The August 2022 American Rifleman Magazine (page 72) had an article on the Winchester Model 1892 rifle. It included information that Admiral Peary equipped his expeditions — not single expedition — with these lever action rifles. While his first polar expedition occurred when perhaps this mechanism might have been a not hugely unexpected choice, subsequent expeditions occurred when Model 1903 Springfields, Model 1896 and 1898 Mausers, Model 1903 Mannlicher Shönauer military rifles (and several others) were in use. I expected comment on his choice because pretty much universal attitude is that the traditional lever action is unsatisfactory, unreliable for such demanding climate.

Why would he have repetitively made what I have believed to be a serious mistake?

It is possible that Winchester, like they did with President Roosevelt’s Safari, all but sponsored the expeditions.

It could be that he was in favor of the higher volume, light recoil firepower.

Not all military men hated Winchester levers. In fact, in the Russo-Turks War the world was forced to recognize the usefulness of repeaters by the Turks using 1866 Winchesters to hold off Russian attacks at a battle whose name I cannot recall.

Plevna? I think. The Turks held off the Ruskies for a year with Winchester 1866s.

Not having read the article, my first thought was that the 1892 was chambered for 38-40 and 44-40 and might not work that well on polar bears.

I might also point out that Dr Van Helsing also took the latest (in 1897- it doesn't list the actual model) Winchester Repeating rifles on his expedition to find Dracula. He did not take a bolt action, nor a NE DR, or anything we now might consider more suitable for engaging the undead.
If they work on Vampires, they will work on anything.
As for Admiral Peary; he wasn't going big game hunting nor were they going into combat with an armed enemy; those rifles were not specifically for that purpose; so it wasn't a big mistake to take them. They were for foraging, self defense; they weren't deliberately shooting polar bears.
Why is this topic under Gunsmmithing?

quote:

Originally posted by Mark:
Not having read the article, my first thought was that the 1892 was chambered for 38-40 and 44-40 and might not work that well on polar bears.

I agree. After the first expedition, having experience with polar bears - regardless whether confrontations occurred - that should have influenced subsequent outfitting decisions.

Regarding sponsoring expeditions, I believe Peary was a member of the Corps of Engineers or its Naval equivalent. Roy Chapman Andrews, a private party, was a master at obtaining businesses' sponsorships - Savage, Dodge Brothers, etc. But he experienced extreme weather, rough terrain, and nasty people. I have difficulty believing leader of a polar mapping/surveying expedition would choose a small number of this life saving item on the basis of getting it free. Andrews had explored northwestern China and Korea before his Central Asiatic Expeditions. And he owned Savage rifles before obtaining sponsorship. His outfitting choices as well as his basis expedition sponsor was not the federal government, rather American Museum of Natural History in New York City.

I don't agree; they weren't on a mission to kill polar bears! I have not read all the reports, but I don't think that bears were a problem for them. Here is one report from 8-10-1908 that mentions guns, and not a 92 Winchester.
"Have been working on boats all day, equipping them for a squeeze, fitting in following articles: 1 set oars, 2 boat hooks, row locks, 1 bailer, liquid compass, oil stove, 4 one gallon tins of oil (plain oil) (1 one gallon tin of oil, patent nozzle), 1 spring filled rifle, 100 cartridges, 1 shot-gun, 50 loaded shells (no. 2 shot), 1 miners tent 7x7, 1 box of matches in tightly corked bottle or screw top tin, 2 tins of biscuit, 12 tins pemmican, 10 tins of milk, 2 tins of sugar, 1 sugar tin of tea, 2 of coffee,..." "The ship was locked in the ice..."
So they had Springfields, which should appease those who want to shoot a polar bear, an event which I have not read, yet.
They did kill lots of Walruses, seals, ducks, hares, and auks. And had 25 tons of whale meat on board. They said it smelled terrible.
Anyway, taking 92 Winchesters was not the disaster that you guys are thinking it was.

