Winchester May Reintroduce The 1873

[Wes Tancred]

Cannon,

On the first page of this thread, I expressed objections similar to yours: how can Winchester seemingly ignore what the customers for their vintage rifle models desire? There's a probably little bit of paternalistic arrogance involved: "we know what's best for you". I have the recollection that many years ago, Aldo Uberti, when asked why he changed the cylinder pin latch of the 1875 Remington revolver replica to the Colt style, said, 'This is better.'

In addition, there is more than one kind of customer for the vintage Winchester rifle models. It is clear that in the case of the 1873, Winchester were convinced that the market consisted almost entirely of "cowboy action shooters". I think they were wrong, but I lack sufficient information to determine how wrong.

In my comments just above, when I referred to finding a "problem", I meant an actual technical problem. I didn't list the various cosmetic, mechanical, or configuration differences between the original and the new 1873. Perhaps that is in order, and that topic could receive a separate thread for the purpose.

Yes, I did notice that the new 1873 sporting rifle has a light weight barrel. I can't at the moment lay my hands on my copy of Arthur Pirkle's book on the Winchester toggle-link models, but I know that Winchester offered various weight barrels for the 1873. However, I think that unlike later models, the 1873 had only standard and heavier octagonal barrels available.

I own an original 1873, made in 1881, with a standard 24-inch octagonal barrel. It is 0.940 inch across the flats at the breech, and 0.820 inch at the muzzle. The measurements for my new 1873 are 0.853 and 0.670. This barrel is far lighter than my original, and has more taper. As you say, there is a taller magazine hanger, and a noticeable gap between the barrel and magazine (whereas my original barrel has a concave relief cut along the bottom flat, in which the magazine is nestled).

The standard octagonal barrel of the original 1873 is rather heavy weight. I like a fair amount of weight up front for accurate off-hand shooting. But the 1873 is a rather heavy rifle. The new version is a little easier to carry—and some of us will carry the rifle afield.

I would absolutely prefer that the new 1873 be an exact replica of the original—perhaps even a first model—down to the charcoal, nitre, and rust blue, bone and charcoal case hardening, and shellac varnish on the stocks. Yet I still consider it an historic occasion that Winchester have finally brought their most famous and iconic rifle back to the market after almost a century. The new sporting rifle is of high quality, beautiful, very similar to an original, and lacks the atrocious rebounding hammers and safety catches of the new 1892 and 1894.

It would be very easy to install an original style barrel. Mike Hunter, an expert Winchester restorer, can make an exact replica of the original barrel, down to the correct roll stamping, from a match-grade blank. This way, you'd get rid of the Miroku stamping as well.

I'm pleased with my rifle, and have no plans to change it, save for correcting the rear barrel sight and installing a tang sight.

I agree that the stock and lever of the new pistol-grip sporting rifle are rather bad. Miroku have traditionally had difficulty understanding the aesthetics of the wood of 19th century Winchester rifles. The new 1873 was a welcome change in this respect, though the comb angle is not exactly the same as the original. Now, it appears that Miroku have taken a step backward. However—this is a preliminary photograph for the 2015 SHOT Show Special. The actual rifles may be different, and hopefully better. These rifles haven't been manufactured yet, so there is time to contact Winchester and express an opinion on the matter.

Added:

I looked again at the "review" thread you cited, and saw that I had missed your additional comments about the barrel profile. You mention that the barrel of your original 1873 is 0.750 inch across the flats at the muzzle. My original rifle's barrel measures at 0.820 inch, and looking at it next to your picture, it is clearly more massive.

Thus, either I am mistaken that my original barrel is the standard weight, and it is in fact a heavy barrel; or Winchester also offered lighter weight barrels for the 1873. Upon reflexion, I am inclined to suspect that my original second model 1873 has a heavy weight barrel, which would be consistent with the fact that it has a single set trigger. On the other hand, the Cody letter, which indicates the set trigger, calls the barrel simply "octagonal".

I need to unearth Pirkle's book!

By the way, I see that you used burlap as the background for the photograph of the barrels, as I did when photographing my rifle for the image above. I find that it makes an ideal background for this purpose.

[Cannon Jockey]

Hi Wes,

I have the Pirkle books and according to his barrel chart your 1881 barrel would match up to the standard for the 1st and 2nd model.  There is a heavier barrel for those models being 1.1 inch at the breech down to 1.0 inch at the muzzle.

However, that 1.1 to 1.0 barrel was eliminated when they phased in the 3rd model and the standard that you have became the new heavy.  That should clear up your quandary.

He mentions that his numbers are only averages and that in practice, barrels could vary as much as 1/16 of an inch.

My original was made in 1891, so it is a 3rd model and the standard barrel was 0.884 down to 0.751.  This seems to be the size that Uberti used for of their sporting rifle also.  Mine is a 38-40, but the standard was about the same as 44-40.

This last measurement was what I used to compare the Miroku

None of the 44-40 models have a barrel narrower that 0.756 at the muzzle regardless of which model or which barrel designation

I'll probably quit worrying about it, but then again I may just give Mr. Hunter a call just to get a ball park figure.  

It would make my rifle pretty unique and I can't imagine it would hurt the value.

Oh well, the rifle is still pretty as it is.

Cheers

[Pettifogger]

"I just wonder what dunderheaded "


Have to agree on that one.  I do understand the rapid taper barrel on the high grade Winchester/Miruko/Navy Arms Model with a shot gun butt as a "special sporting rifle".   You could order that and get the weight of a round barrel with a rapid taper hex.  Not thrilled on the sight set up or the barrel roll marks how ever. But once you start making "production" guns why not keep them original as possible.

The heavy curve on the lever is sad.  I won't own one.  They did the same to the '86.  Almost a '71 lever now on the pistol grip guns.  Really disappointing.

Yep, that "hex" barrel is really authentic.

[yahoody]

Yep, that "hex" barrel is really authentic.

You may not like it or the shotgun butt.  But both could have been ordered from Winchester.  All one had to do was ask.

[Pettifogger]

You may not like it or the shotgun butt.  But both could have been ordered from Winchester.  All one had to do was ask.

You missed the point.  There is no such thing as a Winchester with a HEX barrel.  They are octagon.

[yahoody]

wow, thanks for that lesson

[Cliff Fendley]

How many do you suppose were special ordered with a Hexagon barrel?

[Mean Bob Mean]

Question:  what constituted a "pencil" barrel?   How did that term come into use? 

Thanks in advance for any and all answers.

[Cannon Jockey]

Question:  what constituted a "pencil" barrel?   How did that term come into use? 

Thanks in advance for any and all answers.

I have always encountered the term "pencil barrel" used in conjunction with extremely light weight AR barrels.   Even though some pencils are hexagonal, others are still round.  Consequently, I don't think the term has anything to do with geometrics, but simply
a term to describe ultra--light weight barrels, i.e., small in diameter regardless of shape.

Of course that's just been my experience, and is no guarantee that this is totally correct.

Cheers