heavy early 45/70 levers with 32 inch barrels

preventec47 · Post by **preventec47** » Sun May 04, 2008 1:19 am

I know that some of the earliest 45/70 levers from around 1881
weighed 12 and 13 pounds with up to 30 and 32 inch barrels. THAT is
the kind of lever I would like today instead of the puny 7 pound versions.
I would BUY one if someone offered a heavy version like that and would
appreciate the reduction in recoil greatly. I saw one at a local gun
show and fell in love with the concept but didnt want to spend 2000
dollars for old steel although it would have been fun with black powder
power loads. If I shoot a 13 pound rifle I want to be able to play
with the hi power loads.
I think the gun I handled was a mod #1881 and it had a top eject
although I would want a side eject to make it more scope-able.
Anyone else here feel that way or am I alone?

rjohns94 · Post by **rjohns94** » Sun May 04, 2008 1:40 am

I like long lever guns but 12-13 pounds would not be to my liking in the woods. The heaviest gun I would carry would be one that balanced well, pointed well. My sharps has 30 inch heavy barrel and its just about the max I find comfortable. I think it goes about 11 pounds. If it weighed anymore, it would be nose heavy and I can't like that. But I am with you on some of the longer levers. There was a 73 once that ....

Montanan · Post by **Montanan** » Sun May 04, 2008 7:04 am

Seen one at Shields in Great Falls, and it reminded me of why I hated to carry my 32" original Remington Rolling Block around the prairie like I did once.....

carried it all day long, ALL 11.5 pounds of her.

Seemed like a lifetime, of going down coolies and such.

No thank you ever again, I'll carry my puny Guide Gun

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Sun May 04, 2008 7:26 am

I think you hit the nail on the head saying "old steel". I imagine some of these might have weighed more simply because they needed more "beef" to account for the pressures of a larger round like the .45-70 back when steel wasn't nearly as strong as it is today. I have a reproduction 1876 in .45-60 with a 28-inch barrel, but I think it is only 9 pounds or so (will need to check). My reproduction 1873 does have a 30-inch tube, but again, probably about 9 pounds - maybe 10. I do have a Sharps reproduction (seeing a trend here?), with a 34-inch barrel, which is a tad over 12 pounds. It is a lot of fun, but as Mike stated, not the first choice to haul into the woods...

preventec47 · Post by **preventec47** » Sun May 04, 2008 9:15 am

QUOTE:
I do have a Sharps reproduction with a 34-inch barrel,
which is a tad over 12 pounds. It is a lot of fun
______Ysabel Kid
===========================

Ah now theres a rifle I'd love to shoot. No I wouldnt be thinking
about hiking over mountain tops with it but I think if you hunt from
a Tree stand and get a good sling to carry it with I dont think
it would be unmanageable. Please tell us how it shoots and what
kinds of ammo you have experimented with.

I carried two rifles out of the woods when I was ten years old
while dad drug the deer so I think I could handle the the weight of
two rifles today. I'm just sayin I'd like to have one.
How bout shootin at the range ? Probably only have to carry
it fifty feet from the car. I already did about the same with
a NEF shotgun. Added 5 pounds lead shot in the stock and
2 pounds in the Forearm of the Survivor series and it is a LOT
more fun now to send the 550 grain .73 caliber slugs at 1600 fps.

Pete44ru · Post by **Pete44ru** » Sun May 04, 2008 9:20 am

The lighter, the better - for hunting, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm good, as long a a rifle isn't any lighter than about 6lbs. I tend to "over-control" any lighter than that.
I won't even take a 9+ pound rifle for gratis - unless there was some way of making it into a lightweight.

So, since I'm not particularly recoil-sensitive - no "cannon with wheels" for me, Thank You.

