New 1886 - new question

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:47 pm

Ok, so now I have this nice parkerized/matte blue 24" 1886 full octagon TD.

But it is lawyered up, has the rebounding hammer, and no peep.

Should I de-lawyer it, fix the hammer and put a tang sight over the lawyer hole?

This isn't a Hi-Grade or anything...

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:48 pm

Send it to Hunter Restorations. I think he did one for another forumite.

Lastmohecken · Post by **Lastmohecken** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:15 pm

If I had no choice but to purchase a lawyered up 1886, vs. finding an older Browning, like I have now, and I knew someone who could do a good job of welding up the tang safety slot, reblue, and loose the rebounding hammer, the answer to your question is, absolutely yes, I would do it in a New York minute.

I did own a Winchester 1886 Extra Lightweight with the lawyered up rebounding hammer, top tang safety, etc. for a couple of years. It eventually developed the bad habit of misfiring, which I later confirmed was related to the rebounding hammer. Of course if one in ten of those guns develope that problem, there is about a 100% chance that I will end up with that one gun out of ten. It was an accurate gun, but I traded it off, instead of fixing it, I didn't relize at the time that people were doing these mods to these guns, or I might have kept it.

Lastmohecken · Post by **Lastmohecken** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:19 pm

The bad thing about all of the decent gunsmiths in my area, is they are all too scared to modify a safety system on any gun, for fear of being sued in case of an accident. I think a lot of the guys are doing the work theirselves, because of this.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:21 pm

I was thinking about going with a tang sight rather than D&T for a reciever just to cover the lawyer hole... so it could be "re-lawyered" if necessary/to maintain value.

Zat a not good idea?

Leverluver · Post by **Leverluver** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:01 pm

If I was in the gunsmith trade, I would certainly have concerns about modifying (read eliminating) an existing factory installed safety device. I have modified some on mine but I do have replacement parts to return it to factory condition, in case I ever decide to sell. Just buy a second main spring and a forked strut and you will cover most of the bases. Cut the rebound fork off the strut and that will eliminate the rebound. When you do, the main spring will be way too strong as it came from the factory to not only fire the primer but to also overcome the rebound feature. Once the rebound is removed, the main spring can be lightened to simulate the strength of the originals. Reducing the main spring tension will have a secondary plus of reducing the lever force as that also has to overcome the hammer cocking force. Reducing all these forces also reduces the wear and tear on the action itself as the high spring forces make the parts wear against each other to a greater degree. So just the modification of two small and inexpensive parts can bring great rewards. Note, the ones I have modified do not have a notch in the hammer for a half cock. If that bothers you, you will have to cut one into the hammer. I doubt that would keep you from returning it too factory standard but you might want to get a hammer also, if returning to 100% factory is what you may want to do in the future. I also like your idea of using a tang sight. Covers the eyesore but can be returned to factory.

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:02 pm

It wasn't D&Td for a receiver sight? wow.

Grizzly Adams · Post by **Grizzly Adams** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:28 pm

I would leave it be.

Lastmohecken · Post by **Lastmohecken** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:57 pm

Tycer wrote:It wasn't D&Td for a receiver sight? wow.

My Browning High Grade SRC was not drilled and tapped for a receiver sight, but my Winchester 86EL was. I thought all of the 86 Winchesters of late were, but I might be wrong.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:58 pm

Leverluver wrote:If I was in the gunsmith trade, I would certainly have concerns about modifying (read eliminating) an existing factory installed safety device. I have modified some on mine but I do have replacement parts to return it to factory condition, in case I ever decide to sell. Just buy a second main spring and a forked strut and you will cover most of the bases. Cut the rebound fork off the strut and that will eliminate the rebound. When you do, the main spring will be way too strong as it came from the factory to not only fire the primer but to also overcome the rebound feature. Once the rebound is removed, the main spring can be lightened to simulate the strength of the originals. Reducing the main spring tension will have a secondary plus of reducing the lever force as that also has to overcome the hammer cocking force. Reducing all these forces also reduces the wear and tear on the action itself as the high spring forces make the parts wear against each other to a greater degree. So just the modification of two small and inexpensive parts can bring great rewards. Note, the ones I have modified do not have a notch in the hammer for a half cock. If that bothers you, you will have to cut one into the hammer. I doubt that would keep you from returning it too factory standard but you might want to get a hammer also, if returning to 100% factory is what you may want to do in the future. I also like your idea of using a tang sight. Covers the eyesore but can be returned to factory.

That's kind of what I was thinking. Buy a new spring, strut, & Hammer, keep the originals and have the modified new stuff installed. Then just cover the open hole with a tang sight. Reverse the process if I ever want to sell a "stock" '86.

1886 · Post by **1886** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:13 pm

My latest 86, a deluxe T.D. half round/half oct. is not drilled and tapped. 1886.

crs · Post by **crs** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:57 pm

Old IS;
You have plenty of advice on the internals, so I will only comment on the peep sight. My Miroku 1886 takedown from Davidsons was not D&T either and I liked the idea of the longer sighting radius provided by the peep on the tang rather than the receiver.
I bought a Lyman tang peep , but it was for the 1886 without the tang safety, so I put it away and bought a Marbles that is made for the new 1886 with tang safety. I had a gunsmith install it and I am very satisfied with it. The sight base makes the safety almost invisible, so, I just left the safety there and usually do not use it.
You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Have fun with your 1886.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:05 pm

crs wrote:Old IS;
...bought a Marbles that is made for the new 1886 with tang safety. I had a gunsmith install it and I am very satisfied with it. The sight base makes the safety almost invisible, so, I just left the safety there and usually do not use it.
You pays your money and you takes your choice.
Have fun with your 1886.

Does the Marbles still alow you to use the safety? (yecch)

crs · Post by **crs** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:20 pm

"Does the Marbles still alow you to use the safety? (yecch)"

Yes, you can get a thumbnail on it and slide it forward to FIRE. This is too clumsy for hunting though. It actually is handy for dry firing (I also have the .45-70 Pachmyer practice cartridges) and it adds some degree of comfort when climbing with the rifle slung over your back. When hunting, I do not unload a tube feed mag rifle every time I go through a fence, up into a blind/hide or climb a steep incline that requires both hands (try like hell to avoid those these days).
Like Fox News, we report, you decide (on the safety), but it is less trouble and expense just to keep it unless you are trying to build an accurate replica and money is not a consideration.