73' QUIZE ! TIME

[Slamfire]

 A friend brought over a original 1873 rifle w 24" oct. barrel, to show me he has had in his safe for 20+ years.  But it has no Winchester writing on the barrel,, it is stamped 44-40 , in very small #'s at the receiver ,, the serial on the bottom tang # 234xxxB shows to be a 1887 mfg. I said the barrel has been changed out ,, receiver and all other parts ,, toggle links,, bolt ,, FP ,, the  appear to be orig. except the retractor ,,it looks hand made. Then looking at the magazine tube at the end of the barrel ,, there is a grove cut in the barrel where the mag. end cap should twist into So what year did Winchester barrels have the mag. end cap's twist into the shallow grove ?? I had him leave so I could clean it up ( it was not clean when he got it ,, nor when he put it up ) it is a nice piece.

  coffee's ready ,, Hootmix.

[Coffinmaker]

   Oh WOW!!  An easy one!!  I'm Clueless.

[Slamfire]

 Mr. Coffin,, as always a pleasure ,, totally enjoy your wit. Upon a more though exam-a-nation ,,it appears the rifle originally was a 38-40 ( a almost  invisible 38 cal. marking on the bottom of the lifter w/ a 44 stamped over the 38 ). The mag. tube is 3/16 +-" short of the end of the barrel, exposing the said slot, I believe the forearm is orig. but the buttstock ( really- really nice ) is not, it does have a curved rifle butt plate ,, but no hole for cleaning rods,, makes me think the buttstock came from either a 32 cal. or a 22 ." rifles . Cocking the hammer back takes 4 times the effort of a brand new Rossi 92 ( no offence meant ) ,, the detent screw for the hammer spring " is not" applying any pressure on the spring, the barrel as described by most gun brokers " strong rifling w/ lite pitting through out " I'm sure this is, was,, a used barrel when installed ( he's had it 20 yrs. ). NO ! the rifle " is not for sale " ( quote from owner ) " It shoots good and hits where I aim ",, nuff said. But,, it is as clean as it can be ( took it all the way down - stripped ) ,, no charge,, was glad to work on it ( my very first time for a original 73 ).

  typ'n dry's me out coffee's ready Hootmix.

[dusty texian]

A friend brought over a original 1873 rifle w 24" oct. barrel, to show me he has had in his safe for 20+ years.  But it has no Winchester writing on the barrel,, it is stamped 44-40 , in very small #'s at the receiver ,, the serial on the bottom tang # 234xxxB shows to be a 1887 mfg. I said the barrel has been changed out ,, receiver and all other parts ,, toggle links,, bolt ,, FP ,, the  appear to be orig. except the retractor ,,it looks hand made. Then looking at the magazine tube at the end of the barrel ,, there is a grove cut in the barrel where the mag. end cap should twist into So what year did Winchester barrels have the mag. end cap's twist into the shallow grove ?? I had him leave so I could clean it up ( it was not clean when he got it ,, nor when he put it up ) it is a nice piece.

  coffee's ready ,, Hootmix.

If I  read it right , Pirkle says the type end cap you describe started at about #155,000 about yr. 1884 .Before that the end cap screwed into the magazine tube  .  Don't take my word for it  , just what I read . ,,,,DT

[Slamfire]

 Yes Sir,, I based everything I wrote on Mr. Pirkle's book and Midas's book ,, hey o'l son glad to hear from y'a.


coffee's ready ,, Hootmix.

[dusty texian]

Glad to hear from you too Ol Pard . Soon as the bug passes through we will be banging away with the old gun's again . ,,DT

[Cliff Fendley]

If I'm understanding right what you mean, Mr. Pirkle doesn't mention that style in the book at all for the 1873 models that I can find unless I overlooked it and I looked hard just while ago. I have 1st 2nd and 3rd models of various years and none of them have the end cap with a little groove machined in the bottom of the barrel. That said none of my original 73s with a full length magazine are as new as you are mentioning on the serial number.

Now my 76 DOES have the groove in the bottom of the barrel that the end cap slides into. 