71fan · Post by **71fan** » Sun May 04, 2008 11:26 am

The Marlin 1881 had a 28" barrel standard, and was offered in 30 and 32" tubes, which if ordered were always heavy (vs standard) weight barrels. I have a 40-60 that originally had a heavy 30" inch barrel and would have weighed over 12 pounds. Someone in history saw fit to trim some fat and lopped off 4 inches of the barrel and made it a half mag. The rifle now weighs 10.2 pounds. I do not enjoy carrying it around at 10.2 pounds but it is tollerable. I certainly would not want to carry it all day in it's original configuration. I suppose these big rifles spent most of the time in a scabbard and weren't used the same way we use rifles today.

I have a few hunting rifles over 9 pounds - an 1886 in 40-65, a Winny 1895 in 303, and a scoped 30-06 with a medium weight barrel. The rifles I have that weigh more than about 9.5 pounds I do not consider "hunting" rifles - they are either collectors or range rifles.

Most old articles or books I read from the old hunters and frontiersman speak of a continual upgrade of rifles to lighter more powerful configurations. Some guys were changing rifles every one or two seasons.

On a tangent.....Ned Roberts' articles and books are great reading - you can see the evolution of the levergun when it was happening and get a good perspective from an avid hunter of the late 1800s. Here are a few quotes from an article in American Rifleman April 1935...

About a Winchester 1876 that he owned: "...it was heavy - about 10 1/2 pounds, and was tiresome to carry in hunting."

About a Winchester 1886 40-65 that he spent an entire season with in Canada: "The rifle had a 26-inch round barrel, Lyman rear and red ivory-bead front sights, and weighed about 9 pounds with magazine empty. Its weight was its only fault."

Another 1886 quote: "In later years I used theModel 1886 rifle in 38-56, 38-70, 40-70, and .33-calibers, and they were all excellent in every way, and gave fine accuracy. The .38-56 and .33 caliber would have been excellent deer rifles if they had not been so heavy. The "extra-light" solid-frame rifle weighed but 6-3/4 pounds, but was made only for the .45-70 cartridge, and gave about the poorest accruracy of any Winchester rifle that I have ever shot."

As far as Marlin 1881s, Roberts had a light receiver model in 38-55 that he spent several years with, and had this to say: "The rifle ejected the fired cases from the top of the receiver instead of from the side as in the present Marlin rifles. The rifle was light - 7 1/2 pounds - balanced nicely, shot very accurately at all ranges up to and including 300 yards, and had plenty of killing power for caribou, deer, bear, and even moose when the bullet was placed in the right spot."

Interestingly, Roberts in the end seemed to favor the Marlin 1893 over all others, and never once mentioned the Winchester 1894.

I am not making a point, just sharing some interesting information about rifle weight. I think for a 45-70 an 8 to 8.5 pound rifle is optimal, which coincidentally is the weight of an 1886 SRC which is my favorite 45-70 levergun.

Having said that, I plan to restore my Marlin 1881 to its original configuration with the 30" heavy barrel and full magazine. I don't know what I'll do with it, but I will have a 12 pound levergun.

hfcable · Post by **hfcable** » Sun May 04, 2008 11:39 am

well, you can get a marlin 1895 or the new winchester 1886's and get a custom barrel fitted to your tastes; i am sure it would be a fine shooting rifle, and it would help stifle the recoil of the stiffer loads.
if i were going to do this i think i would start with the winchester repro as it has the strongest action, then of course you need nice wood, rather than the factory wood, and of course a really nice tang sight and front sight, so it would get pricey, but you would have a really great and unusual rifle

O.S.O.K. · Post by **O.S.O.K.** » Sun May 04, 2008 11:55 am

I think a Winchester 86 would fit the bill. Not the light weight version, the standard version with a longer barrel. I think they weigh over 9 pounds?

And as just mentioned, a Marlin 95 with a new barrel would add weight but I'd think the balance would be ... wierd.

Lefty Dude · Post by **Lefty Dude** » Sun May 04, 2008 7:06 pm

If you don't shoot BP why would you need a barrel that long ?

