manufacturing that made the 1885 much simpler to build. Campbell refers to William Mason's contribution as "master mechanic" on the 1885, and his redesign of the Browning rifle design "for mass production and increased marketing versatility". That itself speaks volumes for Mason's ability to redesign the 1885 for production, not improve it's function or safety.
Maadis' book also pretty much confirms that Mason and Cloug spent 18 months reworking the Browning rifle to make it simpler for mass production.
Winchester did make significant improvements that weren't simply to make it easier to mass produce. But that is only part of the reason it took 18 months to begin production.
Last edited by marlinman93; 04-27-2016 at 08:06 PM.
No way would that simpler DESIGN cost more! If they built it by hand in the manner that the Browning's did it then THAT would have been more expensive no doubt but that was the manufacturing methods not the design.
Well yes that's what they did but again that had little or nothing to do with the design itself! That was done by standardization of parts vs building individual parts and fitting them to individual rifles like the Browning's did but that could have been applied to the original design just as well, actually due to its fewer parts count and simpler design the original should have been even slightly cheaper to build rather than more costly!
What part or group of parts did Winchester redesign solely as a cost saving measure??? What part of that very simple original action would have been slower or more difficult to build vs the more complicated 1885??? It sure wasn't that trigger group! Any way anyone spins it the original rifle was much simpler and rather crude vs the model 1885, there was nothing about it that would have been more difficult to build using the Winchester machinery, just the opposite in fact.
Also actually I have not read that book, I did look into trying to find it due to a suggestion on this forum recently but it's out of print and available copies are absurdly priced. I have no doubt there was some engineering done to help reduce hand fitting but that would in no way account for the design changes in the block and trigger mechanism, in that respect the changes actually made it more complicated to produce, I myself have made all these parts from scratch more than once while building these rifles so I am very familiar with both designs. JMB had a brilliant idea especially considering he had little to reference from but his original design was indeed lacking in several ways and the Winchester engineers took this design to a higher level. If you look at a drawing of the original design vs the Winchester version the original is much simpler by comparison and I can assure you that the changes made to the more refined trigger group were not done for expediency in manufacturing. More parts to produce and fit and a more complicated design hardly fits the description of design changes to simplify manufacture, granted changes like angling the breechblock made that part less critical in fitup but quite obviously the goal was the solid lockup and tighter headspacing that was simply not practical with the original 90 degree design. The hammer/trigger/sear design in the original was a very simple arrangement, too simple in fact, and is quite crude vs the much better slightly more complicated Winchester design.
Winchester's changes to simplify production centered on making parts in volume and to a standard tolerance that allowed interchangeability between rifles with only minor fitting vs the Browning's building the rifles by hand one gun at a time and fitting each individual part to an individual rifle. Honestly, as I said before I myself have scratch built these parts and even a couple of complete rifles and I have a good idea of how they are built and what's involved. I can't see a single part in the original design that could be harder or slower to produce than the later 1885 design and certainly nothing that would REQUIRE hand making/fitting rather than the same machinery/methods used for the 1885, in fact the original rifle would be simpler to mass produce given the parts standardization and machinery that Winchester used in building the 1885. The original Browning single shot was an ingenious concept but it unfortunately had growing pains that needed to be addressed, it was with these shortcomings that the Winchester engineers made needed improvements and other than parts standardization I honestly can't see how things like the much needed block angle change and higher parts count more complicated trigger group could translate to easier production, these design changes are quite obviously big improvements to the rifle itself so that would be one heck of a coincidence if all those improvements came about due to just making the gun easier to build!
The original rifle as built by JMB and his brothers was an amazing accomplishment but the offspring that is the 1885 as we know it is a somewhat different rifle that is better in a lot of ways, perhaps JMB would have eventually improved the rifle himself, who knows, but for sure the engineers at Winchester deserve a lot of the credit for the success of the model 1885!
Last edited by oldred; 04-28-2016 at 11:00 AM.
Statistics show that criminals commit fewer crimes after they have been shot
Your reply just confirms what I said.
"Well yes that's what they did but again that had little or nothing to do with the design itself! That was done by standardization of parts vs building individual parts and fitting them to individual rifles like the Browning's did but that could have been applied to the original design just as well, actually due to its fewer parts count and simpler design the original should have been even slightly cheaper to build rather than more costly!"
Designing the 1885 to be mass produced by standardizing various features, also eliminates much hand work, and improves mass production; thus saving time. Time is money in production.
The original rifle might be simpler for you to copy and produce, but that doesn't equate to it being simpler for mass production. The factory didn't make changes to make it harder, or more expensive to produce, and folks way more knowledgeable than me confirm this. The changes in some cases were indeed improvements in design, aesthetics, and production. No doubt in my mind that it isn't just one thing, and I credit William Mason and Clough for their huge part in making the 1885 a better gun than the original Browning design. But they didn't make those changes to simply add to the cost of manufacturing an 1885, or the management at Winchester would have been very upset.
It doesn't??? How so??? The fact is that original is simpler to build regardless of the method, simpler and fewer parts not a single one of which require anything special to manufacture so how could it be easier to hand build but harder to mass produce? There is not a darn thing in that original that would be in any way harder or slower to mass produce, nothing!
Exactly, but again that just as easily applies to the original as it does to the 1885! There is not a single design change included in the 1885 that is easier or in any way faster to produce than it's original counterpart and you can't show me one! Standardization of parts to eliminate or reduce hand fitting could be done just as easily for the original rifle and quite often even easier due to the simpler and fewer parts.
