Winchester 1873

[clum553946]

Ok, so I wandered into this gun shop next door to the Mexican place I eat at when I'm fishing at Clear Lake & this was on the rack! Got a sweet deal on it, it's a 44-40 so I grabbed it! It was old enough to buy it over the counter, so it sorta followed me home. The bore had a ton of grime & lint in it, but I got lucky & it has good rifling after I cleaned it. Action is strong with good lockup & no play. Took it to the range when I got back, shot some of my 160 gr reloads & it proceeded to tumble the bullets. I thought I was going to have to increase the bullet diameter as I cast at .429, but I had a few 200 gr. loads & it shot those really well. Guess the bullet weight make all the difference. Apparently this was a closet kicker that was inherited & the owner sold it because no one was shooting it! That's gonna change! I wasn't looking for a 73, I have a grip of 92's but I'm glad I ran into this one!



144759

[021]

Gotta love the gun that won the west. Whether it did or not. Dont find'em at the store much any more, ya' got lucky!

[Ballistics in Scotland]

It looks like a very good buy if the price was right. It looks some way from mint condition, but you could pay a lot of money for better, and perhaps also for worse. It might have been made after the west was won, since about a tarter pof production was twentieth century, but you can safely say it lived in interesting times. Here is a website with production dates:

http://www.winchesterguns.com/library/articles/detail.asp?id=401

Not liking 160gr. bullets but being happy with 200 is puzzling. I have the Winchester catalogue for 1899 in front of me (a reprint, unfortunately), and the cartridge with ".44 Winchester Mod 1973" written on it, clearly the .44-40, has a 200gr. bullet. The rifling would therefore be more than was needed for 160gr., but I can't imagine it stripping the rifling with the sort of charge you would use in the 73, and .429in. diameter should be fine too. 160gr. should work well in a 73 as usually constituted. It might be that the throat has eroded, and the shorter bearing surface of the lighter bullet allows it to tip before engaging the rifling.

It seems pretty certain that you can get some good shooting from it. But if you end up thinking accuracy might be improved, and it looks like an erosion problem, you might go to slightly heavier bullets - a longer bearing surface being the point of this. Winchester marketed .44 rounds for the Colt Lightning and the Marlin, which were probably identical except for having 217gr. bullets. You do have to watch pressure in a 73, especially an original 73, but with an appropriate load, which means black powder or a close equivalent, I don't think that much heavier a bullet would overstrain it.

[John Taylor]

One of my customers told me he found a 73 new in the box at an old hardware store that was going out of business after the owner died. Seems the family did not want it and sold everything just to get rid of it. I think he got it for the price marked on the box, like $35. Also picked up the box of ammo to fit it that was as old as the rifle. Said it was found on one of the top shelves out of sight. I never find deals like that but I did get a 73 that was found in the crawl space under a house that was being tore down in town.

[lobogunleather]

Good find! The '73's are very desirable and a lot of fun to load for and shoot. The .44-40 is one that I had never been fortunate enough to have, but remedied that earlier this year. Now I am enjoying it!

[ndnchf]

Nice find, congrats. A nice '73 is a thing of beauty. I picked up this original carbine a few years ago. Unfortunately it had a bulged barrel and could not be salvaged. But John Taylor made a beautiful new barrel for it and its a real shooter now. I have a pretty good collection of BPCRs, but this is my favorite. You may find yourself feeling the same way about yours!

http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y493/ndnchf/BPCR/1873%20Winchester%20carbine/1873carbine_revolver_zps9afbd211.jpg (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/ndnchf/media/BPCR/1873%20Winchester%20carbine/1873carbine_revolver_zps9afbd211.jpg.html)

[northmn]

Mike Venturino has written several articles concerning loading the 44-40. Many aimed at revolvers as there have been some issues with cylinder/bore diameter. It is an interesting caliber and should offer hours of enjoyment. As stated the 73 is not recommended for anything resembling hot loads.
Wondered about the popularity of the caliber and rifles as it is no power house. Personally I suspect it was an opportunistic rifle/caliber kind of like the rifles I carry on my 4-wheeler and tractor. Remember an individual mentioning how his uncle used to take his 32 Special with him even to the outhouse during the depression or right after WWII.

DP

[Ballistics in Scotland]

No doubt he knew his own outhouse better than we do. The 73 certainly stayed in production long after the 92 did the same pistol-cartridge job, so somebody must have liked it. The 92 also far outsold the big game 86.

[missionary5155]

Greetings
I would be looking at the throat diameter and the groove diameter right there at the chamber front. My 73 44WCF is a 2nd model that is fatter there than out to the muzzle. Your 160 grainer is a very short boolit and may be getting some what battered and torn trying to grip in those first few moments of acceleration.
If you want to find the real accuracy capability of that fine old rifle load up 5 of those 200 grainers cast of a soft lead (40-1 is my go to) on top of a case of 3F with a cereal box wad over the powder. You will need to have those soft boolits near the chamber area groove but not over. In old BP rifles you will be hard pressed to get a smokeless load to beat BP accuracy.
When I latch on to a BP era rifle first is a take apart cleaning and the chamber area diameters. Then the rest of the groove which is always smaller. Then a normal weight for caliber soft 40-1 boolit properly sized sitting over BP. Has never failed to enlighten me as to what that old barrel can do.
Mike in Peru

[Four Fingers of Death]

My friend went into a country store many moons ago that was closing down and they had a clearance sale outside. There was an old guy in a wheelchair and a young woman in the shop. He could see her kids playing at a table out back. The old guy was talking to another local off to the side. Everything was pretty much sold and my friend asked if there were any rifles left. The young woman went out the back and came back dusting off an old box. The box contained a new Model700 Remington BLR in 222. She laid it on the counter and asked how much. She looked at the box and said it is $50 (I can't remember what he paid). They were selling for around $400 at the time. My mate didn't want to rob anyone and said for her to check the price as they were a lot dearer than that. She spoke to the old guy who said that he could have it for that price as it was the last rifle he was going to sell after fifty years running the shop and he had done well out of it and was happy that an honest guy ended up with it.

After the sale was complete, my mate walked down the road to a cafe' and bought them a tray of sandwiches and cakes and some drinks for the kids as a way of saying thank you.

He still has the 222 some thirty years later and will never part with it.

