Model 71, 50-110

[finger toes]

I'm having a Browning Model 71 converted to 50-110 this spring. Has anyone had any experience with this type of thing? I want to use 400-450gr hard lead and jacketed bullets. Any twist rate recommendations?(22"bbl). I've heard Z-Hat makes bbl bands for this type of hard recoiling, heavy mag tube combo. Is there a reason to go 50 Alaskan? 50-110 brass is available thanks to BPCR. ps. It's got to be .50 cal!

[crs]

May I ask what are your velocity objectives for the .50-110 cartridge?

[finger toes]

I don't have an exact answer for velocity but I think around 1800 fps with 400gr? I can't find the Mic McPherson article in which he chambered 2 Marlins in 50 Kodiak Express. I think that was a 50-110 Starline case reformed with a miniature shoulder to prevent it being loaded in older 50-110s. I will find the article to verify the velocities but I think he was in the 2000fps range with bullets heavier or equal to 400gr. This rifle will be used as a bear defender 1st and an opportunistic elk or moose flattener 2nd. I was 8 yards from a grizz recently so I'll blame all the building costs on him and not myself.

[crs]

mmm, 86er shoots 405 grain Kodiaks from his 1886 .45-70 at 2100 + fps and they are very accurate and effective ( in my 1886 .45-90 with 26 inch barrel thay are quite accurate and pleasant to shoot offhand)-They are loaded for him by Grizzly cartidge, I think. The modern 1886 and the 71 can surely handle that velocity with a 405 grain pill and more with ease, if the shooter can handle the recoil; not exactly a bench rest plinker, but really fun to shoot offhand. In one hog shot lengthwise, the Kodiak expaneded to over 1" in diameter.
Kodiak also makes a 450 grain FMJ for the .45-70 if you really want to shoot through things.

[Rimfire McNutjob]

You may not need a special barrel band at the levels of recoil you're looking at. Have you thought about having a take-down ring added as part of the conversion?

[JFE]

finger toes,

I have one that was built locally on a new 1886 Win lightweight. With Starline and Bertram brass available it is a 'practical' modification and the more traditional option for the 1886 / 71 platform. I've used both makes of brass and they are both very strong.

You can load these conversions to approach 458 Mag power levels, so the rifle needs to be stocked accordingly and it should not be too light. This may affect close quarter handling somewhat. With the 71 being a pistol grip stock design you should consider having a new buttstock made to better absorb the recoil, eg. straighter comb, push the point of the comb back and build in some cast so that the rifle recoils straight back and away from your face. Also make sure that the buttstock is properly relieved around the tang area to prevent the tang acting like a log splitter.

The other area to consider is mag tube attachment. Mine has a full length mag tube and has a mag retainer that is dovetailed into the barrel and has held up so far. For half mags, some builders use a system similar to the Marlin 1895's and report good results. Apparently all Turnbull do is silver solder the tenon to the barrel and upsize the screws retaining the fore-end tip.

With a 71 as your platform the lever will have a tendancy to pop open when you reach high pressure (a function of the tapered locking lug design) - so you will know when you have reached your limit. Those big 50/110 cases hold a considerable amount of powder so this may be a good thing.

For a twist rate I'd suggest 1 in 20" or thereabouts. This will allow you to use any reasonable weight projectile. While we are on the subject of projectiles make sure whoever does your conversion maximises the OAL and meplat diameter that can be cycled through the action. This is a time consuming process for the smith but well worthwhile.

Mine has a 22" barrel but length is a personal thing. Even 24" would not look out of place in 50 cal and still be quite portable.

It is a lot of fun but realistically they are quite an expensive toy. Quite frankly I would imagine a 1886 lightweight in 45/70 would be plenty for bears at close quarters. In stock form they are light (7.5lbs), good handling, very flexible and can be loaded quite heavily. Plus there are many jacketed and cast designs available in 45 cal. But if you must have a 50 cal, practicality has nothing to do with it.

HTH

Joe

[finger toes]

Thanks for the info guys, what is involved in lengthening the OAL and meplat size that can be cycled? My smith has done a few conversions before but info seems limited( I'm sure he's competent). I want to know more about the mag tube probs, I not against using full power loads and recoil will be substantial. Is it not the mag tube trying to tear away from the bbl like prying apart a new set of chopsticks at the Chinese diner? The tube being full of rounds with a total weight of say 550-600gr each must put an incredible tug on that mag screw. If all that's needed is a bigger soldered in screw that would be easier and smoother than a bbl band. I don't think I would go take down, 71s are a pleasure to carry and my horse likes them too. As for stocks I have a Wenig laminate on another 71 that must be stronger than the factory. I was hoping not to have to buy another one if I can get away with it. Would a good bedding job do the trick or is there not enough wood to correct the design? Yes the 45-70 will do the job properly, I own a few great 86s that are all that is really needed. I know People from the North and Alaska that never used anything but an 06 to account for plenty big critters and in some real hairy situations. So I guess I can't really hang this one on the bear, just the same old sickness again!

[JFE]

There was a fair bit of internal work required to cycle those large cases and fat bullets. There were changes to the shell lifter, cartrdge guides, inside the action, to the loading gate area and there were probably others too. If you check an original 50/110 cartridge the bullets they used were not very long and had a narrow meplat (to make cycling easier). OAL must have been 2.6-2.7" I guess. The conversion I have safely handles an OAL of 2.8" and a wide meplat (some claim 2.84"). Some conversions have a bulge in the mag tube opposite the loading gate just like Marlin have done to accomodate the 45/70 case in the 336 (Dave Clay does this). Turnbull only guarantees 2.75" OAL, so this is an area worth focussing on. I'd suggest providing your smith with a few dummy rounds that you want to cycle and hopefully this way you shouldnt have any surprises.

