Uberti 1876 .50-95 in G&A.

[Hobie]

I had an industry insider tell me that he was going to personally pursue .45-75 data with all the whiz-bang gadgets but that has yet to be done so far as I know.  What we do see when one of these guns undergoes catastrophic failure, and I think we only have ORIGINALs as examples of this, is that the link action is NOT the weakest "link".  I don't think the famous "Shrapnel" gun "let go" there.  Still, if you want a .50-110, .50 Alaskan, .50-90 or other such you should look elsewhere.  I think the interest in these guns should be historical as in a degree of living history.  That said...

There is a need for smokeless data for a number of reasons among which is that we can know what pressures are generated with these cartridges.  Guessing isn't the best way to be approaching such problems. 

[Grizzly Adams]

+1

Here's the link to the thread with the "Sharpnel" rifle. 

http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=33035.0

Note that the failure is in the breach.  The action held!  All the blow ups I have seen pics of are the same, and that with Winchester 1886 and Marlin 95s to boot.

Here's a Marlin 95 that "let go" at End Of Trail this year.  http://sassnet.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=150953

Be careful out there, guys.

[Rafe Covington]

Picked up 3 rifles from Taylors today, 2 1876 rifles and 1 1873. Both 1876 rifles have the bottom of the barrel concaved out for the magazine tube. Not an expert but it sure makes the rifle look better to me.

buffalohunter

[Cimarron]

I had an industry insider tell me that he was going to personally pursue .45-75 data with all the whiz-bang gadgets but that has yet to be done so far as I know.  What we do see when one of these guns undergoes catastrophic failure, and I think we only have ORIGINALs as examples of this, is that the link action is NOT the weakest "link".  I don't think the famous "Shrapnel" gun "let go" there.  Still, if you want a .50-110, .50 Alaskan, .50-90 or other such you should look elsewhere.  I think the interest in these guns should be historical as in a degree of living history.  That said...

There is a need for smokeless data for a number of reasons among which is that we can know what pressures are generated with these cartridges.  Guessing isn't the best way to be approaching such problems. 

Hobie, in regard to your "industry insider", is there any more information to be had?  I know those of us who have these rifles tend to think that they are the center of the universe but when can we expect some verifiable data.  I for one would like to know what the factory maximum chamber pressure is for the Uberti as well as the Chaparral.  I have read everything from 18,000 cup to 28,000 cup.  I have been experimenting with smokless powders, IMR Trail Boss and IMR 4198 as well as AA5744.  I have stayed on the conservative side and have had good results with the 4198 and the 5744 but would still like to know when the published chamber pressure data will start to show up.  A recent email to Lyman was dissapointing in that I was told that they don't intend to ever do pressure testing with the 1876 calibers.  I have been away from shooting for some time and this rifle/cartridge combination (.45-75) has recharged my interest in shooting again.  I've even started shooting my Shiloh, rolling block and trapdoor again!     

[Hobie]

Hobie, in regard to your "industry insider", is there any more information to be had?  I know those of us who have these rifles tend to think that they are the center of the universe but when can we expect some verifiable data.  I for one would like to know what the factory maximum chamber pressure is for the Uberti as well as the Chaparral.  I have read everything from 18,000 cup to 28,000 cup.  I have been experimenting with smokless powders, IMR Trail Boss and IMR 4198 as well as AA5744.  I have stayed on the conservative side and have had good results with the 4198 and the 5744 but would still like to know when the published chamber pressure data will start to show up.  A recent email to Lyman was dissapointing in that I was told that they don't intend to ever do pressure testing with the 1876 calibers.  I have been away from shooting for some time and this rifle/cartridge combination (.45-75) has recharged my interest in shooting again.  I've even started shooting my Shiloh, rolling block and trapdoor again!     

I'll probably end up repeating myself.  I am NOT at liberty to make the person's name (or company) known.  I would also like actual test data. 

It is my opinion that the 1876 is the equal of the Trapdoor in handling pressure.  That said, SAAMI standard for the .45-70 is 28K PSI/CUP (same in this one cartridge) but the industry loads to about 18K PSI.  Since long ago tests showed that the bottle-necked cartridges produce about 2K PSI more than the otherwise same straight case we have THE reason and explanation the ORIGINAL developers of the 1876 and .45-75 WCF reduced bullet weight.  BUT, we now have one company making a .44 Rem mag on the basic toggle-link action.  What does this tell us?  Not much.

There are smokeless powders with which we have long-term experience in use as replacements (not substitutes) for smokeless.  IMR & H 4198, AA5744, IMR SR4759, and IMR 3031.  We also know that Winchester produced smokeless powder loads for most every BP cartridge EXCEPT the .45-75.  However, Winchester's experience would seem to support the idea that such loads can be safe while providing identical external and terminal ballistic performance.  This is important because at any time any one of us may find ourselves unable to acquire BP for any number of reasons.  Railing against the use of other than BP is useless.  Those who have the rifles will be trying to shoot them.  Better to have safe data available than not.  I think you agree with that.

The oft repeated rule on use of IMR 4198 seems to be valid. Old tests in other cartridges consistently show that the pressure curve as well as the spike using charges based on this formula are not as severe as with BP.  I intend to experiment with that, finally, but I sure wish my "insider" could confirm the data! 

Lyman isn't what it used to be, is it?  The passing of these old firms is sad indeed. 