[northmn]

No doubt he knew his own outhouse better than we do. The 73 certainly stayed in production long after the 92 did the same pistol-cartridge job, so somebody must have liked it. The 92 also far outsold the big game 86.
You would have to appreciate the North woods of Minnesota at that time. Many of these old timers had a "casual" acquaintance with game laws and tended to eat a lot of venison and an occasional moose. Game wardens tended to be a bit more understanding in those times also. Rifles were taken almost everywhere as something might pop up that they wanted to shoot. Winchester had loads for the 92 in 44-40 that were not to be shot in pistols or 73's but were dropped as many could not understand that concept. The big game 86 was kind of a dying proposition due to the introduction of the 94, a much lighter handier rifle and the 30-30 which had more range than the 86 offerings. There was also the 95 offered in more modern cartridges.
Also the 44-40 was not a pistol cartridge as such. Winchester introduced it in the 73 and Colt marketed the rifle/pistol concept. Winchester did some modification of the rounds as the first ones tended to jam in pistols due to the taper. That concept kind of died off until Ruger introduced their 44 mag SA. Marlin then started to make rifles in pistol cartridges also. Cowboy shooting really brought it back.

DP

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Well yes. I had inside plumbing, and the most I ever got from my bathroom window were pheasants.

I know the .44-40 originated with the need for a better rifle round than the .44 Henry used in the Winchester 66, and referred to it as a pistol round on the basis of size and its frequent use as such. Winchester actually did a mild and partial euthanasia job on the 1886, since for a few years they marketed high velocity smokeless loads which very closely resembled the maximum handloaders can sensibly achieve nowadays. But then they discontinued them, and their warnings against smokeless handloading became more severe. I think they wanted to sell more 94s.

[northmn]

The main reason quoted for Winchester dropping the HV rounds in 44-40, 38-40, 32-20 and 25-20 according to most is that they were not suitable for the revolvers and the 73 Winchesters that originated in black powder times. They were designated for the 92 Winchester but some still tried to use them in revolvers and the 73. I would guess some of the earlier Colt revolvers may not have stood up to them well. Also WWII saw an end to many of these older cartridges and rifles. Companies had to tool up for the war effort and did not bother reintroducing many of the old favorites.
While it is not something that I really get all excited about, there are differences besides performance between a pistol round and rifle round. The 45 Colt was not made in rifles until the emergence of the Cowboy shooting games. It had too small a rim, especially in BP days and was straight cased as were most pistol rounds. It also offered a smaller ballistic gain in rifles. The 44-40 actually caused problems in revolvers because it was tapered and slightly bottle necked. A tapered design is rifle cartridges was ideal as it assisted in extraction, especially in single shots where the cartridge was removed by the fingers. It also sealed the bore and prevented blow back into the face. I shot a Rossi in 45 Colt once where the loads used were spitting in my face. I read later that one wanted to use a little hotter loads to prevent this. Tapered cases also tended to set back in revolvers and sometimes jam them, worst offender was the 22 Jet. If you look at Colts offerings designed for pistols they were mostly straight cased.
The 1886 Winchester for all intents and purposes became the 1871 in 348. It was the same basic action slightly modified for higher pressure rounds.

DP

[cajun shooter]

I have shot the 44wcf cartridge since 1971 and I have owned several revolvers and rifles in this caliber. I have never had one incident of problems because of the cartridge design.
I would like to know where you found the information source on this cartridge causing problems in revolvers. It has been my experience that if anything, it's a very good cartridge to shoot and own. Later David

[Four Fingers of Death]

Crushing necks during reloading is the only trouble I've had loading for three rifles and two Colt clones over the years, but I never tried to hot rod it.

[Outpost75]

I have shot the 44wcf cartridge since 1971 and I have owned several revolvers and rifles in this caliber. I have never had one incident of problems because of the cartridge design. I would like to know where you found the information source on this cartridge causing problems in revolvers. It has been my experience that if anything, it's a very good cartridge to shoot and own. Later David

David,

You are correct. I think people repeat mythology and folklore they hear, written by people who do most of their shooting with the typewriter or keyboard. I came to the .44-40 late in life and have been led down the path of True Believers by folks like you, Savvy Jack and John Kort, and it has been quite an education.

Had the US Army had the foresight to adopt the 1873 musket, saddle ring carbine and the Colt revolver all using the .44-40 cartridge, instead of the danged trapdoor I wonder....

[northmn]

The information was probably in an article by Mike Venturino concerning the setback issues. I will also point out that that was an early problem that Winchester addressed with a redesign of their cases and was more or less remedied. Venturino is a very large fan of the 44-40 revolvers and has written several articles on loading them. The 44-40 revolver I had offered no problems either. I do not remember the exact cure, but wonder if it is not tied in to the current bottleneck design. I was basically pointing out the basic design differences between the early rifle and pistol cartridges. I did read or hear a rumor that the reason Colt did not continue with the 25-20 in pistols was that it also caused problems of that nature??

DP

[northmn]

Another point as to a difference in rifle vs pistol cartridges. With black powder the bullet/powder ratio was out of balance in the 44-40. Other pistol cartridges of the time used heavier bullets and less powder. The 44 Russian was considered an excellent pistol cartridge and used I believe 28 grains of BP under a 246 grain bullet. The 45 Colt (which the Army did adopt) used 40 grains of powder but a 250 grain bullet. The 45 Schofield was loaded similar to the Russian. With black powder, heavier bullets gave a little better burn in a revolver and if you look at the differences in velocity between the BP loads, the 45 Colt was at about 910 fps and the 44-40 very close but with a lighter 200 bullet. there would be more fouling with the 44-40 also. In a rifle the 44-40 was kind of like the later "Express" cartridges in the 86 Winchester. Black Powder offered different problems than the modern cowboy shooters encounter with their combos and smokeless. My "cowboy" combination has been a 45 Colt revolver and a 45-70 Remington Rolling Block. I would rather not talk about the 50-90 that was made a little too light weight. I still question if the rifle/pistol interchangeability thing was as popular as some think. There were a lot of single shot rifles used back then that were not adapted to pistols.

DP

[missionary5155]

David,

Had the US Army had the foresight to adopt the 1873 musket, saddle ring carbine and the Colt revolver all using the .44-40 cartridge, instead of the danged trapdoor I wonder....