A magazine full of heavy bullets will act like a slide hammer, so the mag tube does need to be anchored down properly. Methods used vary and some even remove the threaded section as this eventually gives way under heavy recoil. Dave Clay uses a Marlin style magazine retainer (except upsized) and this is a pretty positive arrangment. If I were doing it again I'd opt for a half mag and go with a half oct/half round barrel of 24" in length. You still end up with 4 in the mag and all the weight between your hands.

I find the buttstock of the 71 a little bit awkward for me and would probably be quite punishing under heavy recoil but that only my opinion. I also find the grip on the 71 a little too tightly curved and would prefer the more gentle grip shape of the 1886 style. In the options offered in his conversions Turnbull can change the grip angle and lengthen the lever loop somewhat - this would help prevent beating your palm against the back of the lever. The best thing would be to use it as is except for attending to the tang area as this is a potential area of weakness. If redesigning the buttstock you might want to try to incorporate one of Mic McPherson's stock bolts as well. He describes it in his book and refers to it on his website. I'm not sure he would just supply one so your smith might have to fabricate one himself.

HTH & good luck with your project.

Joe

[finger toes]

Thanks again JFE, that is exactly the kind of info I was hoping for. I am familiar with the through bolt design and I will use it. I also agree with your opinion of the 71 buttstock being awkward and tight and will carry out those mods as well a request the internal work. But the real Jem I believe you gave up was the half round half octagon bbl! With the extra steel a dove tail system would be easy for mag retention no? By the way do you go after Buffaloes with the big lever you own? Woodleigh bullets?

[JFE]

Glad the info was of some use. For tube retention I would probably solder in a thicker tenon and have larger screws fitted. I would probably also go for the Marlin style attachment (as per Marlin 1895) and either have the tube (with threading removed) silver soldered in or free floating (not sure which). I feel that for a half oct / half round you really need a 24" barrel to get a nice balance between the two sections.

I havent used the big gun on buff yet but it is on my list of things to do. I have used a levergun in 45/70 on them though, so I dont expect the 50/110 will have any issues. I've been using Bertram bullets designed for the 50 BPE. He makes them out of jackets for the 50 BMG so they are quite tough. Woodleigh also make a bullet for the 50/110.

Joe

[Rimfire McNutjob]

I load to 2.75" but I'm using a .45 caliber and thus have some wiggle room at the front. As JFE notes, the original 50-110's had a bullet with a very short ogive in the 350 grain weight which helped them fit in the action. You can always trim a 1/10th or so from the case if you end up with a bullet that's too long from the cannelure to the metplat. It's not like you have to worry about a box of factory 50-110 ammo not working in your action these days.

I prefer the shorter radius of the short tang style stock ... but it's a personal fit thing. Many people favor a longer curve like on the 1886's or the long tang 71. The Browning obviously follows the short tang style of the later 71's.

I also have a short half oct/ half round setup. Handles well.

[Mike D.]

I wonder if a carbine type front barrel band would help with retaining the mag under recoil from heavy loads. I use 65 grains of IMR 3031 with a 300 grain jacketed bullet in my old .45-90 and this load has not presented any recoil issues. A 76 grain load in the .50-110 would be somewhat on the hard recoiling side, though, especially in a 22" barrel.

[Rimfire McNutjob]

I wonder if a carbine type front barrel band would help with retaining the mag under recoil from heavy loads. I use 65 grains of IMR 3031 with a 300 grain jacketed bullet in my old .45-90 and this load has not presented any recoil issues. A 76 grain load in the .50-110 would be somewhat on the hard recoiling side, though, especially in a 22" barrel.

I've seen one of the Johnson conversions that used a heavy duty band type arrangement so I think you're onto another possible route for the reinforcement. You aren't implying that you're in possession of an '86 carbine in 45-90 are you?

[Mike D.]

No, just an old 1918 vintage lightweight takedown. I may have another one with full mag arriving soon, IF all works out well.

[6pt-sika]

Having spent a fair amount of time looking at Big Bore conversions in the last 3 or 4 years . My own personal preference would be to take a Marlin 1895 and make it into a 50 Alaskan .

But then I prefer Marlin's (new or old) over Winchesters .

I think with semi modern loads the 50 Alaskan will do anything the 50-110 will do and most likely easier !

The changeover for a Model 71 from 348 to 50 AK should be a good bit simpler and CHEAPER !

[1886]

http://www.levergun.com/KodiakExpress.htm. Hope this helps. 1886.

[JFE]

I think with semi modern loads the 50 Alaskan will do anything the 50-110 will do and most likely easier !

I am a little surprised by your statement unless both arent running the same pressure. Case construction is similar (assuming Starline cases) but the 50/110 has about 20% more capacity than the 50 Alaskan. I guess you had your reasons for saying this and would be interested in how you reached this conclusion.

The changeover for a Model 71 from 348 to 50 AK should be a good bit simpler and CHEAPER !

Perhaps marginally but not significantly. Also, to my mind if you have a chassis that can take a big block why would you fit a small block ? The only reason Johnson developed the 50 Alaskan for the M-71 in the first place was because he could not obtain 50/110 cases . This no longer applies. The 50 Alaskan really suits the Marlin but even those conversions, if done properly, arent going to be cheap either.

Joe

[JFE]

http://www.levergun.com/KodiakExpress.htm. Hope this helps. 1886.

Have you priced one of these conversions ? Get ready for sticker shock if you havent.

Joe

[1886]

Yes they are pricey. I do not really have a burning desire for one at the present time. No doubt, speed is expensive. 1886.