Uberti 1876 .50-95 in G&A.

[Wes Tancred]

In the current (January, 2010) issue of Guns & Ammo magazine, there is a very favourable review of the Uberti Winchester 1876 in .50-95. Two things were notable.

First, a very clear, large close-up photograph of the end of the barrel is shown. It discloses that the rifle tested did not have the concave machining on the lower barrel flat, into which the magazine tube nestles on original rifles, and on Uberti replicas until, apparently, now. This feature on both old and new rifles can be seen on another thread here:

http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?PHPSESSID=9cadc61e1be8cb68549a265778723594&topic=17987.20

My Uberti .50-95, purchased in May of 2008, has the concave machining. It seems that the feature has been eliminated, possibly for cost-reduction. If so, it is certainly a shame!

Second, the author tests smokeless loads with Barnes copper jacketed, soft-point bullets of both 300 and 450 grains. His maximum loads, stated to produce 26,000PSI (!), as calculated by QuickLOAD software, propel the 300-grain bullet to 2,126FPS and the 450-grain bullet to 1,582FPS. I suspect that these loads were conceived in ignorance of the toggle-link breech design; indeed, the author states at the outset that he normally shoots modern guns. I suspect that at best, these loads may batter the rifle and gradually increase head-space, and that at worst, they may be dangerous. The top velocity for the 450-grain jacketed bullet is just about the velocity of the standard black powder loading for the 300-grain lead bullet.

Whatever their prudence, the starting and maximum loads with Barnes bullets gave excellent 50-yard accuracy in the reported tests. Some made three-shot groups of an inch or a bit more.

[Grizzly Adams]

Thanks for the post, Wes. 

Odd that Uberti would eliminate the under barrel relief.   The Winchester 1876 was, at the time, Winchester's flagship, and they spared no expense in terms of detail fit and finish on that model.  All Winchesters of the were "the best", but the 1876 was the pick of the litter.  I have not see the issue yet, but it seems this omission would give the rifle a marked difference in appearance.  It also seems to me that eliminating that feature would require a slight adjustment in the frame which would negate the cost saved with the other.   I look forward to actuallly seeing the pictures you mention.

As to the loads, all I can say is I hope his luck holds!  Jacketed bullets will generally generate higher pressures, and the Barnes bullet, as I recall, has a heavier jacket than say a Remingtion 405.  The folks who write for G&A are usually pretty savey, so I wonder what data he based his load development on?  I know that the new 76s have better and stronger materials than the originals, and Uberti states that they are proofed for smokeless, but the linkage is what it is!

[Dirty Brass]

I had read that article too a couple of weeks ago. I was surprised at the load data they printed - way higher than I had ever seen before with those bullets especially. I am wondering if that relief cut was just on the 50/95 models? Niether my 45/60 or 45/75 Uberti's had such a cut for the tube, or extension on the tube cap for the slot.

[Grizzly Adams]

All of the originals and my Uberti 45-60 have the lower barrel flat machined out to allow the magazine tube to nest close.  The Uberti does not have the little tab on the end cap however.  Two types of end caps were used on the originals; one with the tab, and one without the tab, that used a screw that passed through both the walls of the magazine tube, and into a hole machined into the underside of the barrel.  The hole captured the end of the screw and thus served just as well as the one with the tab.

One big difference between the original without the tab, and the Ubert,i is that Uberti uses a threaded cap and no retaining screw.

[Dirty Brass]

My Uberti's do have (or did have, until I shortened them) the lower flat side of the bbl milled out. Since the retaining ring holds the tube at a set distance underneath the bbl, I saw no reason to remill the channel. It is interesting how they repro's evolved with minor changes - all, I'm sure, to reduce production costs and steps. Thanks for the info Grizzly.

[Wes Tancred]

I had the thought that perhaps Uberti had elected to taper the barrels more, in order to reduce weight. But comparing the G&A photograph very closely to my rifle, I can not see any difference in width at the muzzle.

Yet it is absolutely clear that the rifle tested for the article lacks the concave relief cut along the bottom flat of the barrel. This would seem to indicate that the receiver opening for the magazine tube has also been shifted slightly downward. Of course the rifle does not need the special close fitment of magazine to barrel; as Grizzly mentioned above, Winchester considered the 1876 a premium rifle, in an environment of already extremely high standards, so the nested magazine placement was a refinement intended to subtly streamline a large, imposing rifle.

If this turns out to be a permanent change, perhaps a letter-writing campaign would be in order.

As for the heavy smokeless loads; I think that a retraction of at least the 26,000PSI loads is in order at G&A.

[ndnchf]

Ya'll made me curious, so I just checked.  I picked up my Uberti .50-95 directly from Taylors & Co. in November 2008, it does have the concave machined in the bottom of the barrel.

Where do magazines get these self-annointed experts from?  What happened to guys like Elmer Keith, Mike Venturino, Rick Hacker and Phil Spangenberger who actually had experience with these old guns and knew what they were talking about?  Articles like that are going to get someone hurt or worse 

[Wes Tancred]

I purchased my Uberti 1876 .50-95 in May of 2008. It was imported by Cimarron.

Another difference I noticed in the Guns & Ammo pictures is that the rear top of the barrel is no longer stamped—

1776 Centennial 1876

—and that area of the barrel is now marked Cal 50-95, which on my rifle is located on the next lower flat to the left. I use the term "marked" here because the calibre designation is not stamped-recessed, but rather raised, by some sort of fine micro-dot welding. The serial number, catalogue number, and "A. Uberti – Italy" markings on my rifle are also of this kind.