Greetings
Another 44WCF shooter and happy owner of numerous.
The Army was faced with a condition out west that demanded the capability to shoot through the mount and eliminate the rider hanging off the off side neck of the horses used by the finest light cavalry our troopers had yet to face. Volley fire was well used by the infantry and dismounted horse troopers. The excellent penetration of the caliber .45 slugs well substantiated the caliber 45-70 decision. A suggested option put forward was to equip half the troops with the fine lever actions of Winchester. But again the Army had already dealt with under powered carbines (Spencers and others) at long distance shooting. Resupply of multi cartridges was not desired. One basic cartridge for all became the route and thinking in the Army.
Some generals were afraid the troops would fire too many rounds to fast wasting ammo. Then there was the further issue of wanting to keep rifle production at the Army controlled Springfield Arsenal. That was a cushy job all Ordinance Officers (who made the equipment decisions) hoped to one day command. Power, money and influence in big buisness was well rooted within our military. Imagine The troops knowing that the good 1876 in 45-75 was available then later the Marlin 1881 in the same 45-70 the Army already used.
So our troopers carried on with a good single shot rifle.
Very happily the Army made the excellent choice of adopting the caliber .45 revolvers for close quarters fighting.
Mike in Peru

[Four Fingers of Death]

One thing that rears it's head frequently in military purchases and tactics, is the fact that the guys making the decisions, did their fighting 20 -30 years in the past. This is less of an issue nowadays, but was a great issue in days of yore, especially as the game was changing regularly. The old guard would have been carrying big bore muskets when they were young men and this mentality would have influenced their decisions. A recent example of this was the transition from the 7.62 to the 5.56. There was a whole heap of angst about this, but generally military accept that the 5.56 is the go now.

[clum553946]

I've found that Starline 44-40 brass seems to have sturdier case necks than other brands. I use my Dillon 650 to load 44-40 & find that if you slow down a little & pay attention, you get great results & much faster loading time than with a single stage press. (Using Starline brass)


Crushing necks during reloading is the only trouble I've had loading for three rifles and two Colt clones over the years, but I never tried to hot rod it.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I've got a Winchester 1891 loading tool like the one on this eBay page, which came with my .40-82 Winchester 1886. It is quite rare, as they soon made more easily used ones - already had done, probably. It has the unusual feature of sizing the case neck down onto the bullet, which I imagine had better be lead. I don't even know if they made it in .44-40, but if they did, it would solve any problem of neck collapse.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/WINCHESTER-Model-1891-Reloading-Tool-38-56-/191638063122?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c9e84c812

Quite a lot of Henry and Spencer rifles seem to have been in the hands of Indians, as they used to be termed, and many cases were found recently on the Little Bighorn battlefield. But the decision to keep the Trapdoor Springfield, which open to debate, wasn't necessarily a mistake. The 1876 Winchester wasn't strong, which is a possible explanation for the .45-60 round, although it had a fairly large powder capacity, to have a lighter bullet than the 45-70 military load.

The 1881 Marlin had a long enough bolt travel for the military round, and although it wouldn't be suitable for the smokeless loads many still use safely in the 1886 Winchester and the Hepburn-designed 1895 Marlin, it was strong enough for the purpose intended. But it had a fixed lever action in the bottom of the receiver, and this much length made it undesirably heavy and bulky. It failed the military trials because of magazine explosions with the round-nosed military bullet, which didn't happen in the Winchester 86 because of Mason's cartridge hook, which eased the cartridge onto the carrier without requiring a strong magazine spring. (Marlin avoided this with small, deeply set primers, but by that time the military market was gone.) Mr. Browning also had the idea of making the lever pivot on the bottom of the rear locking bolts, which made the Winchester 1886 acceptably compact.

It had taken time for the Army to realize, belatedly in the course of the Civil War, that the Minie rifle about equaled the range of smoothbore field artillery, and could provide accuracy comparable with what is expected of the ordinary soldier in most armies of today. In the heavy-bullet, round-nosed .45-70 they had an excellent long-range cartridge, and it is understandable that they weren't ready to compromise it in any way. After all, almost anywhere the post-Civil War United States looked like running into trouble for quite a while consisted of open plains.

I think the question of fouling can be overrated, and so can the importance of the simultaneous-ejecting revolver. Outside of target shooting most use of firearms at the time probably involved firing only a few shots. This goes double for revolvers; the Dutch and German ordnance revolvers, ergonomically excellent and very reliable revolvers for first-class cartridges, made it into the twentieth century with no ejector at all. It would be a foolhardy modern combat shot who would expect a double-stack magazine to give him a significant advantage over Wild Bill with cap and ball.

It is interesting that while Winchester (with the two Merton Robinsons, father and son) and Smith and Wesson, were pioneers in cartridge design, just about every really good cartridge Colt used was foisted on them by someone else.

[smokeywolf]

I've got a Winchester 1891 loading tool like the one on this eBay page, which came with my .40-82 Winchester 1886. It is quite rare, as they soon made more easily used ones - already had done, probably. It has the unusual feature of sizing the case neck down onto the bullet, which I imagine had better be lead. I don't even know if they made it in .44-40, but if they did, it would solve any problem of neck collapse.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/WINCHESTER-Model-1891-Reloading-Tool-38-56-/191638063122?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c9e84c812

Quite a lot of Henry and Spencer rifles seem to have been in the hands of Indians, as they used to be termed, and many cases were found recently on the Little Bighorn battlefield. But the decision to keep the Trapdoor Springfield, which open to debate, wasn't necessarily a mistake. The 1876 Winchester wasn't strong, which is a possible explanation for the .45-60 round, although it had a fairly large powder capacity, to have a lighter bullet than the 45-70 military load.

The 1881 Marlin had a long enough bolt travel for the military round, and although it wouldn't be suitable for the smokeless loads many still use safely in the 1886 Winchester and the Hepburn-designed 1895 Marlin, it was strong enough for the purpose intended. But it had a fixed lever action in the bottom of the receiver, and this much length made it undesirably heavy and bulky. It failed the military trials because of magazine explosions with the round-nosed military bullet, which didn't happen in the Winchester 86 because of Mason's cartridge hook, which eased the cartridge onto the carrier without requiring a strong magazine spring. (Marlin avoided this with small, deeply set primers, but by that time the military market was gone.) Mr. Browning also had the idea of making the lever pivot on the bottom of the rear locking bolts, which made the Winchester 1886 acceptably compact.

