Clown,
I have never seen anything in print or have I ever seen a Win. m-1886 or 71 jam and I have shot them a lot...also I might add the 86 and 71 does lock up in the rear and not the middle, albiet on the sides in the rear...and in a 450 Alaskan will probably be a better DGR than a 405 win. unless one is using a Ruger no. 1 action for his 405, in which case one could safely out do a 450-400 by a tad...but a 450 Alaskan or 50 Alaskan in a N0.1 would simple be awesome on the balistic chart.

Ray,



Are you bored? That last post of your's contains some "fightin' words/statements", but of course you know that!



A M1886 / M71 / M1892 (aka a mini 1886) is not a "rear locking" lever action! The locking bars slide up along the sides of the breech block slightly rearward of the middle, and there is one on each side of the breech block (as you well know if you have shot them as you claim ). I will search around the ol' web and see if I can find a schematic or a picture or something. One thing is for sure these locking bars ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE REAR, but I will concede that they are closer to the rear than to the front. Actually, it locks up between the middle and rear!!



The elevator used to lift the cartridge from the tube to the breech, DOES and WILL induce jamming during rough handling as the cartridge is COMPLETELY free to "flop" around! This is NOT the case with the M1895 which uses the magazine rails to CONTROL the cartridge until said cartridge is WELL into the chamber, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PUSH FEED!



For that reason ALONE I say that the M1886 / M71 / (and I ain't even gonna include the M1892) aren't as good a potential DGR as the M1895 in 405 Winnie. Now the terminal ballistics of the 450 Alaska / 50 Alaska versus the 405 Winchester are probably to close to call, although I would tend to believe that the larger frontal area would be more deadly. The 405 Win will most likely out penetrate the larger bore lever action cartridges though.





Numrich has a schematic of the M1892 (scaled down M1886)

Numrich M1892 schematic





Here is close-up of a M1886. You can see the tops of the locking bars about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way down the action from the breech. Slightly rearward of the loading port.







I guess it may come down to your "definition" of rear locking. To me the M1886 ain't a rear locker. It is a side locking action, cause there ain't nothing in the back to keep the breech block in, what keeps the breech block in is ON THE SIDES.



ASS_CLOWN



<hope that is enough to end your boredom Ray )

I bought a reproduction Model 1895 Winchester in .405 a few months ago. I shot the factory Hornady loads with it (2135 f.p.s.) and got acceptable accuracy, but I wanted to do a Teddy Roosevelt on a buffalo with the rifle next year in Tanzania (after I take one with my "almost here" .470 Searcy).



There was a real problem, however. Even though the loaded rounds fed through the magazine, when loaded with Woodleigh 400 grain solids, the throat is cut too short by about .2", and the bullets engage the lands.. I just happened to have a friend with the proper reamer so I took a deep breath and had the throat re-cut.



I loaded up some ammo and took it to the range this morning. Dang if I didn't get an average velocity of 1941 f.p.s. almost within Hogden's loading specs. Highest velocity was 1956 with the lowest at 1930. Accuracy was 3.5 inches which is about as good as I can see at 100 yards. The only problem is that I have to put the rear sight at the top elevation which looks stupid and not very sturdy. Somebody makes an "original" receiver sight for the 1895 and I think I'll get one of those.



Since this load is right at the "tropical" loading for the .450/400 3 1/4" caliber, I imagine no one will give me grief for being under-gunned? Hey, even though it's a lever action, it sure ain't a .45/70!



I have a bunch of 350 grain X-bullets that I will try next. They are too long for the magazine, I believe, but for the first shot, with a sectional density of over .300, and an expected m.v. of over 2050, I think they should do fine for the bullet up the spout and the 400 grain Woodleighs to follow.



What do ya'll think?

PC,
I have the Stroebel "Old Gunsights" book. I have no idea about the new repro 1886's but he lists the Lyman 21 NI, 38 NI and 56A as being for the 1886. Also The Redfield 102F.

What about tang sights?

Stu & JH thanks for the help. In regards to tang sights, I worry about them being to close to the eye...although I intend to buy a Billy Dixon Pedersoli sharps in 45/70 or 45/90 some day and I will risk the eye for that baby

MartinPotts,



Would this "swagin' fool" happen to make any 0.411" diameter soft points in the 350 to 370 grain range?



As far as using the M1895 for dangerous game, I would in a heart beat. Mine feeds flawlessly, and the second shot is very fast indeed. Do not confuse the magazine mechanism on a the M1895 with those utilized on the M1886/M1894, which are tubular and EXTREMELY prone to jamming! It is easier to get one of my mausers style rifles shorts into a bunch than the M1895.