[Slo' Poke Pete]

Haven't been here in a while but when I noticed this thread I had to pull my Cimarron/Ubertil '76 in .45-60 out of the safe and look it over.  It has the concave barrel but not the tab or the screw in the mag cap.  It does have the "1876 Centennial 1876" on the top of the barrel behind the rear sight, the upper tang is engraved "Model 1876", and it does have the caliber engraved on the bottom of the eleveator.  I have no idea when the rifle was manufactured, I bought it slightly used about a year ago, the ser # is CN05xx.  (if anyone can tell when it was made I'd be curious)  I haven't got to shoot but about 50 rounds thru this rifle, using a less than max load of IMR 4198 from the Lyman #49, but it has functioned wonderfully and is more accurate than I am from 50yds.  I may ease it on up to the max load shown in the same manual but wouldn't even think about exceeding it.

I'm grateful that Lyman posted some loads for the '76 repo's in their #49 manual, I wonder why they didn't add any for the .50-95?  I have no intention of ever loading BP rounds for this gun.  Unlike some shooters of these guns, I didn't buy it for a cannon but for a shootable piece of American history, I've got both a modern '86 and '95 if I need to step up with something stronger.  The loads I use in my Beretta/Uberti '73 copy in .357 mag are just .38spl+p loads in .357 mag cases, if I need to shoot full house mags I've got a B92 in the same caliber than'll handle them with ease.

That said, if a .44 Magnum 1873 repro is being produced, I'm thinking the author is thinking the 1876 will handle these pressures just fine.  I think that's a leap of faith but what do I know. 

BUT, we now have one company making a .44 Rem mag on the basic toggle-link action.  What does this tell us?  Not much.

I too had read this on another forum and my initial thoughts were now someone is going to try to push all the '73 and '76 actions to .44 mag pressure levels.  It was stated on the other forum that the company said these receivers were heat treated differently than other calibers and the question was asked why not add this "better" heat treatment to all those models.  Although no firearms manufacture endorses the practice of or use of self or reloaded ammo they all certainly know that it happens, and probably more frequently than not with these older cartridges simply because of the availability and cost of factory ammo.  I think that making this gun is irresponsible on the part of the company due to the line of thinking that Hobie has presented here.   But I've have loved a '73 chambered in .44 special. 

[evodude]

It was good to see that theres some jacketed bullets for this beomoth ! Theyre .510, and I think my Chappie .50-95 takes a .513 bullet, so there wont be a tight sqeeze for a great pressure spike anyways. Im going to try some soon as I can find some with AA5744. Their posted accuracy at 50 yds is what caught my attention. I know my 340 grnrs. work quite well for plastering elk to the ground, but a jacketed softpoint? That would make for a pretty line side by side on my gunbelt! (thank God for suspenders!)  Ill cronograph and post after I get this 'new' project underway.

[Shooter McCoy]

I would like to see more smokeless-powder data for the .50-95 WCF in the 1876, too, specifically for the 300 grainers.  For now, looks like I'll try IMR 4198 and AA 5744.

Shooter McCoy

[rifle]

There's an article in "Guns" magazine about the 50-95 which states that blackpowder velosities with smokeless powder is unsafe even in the modern made replicas of the toggle link action.
Blackpowder velosities having fairly low pressures makes me wonder about why the author stated that especially knowing Uberti warrants the rifles for factory ammo only.
Knowing the only way to load 95 gr. black in a modern 50-95 case would require plenty of compression and compression raising pressures I'd refrain from anything over 75.5 gr. which needs no compression.
Knowing muzzle-loaders in 50 cal. (traditional sidelocks factory or custom made) I'd say a safe load for a toggle-link action would be 75-80 gr. FFg with a 395 gr. bullet with pressures barely over 8,000PSI.
One nice thing to know would be the SAMMI specs max for the 50-95 with smokeless powder to see how that compares to the muzzle-loader pressures.
The fifty cal. in muzzle-loader with bullets less than 400gr. goes up over 26,00psi and under 27,000psi. That with way more powder than could be got in a 50-95 brass case. Food fer thunkin.
One would have to wonder what is stronger. The breech plugged muzzle-loader or the toggle-linked action of the 1876. Just food fer thunkin.
Anywhooooo......if Uberti the manufacturer warrants the rifles for factory loaded ammo I'd not be afraid to use it or the equal of it in hand loads/reloads. I'd stick with what the "Cowboy" loads are with their pressures hoping to be able to find the pressure data for them. Of course knowing how the blackpowder works I'd predominately use the black powder and put up with the fouling and cleaning while shooting. Most likely every couple shots the barrel woul need a damp patch run down the bore and that would mean something laid in the carrier to catch the fouling. I'd be pondering the use of a custom bullet at around 400gr. weight with a Big Lube Bullet type lube groove in it to see if many more shots could be fired without cleaning and also use straight SPG Lube if my own home brew lube didn't do the trick. I'd imagine it would if I kept the lube soft enough....the softer the lube the better it works. Weather and temp being a determining factor on how soft the lube could be.
If a good bullet with enough lube on it and a good lube could keep the gun firing all day then.....the fad of the smokeless wouldn't need to be considered. Get a 50 cal bullet with a wide flat to the front of the bullet going around 1,400 to 1,500 FPS it would knock down big game at relatively close distance.