It had taken time for the Army to realize, belatedly in the course of the Civil War, that the Minie rifle about equaled the range of smoothbore field artillery, and could provide accuracy comparable with what is expected of the ordinary soldier in most armies of today. In the heavy-bullet, round-nosed .45-70 they had an excellent long-range cartridge, and it is understandable that they weren't ready to compromise it in any way. After all, almost anywhere the post-Civil War United States looked like running into trouble for quite a while consisted of open plains.

I think the question of fouling can be overrated, and so can the importance of the simultaneous-ejecting revolver. Outside of target shooting most use of firearms at the time probably involved firing only a few shots. This goes double for revolvers; the Dutch and German ordnance revolvers, ergonomically excellent and very reliable revolvers for first-class cartridges, made it into the twentieth century with no ejector at all. It would be a foolhardy modern combat shot who would expect a double-stack magazine to give him a significant advantage over Wild Bill with cap and ball.

It is interesting that while Winchester (with the two Merton Robinsons, father and son) and Smith and Wesson, were pioneers in cartridge design, just about every really good cartridge Colt used was foisted on them by someone else.



Actually, the 45-60 was used in place of the 45-70 because of overall cartridge length and the inability of the '76's toggle link action to cycle the longer 45-70 cartridge. This is also why the 45-75 had to be a shouldered or "milk bottle shaped" cartridge; to keep down the overall length.

With regard to cartridge design, it was Benjamin Tyler Henry who made the toggle link action (loosely modeled after the Volcanic) viable, by dumping the "rocket ball" ammunition design, modifying Dan Wesson's pin fire metallic cartridge to a rim-fire design and turning to the metallic 44 rim-fire cartridge used in the rifle that still carries his name.

Oh, and where did Smith, Wesson and Henry get their ideas for the Volcanic/toggle link action? From the inventor of the safety pin, Walter Hunt.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/the-inventive-mind-of-walter-hunt-yankee-mechanical-genius-5331323/?no-ist

[northmn]

One interesting tidbit I had read was that the top break Schofeld was a much better cavalry pistol than the Colt but that Sam was a top notch salesman. One of the reasons the 30-40 Krag was approved was that it had a single shot adapter so that it could be shot in that manner. As mentioned it was considered desirable to avoid ammunition waste. Single shots with black powder were not all bad. The buffalo runners that did might shoot a lot off the stand were said to swab their rifles during a "stand" Often carried the wiping stick inside the barrel until they were ready to shoot. When I used a BP load in a 45-70 for deer hunting I noticed that the first shot was usually pretty good, but that it started to go South with a few shots. When I shot muzzle loading competition the amount of swabbing needed depended to some extent on humidity. On high humidity days the pan in a flintlock would drip moisture but the fouling was soft. On a hot low humidity day the fouling was quite hard and more swabbing or wetter patches were needed. Black Powder has its own rules.

DEP

[rbertalotto]

Beautiful old shooter! I've brought back a few of those to life. You can read about them on my web site

www.rvbprecision.com

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I should have said "for the .40-60... having a lighter bullet than the .45-70 military load, and there are other possible explanations, such as recoil and medium-range trajectory. The bottle-necked case was certainly to get around action length without making the receiver deeper, but I think they could have got a heavier bullet into that cartridge length.

Winchester didn't produce the .44 Henry entirely on their own. Hunt and Jennings were remarkable men, but great inventors can fall on their noses by inventing the wrong things, just like generals can by winning too many battles.

I think Smith and Wesson must have thought they were in real trouble through having embarked on production of a firearm that couldn't possibly be made to work well. The "rocket ball" simply couldn't hold enough powder, except perhaps if it was made so thin in the skirt that it could tear off in the bore. Not only that, but the cap and ball Colt had stopped being just an unconcealable horse-pistol. Oliver Winchester, a shareholder, probably engineered the failure of the company, and bought the carcass from them. One useful piece of intellectual property he got that way, everybody knows about: the toggle-joint lever system, which needed only a good cartridge. But Smith and Wesson, possibly being desperate, also signed over the right to use their future inventions.

That would soon include their adaptation of the French BB cap into the .22 short, and twice 22 is 44. Winchester were in no danger from patent infringement, although I don't believe they couldn't have used the Rollin White patent for a bored-through revolver cylinder, which S&W didn't invent, but bought into. (Opinion is divided on whether Winchester wanted to make revolvers, and I doubt if they wanted it much.) I'm sure Henry achieved more than a simple scaling-up, though. As rimfires are made larger, it becomes necessary to fight an increased tendency to jam or split at the rim. The first Henry cases were copper, nor brass, and probably involved more sophisticated metal-drawing and annealing than the .22 of the day. Not many collectors want to cut up a copper Henry case of that era, or have the measuring equipment that would avoid the need for it. But my guess is that the head and rim were thicker than the neck.

I agree that the Schofield was better in some respects than the Colt, in the days when only the standard government black powder load was to be used. But all large American revolvers of the period had delicate minor parts, and I find my later .44 Smith and Wesson Russian very difficult to reassemble. Here (You don't mind being off-topic, do you?) is the other 1873, the French Chamelot-Delvigne ordnance revolver, in which the end of the axis pin has a screwdriver blade to undo one massive screw, the only one you need touch to see the action parts, cleanable and oilable without falling out unless you want them out. The half-cock notch isn't undercut, and nothing but a spring forces the sear into engagement, so no breakages there. Even the mainspring strain screw has been replaced by a strain lever. The hand spring presses on both the hand and the hammer lifter, so it doesn't scrape up and down on anything stationary. This was copied by Iver Johnson, and used by them as long as they made break-open revolvers.

145127

[northmn]

The main reason the Schofeld was considered better was that of using it on horse back and under duress. You could unlock it and remover all cartridges at once as compared to ramming them out of the Colt. Also, some humorously state that Sam Colt was left handed and the Peacemaker is a left handed gun. You have to switch hands to unload it as the rammer and gate are on the right side. There have been some "right handed" Colt reproductions offered for sale. Colt also would make presentation revolvers to give to strategic politicians.
As to the copper cases. The cases for the original 50-70 Springfield, used before the 45-70 were known to swell in the chamber and require a knife for removal. One artist depicting Custer's last stand showed a trooper trying to remove a jammed case in that manner. Even brass black powder cases of the time were "balloon head" to permit more powder, which also means many of the loads cannot be duplicated with today's web head cases. The 44-40 probably can be only loaded with maybe 35-37 grains as does the 45 Colt.