I have yet to bloody mine, probably should do something about that! First have to get those pesky sights worked out.



ASS_CLOWN

HI,

JUDGEG,I thought you had a custom 95 in a 411 hawk?If so I would think that would be the round which would do well with DGR,Kev

Arkypete,
The 350 grn .405 cast bullets you made, had their first kill in africa.
He used the harder ones loaded to only about 1700 fps. he shot a warthog front on in the head, the bullet exited through the right ham for full penatration!
I sent my pal a digital camera, wouldnt you know it, his PC didnt have a plug in for it, so it was all at the puter store being installed. he'll shoot something else with them soon I'm sure.

Judge

Quote:

---

First, loading the rifle quickly takes some practice. Due to the magazine rails "hooking" over the rear of the cartridge, you can't just stuff cartridges into the thing, but must push down with the rim and then slide the cartridge to the rear.

Secondly, my rifle will only hold one in the spout and three down (not four), for whatever reason I don't know. This is not "bad", but not as good as having more rounds available.

---

With a double rifle you've got two shots and most of the fellas I read here are comfortable with that. Most bolt guns hold four to five shots with one up the spout.
Are you telling me I need to get a bayonet lug soldered on my Winchester 95 because there's only 4 rounds available. Should I run out of ammo, I can ground the butt of the rifle and take the charge on the sticker?
Jim

Generally I try to learn from the experience of others, especially from their negative experiences. Teddy R. shot a rhino 11 times with a .405 and chased it all day before finally bagging it. Probably the poor sectional density of the 300 grain bullet gave him poor penetration. Teddy also used a borrowed British double for some of his dangerous game shooting while on safari.

500grains

For me the issue was not the caliber but the action.
I was questioning the reasoning on the action being the deciding factor for a DGR.
Jim

arkypete, I clicked reply to your post, but I was responding generally to the concept of the .405 as a buffalo rifle. But I agree that a lever is probably not the best choice of actions when facing a dangerous game charge.

500grains
Having never stood the charge of a four footed critter with mayhem in mind, I can only imagine the feelings of he shooter. Should I find myself in such a place I'd prefer a rapid fire RPG or LAW.
On the other hand I've had imaginings of a giant economy size 1886 action throwing 600 Nitro Expresses. I'm sure there are plenty who would find fault with this rifle/caliber combination for any critter larger then the Dik Dik.
Or, duplicating the 405s ballistics in a bolt gun or a double rifle, and I'm sure there's plenty who would find this rifle/cartridge combination intirely acceptable for most any critter smaller then a Blue Whale.
Jim

An update on the reproduction model 1895 in .405 Winchester:



As I mentioned earlier, I extended the throat of the rifle about .2". This weekend, Frank Martinez (who posts here) was visiting from California. We had and opportunity to try out the feeding with Barnes-X, 350 grain bullets. (These are discontinued, but AR members have sent me several boxes).



It seems that the magazine is angled rearward in the front, from top to bottom. (Does that make sense?). As a result, only one of the very long Barnes' will fit in (and feed from)the magazine, but Woodleigh, 400 grain solids will feed well if in the magazine below... so... The bolt will close on one 350 Barnes with three Woodleighs underneath. The rifle can be therefore carried quite safely with a full magazine and, when departing the Land Rover, an extra Barnes X can be hand fed in down the spout, providing a "fruit salad" of two X's at 2100 fps and a section density of .300, followed up with three, solid Woodleigh's at 1950 fps and a s.d. of .338.



I've been working with Mike at North Fork, too. If he makes some of those "cup" meplat solids at 360 grains or so in .411 caliber, I'll just quit worrying about "fruit salads", discontinued bullet weights, etc., and just go kill a buffalo or two with them. I have a couple of North Fork 360 grain sp's and will soon load them to check the o.a.l. and feeding... but in the meantime... Make some cup points, Mike! The ones you sent me in .470 looked awesome!

JudgeG

Roosevelt Style I like that idea.
But when you get that 470 NE from Searcy in your hands you will feel different I think
You will be taking all the game with that double if you can get close enough. I would
What is it with Americans and Lever action.

Cheers,

Andr�

ASS_CLOWN

Hay that's what i heard Woodleigh bullet's are
Evil.!! and should not be used
On the other hand i heard tell of a better bullet made by a very nice guy who lovingly swage's ever bullet with care care to guess who lol