With the modern powders we have now all the powder is burned in the first 18" to 20" of barrel. This is one reason they stopped installing the long barrels in the first quarter of the last Century.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Mon May 05, 2008 8:24 am

This is about as close as you are going to get in a modern rifle without spending a lot of money. The 26 in barrell is reported by many to give much higher velocities than the 20 in 1895. I know a couple guys who have cooked up some real zingers.

Model 1895 Cowboy
For top performance in those tough long-range events, the Model 1895 Cowboy is a must for Cowboy Action Shooters. It's also an ideal big game rifle for hunters who appreciate the nostalgia of 19th Century-style firearms. This authentically Old Western-styled 45/70 features a 26" tapered octagon barrel with deep-cut Ballard-type rifling, 9-shot tubular magazine, adjustable Marble semi-buckhorn rear and Marble carbine front sight. The American black walnut stock has a straight-grip, a hard rubber butt plate and a blued steel fore-end cap. To accommodate tang sight installation, the serial number is located on the left side of the receiver.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Mon May 05, 2008 8:28 am

Lefty Dude wrote:If you don't shoot BP why would you need a barrel that long ?

With the modern powders we have now all the powder is burned in the first 18" to 20" of barrel. This is one reason they stopped installing the long barrels in the first quarter of the last Century.

That is entirely dependant on the powder. There are slower burning powders that will in fact give higher velocities in the longer barrels. In fact, many cartridges we use today are well known to have the best performance from a 26" barrel, but they are ungainly for carry, which I believe has much more to do with current barrel lengths, so the 20" berrels have become popular. They also tend to be more accurate.

Pisgah · Post by **Pisgah** » Mon May 05, 2008 10:55 am

A rifle weighing no more than 8 pounds suits me just fine -- as long as it has a good, broad shotgun butt. That seems to help me more with the recoil than the weight, and leaves the rifle light enough to tote.

preventec47 · Post by **preventec47** » Mon May 05, 2008 11:36 am

[quote="Lefty Dude"]If you don't shoot BP why would you need a barrel that long ? With the modern powders we have now all the powder is burned in the first 18" to 20" of barrel. This is one reason they stopped installing the long barrels in the first quarter of the last Century.[/quote]
-
-
I know a guy at the Gun Club with the 32 inch Buffalo Classic from NEF
and he has gotten some blistering velocities out of it using experimental
loads designed for the long barrel. Not incredible excessive pressures
either... he was extrapolating off the Ruger #1 loading charts and slower
powders.

I have to confess guys my situation is wierd because I do most of my
shootin with a 10.5 pound magnum pellet rifle and handle it just fine.
It flips me out too much to pick up a centerfire cannon and have
it feel like a daisy BB gun in comparison. Also I shoot a 29 inch barrel
8mm Mauser and it gets much higher velocities than all other shorter
Mausers. Dammit, I just like long guns. Really Love the long sight
plane also ... . if had the money would love a Sharps 34 incher
and have been really smitten with some of those old long long
barreled muzzle loaders. I think maybe 42 inch barrels ? ?.

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Mon May 05, 2008 11:40 am

Wow...seems like some of you fellas might want to hit the gym a bit.

Even my wife doesn't mind lugging around a 10 lb rifle - all 104 pounds of her.

NonPCnraRN · Post by **NonPCnraRN** » Mon May 05, 2008 11:55 am

The solution is so simple. Get a Marlin Cowboy. Put the largest mercury recoil reducer you can find in the buttstock. Get a spring for a guide gun. Get some copper tubing that will just fit inside the magazine tube and cut it to reduce the number of from 9 rounds to 4 rounds. Fill the tubing with molten lead. Reassemble the magazine with the shorter spring and your new magazine recoil reducer/block. Now you will have a heavier buttstock and permanent weight up front. You can adjust the amount of weight up front to get the weight you need. Have fun carrying it. You can follow Harley Davidson's lead and change the name from Marlin Cowboy to Marlin Fatboy!