DP

[Four Fingers of Death]

There was a Reader's Digest article on Custer's Last Stand, or the "Battle of Greasy Grass' as the winners called it which showed photos of relics from the battlefield which included a few knives with the tips broken off and one blade tip.

I'd like to try Starline brass, but have about 1000 or more once fired Winchesters on hand. I bought a heap of Win factory cowboy ammo when my late wife was ill and I was too busy to reload. It's going to take me awhile to run them through my Ubeauty 1866 carbeen and my troublesome 1873 rifle.

[northmn]

Should be quite a labor running through all those cartridges. I have kind of had a fascination for these moderately powered cartridges which I think were carried about every where the owner went. I have a 32-20, a 357 and a 22 mag that kind of fits that bill but a 73 44-40 would not be bad either.

DP

[missionary5155]

Greetings
The 1873 with a 44 WCF cartridge is a formidable weapon. I would not ever want to be on the receiving part of a 200 grain 40-1 bullet chugging along at anywhere from 1100 -1200 fps. By using 3F in todays "solid head" cases you can duplicate the old "balloon head" case load. A plus is that 3F burns cleaner than 2F and readily swells the case so there is little if any blowback into the action.
Mike in Peru

[Four Fingers of Death]

Good to know about the 3f. I have been loading 2f, I'll give that a try.

[missionary5155]

Greetings F F D
Some years back when I started working with a50-95 repro discovered there was no possible way to get more than 82 grains of 2F nestled into the cartridge with aboolit seated to function through the lever system. Searching about old Winchester info read they had used 3F in the 50-95 to get the 285 -300 grin bullets up to the 1500 fps goal. So off I went with 3F. Worked very well.
Then remembered other reading of BP Cartridge loaders using 3F for various reasons. So I have been using 3F in all the cartridges unless it will not meet already established accuracy loads with 2F in my barrels. Have yet to find any "over pressure issues" and it burns cleaner. Plus it is easy to meet old published velocities without all sorts of very long drops tubes, vibrators and crushers.
Mike in Peru

[TXGunNut]

One thing that rears it's head frequently in military purchases and tactics, is the fact that the guys making the decisions, did their fighting 20 -30 years in the past. This is less of an issue nowadays, but was a great issue in days of yore, especially as the game was changing regularly. The old guard would have been carrying big bore muskets when they were young men and this mentality would have influenced their decisions. A recent example of this was the transition from the 7.62 to the 5.56. There was a whole heap of angst about this, but generally military accept that the 5.56 is the go now.

If you think about it firearms and cartridges made several huge strides in just a few decades and the military culture required a deliberate study of all the options and was probably reluctant to put resources and lives at risk with what was at the time what we would correctly term unproven technology.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Those jamming cases at the Little Bighorn would have been the inside primed variety, and besides being too soft, would have been of sheet metal pretty much like a rimfire. A knife would be likely to cut through the rim, and lives could easily have been saved by the issue of a simple hand extractor tool.

I think the logic behind the Colt may have been that cavalry were expected to use the revolver in the left hand, and sword in the right. The same logic applied to the cross-draw holster on the right side of the body. Every gate-loading revolver I know has the gate on the right, including those predating the cartridge Colts. The use of the sword in combat faded fairly early in the US. European observers thought Civil War cavalry amateurish because they stopped and used revolver or carbine at ten or twenty yards instead of charging home with sword or lance, although it is surely a pretty reasonable thing to do.

In fact it is perfectly convenient to reload the Colt SAA while holding it in the right hand. You just have to tilt it.

[Four Fingers of Death]

I think the gate on the right hand side came as a result of the fact that the grip, etc and it's internals was virtually identical to the Colt cap and ball and the gate was placed where the capping cutaway was previously.

Did the Schofields eject the shells like the Webley, etc? That would have been a big plus for any sort of a soldier, let alone a mounted trooper.

[northmn]

I do not believe the Schofeld ejected cartridges like a Webley, just extracted them, but a plus. By the time of the cartridge pistols the sword was not really considered as practical. Hoods cavalry in the Civil war even used sawed off shotguns. They were a highly respected unit. The Patterson impressed the Commanche and the Walker was developed for use against Mexican lancers. Some of the Confederate units carried more than one pistol.
As to the use of 3f and pressures. I doubt if it would exceed smokeless loads. I used it in muzzle loaders even though some "experts" claimed that one had to use 2f on bores over 40 caliber. You just used less of it and it did burn cleaner. Also there is an issue of powders themselves. Mathews mentioned that they had about as many brands of black powder in the cartridge days as we have smokeless. Swiss powder tends to have more oomph than GOEX or Grafs. I use Grafs in my 25 squirrel rifle because it burns cleaner and power is not an issue. I know 3f has been tried a lot in the 38-55 to get more velocity out of it. that is my other cowboy rifle but I have not tried BP out of it yet.

DP

[cajun shooter]

Another point as to a difference in rifle vs pistol cartridges. With black powder the bullet/powder ratio was out of balance in the 44-40. Other pistol cartridges of the time used heavier bullets and less powder. The 44 Russian was considered an excellent pistol cartridge and used I believe 28 grains of BP under a 246 grain bullet. The 45 Colt (which the Army did adopt) used 40 grains of powder but a 250 grain bullet. The 45 Schofield was loaded similar to the Russian. With black powder, heavier bullets gave a little better burn in a revolver and if you look at the differences in velocity between the BP loads, the 45 Colt was at about 910 fps and the 44-40 very close but with a lighter 200 bullet. there would be more fouling with the 44-40 also. In a rifle the 44-40 was kind of like the later "Express" cartridges in the 86 Winchester. Black Powder offered different problems than the modern cowboy shooters encounter with their combos and smokeless. My "cowboy" combination has been a 45 Colt revolver and a 45-70 Remington Rolling Block. I would rather not talk about the 50-90 that was made a little too light weight. I still question if the rifle/pistol interchangeability thing was as popular as some think. There were a lot of single shot rifles used back then that were not adapted to pistols.