[dusty texian]

If I'm understanding right what you mean, Mr. Pirkle doesn't mention that style in the book at all for the 1873 models that I can find unless I overlooked it and I looked hard just while ago. I have 1st 2nd and 3rd models of various years and none of them have the end cap with a little groove machined in the bottom of the barrel. That said none of my original 73s with a full length magazine are as new as you are mentioning on the serial number.

Now my 76 DOES have the groove in the bottom of the barrel that the end cap slides into.

Cliff you are right , I re-read the  Pirkle description again  and see I interpreted it wrong . In the Winchester book Madis     Page 161 he describes a magazine plug that 1873 Winchester .32 Cal. have that has a projection which fits into the bottom of the barrel for rigidity . No picture of that type in the said book that I have found so not sure if that is what 's being described ( the lip ) . Looking at Homestead Firearms Parts 1873 list of Magazine plugs , I found Re-pop caps with the (rotating lip ), if that's what its called . They also list an original with lip for sale ( no picture)  . Don't know if those parts are a mistake , but they are there  . Myself I have four 3rd . Model Winchester 1873's and they all have the Magazine plug you describe on your rifles . No projecting lip. All this may be wrong  ,I am no 1873 Winchester expert , Don't take my word for it . I just read it in a book and a parts list . ,,,Good Friday ,,,DT   Found this on Homestead page Part # wp716 say's original for 1873 Winchester . ,,,DT

[Slamfire]

 OH man,, I love a mystery,, Pirkle's book , read pg's. 107-110 , maybe I'm misunderstanding what i'm reading. Also,, the stock does not have a hole ( milled ) for the cleaning rods " all stocks rifle or carbine were milled for the trap door, but were not used for the .32 cal. or .22 cal. as the cleaning rods were to big to fit the bore " the stock on this rifle does not have a " hole " milled under the " rifle " butt plate , and no stamped numbers, leaving me to believe this stock was ( is ) very nicely hand made.

The barrel has " NO " lettering or wording ,, just 44-40 stamped next to the receiver ,, the bottom of the ( oct. ) barrel is milled to fit the mag. tube . The toggle links have no letters or numbers ,, there is a " star " stamped on the bolt and " one " toggle link ?? This rifle is a " mystery " of parts,, . I will try to visit w/ my friends dad, who gave him the rifle years ago.

All this typ'n makes me dry ,, coffee's ready ,, Hootmix.

[Cliff Fendley]

                    Cliff you are right , I re-read the  Pirkle description again  and see I interpreted it wrong . In the Winchester book Madis     Page 161 he describes a magazine plug that 1873 Winchester .32 Cal. have that has a projection which fits into the bottom of the barrel for rigidity . No picture of that type in the said book that I have found so not sure if that is what 's being described ( the lip ) . Looking at Homestead Firearms Parts 1873 list of Magazine plugs , I found Re-pop caps with the (rotating lip ), if that's what its called . They also list an original with lip for sale ( no picture)  . Don't know if those parts are a mistake , but they are there  . Myself I have four 3rd . Model Winchester 1873's and they all have the Magazine plug you describe on your rifles . No projecting lip. All this may be wrong  ,I am no 1873 Winchester expert , Don't take my word for it . I just read it in a book and a parts list . ,,,Good Friday ,,,DT   Found this on Homestead page Part # wp716 say's original for 1873 Winchester . ,,,DT

Dusty, I'm no expert either just can observe the ones I have or remember having and trust what the books say. Honestly I never thought about the lip sliding into the groove in the barrel until this discussion came up even though I remembered my 76 being like that. Do your 76 rifles have that type cap? Mine is a standard 28 inch 45-75 rifle. I don't have an original 73 in 32 caliber but a friend of mine does or did have at his gun shop so I'll be sure to check it out if he still has it.

[Cliff Fendley]

OH man,, I love a mystery,, Pirkle's book , read pg's. 107-110 , maybe I'm misunderstanding what i'm reading. Also,, the stock does not have a hole ( milled ) for the cleaning rods " all stocks rifle or carbine were milled for the trap door, but were not used for the .32 cal. or .22 cal. as the cleaning rods were to big to fit the bore " the stock on this rifle does not have a " hole " milled under the " rifle " butt plate , and no stamped numbers, leaving me to believe this stock was ( is ) very nicely hand made.