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Mon May 05, 2008 11:56 am

El Mac wrote:Wow...seems like some of you fellas might want to hit the gym a bit. Even my wife doesn't mind lugging around a 10 lb rifle - all 104 pounds of her.

Well, seems you and I agree for once. I didn't want to say it but, seems overall people have become a bit soft. I'm sure some old mountain man lugging a pack that weighed more than he did, and carrying an old frontstuffer would be laughing right now. Or disgusted. As would any infantryman that carried a ruck and Garand, BAR, M60 or todays equivalent the M240B. I carry a 249 for Uncle Sugar that comes in around 15 IIRC, never really cared.

I of course give latitude for our elder generations.

preventec47 · Post by **preventec47** » Mon May 05, 2008 12:09 pm

[quote="NonPCnraRN"] Put the largest mercury recoil reducer you can find in the buttstock. Get a spring for a guide gun. Get some copper tubing that will just fit inside the magazine tube and cut it to reduce the number of from 9 rounds to 4 rounds. [/quote]
.
.
I'd be afraid the tube magazine would break off after about a dozen shots.
Besides, you surprise me. You dont believe in those mercury reducer scams
do you ! ? Heck, all it is is weight. Lead is a lot cheaper.

preventec47 · Post by **preventec47** » Mon May 05, 2008 12:12 pm

[quote= I carry a 249 for Uncle Sugar that comes in around 15 IIRC, never really cared. l:[/quote]
.
.
What is a 249 ? How much did a BAR weigh? I know the M-1 weighs
at least 10 pounds doesnt it ?

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Mon May 05, 2008 12:26 pm

preventec47 wrote:
sore shoulder wrote: I carry a 249 for Uncle Sugar that comes in around 15 IIRC, never really cared. l:
.
.
What is a 249 ? How much did a BAR weigh? I know the M-1 weighs
at least 10 pounds doesnt it ?

M249 SAW, belt fed Squad Automatic Weapon. 15.2 lbs empty, 22 lbs loaded with 200 round box mag. 5.56 caliber bullet hose.

I can shoulder fire it no problem.

BAR weighed about the same. Garand is 9.5-13.2 lbs.

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Mon May 05, 2008 12:35 pm

sore shoulder wrote:
El Mac wrote:Wow...seems like some of you fellas might want to hit the gym a bit. Even my wife doesn't mind lugging around a 10 lb rifle - all 104 pounds of her.
Well, seems you and I agree for once. I didn't want to say it but, seems overall people have become a bit soft. I'm sure some old mountain man lugging a pack that weighed more than he did, and carrying an old frontstuffer would be laughing right now. Or disgusted. As would any infantryman that carried a ruck and Garand, BAR, M60 or todays equivalent the M240B. I carry a 249 for Uncle Sugar that comes in around 15 IIRC, never really cared.

I of course give latitude for our elder generations.

Sore, you and I agree probably a lot more than you would ever suspect! Good luck to you and stay safe bro.

rjohns94 · Post by **rjohns94** » Mon May 05, 2008 12:48 pm

I carried plenty for uncle sam too, thats why I prefer a lighter rifle now adays. I don't mind the recoil and my 11# Sharps and pack and gear is just fine for me. Call me a wimp, but I still think a 13# rifle can't balance well in an unsupported, off-hand shooting stance.

Comal Forge · Post by **Comal Forge** » Mon May 05, 2008 6:34 pm

I haven't seen it mentioned yet but something to remember is that everyone who went very far 100 years ago rode on horseback. I'm certain many folks walked a short distance to hunt but serious traveling and packing was done on 4 legged critters, so 9 lbs or 15 lbs didn't mean much - just like most of the professional white hunters in Africa used gunbearers to pack the piece until they were ready to shoot.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Mon May 05, 2008 9:04 pm

I think my full Octagon TD weighs in the 9-10lb range...

Haven't measured it yet though.