DP

Dear Sir, I will again challenge your posted information as being completely incorrect. There is no such thing as a powder to bullet ratio when loading BP. You are way off in making this statement and the reasons you give have no research material that you can refer to.
The reason that the different calibers that you gave used different grains in loadings was case design and the amount of powder that each case could carry. BP powder is designed to fill the case it is loaded in for the reason of how it burns and releases it's energy. It does not work like that new stuff they make now. You have a huge apples and oranges posting here.
I shoot nothing but BP 100% of the time and for you to make a statement that the 45 Colt shoots cleaner than the 44wcf is absurd. Your statement that your cowboy combination is a 45 Colt and a 45-70 rolling block is also complete nonsense as that combo is not allowed for SASS matches or any other Cowboy shooting that I'm aware off. My SASS handle is Fairshake and my SASS # is 81802
Why not post about things that you know and do and not try to keep up with MV.
You have other problems in the information that you have posted on this site but I will not bother to address them. Take Care David

[Four Fingers of Death]

Maybe he means out on the range cowboy and not banging away at steel targets style cowboy. I shoot SASS and like full power loads and am in the process of converting to full BP, but have about 5000 odd polymer coated boolits and a few thousand 12Ga smokless shells to get through first.

To each his own, but the current go fast, with lightweight 38Special loads type 'cowboy' shooting is about as exciting as watching someone else's kids shoot their capguns.

I should be full warthog in a year or so.

[John Allen]

I would love to have one. It is on my list. Someday I will grab one.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I'm always ready to believe a little of someone else's nonsense, if they will believe a little of mine. The .45LC as compared with the .44-40, in original SAA revolvers, does indeed exhibit two characteristics which make for less bore fouling. There is simply more area for the fouling from a given weight of powder to alight on. The rifling is slower, at 18in. pitch instead of 16in.

The trouble is, I doubt if those two factors, separately or together, are pronounced enough to make the slightest practical difference.

The ratio of powder to bullet weight is certainly a factor worth considering. The fact that the use of the term "powder ratio" is so... well... exceptional, is that there is no particular right powder ratio. Just as we do today, the same bullet can be used with quite different amounts of brass and powder, for different purposes, and can be equally good for both. One of the most interesting things about black powder is how little difference to velocity increased charges make, when about 1800 or 1900ft./sec. is reached. Instead they permit you to do it with a heavier bullet.

No Webley revolver actually ejects the case. It extracts them beyond the mouth of the rather short .455 case just before the revolver is fully open, and then returns to its original position. So the used cases fall out. My single action Smith and Wesson does this exactly as well for the .44 Russian cartridge, but if the Schofield extractor moves by the same amount, I think it would impose some risk of rechambering the spent cases with the longer .45 Schofield cartridge.

[smokeywolf]

clum553946 you're going to have a ball with your new (to you) Winchester. Now you just need to get it's big brother... 145204

[clum553946]

Is that an 1876?


clum553946 you're going to have a ball with your new (to you) Winchester. Now you just need to get it's big brother... 145204

[smokeywolf]

Is that an 1876? Yes. In 45-60

[northmn]

Since I was challenged on this issue, no there is no set powder to bullet weight ratio to make a pistol cartridge per se, BUT look at the true pistol cartridges of the day and you will see that they are short straight cased rounds using much less powder per bullet weight. The 44 American is another example using 25 grains of powder. No I do not shoot SASS but will claim that the Rolling Block is a cowboy rifle. It was used on one of the first if not the first cattle drive to repel hostiles. Claiming expertise through the SASS is also ridiculous as they portray more B Western History than actual fact. 44 magnums, 45 Colts or 357 Magnums did NOT exist at the time you want to portray but are permitted. My comments are based on quite a bit of research. As to comments on the army using Colts, they probably used them because that was what was used from before the Civil War and through the Civil War by both sides. The Peacemaker was more or less an adaptation of the 44 Army.
As to powder charges burning cleaner with heavier bullets, that was taken as a given. Target shooter liked smaller cases using heavier bullets and not as much powder.
I was pointing out the many difference that made the 44-40 a rifle cartridge. According to Cartridges of the World it was developed for the 73 in 1873 and the Colt not adapted to the 44-40 until something like 1878.
As one who shot and built various muzzle loaders as well as owning and shooting a 50-70, a 50-90 and a 45-70 both for hunting and competition I can say I have probably shot more black powder than any one here. I have also gone through a few cap and ball revolvers which were used more extensively through the West than many realize. After being an old gun enthusiast for over 40 years I have researched and experienced more BP firearms than about any arm chair cowboy.

DP

[clum553946]

Nice! Really cool rifle! Maybe I'll get lucky & stumble into one in the future!


Yes. In 45-60

[smokeywolf]

Nice! Really cool rifle!

Thank you. It's led a full life and looks it. Somebody carried it everywhere for a very long time. However, half octagon barrel, set trigger, silky smooth action and accuracy far greater than I am now capable of. The '76 is one of my favorites, but don't tell the others, they might get jealous.

[cajun shooter]

Since I was challenged on this issue, no there is no set powder to bullet weight ratio to make a pistol cartridge per se, BUT look at the true pistol cartridges of the day and you will see that they are short straight cased rounds using much less powder per bullet weight. The 44 American is another example using 25 grains of powder. No I do not shoot SASS but will claim that the Rolling Block is a cowboy rifle. It was used on one of the first if not the first cattle drive to repel hostiles. Claiming expertise through the SASS is also ridiculous as they portray more B Western History than actual fact. 44 magnums, 45 Colts or 357 Magnums did NOT exist at the time you want to portray but are permitted. My comments are based on quite a bit of research. As to comments on the army using Colts, they probably used them because that was what was used from before the Civil War and through the Civil War by both sides. The Peacemaker was more or less an adaptation of the 44 Army.
As to powder charges burning cleaner with heavier bullets, that was taken as a given. Target shooter liked smaller cases using heavier bullets and not as much powder.
I was pointing out the many difference that made the 44-40 a rifle cartridge. According to Cartridges of the World it was developed for the 73 in 1873 and the Colt not adapted to the 44-40 until something like 1878.
As one who shot and built various muzzle loaders as well as owning and shooting a 50-70, a 50-90 and a 45-70 both for hunting and competition I can say I have probably shot more black powder than any one here. I have also gone through a few cap and ball revolvers which were used more extensively through the West than many realize. After being an old gun enthusiast for over 40 years I have researched and experienced more BP firearms than about any arm chair cowboy.