The barrel has " NO " lettering or wording ,, just 44-40 stamped next to the receiver ,, the bottom of the ( oct. ) barrel is milled to fit the mag. tube . The toggle links have no letters or numbers ,, there is a " star " stamped on the bolt and " one " toggle link ?? This rifle is a " mystery " of parts,, . I will try to visit w/ my friends dad, who gave him the rifle years ago.

All this typ'n makes me dry ,, coffee's ready ,, Hootmix.

Yeah it's sounding like you got a Heinz 57 on your hands but hey if it's a solid rifle who cares. If it turns out that the 32 calibers had the groove in the bottom of the barrel for the cap and it doesn't have the cleaning rod do you think it might have been a 32 that was rebored or rebarreled to 44? Might explain the machining to fit a large diameter magazine although I'm still not certain how they would have kept the cap unless that is the same diameter for the small and large calibers. Unlike Uberti I was thinking the originals have a different diameter magazine for the large and small calibers.

[Slamfire]

 Cliff, there is a very faint 38 cal. stamp under the 44's stamped on the bottom of the lifter,, so me thinks it use to be a 38-40 ,, at least the receiver and bottom tang and the mag. tube. Told the feller he could send $ 75.00 to Cody @ Wyo.,, they could give him some info.

coffee's ready ,, Hootmix.

[dusty texian]

Dusty, I'm no expert either just can observe the ones I have or remember having and trust what the books say. Honestly I never thought about the lip sliding into the groove in the barrel until this discussion came up even though I remembered my 76 being like that. Do your 76 rifles have that type cap? Mine is a standard 28 inch 45-75 rifle. I don't have an original 73 in 32 caliber but a friend of mine does or did have at his gun shop so I'll be sure to check it out if he still has it.

Like you Cliff , never gave it  (the 73 plug) much thought until now  . Yes all of the 1876 Winchesters I have ran across had the slot for the plug to twist into cut under the barrel . More recoil I guess + the 1876 is the end result of evolution of the toggle link Winchesters . PS ,  I did see a 1873 Mag. plug for sale on E-Bay said it was for the .32 Cal . it has the lip . Seem's to me the .32 Cal. would need this less than the  38-40 and 44-40 . ,,,DT

[Cliff Fendley]

Cliff, there is a very faint 38 cal. stamp under the 44's stamped on the bottom of the lifter,, so me thinks it use to be a 38-40 ,, at least the receiver and bottom tang and the mag. tube. Told the feller he could send $ 75.00 to Cody @ Wyo.,, they could give him some info.

coffee's ready ,, Hootmix.

If it was changed from 32 they would have needed to change the lifter and bolt so those could have been donor parts from something else. I have 38 rifles and they don't have the groove in the barrel for the mag plug and do have the trap door for cleaning rods. It more sounds like a 32 that was rechambered. A letter would be very interesting indeed.

[JustinGr]

The book does discuss the plug with the tab, least my Kindle version does. The 32 I have is a 449xxx SN and has this plug with the tab into the barrel, just like my 1876. But not all 76 have this groove. The 1/2 magazines , some did, and some did not. The ones without were captured by the forearm cap.

Also, the 1876 was not an evolution of the 73, the 73 came from the 76 concept, but the ammunition had not caught up yet, so the 73 came out to use the smaller rounds. Herbert Houze discusses  this and shows the Winchester drawings and prototype drawings and communications at Winchester to support the positioning.

Anyway, the plug you describe was also used on the 38 and 44. If you pull the forearm, see if any marks exist under the barrel, if none, my guess is a aftermarket rebarrel.

The groove under the barrel is odd, I've only seen that on the full length 76 octagon barrels. The magazine tube was sufficient space under the smaller 73 rounds.

And Pirkles book is not free of errors, but this affliction is not uncommon to most authors.

[JustinGr]

Plus, the 32 has a different receiver. So look for the notch and that should  tell you if it is a 32 that was upgraded.

[dusty texian]

The book does discuss the plug with the tab, least my Kindle version does. The 32 I have is a 449xxx SN and has this plug with the tab into the barrel, just like my 1876. But not all 76 have this groove. The 1/2 magazines , some did, and some did not. The ones without were captured by the forearm cap.