On 8-11-08 they did report killing a bear and had to send the Eskimos to get it due to the thin ice. The Eskimos also killed one, (and they did not have 470 Nitros) so bears did not appear to be any issues for them.

24 Sept 08; They send out hunting parties often:
Another mild overcast day. Temp. in vicinity of +10°. Ships men completed the box house workshop + began another double house for Eskimos. About 3.- P.M., the advance guard of Marvin’s party come in reporting 14 deer killed just south of Porter Bay. By 7.- P.M. entire party was in with the skins + meat. The deer comprises two herds. One of 9, a fine large buck, 4 does + four fawns. The other of 5; a buck, 3 does + one fawn. All the fawns have spike horns in the velvet. Two other deer were seen.

Oct 9 1908; Bears seem to be no problem for them; killing them now seems routine. And they have so many people to feed they hunt a lot too. 50 Eskimos plus ship's crew.

"The Com. with 3 natives arrived at noon today, they had killed 15 musk ox and a large bear, brought in the bear and one musk ox head and skin besides a lot of meat. He said the Capt.’s party had killed 4. musk ox so far while hauling the provisions to Cape Columbia. The women had another singing spell ashore last night."

From Donald MacMillan journal 08-11-1909;
He was shot by an accidental discharge. Not from a 92!
"At 10 o'clock while dreaming of home was shot with heavy Winchester rifle (40-82) through the shoulder and through the arm, the bullet passing close to my eye. The bullet came from mess room through two walls and was found on the floor of my room after the shooting. After 3 hours and half I was stitched up and blood washed off."

From George Wardwell journal same day:
"The wind is blowing heavy So. West today so we are not out after walrus. The Com. sent a gun out for me to have cleaned and I thought I would unload it so no one would get hurt cleaning it, and it went off and through two rooms and shot McMillan through the arm and glanced through his shoulder. It gave me a start I don't know what made it go off the hammer was up and it was a large rifle with seven cartridges in it. I helped the dr. fix McMillan up and about the time we got him fixed up the ship went adrift. Lost anchor and chain."

Even today a high percentage of polar bears killed by natives are taken with 223's. AR's & Ruger mini-14's are ubiquitous

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
From Donald MacMillan journal 08-11-1909;
He was shot by an accidental discharge. Not from a 92!
"At 10 o'clock while dreaming of home was shot with heavy Winchester rifle (40-82) through the shoulder and through the arm, the bullet passing close to my eye. The bullet came from mess room through two walls and was found on the floor of my room after the shooting. After 3 hours and half I was stitched up and blood washed off."

From George Wardwell journal same day:
"The wind is blowing heavy So. West today so we are not out after walrus. The Com. sent a gun out for me to have cleaned and I thought I would unload it so no one would get hurt cleaning it, and it went off and through two rooms and shot McMillan through the arm and glanced through his shoulder. It gave me a start I don't know what made it go off the hammer was up and it was a large rifle with seven cartridges in it. I helped the dr. fix McMillan up and about the time we got him fixed up the ship went adrift. Lost anchor and chain."

Sounds as if Wardwell was not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

He was probably the Expedition Gunsmith!

I appreciate a responder more knowledgeable than I am on the topic. I began thread pn the basis of a paragraph on the last page of The American Rifleman. dcpd, I accept most of your deductions. Counterpoints, though, include that at least one tiny island (Danish or Norwegian??) with a large polar bear population requires at least a very large bore handgun to leave peopled compound. And the difference in carry weight and/or inconvenience between modern (at that time) military bolt action rifle/carbine plus ammunition is inconsequential. At absolute worst an additional sled team might be necessary although total weight difference between these two classes of firearms and consumables is not much, if any. Again regarding costs, our federal government sponsored these expeditions.

As indicated in the records above, each boat carried a Springfield Rifle and 100 rounds of ammo; no mention of a 92 at all. No mention of ever being threatened by a polar bear in any of the records that I read. They, and the Eskimos, just killed them.

Sunshine! Our minds meet. I guess relying on a columnist, in this instance, of the American Rifleman we need always revert to President Reagan.