DP
You Sir continue to show that your ability to read and then understand what you have read is again proven by your answer to me.
First thing is that I claimed no expertise about anything because of SASS. I stated that when you stated that the 45 Colt and 45-70 were your cowboy guns. I took that as a referral to shooting in matches and was letting you know that I was a member of SASS and that the 45-70 was not allowed as a standard match gun. For you to imply that SASS shooters were all just acting out B-Westerns goes further to prove that you have no idea about what you are speaking about. SASS is made up of several different categories that have set rules on clothing, guns and style of shooting. Read a rule book before you continue to make such absurd postings.
If you will send me your receipts from your BP purchases made in the last five years, I will do the same. If you take time to read before lay out an open challenge you will find that I've posted many articles about the BP cartridges and the loading of them. I have also posted my studies on the different BP powders which include both microscopic and actual range testing.
One more thing, I can think of many names on this forum that would be placed in front of yours when it comes to knowledge about BP and the 44wcf cartridge is John Kort. You must have one large ego to declare yourself as the one with the most knowledge about BP and firearms on a forum such as this. I will not answer you anymore as it is not prudent to argue with fools as they will beat you with experience. Take Care David

[northmn]

I figured the comment about SASS being a B Western image might ruffle some feathers. When I shot muzzle loaders in competition I ran into a lot of misinformation. When I started you weren't a mountain man unless you shot a Hawken, which was later disproved by those interested in actual history. Then came the Northwest Trade gun rage. The NW trade gun was just that a trade gun and very few white men carried one. As to my ego, again I base most of my comments on research as well as experience. I had to do quite a bit of research as I built muzzle loading rifles for my self and other and tried to make them more or less authentic.
My primary interest admittedly is in the single shot rifles when I shoot BP now. However there was a reference to the 44-40 in Ned Roberts book, The Muzzle Loading Cap Lock Rifle to the use of the 44-40 on black bear. Roberts was born in 1866 and had his Uncle as a mentor. His uncle was a member of Berdans Sharp Shooters. He went bear hunting with his uncle and had a close call when he jumped a bear at very close range in a blackberry thicket. He was using a double 44 muzzle loading rifle using 75 grains of powder and a 275 grain bullet (Pickett bullet) He ruched his first shot, hit it in the heart with the second but his cousin head shot it with a Spencer. Due to that he wanted more fire power and bought a 73 in 44-40. the next year he got one bear with it. A 300 pounder. He then went on to state that he wounded 4 or 5 others after pumping 4 or 5 shots into them which his Uncle finished off with his double Billinghurst loaded with a 350 grain bullet and 80-90 grains of powder. His conclusion was that the 44-40 had to little powder and too light a bullet for that use.
While not really definitive it does show that many riflemen found the 44-40 wanting and preferred heavier ordinance. Secondly there is a impression that at 1873 or some such time everyone dropped the use of muzzle loaders and jumped on the cartridge bandwagon. Muzzle loaders were being made well into the 1870's and I believe the Colt Navy was continued for some time into the cartridge era. Appalacian rifles were made into the early 1900's. As Roberts hunted in New England it also showed that the rifles were not all of Western use. Hinton in his book on the Golden Age of Shotgunning also mentioned that muzzle loading shotguns were popular into the 1880's. Reading Robert's book also illustrates that gun nuts back then were kind of like those of us today and owned more than one rifle. Roberts was later know for the 257 Roberts and lived in the transitory times from BP to smokeless.

DP

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Thank you. It's led a full life and looks it. Somebody carried it everywhere for a very long time. However, half octagon barrel, set trigger, silky smooth action and accuracy far greater than I am now capable of. The '76 is one of my favorites, but don't tell the others, they might get jealous.

It certainly is. Now if science could only find a means of extracting the sight pictures it has seen... Short of that, we will just have to use our imagination.

I hope nobody minds us talking about it in this thread on SASS and the northwest trade gun.

[missionary5155]

Good morning
The Ned Roberts book "The Muzzle-loading Cap Lock Rifle" is an excellent resource of real history. Bear hunting in the eastern US states was a real issue 150-130 years ago. The muzzle loaders of at least caliber .40 and capable of shooting "bullets" (not patched balls) was deemed as necessary.
For the last 25 years of shooting lever flippers down here the only commonly available lever rifle is the caliber 44 WCF Winchester model 92. I have seen one caliber .357 Marlin, one caliber 32 WCF and one aberration of a "something that will chamber and fire a 9mm". So I have learned a lot about the 44 WCF. With the standard 200 grain and a case full of 3F in todays cases it is a reasonable up close hunting round. Personally I prefer using a 220 grainer from the Saeco 443 mold. With 3F it out penetrates the standard 200 grainers by a couple inches in the same materials. But if I have to "repel boarders" I far more trust a 260 grainer (older NEI). That slug at 25 yards and less puts a far louder "thwap" on target still using good old 3F.

But happily we have all sorts of good smokeless powders today also which make the 44 WCF into the near equivalent of the 44 magnum. No I have no pipe dreams of 44 mag pressures. But load that same 260 grain 50-50 (PB-WW) lead slug over 9 grains Unique in a solid model 92 and Ned Roberts could have been far better gunned to thump bears in the brush thickets he and his uncle roamed. No That still is not equal to a long barrel caliber .40 slug gun with 100 grain charges. But it sure whops the socks off the old standard 200 grain load in the 44 WCF.

Loaded with modern powders at higher (but safe) Model 92 pressures the 44-40 will come near 44 mag velocities and "thwap" on target. But all that was not available to 1873 shooters. They were very happy with a 200 grainer chugging along at 1200-1300 muzzle velocity. It was the best thing going for the day when numerous rounds were needed up close to "repel boarders". Nothing could beat this light weight lead slinger up close. But when more than 50 yards was needed to protect and if it was available, the shooter quickly would shift to a model 1876 in 45-75. But that was another expensive for the day rifle not many had available. So the model 1873 was forced to do Yoeman service far beyond intended sensible ranges. No one was real interested if the receiver of that 200 grain slug crawled away to slowly die gut shot. Few concerns were raised about a vile person loosing an arm or leg due to a shattered bone. That is the reality of the 200 grain bullet past 100 yards propelled by 3F. It will hurt. It can kill. Why it can ring a 600 yard gong ! WOW But do not count on it doing much real practical "fill the freezer" harvesting. Sure some where a small deer will get popped with a 200 grainer moved by 3F. But me.. I will restrict my hunting ranges to the river bottoms where 33 yards is still my longest deer shoot.