The Cimarron and Henry's Patent text is stamped on the barrel forward of the rear sight, and the ornate Model 1876 designation is properly stamped on the upper tang.

I suspect that the welded markings will be less durable over time.

The pictures in the Guns & Ammo article did not show the underside of the cartridge elevator. I wonder if Uberti are still engraving those with the calibre in script?

Since the article did not refer to a particular importer, it is likely that the test rifle was obtained from Uberti (Stoeger). It is known that Cimarron and Taylor's request special markings, and this could be the reason for the differences. But could the change to the fitment of magazine to barrel also be related to the matter of importers?

Mr Venturino now writes for Guns Magazine and its sister publications. Alas, his interest appears to have shifted to the firearms of WWII........

[Hobie]

I bought the magazine just for this article and have some thoughts on the subject.  I am concerned about the REAL pressures  created by these loads.  This concern is exacerbated by inconsistencies in Mr. Kempa's narrative. 

[Grizzly Adams]

I bought the magazine just for this article and have some thoughts on the subject.  I am concerned about the REAL pressures  created by these loads.  This concern is exacerbated by inconsistencies in Mr. Kempa's narrative. 

+1.  Thanks for the post, Hobie.

[Hobie]

+1.  Thanks for the post, Hobie.

Does anyone here know Mr. Kempa? 

[larryo_1]

Hobie:
I have that article and have reread it since I read all your notes and the notes of others on this article.  I only have a 45-75 so cannot say anything about the 50-95 per se HOWEVER that fellow was shooting some really hot lead loads or soft lead or both to get that sort of a lead ring around that muzzle.  I have never had any leading in my rifle either in the bore or at the muzzle.  I use both 20:1 and 16:1 alloys.  However my fps's don't go over 1460 either. That is with Swiss 1½ by the way.  So I have to seriously question his credibility and that of G&A for publishing that article without checking things out as somewhere out there in the "Great Unwashed" someone is going to use those loads to their disadvantage.  I do have a nice load though with the 350 grain jacketed Horandy over 3031.  It is accurate, pleasant and fps is in that 1400 range.  I tested it, tried it and it works so loaded up a box and put it away for when I feel like using it and in the meantime am using my Hoch bullets on top of BP.  Just had to get my 20 cents worth in.

[rustyrelx]

On the plus sideof not having the cut under the barrel, it makes for a better half round transition. The taper would be followed better and not so big a step at the juncture of octagon to round. I'd sure like to find one in 45-75 on a Chappy.. Don

[50-95Win]

Uberti has posted the January 2010 Guns and Ammo 1876 Centennial article on their website. ( http://www.uberti.com/reviews/index.php  - Top Right PDF file. ) It is the entire article with Load Data. Since they do not have any disclaimers or load data omissions, it looks like they approve of Ken Kempa's  26K PSI Maximum for their currently manufactured 1876 rifles.

[ndnchf]

.... Since they do not have any disclaimers or load data omissions, it looks like they approve of Ken Kempa's  26K PSI Maximum for their currently manufactured 1876 rifles.

I would not assume that silence equates to approval.  If you really want to know if Uberti approves of these loads, send customer service an e-mail.  That way you can get a definative answer.  At least your lawyer will have a leg to stand on in court 

[kwilliams1876]

I WOULD NOT TRUST ANY ARTICLE OF THIS NATURE.  I DONT KNOW THE AUTHORS CREDINTIALS EITHER.  THEN ONE HAS TO ASK WHY EVEN BOTHER WITH THE SMOKELESS APPROACH.  WHAT DO YOU TRULY GAIN, SURELY NOT ACCURACY.  I BELIEVE THE REAL REASON IS PROMOTING JACKETED BULLETS AND THE "EASE" OF CLEANING OVER BLACKPOWDER, AND THEN THERE IS SELLING A MAGAZINE ARTICLE.  IS IT REALLY THAT HARD FOR 21ST CENTURY SHOOTERS TO CAST BULLETS AND FIGURE OUT BLACKPOWDER?   THROW A NOVICE RELOADER INTO THE MIX AND YOU HAVE A POTENTIAL LAWYERS GOLDMINE.

[larryo_1]

I stand by what I wrote about this earlier in December.  He may go on for a long time and then there is that ONE TIME when BOOOM!

[Martini450]

I would not assume that silence equates to approval.  If you really want to know if Uberti approves of these loads, send customer service an e-mail.  That way you can get a definative answer.  At least your lawyer will have a leg to stand on in court 

I agree.  From the Uberti website:

"ANY UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR MODIFICATION OF THE FIREARM WILL VOID THIS WARRANTY. UBERTI SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CLAIMS INVOLVING THIS FIREARM THAT RESULT FROM THE USE OF FAULTY, NON-STANDARD, REMANUFACTURED, OR RELOADED AMMUNITION."

I think by posting the G&A article, Uberti was just taking advantage of a little free advertising, just like Oliver Winchester and Samuel Colt did in the old days.  I don't think the purpose was to give manufacturer's approval to the loads listed.

[Hobie]

Some folks CAN'T acquire BP but can get smokeless and that is reason enough to explore the loading of smokeless ESPECIALLY in reproductions.

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. 

[Grizzly Adams]

Some folks CAN'T acquire BP but can get smokeless and that is reason enough to explore the loading of smokeless ESPECIALLY in reproductions.

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. 

You know a lot!   The reproductions have already moved us far beyond where we were in terms of loading for the original 1876, and I suspect we have a few more surprises on the way.  In terms of the reproductions, and smokeless load development, everyone is on new and unfamiliar ground.  I suspect that powder companies are busy trying to put together data for the 76 caliber family - too many rifles in circulation now to ignore them.