You said in your other reply that,
"if they had copied it directly as Browning built it, the workers in the Winchester factory would have had huge amounts of hand fitting to do, and the cost would have been higher than most buyers would spend"
But that's simply not true! If they built them one at a time using the METHODS the Browning shop used that might have merit but in Winchester's shop they would have built them using the Winchester machinery and using standardized tolerances just as they would for the 1885 or any other rifle. You seem to have this very mistaken assumption that the original MUST be built using the Browning hand build methods, but what would make you think that????
Exactly, they didn't nor did they increase the parts count and machining and fitting time in order to increase production rates and decrease costs, simply put that is just total nonsense! Very simply they made these changes to improve upon the design and you can't point out a single part or function in the original rifle that would be more difficult or slower to produce using the methods and machinery that Winchester had at their disposal, not one! I am well familiar with both designs and there is absolutely nothing in that original rifle that requires intricate hand fitting or any kind of time consuming extra or special machining, exactly the opposite really and in fact the action is fairly crude by any standards. Maybe you think it's heresy to imply that somehow someone else improved on one of Browning's designs but that is exactly the case here! You said the factory didn't make changes to make it harder, or more expensive to produce and on that point you are right, they made the changes due to much needed improvements and you can't point out one single part or function in the original that was changed so as to be simpler to produce due to any differences between the rifles, not one! Any machinist looking at drawings of both designs would laugh at the absurd notion that the original rifle in it's simplicity of design would somehow be in any way harder and more expensive to produce, just LOOK AT THE DARN THING!
It might hurt your feelings but that original single shot rifle is overly simple and crude compared to the 1885 with not a single part that would be harder or more expensive to make by any method, just comparing the drawings should make that obvious to anyone. I can point out several design changes incorporated into the 1885 that are indeed LESS conductive to mass production than their much simpler original counterparts, the block design and function being an excellent example of this, but what can you point out that would require more time to mass produce, just take a look at a drawing of that action and tell us which of those very simple parts would be hard to make either singularly or by mass production? The fact is the breechblock had an inferior lockup in that 90 degree configuration and Winchester changed that by changing the angle and incorporating the necessary changes to the breechblock as a result of this. This was done to provide for an improvement in lockup and maintaining headspace thus requiring even more machining procedures to that block than the original, not less! That is just one example and there is absolutely no way ANY of that was done to simplify mass production, although neither part was overly complicated or hard to produce the original was still much simpler by comparison. By doing this the action is not only tighter when new but will maintain the headspacing and crispness much longer than that 90 degree design which by necessity is somewhat sloppy to start with. That is only one example, for instance the original trigger design was quite crude (LOOK at it!) and the upgraded version in the 1885 uses more parts requiring substantially more machining operations than the much simpler original, how is that more conductive to mass production? The truth is these changes WERE done to improve the design and the changes WERE improvements whether you want to accept that or not, all these changes resulted in more machining procedures and/or more parts to make and final fit, if you want to think that somehow contributes to manufacturing expediency then fine but I doubt you can explain how. Standardization of parts to reduce or eliminate hand fitting is a MANUFACTURING METHOD CHANGE not a design change and that would have been the same regardless of which design they chose to build. The better methods they had available to them ALLOWED them to build a better designed rifle and incorporate needed improvements without incurring prohibitive costs, it did not CAUSE them to have to redesign the rifle!
Thefact is the much simpler original would have been easier and cheaper to mass produce and just looking at the drawings makes that quite obvious, saying that the original changed into the somewhat more complicated and more parts intensive 1885, although both rifles are low in parts count and simple in construction, to make it cheaper to produce is just plain silly, again LOOK at the darn thing and try to explain just what it is that was changed solely to expedite production, saying "it just is" don't mean much.
Last edited by oldred; 04-28-2016 at 07:16 PM.
Statistics show that criminals commit fewer crimes after they have been shot
Don't forget the baby brother "low wall"
Hold Still Varmint; while I plugs Yer!
The 1885 extractor relief cuts were about the most challenging machining I have done.
Look good!!!!!!
The 1885 extractor relief cuts were about the most challenging machining I have done.
Yep I agree it does look good!
After building these things from scratch I can say from experience that danged extractor, extractor pocket in the receiver, the relief cuts pictured above and the extractor itself and getting all that to fit and work properly is one of if not the most challenging tasks of the entire project! I probably get asked about the breech block mortise more than any other part of the build but honestly, for me anyway, that extractor and related machining is a much more challenging task.
Statistics show that criminals commit fewer crimes after they have been shot
I shot a buck with that 257 roberts ackley rimmed 1885 and pulled it into my vehicle with rope tricks. I would pull in the middle like a guitar string. I took it to the butcher and told the kid that as putting them up on the hangers that day, "I am 61 years old, weight 185 pounds, and got that deer in the back by myself." He looked at me and yelled, "B...S...."
He later said the buck's nose was dragging on the floor, and normally only elk do that.
Now you're braggin,,,,,,,,
And you have every right to do so, that one gives you braggin rights for sure!!!!!!!!
We don't even grow them like that here, at least nothing I have seen anyway, thanks for posting that!
Statistics show that criminals commit fewer crimes after they have been shot
Yep no mule deer in Tn.
Posting Permissions
| BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
| BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
| BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
| C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
| HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
| PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
| LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
| GC | Gas Check |
Reply With Quote