I have been at this 44 WCF in carbines and 26 inch rifles too many years. If I need to shoot a deer at 100 yards I will get out the 45-60 1876 or a 1881 45-70 and do so with confidence. The 1873 is one fine up close system and that is where I use it. Yea.. I think there are a couple close by right now ready. Please knock on the gate first.
Mike in Peru

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Good morning
The Ned Roberts book "The Muzzle-loading Cap Lock Rifle" is an excellent resource of real history.

It is indeed, and has had other advantages for me. I have the NRA gold-tooled leather edition, and on top of the things in my suitcase it used to get me into Saudi Arabia with my baggage unexamined. It looked like a religious book and any religion, even those peculiar foreign brands, was considered unlikely in a smuggler of alcohol or drugs.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Actually, the 45-60 was used in place of the 45-70 because of overall cartridge length and the inability of the '76's toggle link action to cycle the longer 45-70 cartridge. This is also why the 45-75 had to be a shouldered or "milk bottle shaped" cartridge; to keep down the overall length.


"The History of Winchester Firearms" says "The Winchester lever action 1876's locking device was not strong enough to handle the 45-70 Government caliber or some of the heavy bullet cartridges used in competitors' single-shot rifles for long-range, big game shooting." Thomas Henshaw is only the editor, with five predecessors, of the 1993 sixth edition. It is really the Winchester Press's book.

[smokeywolf]

You're absolutely right about the toggle link mechanism being much less robust than most single shot actions. For that matter, few lever type repeating actions could equal a single shot in ability to stand up to heavier boolits and pressures.
Even though the model '76 Winchester was also chambered for 50-95, it was an "express" cartridge and therefore a light for caliber (350 grain) boolit. With that in mind I think perhaps the 45-70 was probably too much cartridge for the '76 in two ways; overall cartridge length and boolit weight, which with black powder was the main factor influencing pressures.

[GOPHER SLAYER]

I have owned three Winchester '73s. The first one was a carbine that I traded out of a friend. His father had given it to him to play with. His father had helped a friend move and as they took one last look around and my friend's father saw this old rifle standing in a corner and asked if his friend was going to take it. His friend said no but if you want it, take it. That story sounds ridicules today but at that time were I grew up there were only two guns that had any value. One was a shotgun and the other was a 22 rifle. I don't think you could even buy ammo for the 38-40 at that time in that little town. I played cowboys and Indians with that old gun but of course never did shoot it. My father had worked in the ship yards in California during the war but returned to Missouri afterwards. He had found a cigar box with various cartridges in it on one of the ships in the yard for repair and had brought them home with him. Well you know boys. I just had to try one of the rounds in the old '73. I inserted the round and closed the lever forcing the round into the chamber. Once again the Lord must have taken pity on this stupid boy [not the first or last time] because the gun didn't fire. It was not long after that , I traded the old rifle away. I don't remember for what. The second '73 was a full length rifle in 44-40. It was in excellent plus condition. I think that would have been in the mid 1960s. The '73 still wasn't worth a great deal but still more than the $125 I paid for it. I sold it before the month was out for $250. The third '73 was also in 44-40 and in good condition except for the stock which had been broken at the wrist. I found a but stock at a gun show for five bucks and spent one Saturday morning watching TV and inletting the crescent butt plate. I got $375 for that one. That would have been around 1984. It was not until cowboy action shooting came along that these rifles began to climb in value. While I love the '92 Winchester and have owned many, I just never had much confidence in that little metal finger in the '73 that supports the cartridge. It just doesn't seem like much of a breach block to me. If I recall correctly Winchester ended production of the '73 in 1924. The '92 stayed in production until the start of WWII. I have the entire year of the American Rifleman for 1941 and there are ads in them for new '92s for $23 to $25.

[EDK]

The late Skeeter Skelton did a column in Shooting Times 'way back when about 44/40s. The combination of chamber dimensions/excessive headspace and too thick brass caused the brass to set back againt the breech face. Since reloading wasn't a priority, cartridge manufacturers thinned the brass and got better obduration against chamber walls, thus solving the problem.
IIRC Skeeter mentioned Jeff Milton as having a COLT with the problem. His solution was to trade off the 44/40 and return to 45 Colt cartridge. Good stories ain't necessarily true, but it does sound logical.

[TXGunNut]

Mods, please close this thread. ;-) I don't have an 1873 (or 1876) and I have folding green in my pocket. bad combo, lol.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

You're absolutely right about the toggle link mechanism being much less robust than most single shot actions. For that matter, few lever type repeating actions could equal a single shot in ability to stand up to heavier boolits and pressures.


Most, certainly. But I always thought a pretty good single shot rifle could be made on the same principle as the Winchester 86 (I've got mine!), or with a bit more metal in it the Spencer. If it comes to that, the Pederson rifle of the 1930s was an efficient military semiautomatic rifle with a toggle-joint action.

[clum553946]

Mods, please close this thread. ;-) I don't have an 1873 (or 1876) and I have folding green in my pocket. bad combo, lol.
I think you ought to remedy the problem ASAP! Lol

[John Taylor]

All this talk about the 76 being a weak action, read about the test Winchester did way back. As the story goes someone said it was to weak for the 45-75 cartridge. The reason for the 45-75 is the action was to short for the 45-70. Winchester told his staff to check it out so they started by removing one link and firing the gun, no damage. Adding bullets in the bore and more powder by test number 7 the case ruptured and the escaping gas blew the side covers off, the action never came open.

[TXGunNut]

I think you ought to remedy the problem ASAP! Lol

I fondled a 38-40 1873 carbine last weekend, pretty sure it's not a cut-down rifle but I'll have to study on it before I plunk down that pile of long green. I didn't like the bore much but I'll take a better light next time. I've been looking at 1873's for awhile and every time I find one with a nice bore the price runs me off. Maybe they're just too rich for my blood.

[clum553946]

I fondled a 38-40 1873 carbine last weekend, pretty sure it's not a cut-down rifle but I'll have to study on it before I plunk down that pile of long green. I didn't like the bore much but I'll take a better light next time. I've been looking at 1873's for awhile and every time I find one with a nice bore the price runs me off. Maybe they're just too rich for my blood.

They sure aren't getting any cheaper! You'll just have to run into the right one!

[smokeywolf]

Back in the '50s, Winchesters, including Model '73s were available for a song down in Mexico. I know of a couple of people who used to go down to Mexico and load up the back of a pickup truck with Winchesters, bring them back to the U.S., clean them up and resell them.