Also, the 1876 was not an evolution of the 73, the 73 came from the 76 concept, but the ammunition had not caught up yet, so the 73 came out to use the smaller rounds. Herbert Houze discusses  this and shows the Winchester drawings and prototype drawings and communications at Winchester to support the positioning.

Anyway, the plug you describe was also used on the 38 and 44. If you pull the forearm, see if any marks exist under the barrel, if none, my guess is a aftermarket rebarrel

The groove under the barrel is odd, I've only seen that on the full length 76 octagon barrels. The magazine tube was sufficient space under the smaller 73 rounds.

And Pirkles book is not free of errors, but this affliction is not uncommon to most authors.

All points taken Justin  I too have read Herbert's book about the Centennial Rifle a very good book .  I presume you are addressing me with your comment that the M1876 Winchester was  not an evolution of the M1873 ,     That is not what I said . I said( the 1876 Winchester was the end result of the toggle link Winchesters ) I never said the M1873 specifically ,  as you say the 1873 came from the 76 concept , Kind of confusing there isn't it  . My  meaning was  back to the 1866 Winchester and beyond to the Volcanic design  . On the other point you made about Mr. Arthur Pirkle being incorrect ( about what ? ). If you could for us with less knowledge in this matter , please  point out the specific incorrect information  that you say is in  Mr. Arthur Pirkle's book , so we can mark the pages and fact check his  supposed mistakes . I often hear remarks that this or that is incorrect in book's with No Proof or specifics . I thank you for your opinion and hope you can clear this Bad information up . ,,,DT  PS I look forward to your response ,,,DT

[JustinGr]

Thanks for the clarity on the statement.

As for Pirkles book. When I had a new barrel made for my 76, I know from the Cody letter it had a 1/2 magazine. I listed as a needed feature of the new barrel the small groove for the magazine cap just beyond the forearm cap. I was told that is incorrect, that they were button magazines and captured by the forearm. I pointed out that this is not what Pirkle stated. I then called Mike Hunter who was doing other work on the 1876 50-95, and he confirmed the error in the book. I called another well known author and restoration guru Mike suggested and he pointed out the same error. No notch was to be made. That maybe on a rare 5 round magazine, which would require the magazine to extend beyond the forearm cap would a notch be made. The full magazine had the notch, but not button.

The sights he mentions are not that accurate. They do exist, but he did not account for the express semi-buckhorn, and other variations.

On my copy, some of his screw references are incorrect, thread and size.

But these are to be expected I think. Even Houze, who had unprecedented access to Winchester records is missing data. My rifle and one I know of are not mentioned in his book on factory modified 50-95's. My Cody letter states it was changed, and the other I know of states it was changed, but Houze did not record them in his otherwise detailed accounts in his numbers. His age for 50-95 ammunition differed from the Shulyer accounting and research.

These are great books, but like all, give us a basis to go from, but are not definitive or gospel. Not that people take them as such, but just because the book does not mention it, just means it may not have crossed that authors path. Since these rifles were subject to special orders, anything is possible.

I think I saw a 44-40 1873 sold at a major auction house. It was in a 32/38 style receiver. Don't recall the facts with clarity, but something to the effect it was factory made this way.

The NRA tweeted a picture of a left hand load, 1876 with late SN, but early 1876 run parts, attributed to General Sheridan. It was a customized and oddity of parts, purportedly made just for the General for his Buffalo hunts. But Houze does not seem to mention such a gun. He devotes a bit of ink to a special order by Custer  for a friend. Why? Did it escape his research? Don't know. Point is, I've learned that the two books are good, but not definitive. That's all I'm saying. If the book is silent on it, keep looking for another source, if it has data in your subject, trust by verify.

It's not a rebuke of any of these fine authors. I wish I knew  20% of what these learned individuals understood. Just my insight.

I also think versions have important changes. Maybe that's why my Kindle version has some data the prints don't have.

Just my view. Again, not a rebuke of the books, just that they are not free of errors.

[Cliff Fendley]

Plus, the 32 has a different receiver. So look for the notch and that should  tell you if it is a 32 that was upgraded.

What notch, are you referring to where the 38 and 32 receivers step down on the top by the barrel whereas the 44s are flat? If so that is a good point, it would at least tell if it was always a 44 receiver.

[JustinGr]

Yes, the step.